3 ms·
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 -- w
by 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 agoIt's not lack of situational awareness after the autopilot disconnected that caused AF447 to crash.
- chopin 10y agoIt 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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.