[stevepeg]

Human airline pilot here, a lot of comments about the reliability of automation for takeoff, landing and some emergency scenarios but the proposed regulation is a little more specific. They're trying to allow one pilot at the controls in the cruise phase of flight, this will allow airlines to alter [read: reduce] the pay for the resting second pilot.

What I think the regulators and manufacturers are missing has less to do with the what-if scenario of an incapacitated pilot and more to do with what happens when pilots get bored. Sitting in a cockpit for my 7+hr shift at night over the Pacific is made safer by the fact that I can have a conversation with the other pilot to keep my mind somewhat alert. Take that away and the mind gets dull, complacent and prone to error.

I'm all for more automation as long as there's a measurable benefit to safety. If getting rid of all human pilots leads to a reduction in lives lost per unit of time then it's worth it. Sure there will be major accidents that a human could have prevented, but there will be accidents prevented by the machine too. The crossover point matters.

[93po]

> Sure there will be major accidents that a human could have prevented, but there will be accidents prevented by the machine too. The crossover point matters.

Interesting how I assume HN is capable of a rational conversation around this, but when the exact same premise is raised around self driving cars, all rationality flies out the window

[teeray]

Slightly O/T, but I am curious how an airline pilot ends up on HN. Welcome, and happy to have your perspective :)

[stevepeg]

Good question, I ask myself the same thing every time I come to this site :)

I'm also a programmer in my spare time, I started coding long before I was a pilot. Sometimes I do consulting work and I also have a startup. Flying jobs generally give enough spare time to do these things in a limited way.