8 ms·

Why is this? Can they do a better (in terms of passenger comfort) job landing manually?

cjrp 13y ago
I couldn't say in terms of comfort, but they need to be able to perform a manual landing (for example if certain equipment on board is not functioning correctly, or the airport is not equipped for autolanding) so it makes sense that they would take every opportunity to keep their skills current. There's probably also a sense of pride in wanting to carry out a smooth landing by hand - especially given that most of the climb/cruise/descent will likely have been controlled by the autopilot.
lisper 13y ago
No, autoland is pretty good. But there are two factors that cause pilots to land manually most of the time: 1) pilots think they are better at handling last-minute unexpected contingencies like wind sheer or bird strikes (and they may well be right about that) and 2) pilots don't want to give the Powers that Be any additional data to suggest that they aren't actually needed to fly a plane at all. The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. (FWIW, I'm an instrument-rated private pilot.)
- aghull 13y ago
  I can't imagine anyone stepping onto an autonomous passenger aircraft for a long time, not until long after cars and smaller commercial aircraft are regularly driven using computers only. And even that seems like a stretch. I don't see how pilots use or non-use of some automated systems is going to influence popular opinion on that one way or another. But maybe there's a perception among pilots that it will.
  - lisper 13y ago
    The fact of the matter is that most commercial jetliners today are fully automated. It is only takeoff and landing that are still done by hand. No one ever hand-flies a jetliner during cruise except in dire emergencies. In fact, at high altitudes, where the plane is flying in the "coffin corner" of the flight envelope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)) hand flying can be extremely dangerous.
- snom380 13y ago
  I don't find it likely that pilots hand-fly approaches to make a point. Isn't it more likely that this is codified in airline operation instructions? As for completely autonomous, do you seriously think we have the technology available today to make an autopilot handle any conceivable situation without a human being present and ready to take over? (non-IR PP here)
  - lisper 13y ago
    It isn't "just to make a point". It's also to stay proficient, or to make the job less tedious. But whether to hand-fly an approach is always the pilot's discretion (as far as I know -- I'm a just a private pilot so I could be wrong about that). And no, automation can't handle "every conceivable situation", but neither can humans. Furthermore, humans screw up more often than autopilots. Pilot error is currently the single biggest contributor to the overall accident rate. Mind you, I'm not advocating fully autonomous aircraft. I like having a human in the loop, but that's in part because I am the human in the loop. It's far from clear that human pilots are a net win for safety.
    - snom380 13y ago
      Neither can humans, but humans can handle a lot more situations. We can take into account a lot of information and come up with creative solutions, while current computers will need a set of humans to come up with and program potential scenarios beforehand. I think we'll have computer level AI that will perform better in accidents eventually (AI is improving and our brains are not) but it a long way into the future, and not an imminent threat to pilot jobs as some would believe. In the meantime, the solution to the human factor isn't to eliminate humans, but to improve training (which is already happening after AF447). I like having human pilots primarily because I'm a programmer and I know how difficult it is to design robust computer systems. There's been one runway overrun and one serious in flight incident with passenger injury due to software design faults. Now try to design a system that makes sense of audio, video and smell in addition to the existing sensors, and not have it fail in some spectacular unforeseen way..
      - 13y ago
- sneak 13y ago
  > The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. Two words: anomalous conditions. As we both know, pilots aren't needed in the vast majority of commercial flights. The plane is perfectly capable of taking off, navigating, avoiding collisions, and landing with minimal, mostly unskilled supervision. We don't need pilots on planes... until something unexpected goes wrong, and we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Devil's-advocate: fine, OK, we still need pilots, for the time being. But do they actually need to be on the planes? In the case of two recent crashes (AF447 and this one, assuming pilot error turns out to be the cause as seems likely), it's safe to say that a computer would've easily done a better job than the pilots. Would be interesting to hear Capt. Sullenberger's take on the question.
    - revelation 13y ago
      I guess latency is why they are on the plane.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Might it be possible to have a "house pilot" at each airport that could be patched in during landings or takeoffs? Latency could be made pretty negligible with a radio link only a few kilometers long at most. That wouldn't do anything for patching in pilots for planes in the middle of the pacific, but I wonder how often that would be necessary.
    - snom380 13y ago
      Assuming we could make such a system secure and unhackable as well as unjammable, why would we want to? To save some money? I would rather pay a little more to have the pilot sit in the same airplane and have his life on the line as well. I just find it fascinating how obsessed people seem with getting rid of pilots. You don't often hear the same discussion about train or bus drivers, or doctors for that matter, even though we are just as close to having automated robotic surgery and expert systems have been around for a long time.
- damian2000 13y ago
  Getting in a Google self driving car is one thing, where you still have the ability to take over control or apply brakes yourself. But how many passengers would be willing to get on a fully self piloting aircraft? I think not too many, at least at first.
shin_lao 13y ago
They are bound by regulations to do a certain number of landings every year.

cjrp 13y ago

I couldn't say in terms of comfort, but they need to be able to perform a manual landing (for example if certain equipment on board is not functioning correctly, or the airport is not equipped for autolanding) so it makes sense that they would take every opportunity to keep their skills current. There's probably also a sense of pride in wanting to carry out a smooth landing by hand - especially given that most of the climb/cruise/descent will likely have been controlled by the autopilot.

lisper 13y ago

No, autoland is pretty good. But there are two factors that cause pilots to land manually most of the time: 1) pilots think they are better at handling last-minute unexpected contingencies like wind sheer or bird strikes (and they may well be right about that) and 2) pilots don't want to give the Powers that Be any additional data to suggest that they aren't actually needed to fly a plane at all. The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. (FWIW, I'm an instrument-rated private pilot.)

aghull 13y ago
I can't imagine anyone stepping onto an autonomous passenger aircraft for a long time, not until long after cars and smaller commercial aircraft are regularly driven using computers only. And even that seems like a stretch. I don't see how pilots use or non-use of some automated systems is going to influence popular opinion on that one way or another. But maybe there's a perception among pilots that it will.
- lisper 13y ago
  The fact of the matter is that most commercial jetliners today are fully automated. It is only takeoff and landing that are still done by hand. No one ever hand-flies a jetliner during cruise except in dire emergencies. In fact, at high altitudes, where the plane is flying in the "coffin corner" of the flight envelope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)) hand flying can be extremely dangerous.
snom380 13y ago
I don't find it likely that pilots hand-fly approaches to make a point. Isn't it more likely that this is codified in airline operation instructions? As for completely autonomous, do you seriously think we have the technology available today to make an autopilot handle any conceivable situation without a human being present and ready to take over? (non-IR PP here)
- lisper 13y ago
  It isn't "just to make a point". It's also to stay proficient, or to make the job less tedious. But whether to hand-fly an approach is always the pilot's discretion (as far as I know -- I'm a just a private pilot so I could be wrong about that). And no, automation can't handle "every conceivable situation", but neither can humans. Furthermore, humans screw up more often than autopilots. Pilot error is currently the single biggest contributor to the overall accident rate. Mind you, I'm not advocating fully autonomous aircraft. I like having a human in the loop, but that's in part because I am the human in the loop. It's far from clear that human pilots are a net win for safety.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Neither can humans, but humans can handle a lot more situations. We can take into account a lot of information and come up with creative solutions, while current computers will need a set of humans to come up with and program potential scenarios beforehand. I think we'll have computer level AI that will perform better in accidents eventually (AI is improving and our brains are not) but it a long way into the future, and not an imminent threat to pilot jobs as some would believe. In the meantime, the solution to the human factor isn't to eliminate humans, but to improve training (which is already happening after AF447). I like having human pilots primarily because I'm a programmer and I know how difficult it is to design robust computer systems. There's been one runway overrun and one serious in flight incident with passenger injury due to software design faults. Now try to design a system that makes sense of audio, video and smell in addition to the existing sensors, and not have it fail in some spectacular unforeseen way..
    - 13y ago
sneak 13y ago
> The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. Two words: anomalous conditions. As we both know, pilots aren't needed in the vast majority of commercial flights. The plane is perfectly capable of taking off, navigating, avoiding collisions, and landing with minimal, mostly unskilled supervision. We don't need pilots on planes... until something unexpected goes wrong, and we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Devil's-advocate: fine, OK, we still need pilots, for the time being. But do they actually need to be on the planes? In the case of two recent crashes (AF447 and this one, assuming pilot error turns out to be the cause as seems likely), it's safe to say that a computer would've easily done a better job than the pilots. Would be interesting to hear Capt. Sullenberger's take on the question.
  - revelation 13y ago
    I guess latency is why they are on the plane.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Might it be possible to have a "house pilot" at each airport that could be patched in during landings or takeoffs? Latency could be made pretty negligible with a radio link only a few kilometers long at most. That wouldn't do anything for patching in pilots for planes in the middle of the pacific, but I wonder how often that would be necessary.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Assuming we could make such a system secure and unhackable as well as unjammable, why would we want to? To save some money? I would rather pay a little more to have the pilot sit in the same airplane and have his life on the line as well. I just find it fascinating how obsessed people seem with getting rid of pilots. You don't often hear the same discussion about train or bus drivers, or doctors for that matter, even though we are just as close to having automated robotic surgery and expert systems have been around for a long time.
damian2000 13y ago
Getting in a Google self driving car is one thing, where you still have the ability to take over control or apply brakes yourself. But how many passengers would be willing to get on a fully self piloting aircraft? I think not too many, at least at first.

shin_lao 13y ago

They are bound by regulations to do a certain number of landings every year.