Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZizouGOAT10 t1_j1aorgy wrote

Reply to comment by Moskau50 in ELI5: why do we still need human pilots on airplanes? by Gavica

Could they implement an autopilot that can take over in that scenario and keep the plane running until the pilots come back

1

Moskau50 t1_j1aywvp wrote

The pilots are the backup for the autopilot, not the other way around. If the autopilot were to be good enough to replace the pilots during the outage, there would be no need for pilots.

4

ZizouGOAT10 t1_j1az4tn wrote

Oh I’m assuming the remote pilots are the main source and the autopilot would be to keep the plane afloat until the pilots come back but not good enough to fully take over or anything

1

Moskau50 t1_j1b3awp wrote

Which means that it’s not actually a backup, because if there’s some sort of electrical short that causes the connection to fail, that plane will crash.

Autopilot systems are routinely used today, so that pilots don’t have to have hands on the control for the entire flight. In any situation, or during takeoff/landing, the pilots take over for the autopilot. Outsourcing the pilots to a remote connection means that you’re outsourcing the backup, not the primary.

So you’re either swapping the autopilot to the role of backup (which is already a no-go in the current aircraft setup, so there’s no reason to assume they’d suddenly be okay with it) or you’re relying on the remote pilots to be as reliable as a pilot physically in the plane, which is foolish.

2