"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of
catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of
flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer would fare
any better, much less signficantly better.

What would you consider "evidence"? It's not like we've got airliners
without pilots that we can use for comparison. There's no question
automation would avoid certain kinds of losses; the valid question (without
an answer for the moment) is whether human pilots balance that out with
actions that a computerized pilot could not take.

I am sure the pilots' unions will invest great resources in showing that
human pilots are better. But I'd just as soon see an independent source for
that analysis.

Saying "there is no evidence" may be true, but it doesn't answer the
question. It simply describes the current lack of information.

As far as "good enough" goes, that's a social issue. For the time being,
I'd agree things are "good enough", especially the distrust that the public
would have with an fully automated airliner. But long-term, airlines are
looking at two things, at least:

* Overall loss rate
* Cost of operations

Both of these affect their bottom line, and if they can save money by using
airliners without human pilots, they will. They will, of course, have to
take into account the effect making that change will have on ridership. But
if the airliners can convince the public that taking the human out of the
equation is safer, that won't be an issue.

Pete