5 ms·
It's constantly surprising to me how, given how airline safety has improved significantly decade after decade (see https://www.bts.gov/content/us-air-carrier-sa
by mjb 4y ago
It's constantly surprising to me how, given how airline safety has improved significantly decade after decade (see https://www.bts.gov/content/us-air-carrier-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/us-air-carrier-safety-data, for example), that people still have this "automation is bad" agenda. Every accident is a tragedy, and we should be getting even better, but the narrative that automation (and ironies of automation) are increasing accident rates just seems diametrically wrong.
This seems related to the deep belief in risk compensation and risk homeostasis, despite weak evidence for the former and nearly none for the latter. We can be cynical about technology all we want, but to actually improve that needs to be driven by evidence.
- Dalewyn 4y agoAutomation is bad because it can lead to pilot complacency. There are many pilots who wouldn't be able to fly manually, most of whom we only learn about after a mishap due to failed and/or misunderstood automation. Automation is convenient, and in many cases (but not all!) it can making flying safer. But an aircraft with an idiot at the controls is still an unsafe aircraft, regardless how good the automation is.
- jemmyw 4y agoI'm not sure you've made a consistent argument there. Automation is bad but in many cases makes flying safer? MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. It wasn't the automation that was bad per se.
- masklinn 4y ago> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. And because it worked inconsistently due to terrible implementation.
- Dalewyn 4y agoAutomation can make many flights safer, but this assumes two critical things: 1. The automation is designed and implemented in a reliable, known, safe way. 2. The pilot are competent at flying the aircraft completely manually if necessary. If either of those two assumptions are violated, the flight is not safe. Automation cannot replace incompetent pilots, no matter how good. Pilots can't overcome bad automation if it is not designed and implemented properly (eg: MCAS), no matter how competent.
- vkou 4y agoYou're missing a necessary assumption #3 - 'The pilot needs to be competent at correctly identifying and safely flying the aircraft in any mixture of automation and manual control.' This accident was caused by a violation of #3. I've no doubt that the pilots in question were completely capable of performing these maneuvers manually - they failed at identifying which particular mixture of automation and manual control they were in, and in taking the correct steps during them.
- sofixa 4y ago> MCAS was bad because Boeing and the airlines wanted to retrofit without additional training. It wasn't the automation that was bad per se. The implementation was extremely terrible (no redundancy on the inputs), and it was Boeing that decided to hide its existence and overrides from everyone. Automation isn't bad, but when implemented with criminal negligence, it can be.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoIt's more of an attitude of "over-reliance on automation is bad, because that's how you end up dropping a perfectly good plane into the ocean when the automation turns off." https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/blind-to-the-problem-the-crash-of-indonesia-airasia-flight-8501-b49e71f71b11 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/blind-to-the-problem-the... https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-long-way-down-the-crash-of-air-france-flight-447-8a7678c37982 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-long-way-down-the-cr...
- lmm 4y agoHow much of that increase in safety is attributable to automation specifically rather than other causes? It seems perfectly plausible that automation could be causing problems even while overall safety is increasing.
- cm2187 4y agoIt's more semi-automation. Kind of like the self driving cars testing where you put a person at the wheel who is not driving, and is expected to deal with no notice with an unexpected behaviour of the automation.