5 ms·

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.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      I'm sure I don't have to point out the obvious difference which is that a landing ends with a vertical speed that asymptotically approaches zero whereas a crash also has a terminal vertical speed of zero (obviously) but with a discontinuous derivate and a rather high vertical speed at t minus episilon. The computer should be able to differentiate between situations where some plausible sequence of pilot actions will result in success, and one where no such success is possible.
    - 13y ago
- bigiain 13y ago
  "How much control do we take away though?" I think it's less about "how much do we take away", and more about "if we automate this, will we train dangerous habits into pilots who use it?" You don't tech you junior sysadmins to use "rm -rf /" to delete user data "because Unix prevents you from deleting files not owned by you, so it's perfectly safe!" _one day_ that sysadmin is going to be logged in as root. I have no idea whether the pilot here was trained to let an Airbus override dangerous actions on his part or not - but if he _was_ – _that's_ something that ought to be considered for changing. We wouldn't let a car manufacturer sell a car with the brake pedal on the right and the accelerator on the left - because no matter how diligently you tell buyers, or how prominently you point it out in the owners manual, somebody is going to mash that accelerator pedal in an emergency expecting the car to stop.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    I agree! Personally, I would rather fly on a plane with no pilot that's driven completely with UAV guts from takeoff to landing. Yes, there will be edge cases where there will be failures. I just believe those cases will be far fewer than pilot error. AND with the resulting data, we can prevent those same edge cases from occurring again.
    - gaius 13y ago
      Not for you tho', as getting the data killed you!
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Still an improvement over people. You know what goes wrong, but you have no guarantee other pilots own't make the mistake again, even with training and education.
    - JHof 13y ago
      UAVs are still piloted. They're just controlled from the ground.

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.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    I'm sure I don't have to point out the obvious difference which is that a landing ends with a vertical speed that asymptotically approaches zero whereas a crash also has a terminal vertical speed of zero (obviously) but with a discontinuous derivate and a rather high vertical speed at t minus episilon. The computer should be able to differentiate between situations where some plausible sequence of pilot actions will result in success, and one where no such success is possible.
  - 13y ago
bigiain 13y ago
"How much control do we take away though?" I think it's less about "how much do we take away", and more about "if we automate this, will we train dangerous habits into pilots who use it?" You don't tech you junior sysadmins to use "rm -rf /" to delete user data "because Unix prevents you from deleting files not owned by you, so it's perfectly safe!" _one day_ that sysadmin is going to be logged in as root. I have no idea whether the pilot here was trained to let an Airbus override dangerous actions on his part or not - but if he _was_ – _that's_ something that ought to be considered for changing. We wouldn't let a car manufacturer sell a car with the brake pedal on the right and the accelerator on the left - because no matter how diligently you tell buyers, or how prominently you point it out in the owners manual, somebody is going to mash that accelerator pedal in an emergency expecting the car to stop.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I agree! Personally, I would rather fly on a plane with no pilot that's driven completely with UAV guts from takeoff to landing. Yes, there will be edge cases where there will be failures. I just believe those cases will be far fewer than pilot error. AND with the resulting data, we can prevent those same edge cases from occurring again.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Not for you tho', as getting the data killed you!
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Still an improvement over people. You know what goes wrong, but you have no guarantee other pilots own't make the mistake again, even with training and education.
  - JHof 13y ago
    UAVs are still piloted. They're just controlled from the ground.