41–50 of 103 posts
We already have advanced autopilots that can fly commercial airliners. We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots. I would trust the autopilot more than freaking Claude. We already do, every day.
> We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots never mind that most crashes are caused by humans, very rarely by technical issues going amok
We already have advanced autopilots that can fly commercial airliners. We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots. I would trust the autopilot more than freaking Claude. We already do, every day.
> We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots. Much of the value of a human crew is as an implicit dogfooding warranty for the passengers. If it wasn't safe to fly, the pilots wouldn't risk it day after day. To think of it, it'd be nice if they posted anonymized third-party psych evaluations of the cockpit crew on the wall by the restrooms. The cabin crew would probably appreciate that too.
Let's hope you don't reach Claude's session limit during approach, while trying to correct a slightly too steep descent angle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can trust them to not have human pilots. It is just that having human in loop is very useful in not that rare scenarios. Say airfield has too much wind or fog or another plane has crashed on all runways... Someone needs to make decision what to do next. Or when there is some system failure not thought about. And well if they are there they might as well fly for practise. And no. I would not allow LLM in to…
There's also the issue that when something goes wrong, many people will never trust an autopilot again. Just look at how people have reacted to a Waymo running over a cat in a scenario where most humans would have made the same error. There's now many people calling for self-driving cars to never be allowed on roads and citing that one incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We just don't trust them enough to not have human pilots. Much of the value of a human crew is as an implicit dogfooding warranty for the passengers. If it wasn't safe to fly, the pilots wouldn't risk it day after day. To think of it, it'd be nice if they posted anonymized third-party psych evaluations of the cockpit crew on the wall by the restrooms. The cabin crew would probably appreciate that too.
There are soooo many pilot decisions that AI is nowhere near making. Managing a flight is more than flying. It is about making safety decisions during crisis, from deciding when to abort an approach to deciding when to eject a passenger. Sure, someone on the ground could make many of those decisions, but i prefer such things be decided by someone with literal skin in the game, not a beancounter or lawyer in an office
Furthermore, the concept of "ejecting a passenger" from a flight would mostly not be something you do while in the air, unless you're nuts. Ejecting a passenger is either done before takeoff, or your crew decides to divert the flight, or continue to the destination and have law enforcement waiting on the tarmac.
Naturally, pilots get involved when it's a question of where to fly the plane and when to divert, but ultimately the cabin crew is also involved in those decisions about problem passengers.
I wouldn't really worry about flying, but more about taking off/landing. Related from December 2025: Garmin Emergency Autoland deployed for the first time https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aviation-news/aviation-sa...
Autoland has been used for 60 years and on much more complicated aircraft than that Beechcraft B200.
Large planes are autolanded in normal conditions with oversight of qualified, capable and backed up operator, in harsh conditions they are not used, as far as I understand.
Autoland systems in small planes are emergency systems to land plane with disabled operator in any conditions generally acceptable for flying in that plane.