Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

writes:

True in general but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the system under
discussion.

It has a lot to do with it. A system that decides to "stabilize" the aircraft
because it thinks you have "lost control" is indisputably related to this.

It depends on how smart that silent copilot is.

When the silent copilot is a computer, that depends on the barely-tested,
bug-laden software that it is running.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

True in general but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the system under
discussion.

It has a lot to do with it. A system that decides to "stabilize" the aircraft
because it thinks you have "lost control" is indisputably related to this.

Nope, your statement was blatent nonsense.

The system in question is not "making decisions behind your back".

It depends on how smart that silent copilot is.

When the silent copilot is a computer, that depends on the barely-tested,
bug-laden software that it is running.

Your posted nonsense asked how useful would a silent copilot be and the
answer to that is exactly what I said above and that holds no matter whether
the silent copilot is human or a computer.

It is only your opinion as self declared, unemployed software engineer
that the software of the system in question is "barely-tested" and
"bug-laden" and you have zero evidence that such is true.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.