4 ms·

Not yet a bus driver, but we're heading that way. Slowly.

mrtksn 5y ago
I disagree, I think the destination is "elevator operator" and we are half way there. Automating flight has quite a bit of low hanging fruits and Airbus has become the first harvester out there. The rest opposed at first, but the only logical path forward is automating people out of the systems. Yes, we had the 737MAX thingy but even then arguments for re-humanisation of aircraft controls didn't catch much traction.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  737MAX would not have crashed if it were being flown autonomously, as the entire MCAS system would have been unnecessary. It was there to meet regulations regarding control feel for human pilots.
  - trelane 5y ago
    Also because full automation means pilots, so no certifications for any aircraft types, let alone the same one. So there would be no need to force the plane to be a "737".
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      Why not? Full certification of automatic piloting of a new plane type might have run into the same kind of situation - that you want to "preserve the plane type" to get to market quicker with the product. This is conjecture since we're nowhere near this yet?
      - hedora 5y ago
        "Preserve the plane type" definitely delayed the 737MAX and only served to save pilot training costs. With no pilots, even that (dubious) advantage would be gone.
      - Terretta 5y ago
        > nowhere near this yet Is that sure? Autonomous cars are hard because of “surprise”. Other drivers, kids, bicycles, randomness intersecting the street that has to be dealt with. By and large, aircraft have the way cleared for them by ATC, and objects that may intersect with them tend to be on a path that is neither “came out of nowhere” nor erratic (UFOs aside!). Weather is a challenge, but autopilot deals with weather already. Arguably there’s much less surprise for a sky bus than a road bus, and arguably the fact it’s a big airliner instead of a crossover SUV doesn’t make it particularly harder for a machine. TL;DR: Planes seem “nearer” than cars and some cars pretend to be automatic already.
        kzrdude 5y ago
        Surprises exist of course. It's rare but when it happens the consequences are greater than for a car accident.
      - apatheticonion 5y ago
        As someone who knows the basics of driver automation software - I would love an in-depth breakdown from an expert on the topic of aircraft pilot automation. I'd imagine there would be a many-decade long period of overlap where pilots would observe the plane flying before the plane can fly solo.
  - smokey_circles 5y ago
    MCAS only exists as a bandaid to a terrible idea. They should've built a new aircraft, not strap bigger engines into a 40ish year old frame. If MCAS _actually_ worked, you and I wouldn't even know about it. But as tribute to how poorly it was designed and delivered, we know about MCAS because it killed over 300 people. Just an absurd point you're making. Airbus are an engineering firm, so they are doing clever engineering things. Boeing was an engineering firm that has been run by bean counters the past few decades. It wasn't "opposition to automation" it was opposition to innovation for the sake of short term profit. Boeing's executives should all be hanged :) hundreds of people dead for no reason whatsoever.
    - chipsa 5y ago
      They would have built a new aircraft if one of their big customers hasn't announced they were buying a new 737 variant that Boeing hadn't even thought they were going to be making. Boeing was going to start a clean sheet small aircraft. And then American Airlines announced they were going to buy 100 of a new 737 variant.
    - snypher 5y ago
      Wasn't it the airlines who pressured the manufacturer to avoid the need for recertification of pilots? I think if Boeing had a choice MCAS would have never been needed?
  - robbiep 5y ago
    No, it still would have crashed, because it only was taking angle of attack from one sensor, and so would have been under the erroneous belief that it was stalling
    - IX-103 5y ago
      No it would not have crashed because it wouldn't have the run-away trim problem that prevented pilot recovery from the "stall". Trim is something that is only really needed for humans who hold onto sticks to fly.
  - virtue3 5y ago
    You are incorrect. The MCAS system was built to work on a very buggy angle of attack sensor. They are notoriously unreliable. The max kept one on each side of the plane (the airbus equivalent has 3 on each side). Further compounded by the fact that the (this was true at the time and theyve joined systems now) pilots computer only used the left side of the plane instruments and the copilots computer only used the right side. So no. Boeing fucked up in the first place by trying to stealth fix a hardware problem (stalling at a new lower angle of attack in the "same model airplane") with software. And then lying through their teeth about the impact of this. The equivalent military 737max with MCAS simply allowed the pilot to more forcefully adjust the flight control stick to turn it off. So they knew better. Companies attempting to skirt legislation in the face of better profits is always going to cause issues here. The entire max disaster was an attempt by management at Boeing to get pilots to be able to fly all 737s with basically no retraining.
    - scns 5y ago
      The greed of the beancounters killed 343 people.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      You call him incorrect but your comment is riddled with inaccuracies. > only used the left side of the plane instruments and the copilots computer only used the right side These aren't really "pilot" and "copilot" computers, but two redundant computer systems (each with redundant processors) that take turns running every other flight. > trying to stealth fix a hardware problem (stalling at a new lower angle of attack in the "same model airplane") with software Actually, trying to stealth fix a human-related hardware problem (stick feel and overpitching tendency, not stall) with a crappy software approach. > And then lying through their teeth about the impact of this. A big factor here is that runaway trim was considered a serious problem but also one that flight crews regularly train for and are tested on and are expected to handle. But MCAS gave this exam to pilots far more frequently than runaway trim had happened before and we found that crews often fail the test. The system design didn't try very hard to prevent this occurrence, because it was thought that flight crews could handle the problem when it occurred. > The equivalent military 737max with MCAS simply allowed the pilot to more forcefully adjust the flight control stick to turn it off. So they knew better. It's not really the same system, and it's not a "military 737max"-- I think you're referring to the KC-46, which is built upon the 767, and has a pitch feel control system also called "MCAS" that solves a related problem but overall operates very differently. > The entire max disaster was an attempt by management at Boeing to get pilots to be able to fly all 737s with basically no retraining. This worsened things, but the main issue is that there is a certification requirement -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173 -- for pilot pitch feel on climb which is hard to meet with larger engines under the wing.

I disagree, I think the destination is "elevator operator" and we are half way there. Automating flight has quite a bit of low hanging fruits and Airbus has become the first harvester out there. The rest opposed at first, but the only logical path forward is automating people out of the systems. Yes, we had the 737MAX thingy but even then arguments for re-humanisation of aircraft controls didn't catch much traction.

throwawayboise 5y ago
737MAX would not have crashed if it were being flown autonomously, as the entire MCAS system would have been unnecessary. It was there to meet regulations regarding control feel for human pilots.
- trelane 5y ago
  Also because full automation means pilots, so no certifications for any aircraft types, let alone the same one. So there would be no need to force the plane to be a "737".
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    Why not? Full certification of automatic piloting of a new plane type might have run into the same kind of situation - that you want to "preserve the plane type" to get to market quicker with the product. This is conjecture since we're nowhere near this yet?
    - hedora 5y ago
      "Preserve the plane type" definitely delayed the 737MAX and only served to save pilot training costs. With no pilots, even that (dubious) advantage would be gone.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      > nowhere near this yet Is that sure? Autonomous cars are hard because of “surprise”. Other drivers, kids, bicycles, randomness intersecting the street that has to be dealt with. By and large, aircraft have the way cleared for them by ATC, and objects that may intersect with them tend to be on a path that is neither “came out of nowhere” nor erratic (UFOs aside!). Weather is a challenge, but autopilot deals with weather already. Arguably there’s much less surprise for a sky bus than a road bus, and arguably the fact it’s a big airliner instead of a crossover SUV doesn’t make it particularly harder for a machine. TL;DR: Planes seem “nearer” than cars and some cars pretend to be automatic already.
      - kzrdude 5y ago
        Surprises exist of course. It's rare but when it happens the consequences are greater than for a car accident.
    - apatheticonion 5y ago
      As someone who knows the basics of driver automation software - I would love an in-depth breakdown from an expert on the topic of aircraft pilot automation. I'd imagine there would be a many-decade long period of overlap where pilots would observe the plane flying before the plane can fly solo.
- smokey_circles 5y ago
  MCAS only exists as a bandaid to a terrible idea. They should've built a new aircraft, not strap bigger engines into a 40ish year old frame. If MCAS _actually_ worked, you and I wouldn't even know about it. But as tribute to how poorly it was designed and delivered, we know about MCAS because it killed over 300 people. Just an absurd point you're making. Airbus are an engineering firm, so they are doing clever engineering things. Boeing was an engineering firm that has been run by bean counters the past few decades. It wasn't "opposition to automation" it was opposition to innovation for the sake of short term profit. Boeing's executives should all be hanged :) hundreds of people dead for no reason whatsoever.
  - chipsa 5y ago
    They would have built a new aircraft if one of their big customers hasn't announced they were buying a new 737 variant that Boeing hadn't even thought they were going to be making. Boeing was going to start a clean sheet small aircraft. And then American Airlines announced they were going to buy 100 of a new 737 variant.
  - snypher 5y ago
    Wasn't it the airlines who pressured the manufacturer to avoid the need for recertification of pilots? I think if Boeing had a choice MCAS would have never been needed?
- robbiep 5y ago
  No, it still would have crashed, because it only was taking angle of attack from one sensor, and so would have been under the erroneous belief that it was stalling
  - IX-103 5y ago
    No it would not have crashed because it wouldn't have the run-away trim problem that prevented pilot recovery from the "stall". Trim is something that is only really needed for humans who hold onto sticks to fly.
- virtue3 5y ago
  You are incorrect. The MCAS system was built to work on a very buggy angle of attack sensor. They are notoriously unreliable. The max kept one on each side of the plane (the airbus equivalent has 3 on each side). Further compounded by the fact that the (this was true at the time and theyve joined systems now) pilots computer only used the left side of the plane instruments and the copilots computer only used the right side. So no. Boeing fucked up in the first place by trying to stealth fix a hardware problem (stalling at a new lower angle of attack in the "same model airplane") with software. And then lying through their teeth about the impact of this. The equivalent military 737max with MCAS simply allowed the pilot to more forcefully adjust the flight control stick to turn it off. So they knew better. Companies attempting to skirt legislation in the face of better profits is always going to cause issues here. The entire max disaster was an attempt by management at Boeing to get pilots to be able to fly all 737s with basically no retraining.
  - scns 5y ago
    The greed of the beancounters killed 343 people.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    You call him incorrect but your comment is riddled with inaccuracies. > only used the left side of the plane instruments and the copilots computer only used the right side These aren't really "pilot" and "copilot" computers, but two redundant computer systems (each with redundant processors) that take turns running every other flight. > trying to stealth fix a hardware problem (stalling at a new lower angle of attack in the "same model airplane") with software Actually, trying to stealth fix a human-related hardware problem (stick feel and overpitching tendency, not stall) with a crappy software approach. > And then lying through their teeth about the impact of this. A big factor here is that runaway trim was considered a serious problem but also one that flight crews regularly train for and are tested on and are expected to handle. But MCAS gave this exam to pilots far more frequently than runaway trim had happened before and we found that crews often fail the test. The system design didn't try very hard to prevent this occurrence, because it was thought that flight crews could handle the problem when it occurred. > The equivalent military 737max with MCAS simply allowed the pilot to more forcefully adjust the flight control stick to turn it off. So they knew better. It's not really the same system, and it's not a "military 737max"-- I think you're referring to the KC-46, which is built upon the 767, and has a pitch feel control system also called "MCAS" that solves a related problem but overall operates very differently. > The entire max disaster was an attempt by management at Boeing to get pilots to be able to fly all 737s with basically no retraining. This worsened things, but the main issue is that there is a certification requirement -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173 -- for pilot pitch feel on climb which is hard to meet with larger engines under the wing.