[gostintheshell]

Sensors detecting someone in the seat is still more complexity prone to unexpected failures. Most seem like they would be harmless, but then there's one that floods a sensor bus, etc.

I would want to understand why a pilots resistance to the motion was not enough, how could it be made less capable at winning that battle and fall into its normal back off?

[atoav]

I'd like to think that:

- such an airplane already should have sensors to judge whether someone is in the seat or not

- a false-negative preventing the shift of a seat mid-air isn't that critical of a failure (compared to a false-positive, where the seat shifts despite someone being in it)

[gostintheshell]

I think such an airplane has this sensor to the extent that it is a modern misdesign roped in by the ease of adding unnecessary parts.

Who has tested the plane with no detectable pilots in real flight, how often will these sensors be in the percentage of unnecessary parts in defect.

Now that people are thinking this way did they forget that a good seat adjuster can't be overbuilt to destroy or kill whatever is in front of it when it is allowed to operate?

Self recovering fuses are cheaper than ever and are all that's needed if no one has upgraded parts based on higher is better instead of designing to use.

[atoav]

Sure, I agree with you, but you might want to consider that an indication if a seat is filled might be useful for other things as well — in the end there has to be a total calculation that factors the reliability of any given part (and rhe humans using it) in.