4 ms·

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 th

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.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Almost all recent commercial aircraft have autoland [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland] which will bring the aircraft down from cruise phase to the taxiway in a fully automated fashion. "Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions, although limitations do apply for most aircraft—for example, for a Boeing 747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts, and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots. They may also include automatic braking to a full stop once the aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system, and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers." "Autoland requires the use of a radar altimeter to determine the aircraft's height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare at the correct height (usually about 50 feet (15 m)). The localizer signal of the ILS may be used for lateral control even after touchdown until the pilot disengages the autopilot. For safety reasons, once autoland is engaged and the ILS signals have been acquired by the autoland system, it will proceed to landing without further intervention, and can be disengaged only by completely disconnecting the autopilot (this prevents accidental disengagement of the autoland system at a critical moment). At least two and often three independent autopilot systems work in concert to carry out autoland, thus providing redundant protection against failures. Most autoland systems can operate with a single autopilot in an emergency, but they are only certified when multiple autopilots are available." "Autoland is highly accurate. In his 1959 paper [2] John Charnley, then Superintendent of the UK Royal Aircraft Establishment's Blind Landing Experimental Unit (BLEU), concluded a discussion of statistical results by saying that "It is fair to claim, therefore, that not only will the automatic system land the aircraft when the weather prevents the human pilot, it also performs the operation much more precisely"."

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.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Almost all recent commercial aircraft have autoland [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland] which will bring the aircraft down from cruise phase to the taxiway in a fully automated fashion. "Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions, although limitations do apply for most aircraft—for example, for a Boeing 747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts, and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots. They may also include automatic braking to a full stop once the aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system, and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers." "Autoland requires the use of a radar altimeter to determine the aircraft's height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare at the correct height (usually about 50 feet (15 m)). The localizer signal of the ILS may be used for lateral control even after touchdown until the pilot disengages the autopilot. For safety reasons, once autoland is engaged and the ILS signals have been acquired by the autoland system, it will proceed to landing without further intervention, and can be disengaged only by completely disconnecting the autopilot (this prevents accidental disengagement of the autoland system at a critical moment). At least two and often three independent autopilot systems work in concert to carry out autoland, thus providing redundant protection against failures. Most autoland systems can operate with a single autopilot in an emergency, but they are only certified when multiple autopilots are available." "Autoland is highly accurate. In his 1959 paper [2] John Charnley, then Superintendent of the UK Royal Aircraft Establishment's Blind Landing Experimental Unit (BLEU), concluded a discussion of statistical results by saying that "It is fair to claim, therefore, that not only will the automatic system land the aircraft when the weather prevents the human pilot, it also performs the operation much more precisely"."