3 ms·
If the computer could tell perfectly whether the engine “looks normal” or not, there wouldn’t be any need for a switch. If it can’t, the switch most likely need
by lxgr 1y ago
If the computer could tell perfectly whether the engine “looks normal” or not, there wouldn’t be any need for a switch. If it can’t, the switch most likely needs to work without delay in at least some situations.
In safety-critical engineering, you generally either automate things fully (i.e. to exceed human capabilities in all situations, not just most), or you keep them manual. Half-measures of automation kill people.
- michaelmrose 1y agoIf the warning period is short enough is it possible it's always beneficial or is 2-3 seconds of additional fuel during a undetected fire more dangerous?
- 7952 1y agoBut humans can't tell perfectly either and would be responding to much of the same data that automation would be. I wonder if they could have buttons that are about the situation rather than the technical action. Have a fire response button. Or a shut down on the ground button. But it does seem like half measure automation could be a contributing factor in a lot of crashes. Reverting to a pilot in a stressful situation is a risk, as is placing too much faith in individual sensors. And in a sense this problem applies to planes internally or to the whole air traffic system. It is a mess of expiring data being consumed and produced by a mix of humans and machines. Maybe the missing part is good statistical modelling of that. If systems can make better predictions they can be more cautious in response.