Wait till we get a computer writing code for another computer. It will soon become incomprehensible to people. There lies the end of the people. Science fiction today who knows where it will end up. Skynet...

Driverless transport only works safely in very closely defined circumstances, such as the Docklands Light Railway. A free-moving vehicle that is not on tracks with safety zones etc will never be 100% safe, simply because there are too many external variables, let alone any programming / software / sensor glitches.

All this makes pretty obvious sense, even allowing for Trump quirks (to use no stronger term). Until the control computers develop the ability to assess the solution to an unexpected and unprogrammed difficulty, they will be untrustworthy and should be confined to the experimental track.

But how do they get fully tested without being let loose? Answer I suppose is never to let 'em loose.

Agreed-most new cars have so much built in technology and extra toys now that even moderate use can still utterly drain a battery and cause chaos to all manner of internal chip settings, electrics etc. Even changing a dodgy battery is no longer the simple unscrew/pull out/screw up jobby.

I'm reminded of the joke announcement heard when a driverless car switches on- "Your car does not need a driver, it runs entirely on computers. Nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, can go wrong ....".

If i recall ( and it was a fictional adaptation) the co pilot in the movie Sully did have time to reach out for the handbook and try and find a "solution" in the frantic seconds after the bird strike?

A brilliant movie.

I take the point about human error being the cause of the majority of accidents: but there is the danger of an increase in accidenrts caused by automation - particularly when there is a problem in the communication or interface between humans and computers.

Captain Sullivan prevented a disaster because he understood his aircraft's systems and made them work for him, while never himself losing control. It's too early to say for sure, but there are reports that the latest Boeing crashes have been caused by pilots not fully understanding a new system.

I'm not a Luddite, but I'm still doubtful that computerised systems will ever take over coimpletely from the human brain.

If this is was an Airbus the the US-biased IAA would not only have grounded the aircraft, they wouldn't have allowed it to be called a 737 in the first place! It's a new plane that was rubber-stamped with a reduced set of type approvals for being an evolution of the existing aircraft - when it was anything but. Boeing didn't document the anti-stall "feature" properly or train the pilots in it's operation, incredulously it only has two angle of attack sensors - who has two critical sensors on any modern aircraft? If there's an issue, how do you tell which one is misreading? You need three of everything - a child could work that out.

A fatally flawed aircraft - but they'll get away with it because they are Boeing.

There appear to be a number of fundamental flaws at play here. The first is the maladaption of new engines to an unsuitable airframe thus requiring an extraordinary response to counter a tendency to increase positive pitch under high power outputs (the introduction of MCAS). The second is the amount of authority given to MCAS, i.e. the degree to which MCAS can move the tail plane. The third is the over simplification of sensor inputs (too few parameters with insufficient backups). The fourth is Boeing's rush to certification and the FAAs apparent willingness to accept the changes as evolutionary rather than revolutionary and the final one is the failure to properly train/brief pilots on the full implications of MCAS and why it was needed and, perhaps crucially, how to disable it in the event of malfunction.

All of the above is human error whether by design or accident. To put it bluntly the 737 MAX 8 is something of a Frankenstein's monster, which, some would say, should never have made off the drawing board.

As for cars, don't forget that computerisation has given us better performance allied to much improved fuel economy, significant strides in overall safety, as well as ever better driver convenience and infotainment systems. Computerisation ain't all bad it's just the idiots that do the programming that we need to keep an eye on.