No. Because in a fully automated flight like that, now you have to worry about the other passengers.
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
29975 readers
1593 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Bring duct tape and a few friends.
Article 31 of the UN Declaration of human rights says: If any aircraft passenser should become a Karen, it is the right and duty of other passengers to duct tape them to their seats.
(Okay that doesn't exist, but should be)
When the service is mature enough to have decent stats on miles flown / crashes and that ratio is better than manned planes then sure, why not?
Remember, kids, aircraft are still the safest way to fly!
aircraft are still the sfest way to fly
So there are non-aircrafts that can fly? 🤔
That was the joke dot jay peg.
Is it built by Tesla, Meta, Boeing, or some other American corp?
Nope, nope, nope.
Nope.
Crew know a lot of override and emergency stuff for when systems go wrong and are always the reason planes don't go down when they otherwise would've
No, self driving will not be safe within my lifetime
As a pilot, not anytime soon, and not just because I'm worried about my job. Like cars, you can automate 95% of flying pretty easily and for the most part, we already do. But also like cars, that last 5% is several orders of magnitude more difficult.
But cars have a big advantage over planes in automation, if the computer gets totally confused, it can pull over, stop and let the driver figure things out. A plane can't stop flying without hitting the ground so the computer can't give up in an edge case. There's also a different standard for safety. A few dozen teslas slam into walls and not many people care outside of immediate families. 70 people die in a plane crash and it's international news for months.
I figure it'll happen, but not anytime soon. And zero pilots is way more feasible than one pilot. And no way in hell can a robo flight attendant manage a cabin in normal operations let alone an emergency, I don't think that part will ever happen unless we go full synth.
A plane can't stop flying without hitting the ground
Totally unrelated to the thread, but this reminded me of Special To Hollywood, a really interesting short radio play from the 40s, about a plane that mysteriously becomes suspended in the air while the passengers and crew freak out trying to comprehend what's happening. It's a sort of surrealist horror story that I think was actually pretty ahead of its time.
Somehow, as a kid I ended up with a collection of cassette tapes of these Lights Out radio shows. They were all pretty basic, Twilight Zone-y stories, but this one always stood out to me. You made me remember that, so I just wanted to share this weird little story.
Exactly, and accident in aviation are never because of one factor but rather multiple of them, and Murphy's law.
Handling an engine flame out is ok. But in reality it might be an engine flame out + icing conditions + OVC008 + non precision approach + windshear on short final.
AI pilot would have quit the seat a long time ago, leaving the self loading flesh bags at the rear alone.
ATC here and the only time we consider an aircraft safe is when it's at the airport. That's why slots exists. As annoying as they can be, better have the aircraft on ground at DEP rather than holding to wait for the thunderstorm to pass.
Wanna dogpile onto this comment to add that we can't even automate robots to mow lawns by themselves. The ones you can buy that do any part of the job well at all require GPS, and also require manual intervention or remote piloting for even getting the bot back to its charging station. I work for a corporation that automates machinery like this and sells it to the US government, which advertises its products as automated or crewless, but actually requires somebody at the helm of a software suite to manually adjust and operate the bots at any given moment during their operations. How the hell are people expecting cars and planes to automatically get you to your destination? Imagine your "crewless" vehicle being piloted by some dude in an office somewhere in your country instead of someone actually being at the wheel. Does that make any kind of sense? Would you trust the delay in instructions? What happens when your vehicle can't receive any outside connections?
Some level of complex "Autonomous" everything, from now until the foreseeable future, will always have a human in the pilot seat. 100% automation is impossible for us right now with our current level of technology.
The reason is more than just that the last few % points of automating is the most difficult hurdle, though I really agree with that part. It's that automation can't account for improvising, adapting, innovating. Automation can't do on-demand problem solving. Space probes on the Moon and Mars can't unflip themselves when they get stuck. Programmed machines can only do what they're programmed to do. We're beyond anything somewhat complex getting 100% automated any time soon.
Accounting? Helpdesk support? Labor that is repetitive and doesn't require much ingenuity will get automated fast.
Heavy machinery? Art? Transportation? Medical care? We're 100+ years a way from completely unmanned complex tasks. People eat up the sci-fi marketing garbage without really interacting with or testing the claims being made.
Why is zero more feasible than one?
A single pilot would need the ability to control the plane and override automation and that's a very dangerous thing.
A single task saturated human in a stressful situation is more of a liability than a benefit. A single pilot can fixate on problems and try to solve them, even if they've totally misidentified the situation. Add another set of eyes and you naturally slow things down and handle situations better. The Air France crash in ’09 is a decent example of how one person can totally misinterpret a problem and then the remedy caused a crash, the other crew members were able to figure out what was happening, but it was too late to recover. More crew are an additional chance of success.
Then there's the whole one pilot is a single point of failure problem. An incapacitated pilot is a fairly straightforward problem, but what about a '15 Germanwings type of situation where the pilot tries to intentionally crash?
Ty for the write up! Makes sense when you put it like that. I'd still trust one human, warts and all, over some ai cooked up by some tech bro. But two humans definitely seems best.
Dude, I don't even want to fly on a fully-manned flight with the way these planes are dropping out of the sky these days.
In a perfect world where stuff never breaks?
Yep.
But we clearly don't live in that world, so no.
Maybe in like... two centuries.
Have you criticized a Boeing Executive recently? 👀
No, for fear mostly of fellow passengers more than distrust of the technology.
Private flight though? Maybe, I'll consider that
Not in the first few years of the tech, too risky for my taste.
I'd definitely fly zero crew aside from the pilot, if it was cheaper.
It'd be cheaper alright, but not for the passengers.
Nope.
Why not? I hear dying in a plane crash is a fairly quick way to go.
No
I've no fundamental objection to doing so. I don't think that existing aircraft are considered ready for that, though.
On flights between major airports, with no inclement weather, and ignoring direct human control like taxiing and communications, many commercial flights are already effectively there. Automatic takeoff, autopilot in the air, and auto land systems handle nearly everything else automatically.