3 ms·

If there were specific steps that the pilots could have taken to avert disaster, why not just incorporate them into the flight software? Why resorting instead t

If there were specific steps that the pilots could have taken to avert disaster, why not just incorporate them into the flight software? Why resorting instead to "reprogramming" the pilot? That's what training is: programming of the human brain. One can't teach others without having first learned the lesson oneself. I'm not convinced Boeing has. I'm not convinced the company had adequately consider all possible scenarios and how pilots would react in them based on their intuition.

phire 8y ago
Even if it has enough sensprs, the flight software has no situational awareness. This is by design. The flight software is deliberately kept simple enough that the pilots can be trained to understand the full workings of the flight software and what it will do in any situation. The entire flight control algorithm is probably only a few hundred lines of psudocode. It's a catch 22: We are fully capable of designing a plane that safely flys itself from airport to airport without any pilots, to handle most emergency situations. We have been able to do so since the 80s. But we are not able to put a pilot in the loop on such a plane without massive safety implications. To have a pilot in the loop, the software has to be kept super simple so the pilot can diagnose it in an emergency and take the correct action. Either we have the flight software that is situational aware and authorised to take any action, or we have a super simple software and a pilot in the loop. There is no safe middle ground.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Not sure about the "able to do so since the 80s" part, but generally, I agree. It's the same problem we see with Tesla, Uber, etc and autonomous cars. If it's to be truly autonomous, it needs to do so without ANY human intervention. As soon as a human is added to the loop, the system needs to be understandable by any human operator. In the case of the MAX, even with Redundancy sensors, there is the possibility enough of them fail that the plane doesn't "know" how to resolve the problem. So, control must be returned to the pilot with enough time and enough information to avert disaster.
  - phire 8y ago
    The USSR were flying their Buran space shuttle in the 80s with full autonomous capabilities. It could launch into space, orbit, de-orbit, fly though re-entry and land at a runway without any external control (it was designed to complete it's mission under signal jamming conditions). It had full situational awareness and could autonomously make decisions like redirecting to a different runway or airport depending on weather and other factors. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to say Buran was safe enough to fly passengers autonomously, but it was in the right direction. Compared to a self driving car where you have to detect respond to other cars and solid objects, the amount of processing power to maintain a dynamic aerodynamic flight model and fly under instrument conditions is actually pretty low.

phire 8y ago

Even if it has enough sensprs, the flight software has no situational awareness. This is by design. The flight software is deliberately kept simple enough that the pilots can be trained to understand the full workings of the flight software and what it will do in any situation. The entire flight control algorithm is probably only a few hundred lines of psudocode. It's a catch 22: We are fully capable of designing a plane that safely flys itself from airport to airport without any pilots, to handle most emergency situations. We have been able to do so since the 80s. But we are not able to put a pilot in the loop on such a plane without massive safety implications. To have a pilot in the loop, the software has to be kept super simple so the pilot can diagnose it in an emergency and take the correct action. Either we have the flight software that is situational aware and authorised to take any action, or we have a super simple software and a pilot in the loop. There is no safe middle ground.

alistairSH 8y ago
Not sure about the "able to do so since the 80s" part, but generally, I agree. It's the same problem we see with Tesla, Uber, etc and autonomous cars. If it's to be truly autonomous, it needs to do so without ANY human intervention. As soon as a human is added to the loop, the system needs to be understandable by any human operator. In the case of the MAX, even with Redundancy sensors, there is the possibility enough of them fail that the plane doesn't "know" how to resolve the problem. So, control must be returned to the pilot with enough time and enough information to avert disaster.
- phire 8y ago
  The USSR were flying their Buran space shuttle in the 80s with full autonomous capabilities. It could launch into space, orbit, de-orbit, fly though re-entry and land at a runway without any external control (it was designed to complete it's mission under signal jamming conditions). It had full situational awareness and could autonomously make decisions like redirecting to a different runway or airport depending on weather and other factors. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to say Buran was safe enough to fly passengers autonomously, but it was in the right direction. Compared to a self driving car where you have to detect respond to other cars and solid objects, the amount of processing power to maintain a dynamic aerodynamic flight model and fly under instrument conditions is actually pretty low.