3 ms·

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.
      - vkou 3y ago
        A million different things would have helped in this particular situation. A stall warning that doesn't suddenly cut out when the plane exceeds a particular angle of attack [1] (That's an automation failure!). Emergency pilot tubes (That prevents the plane from dropping out of normal law!). Better pilot tubes (That prevents the plane from dropping out of normal law!) A pilot that actually received proper training (That's a human failure!). Not averaging control inputs between the pilot and the copilot (That's a design failure!). I don't think the takeaway from this is 'In an emergency situation, where the plane knows that it can't make good decisions, it should lock the pilots out and try to fly itself.' By definition, if the plane knew how to fly itself, it wouldn't be an emergency situation! ---- [1] If the plane is so confused that it can't even detect that its in a stall[2], I can't trust it to fly itself. [2] The stall alarm would turn off when the plane was stalling, and would turn on when it was recovering from a stall!
        bombcar 3y ago
- bombcar 3y ago
  > 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? This is the root of the main Airbus/Boeing disagreement about design; Airbus leans towards the "pilot and dog" [37] arrangement, Boeing leans toward "let the pilot figure it out". But the reality is the more and more the computer can handle strange situations, the further the pilots get from being able to react to even stranger situations. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have additional laws to prevent going from normal law direct to "whelp, it's your plane now, bro". [37] Old joke: https://jalopnik.com/the-thought-of-a-single-pilot-airliner-is-just-a-bit-sc-1677413476 https://jalopnik.com/the-thought-of-a-single-pilot-airliner-...

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.
    - vkou 3y ago
      A million different things would have helped in this particular situation. A stall warning that doesn't suddenly cut out when the plane exceeds a particular angle of attack [1] (That's an automation failure!). Emergency pilot tubes (That prevents the plane from dropping out of normal law!). Better pilot tubes (That prevents the plane from dropping out of normal law!) A pilot that actually received proper training (That's a human failure!). Not averaging control inputs between the pilot and the copilot (That's a design failure!). I don't think the takeaway from this is 'In an emergency situation, where the plane knows that it can't make good decisions, it should lock the pilots out and try to fly itself.' By definition, if the plane knew how to fly itself, it wouldn't be an emergency situation! ---- [1] If the plane is so confused that it can't even detect that its in a stall[2], I can't trust it to fly itself. [2] The stall alarm would turn off when the plane was stalling, and would turn on when it was recovering from a stall!
      - bombcar 3y ago
bombcar 3y ago
> 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? This is the root of the main Airbus/Boeing disagreement about design; Airbus leans towards the "pilot and dog" [37] arrangement, Boeing leans toward "let the pilot figure it out". But the reality is the more and more the computer can handle strange situations, the further the pilots get from being able to react to even stranger situations. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have additional laws to prevent going from normal law direct to "whelp, it's your plane now, bro". [37] Old joke: https://jalopnik.com/the-thought-of-a-single-pilot-airliner-is-just-a-bit-sc-1677413476 https://jalopnik.com/the-thought-of-a-single-pilot-airliner-...