4 ms·
The strong correlation between more automation and increased flight safety over the last few decades should be strong prior for continuing to increase it, curre
by matt4077 8y ago
The strong correlation between more automation and increased flight safety over the last few decades should be strong prior for continuing to increase it, current events non-withstanding. After all, since 1970 airline travel has increase 10-fold, while fatalities have decreased by the same factor. Combined, you risk of dying on any given flight today is just 1% what it was in the haydays of pilot jocks.
Contrary to what our instincts tell us, automated systems are potentially far saver than humans could ever be: You can take as much time as you need to think of the best reaction in every scenario; they will execute whatever best practice you come up with every single time without needing constant (re-)training, they don't drink, they don't suffer strokes, they don't get tired, etc.
The failures we have seen tend not to involve any errors in judgement by the automated system. Instead, they almost invariably result from faulty sensor input. For the 757 Max, the angle-of-attack sensor seems to have failed, and relying on input from just a single sensor seems catastrophically negligent.
Such failures cannot reliably be avoided by giving humans more control. With a sensor showing a large AOA and the "STALL! STALL!" alarm blaring, a pilot would take the same action MCAS took, at least initially.
For the two recent crashes, the pilots would probably have recovered. But they had the advantage of daylight and clear skies. At night, in bad weather, and even in the best conditions, hundreds of planes have crashed because the pilots suffered some sensory illusion. See, for but one example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901, which crashed into a mountain because the crew mistook it for an ice shelf. Air France 447 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Accident) is even closer to the current crashes. It shows pilots taking manual control of the plane while fatally misjudging its attitude. There are many other examples where pilots get disoriented in, for example, clouds. The typical story is the plane coming out of the cloud inverted without anyone on board having noticed. Our sensory organs aren't equipped to measure complex movements in 3D: you can roll a plane without ever spilling the champagne glasses in first class.
- rbanffy 8y ago> Our sensory organs aren't equipped to measure complex movements in 3D That's why you trust what the instruments say. On both MAX crashes (and AF447) what happened is that the plane was doing things the crew didn't understand. If there were a clear indicator they had more than the usual amount of authority (say, chaining the cockpit lighting color to red) or a clear way to disengage the computer assistance and put the plane in an easy to reason about state, which, I assume, would be useful if the plane is doing something for a reason you don't know about. Like you said, the two MAXes would be saved. AF447 is less clear, but, still, if we find the machines so much more capable, then we should remove the humans altogether (that would probably safe AF447).