3 ms·

So, all it takes is one malfunctioning sensor, which luckily does not happen very often. Add an autopilot which slavishly follows the faulty sensor, as only com

So, all it takes is one malfunctioning sensor, which luckily does not happen very often. Add an autopilot which slavishly follows the faulty sensor, as only computers can do so well. Plus two confused pilots, trained to rely on autopilots, suddenly required to do some serious debugging of a complex multi-sensor, multi-control system in seconds, under extreme stress. To sum it all up, you are dead. I contend that the primary cause is not the sensor but the overconfident reliance on autopilots. When an autopilot intervenes, its whole purpose is to resume stable flight. Should anything unacceptable happen instead, the autopilot ought to switch itself off. Too many (blind) cooks spoil the broth. Actually, I am shocked at how sloppy their approach to reliability engineering must be not to have even thought of such a basic thing. Reminds of that NY finance company that lost half a billion $ in half an hour because they could not turn off their buggy automatic trading system.

crimsonalucard 8y ago
You are nowhere near qualified to say anything about shoddyness both from an individual standpoint and statistical. The competency of aircraft engineering is the highest in the world it cant even be compared to your average financial engineer. To make flying complex systems like planes statistically safer then driving a car is an incredible achievement of engineering. Numbers show that as Automation has gone up and crashes have gone down. It doesnt establish causation but correlation is a supporting data point. Additionally, in many of these systems, autopilot does give back control and the pilot in a panic proceeds to royally screw up. The France flight 447 is a specific example of this. The best way to handle this is to not only train the pilots differently but to change the autopilot. Multiple redundant sensors using different ways to measure airspeed so the detection of a faulty sensor is possible through automation. Pilots and machines are nowhere near perfect. The goal is not to put both systems at odds, but to move both towards perfection.
- SagelyGuru 8y ago
  I will concede the point that I am not qualified in aircraft engineering, just in autonomous systems, which is a kind of meeting ground here. I have seen way too many people getting over enthusiastic about the capabilities of autonomous systems of all kinds, which I think is a real danger here. It is strange you quote Air France 447 as an example of some kind of superiority of automation, when in fact its problem was caused by eliminating physical force feedback between the pilots by (over) automation.

crimsonalucard 8y ago

You are nowhere near qualified to say anything about shoddyness both from an individual standpoint and statistical. The competency of aircraft engineering is the highest in the world it cant even be compared to your average financial engineer. To make flying complex systems like planes statistically safer then driving a car is an incredible achievement of engineering. Numbers show that as Automation has gone up and crashes have gone down. It doesnt establish causation but correlation is a supporting data point. Additionally, in many of these systems, autopilot does give back control and the pilot in a panic proceeds to royally screw up. The France flight 447 is a specific example of this. The best way to handle this is to not only train the pilots differently but to change the autopilot. Multiple redundant sensors using different ways to measure airspeed so the detection of a faulty sensor is possible through automation. Pilots and machines are nowhere near perfect. The goal is not to put both systems at odds, but to move both towards perfection.

SagelyGuru 8y ago
I will concede the point that I am not qualified in aircraft engineering, just in autonomous systems, which is a kind of meeting ground here. I have seen way too many people getting over enthusiastic about the capabilities of autonomous systems of all kinds, which I think is a real danger here. It is strange you quote Air France 447 as an example of some kind of superiority of automation, when in fact its problem was caused by eliminating physical force feedback between the pilots by (over) automation.