Don’t fight automation software for control, just turn it off. FAST On September 8th, 2015, a pilot left Point Cook Airfield in the Australian State of Victoria for a solo navigational training flight. She didn’t make it back: the plane “impacted rising terrain” about two-thirds of the way into the journey and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report on the accident, published today, …
"The historic accident record would indicate that, as far as aviation is concerned, that is in fact correct. The problem is you don't see the accidents that would be happening if all landings were made manually."
Why would you say that? You seem to think that most landing are done on autopilot. That's not correct, most landings are done manually. Usually, only landings in poor weather conditions are done on autopilot.
Also, take into account that pilots are blamed, even when it's blatantly obvious that it's the precious autopilot who crashed the plane. So you can't trust the historic accident record either.
'That's not correct, most landings are done manually.'
The landings that are done manually have all the complicated systems, the ones you seem not to trust, turned on to help the pilot fly the aircraft smoothly, having them do it fully manually would be far more dangerous. Notwithstanding the pilots having to make 4 manual landings in 90 days to keep their licence current, the auto-land is consistently better at capturing the localiser and glide-slope and maintaining it all the way to touchdown. On long haul that does mean most of the landings are 'manual' as they barely make enough flights to stay current, on short haul I believe some airlines actually forbid manual landings unless required for currency as humans are less efficient at it.
'Also, take into account that pilots are blamed, even when it's blatantly obvious that it's the precious autopilot who crashed the plane.'
No, you're going to have to provide some actual proof for that, maybe a link to a few accident reports where you can prove the pilots were unfairly blamed. Otherwise you're going down the conspiracy theory route of saying you can't trust the evidence because that's what 'they' want you to think.
It's worth noting, when I say the historic accident record I mean the fact accident numbers are at an all time low, even before you normalise for the increased rate of flying it has never been safer to sit in a commercial airliner irrespective of how it's flown. For example there were no passenger jet crashes in 2017, beating the previous year which was already a historic low.
So even if all the recent accidents have been due to the autopilot it's still safer than it was a few decades ago when there was more human interaction and less people were flying.
Graphs to prove my point:
https://aviation-safety.net/statistics/
Safe AVs that don't have accidents kinda put them out of business, don't they?
Will they be hiring teams of hackers to find ways into AVs and cause them to have accidents, thereby necessitating the need for insurance for that little bit longer? Or will they infiltrate AV manufacturing, putting saboteurs on design teams and maintenance crews?
I think I quite like the look of the future; it could yet turn out to be a cyberpunk dystopia after all - won't that be fun?
"That was my first thought but then i realised that a safe car means "No insurance necessary.""
Except there's always Murphy. Only a clairvoyant car would anticipate the bridge its driving on suddenly collapsing mid-span. Even if they cut the rates down, as long as they pay out less than they take in, they're happy.
Ah, but, you're conflating the AV manufacturers with the insurers.
What you describe is from the insurers' perspective - as long as they take in more than they pay out, they're happy.
But that doesn't cover the AV manufacturers' PR issue of "What do you mean your car isn't safe enough for me not to need insurance?"
If the bridge collapses then I, as the passenger, do not expect to pay out to the family landed on below - I expect the owners/maintainers/builders of the bridge to do that. So, if your AV needs insurance, it means you can't guarantee that it will drive accident free - in which case, remind me again how AVs are safer than human beings.
No, the AV manufacturers need AVs not to need insurance - otherwise it's open to debate whether the vehicles really are safe. Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger - but I live in the U.K., where the Press will be all over you like a rash the second anything goes wrong and advocating for you and your family to be strung up from lampposts and left swinging in the wind.
"No, the AV manufacturers need AVs not to need insurance - otherwise it's open to debate whether the vehicles really are safe."
Guess you never heard of a "no-fault" crash or "acts of God", where accidents happen through no fault of any party. That's why I mentioned the bridge collapse. There are plenty of "no-fault" accident possibilities, such as lightning striking a nearby tree, a blind corner into a sudden fog bank, or a brake line spontaneously bursts. That's why some drivers need to carry "no-fault" insurance by law (depends on the jurisdiction).
'No fault' isn't the issue. What's at stake here is the manufacturers' PR: unfortunately, people aren't rational and all it takes is one person to publicly question the safety and, suddenly, it's a whole different game. No fault insurance is an oxymoron: if I'm not at fault then I'm not liable - and I don't need insurance to cover things I'm not liable for.
"No fault insurance is an oxymoron: if I'm not at fault then I'm not liable - and I don't need insurance to cover things I'm not liable for."
No, it's not. Otherwise, disaster insurance (fire, flood, etc. some of which are also required by law) would be an oxymoron, too. No-fault and collision insurance cover repairs beyond your control. Otherwise, you'd be paying the entire cost (up to and including a total replacement) out of pocket. Insurance in general isn't a protection against liability but broader: a safeguard against sudden hardship, of which liability happens to comprise a subset.
That I agree. ALL vehicles, human-driven or not, generally need protection against accidents not of their making, so "no-fault" would be the default for AVs. Liability would have to be taken out by the manufacturer instead of the driver, though, in case an accident is traced to a manufacturing flaw.
So, effectively then (as far as the passengers are concerned), no insurance required - although AVs are a long way from that yet, I think, given that they can't (yet) be left to their own devices.
Of course, there is the question of whether owners would be allowed to plead ignorance when a vehicle with a known problem is involved in an accident or whether we will all be legally expected to keep up with CVEs and avoid such vehicles - I imagine recalls will be more frequent (and possibly announced more vociferously by the manufacturers?)
So, after reading the article, you decided that the problem is that AVs would be TOOOO safe???
So, after reading about a dystopian cyberpunk future in which insurers put sleeper agents into AV design and manufacturing teams to sabotage them, you decided that the poster was being serious?
A self driving, electric, shared car may be fine for some large metro areas and people. But, here in the mid-west of the US it isn't going to be very useful. And, in places like the Rocky Mountain region a 200 mile range isn't going to get you anywhere and waiting for a shared car to become available in some small places would be absurd. Not everyone lives in Silicon Valley, NYC, LA, London, etc. A lot of real people have a real need for real vehicles on their own schedule.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
