항공사 파일럿, 부 파일럿 및 비행 엔지니어

. (낮은)이 말합니다.

you will always need humans incase something happened. its possible but not in the next 20 years

Luca (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Automated flight is already a well-established reality, the pilot on board serves only to reassure passengers who are not yet accustomed to the idea of a completely automated flight.

boo (낮은)이 말합니다.

Automation has the ability to control events in a certain context, and wouldn't be able to handle an emergency or malfunction, considering the usual age of aircraft computers.

Harry (낮은)이 말합니다.

Landing and take off needs accurate readings and a lot of man power we also need to understand the runway so it my not be

KickinTyres (낮은)이 말합니다.

The public's perception of safety is intrinsically connected to having human pilots in the cockpit.

Ayden (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

New plane can fly it self but they still need pilot or co pilot to make sure nothing is going wrong especially when it is landing

Alneez (적당한)이 말합니다.

Airbus Project Dragonfly

C.L.M. (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

It is not a technological issue, it is a sociological, legislative, and regulatory one.

People are too anxious to get on a plane without another human being up front with their life and safety on the line. This will be even more true as we move through the inevitable accidents during automation of ground transportation. At least that's what I heard as an FAA research scientist working on future drone airspace research projects.

Captam (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

The “need for the human touch“ when things “go wrong“ with a flight is arguably correct However this function can be provided perfectly adequately from a remote control room. The human does not need to be sitting in the cockpit. The ability to fly precision drone operarions from control rooms thousands of miles away proves this. Flights can be totally automated but when an abnormality occurs, the controllers （who oversee multiple flights）can be alerted, and intervene renotely if necessaey.

MKD (낮은)이 말합니다.

Social licence
Complex decision making
Unknown and unforeseen circumstances requiring reactions not programmed

Landon (낮은)이 말합니다.

Too many FAA regulations for something so untested

Allen (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

The consequences of having a 'computer's problem are too dire. It may be that there will only need to be a single pilot instead of a co-pilot backup. There will always be a human pilot when transporting humans.

Corey Snyder (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

Human factor is often blamed for air crashes, however the Human factor is truly the only thing that can prevent accidents in the complex air traffic system. An AI is not capable of making the philosophical and logical decisions that a required crew member on an aircraft has to be able to make. A theoretical AI that could add up every single factor in an Instant still could not make a rational choice that would balance deontological and consequentialist philosophies.

mike (낮은)이 말합니다.

it is just too risky, to put so many peoples lives on the line of an AI with no emotion is a madness

John Ostrum (불확실한)이 말합니다.

Not because of issues with flying the plane, but more for issues with landing the planes. Also, the insurance would be nightmarish, and ATC would need to be changed.

In addition, the ATC lines are done through phone or broadband, so integrating an AI would require a continent-wide overhaul in the infrastructure necessary to actually integrate the AI. This would be needed even if one that was commercially viable as a pilot were to start existing.

Furthermore, testing the AI would involve crashing planes, as well as making planes that had fully modified hardware to accommodate an AI. It's not impossible for certain, not by a long shot, but the steps to get there are noticeably less cost-efficient than just training more pilots.

So, it probably won't happen for a while.

Jarrod (불확실한)이 말합니다.

Aviation is slower-moving than other industries due to regulation, safety requirements, and perception.

I could see cargo aircraft being fully automated well before passenger flights. Modern aircraft are largely automated from a systems perspective. However, the decision-making, particularly during emergencies or edge cases (where information can be conflicting or confusing), is where human pilots are still definitely required.

I think the chance of passenger flights being fully automated within 20 years is slim.

Michael (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

AI is advancing rapidly and is on track to replace pilots within 10 years.

a-flight-worker (기회 없음)이 말합니다.

People want humans as the final safety net for airplanes. When things go wrong, computers can get confused. I work on airplanes alongside pilots. We still have to reboot (yes, "turn it off and on again" reboot) planes fairly regularly to fix simple problems. For instance, the lights may not respond to control buttons properly. Light controls that have only three states: on, dimmed, or off, can get messed up and seemingly can only be fixed by rebooting the entire airplane.

In the event of an emergency, people trust in other people. Automation will happen to a degree with pilots, but it will require massively improved AI and other systems to be stress-tested extensively before the two-body system used today is replaced with a no-body system.

Tyler (낮은)이 말합니다.

Because I feel like there are other occupations in aviation, or other careers, that would become automated before pilots do.

The cost of the technology at the beginning will also be really high, so it will take a while for it to become widely used after the price comes down.

V (매우 가능성이 높음)이 말합니다.

Every new plane that comes out is increasingly automated. Also, as time passes, there's less and less crew in the flight deck. Think about flight engineers, for example.