8 ms·

Planes are mostly automated. The pilots are involved for takeoff and landing or emergencies, but little else. All modern Airbus or Boeing planes are mostly flow

by SEJeff 9y ago

Planes are mostly automated. The pilots are involved for takeoff and landing or emergencies, but little else. All modern Airbus or Boeing planes are mostly flown with autopilot. The human component is still involved primarily for the "what if it breaks" case where the software isn't there today. A computer would likely have never considered putting a plane into the Hudson river, but that pilot saved a lot of people by doing it. Actual aircraft can be fully automated for landing at least. In the US Army, I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV and it had a thing called the T.A.L.S. (Tactical Automated Landing System)[1] which does exactly what you'd assume it does by the acronymn. It is a monopulse radar tracking system on the ground with a transponder on the plane. You fly the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) into a small area at one end of the runway and click the "Land AV" button (A.V. == Aerial Vehicle) and the landing is 100% hands off. You have the option to cancel the landing if wind or the parameters are off down to 10ft, but below that it is land or crash trying! For trains, the safest ones are automated, but Unions (in the US at least) prevent most of the autonomous technology from being deployed. Where I live, in Chicago, we had a train conductor fall asleep and the train went up the escalator and crashed into the turnstiles at terminal 2 of Ohare[2]. A computer would have prevented this from happening as a computer would neither have been speeding or sleeping. In that incident, the automated breaking systems had never been tested and in fact were configured / setup wrong, so they both failed. This has been rectified since and additional barriers have been constructed. That being said, there are lots of fully automated trains[3], you just might be unaware of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-7_Shadow#Design [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/ct-ohare-blue-line-crash-ntsb-report-met-20150326-story.html?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automation_4_Systems

nradov 9y ago
Military UAVs have a high crash rate. There's no autopilot which could have successfully landed an Airbus A320 in the Hudson River.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  And no autopilot would intentionally ram a plane into the side of a mountain. These edge-cases are uninteresting IMO.
  - nradov 9y ago
    On the contrary. The edge cases are really all that count.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      We shouldn't demand that our systems work in 100% of cases. Nine Nines -- or even less, in the case of autos -- is enough. You can argue that autonomous flight doesn't yet have Nine Nines. I would probably agree. But "Miracle on the Hudson" was just that, and extremely rare situations should not be a standard-bearer for allowing autonomous flight. In the same way that suicidal/homicidal humans shouldn't be the standard-bearer for allowing human flight.
  - rsync 9y ago
    "These edge-cases are uninteresting IMO." On the contrary, these edge cases are by far the most interesting thing. Not just tabloid-interesting, but in terms of generating usable data.
- Animats 9y ago
  That aircraft was mostly landed by the Airbus stability control system. The pilot's job was to make the decision to land it there. Read the book "Fly by Wire", by William Langewiesche.
euyyn 9y ago
There's also automated take off. Fighter pilots taking off carriers have to grab a couple of handlebars in the cockpit, whose purpose is only that the pilot doesn't instinctively intervene during take off.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  No that's not how that works.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    That is how Prof. Missy Cummings presented it in MIT's Human Factors class ~6 years ago. I've never seen a fighter cockpit, but she was a pilot herself, so I'll take her word for it :)
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I've heard her tell this story. My impression (as I recall) was that it was to show the catapult operator that you weren't touching anything. But even though this is just about being flung mechanically off the deck, the basic idea applies. When the automated system is doing its thing, it can be harmful to interfere.
- nradov 9y ago
  Not really. The handlebars aren't to prevent instinctive intervention, but rather to guard against accidentally bumping the controls during high acceleration. At that point the airplane is physically attached to the catapult; the autopilot isn't doing anything. As soon as the aircraft leaves the catapult the pilot takes the controls again.
- bb611 9y ago
  There is no automation in takeoff for current USN carrier based aircraft. The F-18 is the most automated, and the process is this: 1. Pilot sets takeoff conditions (throttles, flaps) 2. Pilot signals deck crew 3. Catapult accelerates the plane off the deck 4. The plane's fly by wire control system pitches the plane for optimal Angle of Attack for the wings (IIRC - 8.1* without flaps). Once the aggressive acceleration of the catapult is complete, the pilot takes control again and begins flying - this is less than 1 second after catapult release. Here's an example catapult launch from a USN F-18 pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM If you look at the stick directly in between the pilot's legs, you'll see him put his right hand on it at ~4.5 seconds. His left hand is on the throttles.
IsaacL 9y ago
I've heard the opposite. [1] You sound like you have some first-hand experience though, so I'd like to hear what you think of the below: That’s about the most reckless and grotesque characterization of an airline pilot’s job I’ve ever heard. To say that a 787, or any other airliner, can fly “unaided” and that pilots are on hand to “babysit the autopilot” isn’t just hyperbole or a poetic stretch of the facts. It isn’t just a little bit false. And that a highly respected technology magazine wouldn’t know better, and would allow such a statement to be published, shows you just how pervasive this mythology is. Similarly, in an article in the New York Times not long ago, you would have read how Boeing pilots spend “just seven minutes” piloting their planes during a typical flight. Airbus pilots, the story continued, spend even less time at the controls. Confident assertions like these appear in the media all the time, to the point where they’re taken for granted. Reporters, most of whom have limited background knowledge of the topic, have a bad habit of taking at face value the claims of researchers and academics who, valuable as their work may be, often have little sense of the day-to-day operational realities of commercial flying. Cue yet another aeronautics professor or university scientist who will blithely assert that yes, without a doubt, a pilotless future is just around the corner. Consequently, travelers have come to have a vastly exaggerated sense of the capabilities of present-day cockpit technology, and they greatly misunderstand how pilots interface with that technology. I’d like to see a remotely operated plane perform a high-speed takeoff abort after an engine failure, followed by a brake fire and the evacuation of 250 passengers. I would like to see one troubleshoot a pneumatic problem requiring a diversion over mountainous terrain. I’d like to see it thread through a storm front over the middle of the ocean. The idea of trying to handle any one of these, from a room thousands of miles away, is about the scariest thing I can hardly imagine. Hell, even the simple things. Flying is very organic — complex, fluid, always changing — and decision-making is constant and critical. On any given flight, there are innumerable contingencies, large and small, requiring the attention and visceral appraisal of the crew. [1] http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/
- SEJeff 9y ago
  I don't think that disagrees with my comment in how I meant it, but perhaps the author of that took what I said a bit out of context from where I see it. Pilots are there for the edge cases which are the 1-5% of the time life or death situations, like the ones listed above. I listed the miracle on the hudson as an example of a human performing life saving things a computer would never do. Factually, autopilots are what actually fly the overwhelming flight hours in commercial aviation. The pilot takes off, gets to altitude, sets the heading with the assistance of tech like a VOR[1], sets the autopilot, and then just scans the instrument panels for the duration of the flight. They then take over for the approach and landing. I strongly doubt any commercial pilot would disagree with this (I've got several in my family, but am not one myself). The fact is that the number one cause of aircraft crashes is pilot error. So for the 1-5% where a human would indeed prevent a crash as mentioned in your article, over 50% [2] of the fatal crashes are in fact due to human error. Regarding the last paragraph, I was the pilot on a mission over the Sinjar Mountain[3] range and had my altimeter go haywire and think I was at 20,000ft AGL (above ground level) when I was in fact more like 7500ft AGL. The troubleshooting for a remote plane is exactly the same as any IFR (instrument flight rating aka you can't see outside of the cockpit due to weather) rated plane when you have zero visibility. You trust your instincts and the sensors / instruments. I knew the altimeter was totally full of lies as the plane started descending below the tops of the mountains thereby killing my signal. So I set the camera to "nose" which means straight forward and when I regained communications, I managed to switch it to manual roll ("roll knobs as they call it") and did a turn left as hard as feasible to miss the tip of one of the mountains. Totally ignoring the altimeter, I flew it home with the aid of the camera to gauge rough altitude and safely landed the plane. Do they crash occasionally? Sure. However, none of these were designed with safety critical autopilot and that could certainly be developed with today's software and hardware. That pilot is arguing "computers can't replace me!!!", but in reality if they did, the majority of the crashes[1] that are fatal would not happen in the first place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range [1] http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjar_Mountains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjar_Mountains

by SEJeff 9y ago

nradov 9y ago

Military UAVs have a high crash rate. There's no autopilot which could have successfully landed an Airbus A320 in the Hudson River.

throwawayjava 9y ago
And no autopilot would intentionally ram a plane into the side of a mountain. These edge-cases are uninteresting IMO.
- nradov 9y ago
  On the contrary. The edge cases are really all that count.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    We shouldn't demand that our systems work in 100% of cases. Nine Nines -- or even less, in the case of autos -- is enough. You can argue that autonomous flight doesn't yet have Nine Nines. I would probably agree. But "Miracle on the Hudson" was just that, and extremely rare situations should not be a standard-bearer for allowing autonomous flight. In the same way that suicidal/homicidal humans shouldn't be the standard-bearer for allowing human flight.
- rsync 9y ago
  "These edge-cases are uninteresting IMO." On the contrary, these edge cases are by far the most interesting thing. Not just tabloid-interesting, but in terms of generating usable data.
Animats 9y ago
That aircraft was mostly landed by the Airbus stability control system. The pilot's job was to make the decision to land it there. Read the book "Fly by Wire", by William Langewiesche.

euyyn 9y ago

There's also automated take off. Fighter pilots taking off carriers have to grab a couple of handlebars in the cockpit, whose purpose is only that the pilot doesn't instinctively intervene during take off.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
No that's not how that works.
- euyyn 9y ago
  That is how Prof. Missy Cummings presented it in MIT's Human Factors class ~6 years ago. I've never seen a fighter cockpit, but she was a pilot herself, so I'll take her word for it :)
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I've heard her tell this story. My impression (as I recall) was that it was to show the catapult operator that you weren't touching anything. But even though this is just about being flung mechanically off the deck, the basic idea applies. When the automated system is doing its thing, it can be harmful to interfere.
nradov 9y ago
Not really. The handlebars aren't to prevent instinctive intervention, but rather to guard against accidentally bumping the controls during high acceleration. At that point the airplane is physically attached to the catapult; the autopilot isn't doing anything. As soon as the aircraft leaves the catapult the pilot takes the controls again.
bb611 9y ago
There is no automation in takeoff for current USN carrier based aircraft. The F-18 is the most automated, and the process is this: 1. Pilot sets takeoff conditions (throttles, flaps) 2. Pilot signals deck crew 3. Catapult accelerates the plane off the deck 4. The plane's fly by wire control system pitches the plane for optimal Angle of Attack for the wings (IIRC - 8.1* without flaps). Once the aggressive acceleration of the catapult is complete, the pilot takes control again and begins flying - this is less than 1 second after catapult release. Here's an example catapult launch from a USN F-18 pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM If you look at the stick directly in between the pilot's legs, you'll see him put his right hand on it at ~4.5 seconds. His left hand is on the throttles.

IsaacL 9y ago

I've heard the opposite. [1] You sound like you have some first-hand experience though, so I'd like to hear what you think of the below: That’s about the most reckless and grotesque characterization of an airline pilot’s job I’ve ever heard. To say that a 787, or any other airliner, can fly “unaided” and that pilots are on hand to “babysit the autopilot” isn’t just hyperbole or a poetic stretch of the facts. It isn’t just a little bit false. And that a highly respected technology magazine wouldn’t know better, and would allow such a statement to be published, shows you just how pervasive this mythology is. Similarly, in an article in the New York Times not long ago, you would have read how Boeing pilots spend “just seven minutes” piloting their planes during a typical flight. Airbus pilots, the story continued, spend even less time at the controls. Confident assertions like these appear in the media all the time, to the point where they’re taken for granted. Reporters, most of whom have limited background knowledge of the topic, have a bad habit of taking at face value the claims of researchers and academics who, valuable as their work may be, often have little sense of the day-to-day operational realities of commercial flying. Cue yet another aeronautics professor or university scientist who will blithely assert that yes, without a doubt, a pilotless future is just around the corner. Consequently, travelers have come to have a vastly exaggerated sense of the capabilities of present-day cockpit technology, and they greatly misunderstand how pilots interface with that technology. I’d like to see a remotely operated plane perform a high-speed takeoff abort after an engine failure, followed by a brake fire and the evacuation of 250 passengers. I would like to see one troubleshoot a pneumatic problem requiring a diversion over mountainous terrain. I’d like to see it thread through a storm front over the middle of the ocean. The idea of trying to handle any one of these, from a room thousands of miles away, is about the scariest thing I can hardly imagine. Hell, even the simple things. Flying is very organic — complex, fluid, always changing — and decision-making is constant and critical. On any given flight, there are innumerable contingencies, large and small, requiring the attention and visceral appraisal of the crew. [1] http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

SEJeff 9y ago
I don't think that disagrees with my comment in how I meant it, but perhaps the author of that took what I said a bit out of context from where I see it. Pilots are there for the edge cases which are the 1-5% of the time life or death situations, like the ones listed above. I listed the miracle on the hudson as an example of a human performing life saving things a computer would never do. Factually, autopilots are what actually fly the overwhelming flight hours in commercial aviation. The pilot takes off, gets to altitude, sets the heading with the assistance of tech like a VOR[1], sets the autopilot, and then just scans the instrument panels for the duration of the flight. They then take over for the approach and landing. I strongly doubt any commercial pilot would disagree with this (I've got several in my family, but am not one myself). The fact is that the number one cause of aircraft crashes is pilot error. So for the 1-5% where a human would indeed prevent a crash as mentioned in your article, over 50% [2] of the fatal crashes are in fact due to human error. Regarding the last paragraph, I was the pilot on a mission over the Sinjar Mountain[3] range and had my altimeter go haywire and think I was at 20,000ft AGL (above ground level) when I was in fact more like 7500ft AGL. The troubleshooting for a remote plane is exactly the same as any IFR (instrument flight rating aka you can't see outside of the cockpit due to weather) rated plane when you have zero visibility. You trust your instincts and the sensors / instruments. I knew the altimeter was totally full of lies as the plane started descending below the tops of the mountains thereby killing my signal. So I set the camera to "nose" which means straight forward and when I regained communications, I managed to switch it to manual roll ("roll knobs as they call it") and did a turn left as hard as feasible to miss the tip of one of the mountains. Totally ignoring the altimeter, I flew it home with the aid of the camera to gauge rough altitude and safely landed the plane. Do they crash occasionally? Sure. However, none of these were designed with safety critical autopilot and that could certainly be developed with today's software and hardware. That pilot is arguing "computers can't replace me!!!", but in reality if they did, the majority of the crashes[1] that are fatal would not happen in the first place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range [1] http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjar_Mountains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjar_Mountains