4 ms·

> But I can't help wondering if some combination of voice stress analysis and measuring pilot coordination might be able to produce a warning that would have pr

> But I can't help wondering if some combination of voice stress analysis and measuring pilot coordination might be able to produce a warning that would have prompted the flight crew to see that they had stopped flying in an orderly way. I guess I don't know what you could do with that, flashing another alarm at an already overstressed flight crew seems like it's unlikely to help?

bombcar 3y ago
The most likely thing to help in something like this, is for the plane to realize it's going to die, and just take over. And that has usually been the "airbus way", whereas Boeing has more had a notion of throw things to the pilots often enough so they know what they're doing.
- vkou 3y ago
  The plane can't take over when it has no idea of what it's airspeed is. That's what caused this whole chain of problems in the first place.
  - skissane 3y ago
    We expect human pilots to be able to stop the plane from crashing when the airspeed is unknown. If that’s possible for humans, why not for computers?
    - vkou 3y ago
      If a computer could have done it, it would not have needed to have dropped out of normal law to begin with. When in normal law, the plane pretty much flies itself. When the computer has uncertainty with its sensors, it drops out of normal law, and expects the pilots to fix the problem. You're asking that the computer, when it is uncertain in its sensors, to the point where it can't fly under normal law, and where the pilots are expected to fix the problem should actively stop the pilots from taking the 'wrong' actions. What do you think would happen when the pilots are taking the right actions, but the computer's faulty sensors end up preventing them from doing so? Who is ultimately in charge in a sensors-out situation? The human? Or the computer? Which of these do you believe should have the final say on flight decisions? ---- If you say 'The computer', I'll have to ask you: How well did that work out for the 346 people killed by Boeing's MCAS, which, thanks to a faulty sensor, was utterly convinced that the 737 was too nose-up, and happily flew the damn thing right into the ground, despite the best efforts of the human pilots. Asking the computer to fly the plane when its sensors are broken is like asking the pilot to fly the plane with no eyes.
      - skissane 3y ago
        In this case - the plane was rapidly descending, and the pilots were completely failing to do anything to fix the situation. Maybe at some point it became clear that the pilots were doing nothing to actually save the plane, and then the computer could have been justified in ignoring them, and trying to solve the problem itself? > If you say 'The computer', I'll have to ask you: How well did that work out for the 346 people killed by Boeing's MCAS, which, thanks to a faulty sensor, was utterly convinced that the 737 was too nose-up, and happily flew the damn thing right into the ground. Because the programming of that computer was criminally stupid. It continued making an assumption despite the fact that the other evidence it had available to it was sufficient to conclude the assumption was false, but it wasn’t programmed to consider any of that other evidence. That a computer with crap software kills people is a problem with that crap software (and the failed regulatory system that allowed it), and not evidence against any proposal not involving such software
        vkou 3y ago
        And maybe in JT 610 and ET 302, the pilots should have been justified in ignoring the Boeing computer, which was making bad decisions based on a faulty sensor reading, and was trying its damn hardest to fly the plane into the ground (And succeeded, killing everyone on board, despite the best efforts of the pilots). How about we let the system whose sensors are functioning ultimately be in charge?
        bombcar 3y ago
        At some point you have to have "disconnect everything, I'm going to fly this by hand" situations where the pilot can kill everyone (intentionally or no). The goal is to reduce those as far as possible, and we may be at or close to the point where any further improvements in one area cause problems in others. But I still think this particular situation could have been helped somehow. Maybe planes need emergency deployable pitot tubes like they have emergency backup ram air turbines for power.
        3y ago
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The plane can realize the airspeed must be incorrect, because the altimeter is dropping, the engines are at full throttle, and the nose is pointing up, ergo something must be wrong. Even leveling the plane off would probably have recovered from the stall, if done early enough. And the plane knew it was stalling, it kept yelling "STALL, STALL" - the stall warnings are triggered by another sensor, not the pitot tubes.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
I agree with both your points. It's a difficult problem. Forced engagement of the autopilot might possibly have helped the pilots of f447 - but its unlikely to be safe in all situations or be acceptable to flight crews.

bombcar 3y ago

The most likely thing to help in something like this, is for the plane to realize it's going to die, and just take over. And that has usually been the "airbus way", whereas Boeing has more had a notion of throw things to the pilots often enough so they know what they're doing.

vkou 3y ago
The plane can't take over when it has no idea of what it's airspeed is. That's what caused this whole chain of problems in the first place.
- skissane 3y ago
  We expect human pilots to be able to stop the plane from crashing when the airspeed is unknown. If that’s possible for humans, why not for computers?
  - vkou 3y ago
    If a computer could have done it, it would not have needed to have dropped out of normal law to begin with. When in normal law, the plane pretty much flies itself. When the computer has uncertainty with its sensors, it drops out of normal law, and expects the pilots to fix the problem. You're asking that the computer, when it is uncertain in its sensors, to the point where it can't fly under normal law, and where the pilots are expected to fix the problem should actively stop the pilots from taking the 'wrong' actions. What do you think would happen when the pilots are taking the right actions, but the computer's faulty sensors end up preventing them from doing so? Who is ultimately in charge in a sensors-out situation? The human? Or the computer? Which of these do you believe should have the final say on flight decisions? ---- If you say 'The computer', I'll have to ask you: How well did that work out for the 346 people killed by Boeing's MCAS, which, thanks to a faulty sensor, was utterly convinced that the 737 was too nose-up, and happily flew the damn thing right into the ground, despite the best efforts of the human pilots. Asking the computer to fly the plane when its sensors are broken is like asking the pilot to fly the plane with no eyes.
    - skissane 3y ago
      In this case - the plane was rapidly descending, and the pilots were completely failing to do anything to fix the situation. Maybe at some point it became clear that the pilots were doing nothing to actually save the plane, and then the computer could have been justified in ignoring them, and trying to solve the problem itself? > If you say 'The computer', I'll have to ask you: How well did that work out for the 346 people killed by Boeing's MCAS, which, thanks to a faulty sensor, was utterly convinced that the 737 was too nose-up, and happily flew the damn thing right into the ground. Because the programming of that computer was criminally stupid. It continued making an assumption despite the fact that the other evidence it had available to it was sufficient to conclude the assumption was false, but it wasn’t programmed to consider any of that other evidence. That a computer with crap software kills people is a problem with that crap software (and the failed regulatory system that allowed it), and not evidence against any proposal not involving such software
      - vkou 3y ago
        And maybe in JT 610 and ET 302, the pilots should have been justified in ignoring the Boeing computer, which was making bad decisions based on a faulty sensor reading, and was trying its damn hardest to fly the plane into the ground (And succeeded, killing everyone on board, despite the best efforts of the pilots). How about we let the system whose sensors are functioning ultimately be in charge?
        bombcar 3y ago
        At some point you have to have "disconnect everything, I'm going to fly this by hand" situations where the pilot can kill everyone (intentionally or no). The goal is to reduce those as far as possible, and we may be at or close to the point where any further improvements in one area cause problems in others. But I still think this particular situation could have been helped somehow. Maybe planes need emergency deployable pitot tubes like they have emergency backup ram air turbines for power.
        3y ago
- bombcar 3y ago
  The plane can realize the airspeed must be incorrect, because the altimeter is dropping, the engines are at full throttle, and the nose is pointing up, ergo something must be wrong. Even leveling the plane off would probably have recovered from the stall, if done early enough. And the plane knew it was stalling, it kept yelling "STALL, STALL" - the stall warnings are triggered by another sensor, not the pitot tubes.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

I agree with both your points. It's a difficult problem. Forced engagement of the autopilot might possibly have helped the pilots of f447 - but its unlikely to be safe in all situations or be acceptable to flight crews.