On 22 May 2020, Captain Sajjad Gul of Pakistan International Airlines 8303was plummeting towards his destination at an incredibly unsafe angle. Seeing his untenably steep descent, the Air Traffic Controller commanded him to abort the landing and descend to a safe altitude by going around. The captain ignored the ATC, and owing to the highly chaotic environment in the cockpit, landed the plane without the wheels extended. After scraping the runway, he took the flight into the air again to attempt a second landing but the damage was significant and the plane crashed into a surrounding residential locality, killing 97 of the 99 people on board and several others in the houses that it crashed into. It emerged that the captain had initially been declared unfit to be a pilot, owing to his psychological evaluation declaring him domineering, having poor spatial relations, and being below average intelligence. He had been made a pilot on a technicality.

In 1980, with a fire onboard and after landing the plane, Captain Khowyter of Saudia 163 bizarrely chose to taxi to a designated spot instead of hitting the brakes and evacuating the plane. He had been previously profiled as someone that would not budge from his training and could not improvise in a situation. In this situation, even though the entire runway was presumably at his disposal, the captain taxis for 3 minutes to get to a designated spoteven though there is pandemonium behind him. He does not even call for evacuation, presumably waiting for the engines to shut down, per training. All 301 people, including the captain, died from smoke inhalation and the fire.

Having been on the front cover of magazines and not wanting to tarnish that image with a tardy flight, Captain van Zanten of KLM 4805 was positioned on the end of the runway, ready for takeoff. He pushed the thrust, and his First Officer reminded him that they had not yet got clearance from air traffic control. Moments later, the air traffic controller announced that he would tell them when to takeoff but having heard the word “takeoff”, the captain pushed the throttle and sped down the runway. Another plane that was taxiing off the runway saw the headlights of the KLM hurtling towards it, and tried to get out of the way by turning onto the grass. For his part, Captain van Zanten tried to takeoff, but was unsuccessful. In all, 583 people were killed in this crash, making it the worst disaster in aviation history.

About 80% of airplane crashes are due to human error.

Boeing and Airbus are not just competitors, they are also philosophically opposed. Boeing puts the pilots at the centre of their systems design. They do everything they can to inform the pilots of the state. of the airplane, the flight path and the environment. Yokes, for instance, simulate the forces that hydraulic systems in manually controlled airplanes will have had, giving the pilot an intuitive sense of the state of the plane’s flight. Both pilots’ yokes are also synchronized, so that each knows what the other is doing. Additionally, physical trim wheels exist, and have markings on them so that the pilots can see when the plane adjusts the trim. Thrust levers too maintain a direct correlation between their position and the engine power. Most notably, sub-systems of the plane warn the pilots of problems but leave it to the pilots’ discretion to take action. In other words, the safety of the passengers, crew and the plane is in the pilots’ hands.

Airbus takes the view that while the pilots are a highly valuable component, they are only one component in the entire system. Cockpit design of Airbus planes keeps with this view. Pilots direct the aircraft through “sidesticks” instead of yokes. The sidesticks don’t have force feedback with which the pilots gauge how much they are affecting the aircraft. The state of the aircraft is conveyed to the pilots visually, through displays. One can argue about the wisdom of not taking advantage of pilots’ tactile sensations, but you can see this omission as an indication of Airbus’ philosophy — the pilots aren’t the priority. Problems in the aircraft are handled automatically, hard limits on the plane’s parameters are enforced, and the system can override pilots’ instructions. The system will not allow the pilot to endanger the plane. In other words, the safety of the passengers, crew and the airplane is the system’s responsibility.

These contrasting philosophies — one that trusts human judgement and another that protects against it — are a way for us to answer the larger question of who should be put in control.

Boeing and Airbus’ tussle is found in healthcare, finance, transport and every industry AI is poised to enter into. The question of who should be put in charge keeps coming up — humans or AI? Aviation has been running this experiment for decades now, and we can look to it for an answer to this conundrum. Here’s the result of the experiment: there is no difference in the safety of either approach!

In today’s airplanes, most sub-systems run autonomously, and pilots don’t interact with them directly. Add to that the deep framework of aviation regulations — rules that have been honed over decades — and you begin to discern the real backbone of safety. Indeed, if two fundamentally different philosophies yield the same outcomes, then it is clear that that the safety of a plane is owed to the regulations, training, system design and other factors that shape the environment the pilot and the plane operate in.

Flying is one of the safest modes of transport. Crashes take over the headlines partly because they affect so many lives, partly because a sophisticated machine has come down, and also because of the rarity of these incidents. The primary goal of the crew members that we are so accustomed to seeing serving us our meals, is safety. The primary goal of the captain, the first officer, the flight engineers and the plane, is safety. Regulations, operating procedures, training, simulations, are all geared towards safety. While accidents are cited as reasons for introducing AI, miraculous saves like US Airways 1549 (“The Miracle on the Hudson”) and many others, where the crew show exceptional ingenuity, coordination, and where their experience came into play, should also be taken into account. Apart from the sensational crashes and saves, there are thousands of planes taking off and landing each day that never make it to the news, thankfully.

The aviation industry has been relentless in examining each incident, catching mistakes, and coming out with better regulations that make flying safer for everyone. It is this juggernaut of self-betterment that has led to the safety of flight. Pilots and any AI that might come in the future will be cloaked within this thick blanket of safety.

The lesson from the aviation industry is clear: the question isn’t about who is put in charge but about creating robust environments in which neither can fail.

I write articles on technology, intelligence, philosophy, psychology and other sciences. You can find more of my articles here.