[Dylan16807]

Aren't we talking about a plane?

And I said I trust a computer more, not that the presence of a computer is automatically enough.

I'm not getting in a manually-controlled plane that's flying centimeters from a hard surface. I will get in some computer-controlled planes doing the same.

(At the very least I want a real-time OS and dedicated range sensors. And the confidence of a plane owner who would lose millions of dollars if anything went wrong.)

[greendestiny]

There are crop dusters that fly close to the ground and obstacles - do you want to get in a manual one or can I code up a computer controlled one and put you in it?

What you really mean is you want to see safety data and a track record.

As for the actual planes and auto-pilots, the real point is the kinds of engagements and disengagements that work in the air don't necessarily work on the ground and being so close to potential collisions is part of that.

[Dylan16807]

Close, but not constantly centimeters close. It's a whole different league, and not one I'm comfortable trusting a human with.

[ben_jones]

Humans write the software that powers computers FYI.

[Dylan16807]

It's the reaction times I don't trust. And the ability to judge distances precisely enough.

[ben_jones]

It's their BAC and amount of sleep I don't trust. Also the prescription medication, the status of any relationships they might have, and the competency of their managers.

[D-Coder]

The plane is zero centimeters from a hard surface at the beginning and end of the flight.

[Dylan16807]

Seriously?

The implication of the hard barrier is that it's not safe to crash into it. If there are big wheels on enormous shock absorbers making it safe to hit the barrier, then a lot less precision is needed, and you can put almost anything in control, even a heavy clamp that keeps the controls skewed slightly toward the barrier. But that's not the scenario anyone else is talking about.