4 ms·

Actually, that's precisely how (real) autopilots work. If the autopilot can't reliably continue flying (e.g. in extreme turbulence, severe icing, or failure of

Actually, that's precisely how (real) autopilots work. If the autopilot can't reliably continue flying (e.g. in extreme turbulence, severe icing, or failure of some part of the system), it will immediately disengage with a loud warning sound, and the pilot has to take immediate control.

kalleboo 10y ago
Specifically because this is such a precarious transition of control, pilots have extensive training in staying alert and being prepared to take over, have co-pilots, and have rules about adequate rest times etc. And yet there are still air accidents involving improper use of the Auto Pilot. We can expect none of these things from the average driver - they're more likely to be watching Harry Potter on their iPad
- ghaff 10y ago
  Furthermore, I imagine that an auto going down a road is far more likely to detect (or not detect) a situation where a human needs to take action right now. Aircraft have systems to detect approaching objects and things like sensor failures usually aren't going to require split-second action. (e.g. the Air France 447 crash involved multiple pilot errors over many minutes rather than a failure to take over rapid enough control.)
greendestiny 10y ago
If planes had to fly within centimetres of hard barriers there would be no autopilot.
- kbenson 10y ago
  If planes had to fly within centimeters of hard barriers there would be no pilots.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  I trust a computer much more than a human to keep a tiny gap at high speed for hours on end. Also if you have a nice clear barrier, it becomes easier to automatically manage steering.
  - greendestiny 10y ago
    Do you? Can I wire an old iphone into the control system of your car and fire up opencv and a bit of depth estimation and lane following send you off?
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Aren't we talking about a plane? And I said I trust a computer more, not that the presence of a computer is automatically enough. I'm not getting in a manually-controlled plane that's flying centimeters from a hard surface. I will get in some computer-controlled planes doing the same. (At the very least I want a real-time OS and dedicated range sensors. And the confidence of a plane owner who would lose millions of dollars if anything went wrong.)
      - greendestiny 10y ago
        There are crop dusters that fly close to the ground and obstacles - do you want to get in a manual one or can I code up a computer controlled one and put you in it? What you really mean is you want to see safety data and a track record. As for the actual planes and auto-pilots, the real point is the kinds of engagements and disengagements that work in the air don't necessarily work on the ground and being so close to potential collisions is part of that.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Close, but not constantly centimeters close. It's a whole different league, and not one I'm comfortable trusting a human with.
        10y ago
cperciva 10y ago
You're both right. That's exactly how aircraft autopilot systems work... and it doesn't work. There have been several plane crashes -- most notably AF447 -- which resulted from autopilot systems disengaging when the (human) pilots had insufficient situational awareness to safely take over control of the aircraft.
- idlewords 10y ago
  It's not lack of situational awareness after the autopilot disconnected that caused AF447 to crash.
  - chopin 10y ago
    It was, at least partially. The pilot failed to notice (or account to) "Alternate Law" conditions (which doesn't provide the same safeguards as normal mode). Especially stall handling is much different in Alternate Law.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  The confusion between normal and alternate law on AF447 is not because the autopilot transferred control to the pilots when they weren't ready. The same thing could have happened if the transfer was made with full preparation. It was a signalling and training issue, not evidence that auto->manual transitions are bad.
  - oconnore 10y ago
    If the question is "could a human be trained to use this?" then, yes, you can imagine a human reacting appropriately to the AF447 scenario. But that's the wrong question. The right question is: does the system incorporate the success of human actors into its design? And the answer here is no. If the Airbus system works as designed, the human pilots will tend to be woefully unprepared to resolve failure modes. Attempting to create an external training regiment to account for that design failure is a band-aid, not a solution.
userbinator 10y ago
Even then, the pilots usually have more than a second to react. As fast as planes fly, they're high enough and there's plenty of empty space around them when they're cruising.

kalleboo 10y ago

Specifically because this is such a precarious transition of control, pilots have extensive training in staying alert and being prepared to take over, have co-pilots, and have rules about adequate rest times etc. And yet there are still air accidents involving improper use of the Auto Pilot. We can expect none of these things from the average driver - they're more likely to be watching Harry Potter on their iPad

ghaff 10y ago
Furthermore, I imagine that an auto going down a road is far more likely to detect (or not detect) a situation where a human needs to take action right now. Aircraft have systems to detect approaching objects and things like sensor failures usually aren't going to require split-second action. (e.g. the Air France 447 crash involved multiple pilot errors over many minutes rather than a failure to take over rapid enough control.)

greendestiny 10y ago

If planes had to fly within centimetres of hard barriers there would be no autopilot.

kbenson 10y ago
If planes had to fly within centimeters of hard barriers there would be no pilots.
Dylan16807 10y ago
I trust a computer much more than a human to keep a tiny gap at high speed for hours on end. Also if you have a nice clear barrier, it becomes easier to automatically manage steering.
- greendestiny 10y ago
  Do you? Can I wire an old iphone into the control system of your car and fire up opencv and a bit of depth estimation and lane following send you off?
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Aren't we talking about a plane? And I said I trust a computer more, not that the presence of a computer is automatically enough. I'm not getting in a manually-controlled plane that's flying centimeters from a hard surface. I will get in some computer-controlled planes doing the same. (At the very least I want a real-time OS and dedicated range sensors. And the confidence of a plane owner who would lose millions of dollars if anything went wrong.)
    - greendestiny 10y ago
      There are crop dusters that fly close to the ground and obstacles - do you want to get in a manual one or can I code up a computer controlled one and put you in it? What you really mean is you want to see safety data and a track record. As for the actual planes and auto-pilots, the real point is the kinds of engagements and disengagements that work in the air don't necessarily work on the ground and being so close to potential collisions is part of that.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        Close, but not constantly centimeters close. It's a whole different league, and not one I'm comfortable trusting a human with.
        10y ago

cperciva 10y ago

You're both right. That's exactly how aircraft autopilot systems work... and it doesn't work. There have been several plane crashes -- most notably AF447 -- which resulted from autopilot systems disengaging when the (human) pilots had insufficient situational awareness to safely take over control of the aircraft.

idlewords 10y ago
It's not lack of situational awareness after the autopilot disconnected that caused AF447 to crash.
- chopin 10y ago
  It was, at least partially. The pilot failed to notice (or account to) "Alternate Law" conditions (which doesn't provide the same safeguards as normal mode). Especially stall handling is much different in Alternate Law.
Dylan16807 10y ago
The confusion between normal and alternate law on AF447 is not because the autopilot transferred control to the pilots when they weren't ready. The same thing could have happened if the transfer was made with full preparation. It was a signalling and training issue, not evidence that auto->manual transitions are bad.
- oconnore 10y ago
  If the question is "could a human be trained to use this?" then, yes, you can imagine a human reacting appropriately to the AF447 scenario. But that's the wrong question. The right question is: does the system incorporate the success of human actors into its design? And the answer here is no. If the Airbus system works as designed, the human pilots will tend to be woefully unprepared to resolve failure modes. Attempting to create an external training regiment to account for that design failure is a band-aid, not a solution.

userbinator 10y ago

Even then, the pilots usually have more than a second to react. As fast as planes fly, they're high enough and there's plenty of empty space around them when they're cruising.