5 ms·

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even

by cm2187 8y ago

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Even in emergency situations, pilots are required to follow established procedures and check lists, not become creative. The pilot mentions the example of an aborted take off, I can’t think of any reason an auto pilot wouldn’t be able to perform one. And of course you will need even more redundancy than there is today as you won’t have pilots who can look out at the window and come up with their own opinion of what is going on, and challenge improbable readings. Plus you can always have the option to have remote manual control if you really need to. Of course there are parts of today’s aviation that are incompatible with automation. ATC over radio is one of them. Visual landing only at many airports is another one. There would be large costs to upgrading the infrastructures to be computer friendly, so I am not saying the switch is trivial, but it is bound to happen nevertheless.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Good luck finding paying customers to board such a plane.
- cm2187 8y ago
  They will probably have lower operating costs. That will be a reason. And when they demonstrated their reliability over time people will stop thinking about it. Pilot error is still the number 1 cause of plane crashes.
- ddalex 8y ago
  I dunno, I'd trust automation from Airbus more than a low-payed over-worked low trained pilot from a low cost no-non European carrier.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    After Boing's major fuck up I'm not sure that this comment will age well.
netsharc 8y ago
IMO pilots are there in case shit really hits the fan, or birds hit the turbofans: I doubt computers would be creative enough like Sullenberger and decide to land on a river. And 2 pilots means 2 brains that can divide the workload...
- cm2187 8y ago
  Fair point, but even then you could have a remote pilot telling the plane what to do with the automation executing the strategy (given the latency).
  - jamesharding 8y ago
    If the remote ground-based pilot has the capability to take total control authority of the aircraft (which, after the GermanWings incident would seem to be a necessity), then the security implications are massive. Imagine a remote-control attack on an aircraft carrying 800+ passengers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
LoSboccacc 8y ago
> I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. every nut and bolt can and will break. every component load increase battery size and generator load, carrying a greater risk for fires. if you go down the path "automate with manual backup" then you introduce even more fault-prone systems: the circuitry that disable automation might be faulty and can be another fire risk all of itself and the conflict between faulty automation and manual overrides could be itself an aggravating issue in an emergency. and even if your plane is perfect, you have to live in an imperfect environment (same argument as car autopilots really): other plane around you might have an emergency, forcing your to delay landing. the airport might have an emergency, forcing a detour, the ils could break down, even on final. it's exceedingly hard to write software that handles the common cases well enough, imagine having to write software to handle also the unforeseeable faults. > remote control and this introduces a whole new topic: systems rarely used are the ones with the more reliability issues. both manual and remote override, on top of being more stuff with their own failure modes, would be rarely tested in practice until the moment they'd be needed the most.
ams6110 8y ago
Combinatorial complextity. It's impossible to foresee every possible combination of failures. There are checklists for the ones that can be foreseen (and these have often been written in the blood of those who discovered them) and maybe in theory most of those could be automated. But they cannot be exhaustive. So when all else fails, you rely on human intelligence guided by experience and training as the last line of defense. It doesn't always work, but until we have an AI that performs better, it's the best option we have.

by cm2187 8y ago

CaptainZapp 8y ago

He may be right for the state of what has actually been wired up in today’s cockpits, but conceptually I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. Good luck finding paying customers to board such a plane.

cm2187 8y ago
They will probably have lower operating costs. That will be a reason. And when they demonstrated their reliability over time people will stop thinking about it. Pilot error is still the number 1 cause of plane crashes.
ddalex 8y ago
I dunno, I'd trust automation from Airbus more than a low-payed over-worked low trained pilot from a low cost no-non European carrier.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  After Boing's major fuck up I'm not sure that this comment will age well.

netsharc 8y ago

IMO pilots are there in case shit really hits the fan, or birds hit the turbofans: I doubt computers would be creative enough like Sullenberger and decide to land on a river. And 2 pilots means 2 brains that can divide the workload...

cm2187 8y ago
Fair point, but even then you could have a remote pilot telling the plane what to do with the automation executing the strategy (given the latency).
- jamesharding 8y ago
  If the remote ground-based pilot has the capability to take total control authority of the aircraft (which, after the GermanWings incident would seem to be a necessity), then the security implications are massive. Imagine a remote-control attack on an aircraft carrying 800+ passengers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

LoSboccacc 8y ago

> I don’t see why you couldn’t fully automate a plane. every nut and bolt can and will break. every component load increase battery size and generator load, carrying a greater risk for fires. if you go down the path "automate with manual backup" then you introduce even more fault-prone systems: the circuitry that disable automation might be faulty and can be another fire risk all of itself and the conflict between faulty automation and manual overrides could be itself an aggravating issue in an emergency. and even if your plane is perfect, you have to live in an imperfect environment (same argument as car autopilots really): other plane around you might have an emergency, forcing your to delay landing. the airport might have an emergency, forcing a detour, the ils could break down, even on final. it's exceedingly hard to write software that handles the common cases well enough, imagine having to write software to handle also the unforeseeable faults. > remote control and this introduces a whole new topic: systems rarely used are the ones with the more reliability issues. both manual and remote override, on top of being more stuff with their own failure modes, would be rarely tested in practice until the moment they'd be needed the most.

ams6110 8y ago

Combinatorial complextity. It's impossible to foresee every possible combination of failures. There are checklists for the ones that can be foreseen (and these have often been written in the blood of those who discovered them) and maybe in theory most of those could be automated. But they cannot be exhaustive. So when all else fails, you rely on human intelligence guided by experience and training as the last line of defense. It doesn't always work, but until we have an AI that performs better, it's the best option we have.