3 ms·

Sure, but if you see some bad weather and decide to turn off autopilot... and the system won't let you, then the company is to blame (legally, though practicall

Sure, but if you see some bad weather and decide to turn off autopilot... and the system won't let you, then the company is to blame (legally, though practically you'd obviously do everything you can to make sure you survive). The decision would need to be made case by case in courts to determine who (if anyone) is responsible. At least in court systems like the US has. For very different systems, I'm not sure.

sokoloff 17y ago
The certification process for autopilots, even for light single-engine aircraft, is designed to prevent "autopilot can't be turned off or over-ridden" scenarios. Can it prevent all of them? No, but mine has a mandatory self-test that has to complete before it can be engaged, there is a dedicated breaker with a collar so I can kill power to just the autopilot, failing that I can kill the power to all avionics, failing that kill all electrical power, and failing all that each of the servos has a clutch on it that can easily be over-ridden by even the daintiest pilot. If the autopilot is commanding a left turn that I don't want, I can mechanically override it, or I have 4 electrical ways to shut it off. That takes "autopilot can't be disengaged" way, way down on the list of things to worry about, especially when compared to flying behind a single piston engine, with no anti-icing equipment. If I fly my airplane into a mountain, the NTSB report will say: Probable cause: The pilot in command's failure to maintain clearance from terrain, resulting in in-flight collision with mountainous terrain. They may add: Contributing causes were: <some list of lesser causes such as weather, lighting conditions, failure of navigation equipment, projected spatial disorientation, and if they have evidence to support it, autopilot malfunction or more likely, pilot's incorrect or insufficient reaction to that malfunction>. The likelihood that S-tec [maker of my autopilot] is found liable is precisely 0.00%.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  Wow... taking the autopilot example too literally. I suppose there is no need for me to point this out, but I'm not a pilot and have never flown anything, with or without autopilot. I was just using this as an example of "something going wrong with the machine" to show that there are times you would blame the pilot and times you would blame the company who built the autopilot. If autopilot is a bad example, replace it with some other autonomous machine... or pretend that we were back in the stone ages of autopilots when things could go wrong. Or, I'll make up a new example where the autopilot all of a sudden inverts the plane and then sets it right before you get a chance to turn it off therefore injuring one of the passengers. Lets not get too caught up in the specifics of autopilots and aviation laws, etc... That said, having a number of failsafe mechanisms (like the ones you described) would be a critical part of any autonomous system, especially in the early stages, which would, of course, affect who we end up blaming.
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    I recognized that you weren't confining yourself to specifically autopilots, but I felt that describing the autopilot failsafes (even on $50K family airplane) as well as the case law surrounding what people might consider to be "autonomous system" but which case law considers "fancy cotrols under command of the pilot" was useful to the discussion. I wasn't trying to argue against any particular point of yours.

sokoloff 17y ago

The certification process for autopilots, even for light single-engine aircraft, is designed to prevent "autopilot can't be turned off or over-ridden" scenarios. Can it prevent all of them? No, but mine has a mandatory self-test that has to complete before it can be engaged, there is a dedicated breaker with a collar so I can kill power to just the autopilot, failing that I can kill the power to all avionics, failing that kill all electrical power, and failing all that each of the servos has a clutch on it that can easily be over-ridden by even the daintiest pilot. If the autopilot is commanding a left turn that I don't want, I can mechanically override it, or I have 4 electrical ways to shut it off. That takes "autopilot can't be disengaged" way, way down on the list of things to worry about, especially when compared to flying behind a single piston engine, with no anti-icing equipment. If I fly my airplane into a mountain, the NTSB report will say: Probable cause: The pilot in command's failure to maintain clearance from terrain, resulting in in-flight collision with mountainous terrain. They may add: Contributing causes were: <some list of lesser causes such as weather, lighting conditions, failure of navigation equipment, projected spatial disorientation, and if they have evidence to support it, autopilot malfunction or more likely, pilot's incorrect or insufficient reaction to that malfunction>. The likelihood that S-tec [maker of my autopilot] is found liable is precisely 0.00%.

roundsquare 17y ago
Wow... taking the autopilot example too literally. I suppose there is no need for me to point this out, but I'm not a pilot and have never flown anything, with or without autopilot. I was just using this as an example of "something going wrong with the machine" to show that there are times you would blame the pilot and times you would blame the company who built the autopilot. If autopilot is a bad example, replace it with some other autonomous machine... or pretend that we were back in the stone ages of autopilots when things could go wrong. Or, I'll make up a new example where the autopilot all of a sudden inverts the plane and then sets it right before you get a chance to turn it off therefore injuring one of the passengers. Lets not get too caught up in the specifics of autopilots and aviation laws, etc... That said, having a number of failsafe mechanisms (like the ones you described) would be a critical part of any autonomous system, especially in the early stages, which would, of course, affect who we end up blaming.
- sokoloff 17y ago
  I recognized that you weren't confining yourself to specifically autopilots, but I felt that describing the autopilot failsafes (even on $50K family airplane) as well as the case law surrounding what people might consider to be "autonomous system" but which case law considers "fancy cotrols under command of the pilot" was useful to the discussion. I wasn't trying to argue against any particular point of yours.