7 ms·

It brings up an interesting conundrum. The more that pilots use autopilot for approach, the less feel they have for what the controls should feel like at the co

It brings up an interesting conundrum. The more that pilots use autopilot for approach, the less feel they have for what the controls should feel like at the correct airspeed. However, if we just outright ban auto-pilot for approach, there is more room for human error...

toomuchtodo 13y ago
The solution is combination of more automation and more communication to the user (pilots).
- ars_technician 13y ago
  Yeah, it seems like there should be a big red light on the air speed indicator that says it's under the pilot's control.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    How much control do we take away though? I'm a private pilot, but also an automation fanatic. Software doesn't get tired, it doesn't have a bad night of sleep. If its well written, it has a much lower failure rate than humans. The ILS wasn't working, but the GPS was. All major and most minor airports have approach plates/terminal procedures. Calculate the desired glide path to touchdown on the runway. Display on a MFD (multi function display) plane, glide path, runway. Proper glide path? Green backlight. Outside of margin glidepath? Yellow backlight. Fall within dangerous limits near the ground? Red backlight, engage autopilot (to go to hold position indicated by approach plates), go to full power, and disable pilot input until above safe altitude (props if you notify control via ADS-B of go-around due to human error). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_plate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_plate "Approach plates are essential for an airplane to make a safe landing during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), such as low ceilings or reduced visibility due to fog, rain, or blowing snow. They provide specific waypoints and altitudes necessary to line an aircraft up with a designated runway for landing, as well as important navigational information, such as radio frequencies of navigational aids and required course headings, and the prescribed minimum visibility requirements to execute the approach." http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/procedures http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/procedures Runway 28L approach plate: http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28L+(SA+CAT+II) http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28...
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      How much? I don't think the pilot should have the authority to fly the plane into the ground, at least not without cutting out several circuit breakers. In this case, it clearly appears that a computer could easily have looked at the altitude, attitude, air speed, and thrust and decided with enough time to recover that the meat module was malfunctioning, and could have initiated a go around. Also, it's pretty clear that the automation could have started yelling LOLWUT or whatever the industry jargon is for exceptionally inconsistent inputs, such as flight level change mode on final.
      - ubernostrum 13y ago
        What happens when the automation malfunctions and wants to fly the plane into the ground? Plenty of aviation accidents boil down to conflicts between different automated systems, or between automated systems and pilot's senses, and there is no universal criterion for deciding which one should win.
        midas007 13y ago
        It's common sense: the human pilot is always responsible and therefore MUST ALWAYS have the final say. Period. There can be plenty of warnings, but automating too much machine behavior (Airbus methodology) has unintended consequences: - 0. Less control over the machine's behavior atrophies pilot's situational awareness. Boeing requires a deeper understanding of how the machine behaves and hence what's permissible. - 1. Reduces an experienced pilot's potential recovery options. In this case, three clowns stalled a perfectly working multimillion-dollar craft into the ground and killed a few people (it could have been significantly worse). I wouldn't let these jokers fly Flight Simulator, they're liabilities.
      - ams6110 13y ago
        The aircraft was landing. It was supposed to (gently) fly into the ground. A lot of automatics are disabled below a certain altitude and/or when landing gear are extended because otherwise they would prevent landing. A landing is essentially stalling the aircraft just before the wheels touch.
- tesseractive 13y ago
  According to the Wikipedia article on the crash, a feasibility study was added to FAA appropriations this year for a verbal warning for low speed. So this may be a practical way to improve communications if it pans out.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Excellent. With current sensor data (GPS, air speed, control surface positions, engine output), a physics engine, and map/synthetic radar data, it is possible to politely tell a crew that they're a) doing something wrong and b) how to correct it quickly.
MBCook 13y ago
I'm not a pilot, but the ability to set the throttle to idle (including all auto-controls) while the plane is in the air without warnings seems dangerous to me. It sounds like a better indication that there was no thrust may have helped the pilots recognize the error sooner.
- imsofuture 13y ago
  It's not unbelievable using idle thrust in the air. It's inexcusable to not watch your air speed though.
  - MBCook 13y ago
    That's my thought. I can think of a few times where it might make sense, mostly to burn off speed or altitude; but if you're that low and already under the suggested approach speed it seems like it's almost certainly a mistake. I'm surprised they had to get so low before the stall warning system kicked in (given the speed and throttle position).
- ak217 13y ago
  Flying at idle throttle is completely normal when descending from cruise to final approach. What's not normal is certain patterns of airspeed and altitude loss, and I agree, you could probably come up with better indicators for that.
rrmm 13y ago
This is basically why they created the flight director. http://www.flyingmag.com/wonder-flight-director http://www.flyingmag.com/wonder-flight-director With it you get the hands-on feeling of flying the plane with the precision of AP/ILS information.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

The solution is combination of more automation and more communication to the user (pilots).

ars_technician 13y ago
Yeah, it seems like there should be a big red light on the air speed indicator that says it's under the pilot's control.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  How much control do we take away though? I'm a private pilot, but also an automation fanatic. Software doesn't get tired, it doesn't have a bad night of sleep. If its well written, it has a much lower failure rate than humans. The ILS wasn't working, but the GPS was. All major and most minor airports have approach plates/terminal procedures. Calculate the desired glide path to touchdown on the runway. Display on a MFD (multi function display) plane, glide path, runway. Proper glide path? Green backlight. Outside of margin glidepath? Yellow backlight. Fall within dangerous limits near the ground? Red backlight, engage autopilot (to go to hold position indicated by approach plates), go to full power, and disable pilot input until above safe altitude (props if you notify control via ADS-B of go-around due to human error). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_plate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_plate "Approach plates are essential for an airplane to make a safe landing during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), such as low ceilings or reduced visibility due to fog, rain, or blowing snow. They provide specific waypoints and altitudes necessary to line an aircraft up with a designated runway for landing, as well as important navigational information, such as radio frequencies of navigational aids and required course headings, and the prescribed minimum visibility requirements to execute the approach." http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/procedures http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/procedures Runway 28L approach plate: http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28L+(SA+CAT+II) http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28...
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    How much? I don't think the pilot should have the authority to fly the plane into the ground, at least not without cutting out several circuit breakers. In this case, it clearly appears that a computer could easily have looked at the altitude, attitude, air speed, and thrust and decided with enough time to recover that the meat module was malfunctioning, and could have initiated a go around. Also, it's pretty clear that the automation could have started yelling LOLWUT or whatever the industry jargon is for exceptionally inconsistent inputs, such as flight level change mode on final.
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      What happens when the automation malfunctions and wants to fly the plane into the ground? Plenty of aviation accidents boil down to conflicts between different automated systems, or between automated systems and pilot's senses, and there is no universal criterion for deciding which one should win.
      - midas007 13y ago
        It's common sense: the human pilot is always responsible and therefore MUST ALWAYS have the final say. Period. There can be plenty of warnings, but automating too much machine behavior (Airbus methodology) has unintended consequences: - 0. Less control over the machine's behavior atrophies pilot's situational awareness. Boeing requires a deeper understanding of how the machine behaves and hence what's permissible. - 1. Reduces an experienced pilot's potential recovery options. In this case, three clowns stalled a perfectly working multimillion-dollar craft into the ground and killed a few people (it could have been significantly worse). I wouldn't let these jokers fly Flight Simulator, they're liabilities.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      The aircraft was landing. It was supposed to (gently) fly into the ground. A lot of automatics are disabled below a certain altitude and/or when landing gear are extended because otherwise they would prevent landing. A landing is essentially stalling the aircraft just before the wheels touch.
tesseractive 13y ago
According to the Wikipedia article on the crash, a feasibility study was added to FAA appropriations this year for a verbal warning for low speed. So this may be a practical way to improve communications if it pans out.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Excellent. With current sensor data (GPS, air speed, control surface positions, engine output), a physics engine, and map/synthetic radar data, it is possible to politely tell a crew that they're a) doing something wrong and b) how to correct it quickly.

MBCook 13y ago

I'm not a pilot, but the ability to set the throttle to idle (including all auto-controls) while the plane is in the air without warnings seems dangerous to me. It sounds like a better indication that there was no thrust may have helped the pilots recognize the error sooner.

imsofuture 13y ago
It's not unbelievable using idle thrust in the air. It's inexcusable to not watch your air speed though.
- MBCook 13y ago
  That's my thought. I can think of a few times where it might make sense, mostly to burn off speed or altitude; but if you're that low and already under the suggested approach speed it seems like it's almost certainly a mistake. I'm surprised they had to get so low before the stall warning system kicked in (given the speed and throttle position).
ak217 13y ago
Flying at idle throttle is completely normal when descending from cruise to final approach. What's not normal is certain patterns of airspeed and altitude loss, and I agree, you could probably come up with better indicators for that.

rrmm 13y ago

This is basically why they created the flight director. http://www.flyingmag.com/wonder-flight-director http://www.flyingmag.com/wonder-flight-director With it you get the hands-on feeling of flying the plane with the precision of AP/ILS information.