EDIT: You can down-vote, but this is already the direction that cars have gone. For example, there is no way to stop any Mercedes after 2009 from automatically applying full brakes in an impending collision.
http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-121...
Studies in N-version programming (such as used in Airbus planes) show that software written by different teams often fail in the same corner cases (with differing outputs).
Eventually you might have software with "situational awareness" that can be trusted to make fewer mistakes than humans, but we're not there yet.
If you were to take this specific speed sensor issue, I'm more concerned there aren't different types of systems being used to try to cross-validate the numbers. The pitot-static system has its own backup on the plane, but if there is an inherent weakness of that particular system (e.g. ice), there is no other way to measure speed that is not susceptible to icing. Surely that particular problem is within our reach, no?
Perhaps GPS ground speed data with previous wind estimates could at least help with establishing that "something must be wrong with the airspeeds".
http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/cox/story/2011/05/Ask-the...
Something scary from a Boeing pilot in the comments:
Loss of all airspeed indications is not something we train
for. It's always assumed in transport category aircraft
that redundancies built in will always give us at least
attitude, heading, and airspeed.Which is sad.
From your link: [quote]Brake Assist PLUS uses two radar systems. Both of these radar systems are very good at not only registering objects up ahead but also calculating the distance from these objects and their relative speed. If the distance between the vehicle and the registered object is so small that there is a real danger of collision, Brake Assist PLUS issues a visual warning on the instrument cluster display and sounds an alarm over the car speakers. While this is happening, the electronic system calculates the braking deceleration necessary to avert the collision. If the driver then hits the brakes, the braking pressure needed to bring the vehicle to a stop before impact is immediately provided automatically. Ensuring that an appropriate braking force is not exceeded gives those driving behind more time to react.[/quote]
A human would be quick to notice that the reason for why the car in front is braking is because of the impeding concrete wall. The computer however doesn't know that and would only brake in order to not hit the car in front and thus ensuring that both cars hit the concrete wall at equal speeds, great! (I truly hope that it respects my choice if I really wan't full brakes).
What if there are slippery conditions? The collision might easily be avoided by changing lanes but changing lanes in muddy snow while braking could be suicide. What if I just started changing lanes when the computer feels like it needs to brake?
What if the reason for why the air-speed indicator is malfunctioning (reporting wrong, a complete loss of velocity is too easy to check for) is because the plane just flew into a flock of birds, it might be obvious for a pilot why the stall-warning was issued and the pilot might opt to to pull back the stick - just to avoid an collision...
Unless the sensors truly get the whole picture and the complete state of the aircraft/car (and I doubt we can do that before being able to implement a true AI) the pilot/driver must always have the last word. Assistance can be great, especially in cases where a human wouldn't have the time to react but you should always be able to override it.
The assistance should be clear and specific enough so that the pilot/driver really thinks twice before overriding anything (this requires that the pilot/driver respects the system). And if the pilot/driver can't handle the vehicle despite that then he/she shouldn't be allowed to drive it.
If your software is making the decisions, then the pilot can't make an educated response to unusual decisions. Big commercial aircraft are already largely run by software, but the pilot is there for unusual situations because there's often a lot of conflicting issues.
There's a lot I don't understand about AF447, like, why couldn't a simple GPS receiver have saved them? GPS does a relatively poor job at reporting altitude, and is obviously useless at reporting airspeed, but it's certainly capable of telling you that you've dropped 10,000 feet over the past minute or two. I can understand how pilots could become disoriented, such that they don't know "which end is up," but I can't fathom why they shouldn't even know whether they are climbing or descending, which apparently was part of the AF447 scenario.
Also:
The pilot may have no better idea of the true situation than your software.
All that matters in the and is not who is more awesome and versatile but who crashes less planes.
Sensors can lie, equipment can break. Your software may have no better idea of the true situation than the pilot.
In the end it is a judgment call and if you limit the ability of those judgment calls to a bunch of software then you are saying that those in a different time and place have a better idea of what to do than those with their feet in the dirt.
It looks like in this case someone made the wrong judgment call. False positives in warning systems in commercial aircraft are happening with some regularity, in the end the pilot has final say.