[ibn_ibid]

>As a pilot in command, I have final authority to deviate from these clearances for safety reasons, mainly because it is my ass on the line.

I think this is the most crucial aspect. Machines are excellent at executing patterns and adhering to constraints. Improvisation, not so much. And really, in emergency situations when things go awry and off script, it's that "clutch" factor that makes all the difference.

[diggernet]

And that, in a nutshell, is my concern about fully autonomous cars, and the enthusiasm some express for removing all manual control because "computers are better than people".

[manicdee]

A computer will have notified ATC and all local traffic of intent, and received acknowledgement of the distress call from all affected parties, while the human is still half way through the first "Mayday, …"

One brand's autonomous pilot will only have to be taught about handling unusual conditions once, while humans have to be trained from scratch each iteration. 20 human pilots, about 22 iterations of the same training program.

Come up with a new failure scenario and a strategy for mitigating it? Train the computer once. Train every human pilot independently. The lead time is atrocious for getting software updates out to wetware, so good luck getting every commercial human pilot to be familiar with a new procedure inside ten years, by which time you have new humans to train because some of the old ones died and taken all their training and experience with them.

[walterstucco]

Machines are useful exactly in those emergency moments where human capabilities are taken away by panic

All the emergency features in modern world are either mechanical or electronic