Back when skyjacking became a big scare again (shortly following after the 9/11 skyjackings/bombings) there was talk about having the capability of seizing control of a jet liner on radio command from the ground in case of emergency. With better security provisions for the cockpit now the standard, this issue seems to have become moot. It would be nice, I suppose, for a craft to be able to complete its own flight if the pilot and copilot are both taken ill. (”Hello passengers, this is your new captain R2D2, I have just taken over command of this flight as your crew appears to be incapacitated. Don’t worry, we specially certified robots have never yet failed to land a craft safely.”)
You know, when you use industry specific jargon without defining it to your readers, you lose them at the gate.
What the hell is a “pax”?
Agreed. The level of automation in today's cockpit makes flying much safer. By taking over the mundane tasks, pilots can concentrate on the "big picture" and not get consumed by the minutia.
However, there's no way for the software design and development team to anticipate every possible problem and provide a solution, at least with current technology. That's where the human brain excels: using incomplete data to develop a hypothesis, test it, and derive a solution.
With the necessary equipment on the plane and on the ground, many commercial planes have full auto-land capability. But, it doesn't mean the air crew doesn't have anything to do: they constantly monitor the approach and make sure everything is within tolerances. At the first sign of trouble, they are prepared to take control and execute a missed approach procedure.
It has been postulated that systems sophistication will exceed the brain's ability to process the increased variables in real time as it pertains to air combat. Yes/no?