4 ms·

Is there any good reason that auto-pilot could not be enabled to override suicidal actions of a pilot? Perhaps a system that requires input from both pilot and

by lsadam0 12y ago

Is there any good reason that auto-pilot could not be enabled to override suicidal actions of a pilot? Perhaps a system that requires input from both pilot and co-pilot to override?

celticninja 12y ago
What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot? Averting and intentional maneuver could also hamper the ability to fly the aircraft and given that these incidents, while they result in huge loss of life, are incredibly rare. As such the cost/benefit is not there. But fuck that co-pilot.
- lsadam0 12y ago
  I think auto-pilot already can override intentional actions of the pilot. It's my understanding that auto-pilot will prevent a pilot from many actions that would result in a stall?
  - avar 12y ago
    No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate_...
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Technically I believe the autopilot is a higher level in the system, and the anti-stall stuff (among others) is part of the lower-level fly-by-wire system. It's sort of like with a car and the difference between anti-lock brakes (fly-by-wire), cruise control (basic autopilot functionality), and autonomous steering to reach a certain location (advanced autopilot functionality). In any case, you're right that the automation (by whatever name) can already override the pilot in many cases. But it's a really tricky problem because you can easily make things worse instead of better. For example, one reason that Air France 447 crashed was that one of the pilots was commanding the airplane as if it were in a fly-by-wire mode it was not actually in. The plane had already stalled, but he was flying it as if the computers would prevent him from stalling, rather than taking proper corrective action. A proper recovery maneuver would have saved it. This is ultimately pilot error, but automation is a strong contributing factor. For another example, Asiana 214 crashed because the pilot assumed the airplane was doing more for him than it really was, trusting the automation to keep his speed steady, which it wasn't set to do. Again, pilot error, but with automation as a contributing factor. It seems likely that automation is a net gain when done right, but it requires careful consideration.
  - cotillion 12y ago
    It can, depending on the flight control mode. But a pilot with time alone in the cockpit can most likely trick the flight computers into whatever mode he wishes.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  >What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot The co-pilot flies. That's why there is a co-pilot. (On really long flights there can be two co-pilots so that pilots can work in shifts, but medium-range flights like this can physically be flown by one pilot, two are there for safety).
- mtviewdave 12y ago
  "Co-pilot" is just a colloquial term for the first officer on a flight. Both the captain and first officer are "pilots" and both are fully qualified to operate the plane. http://www.askthepilot.com/copilots-are-pilots-too/ http://www.askthepilot.com/copilots-are-pilots-too/
hydrogen18 12y ago
Newer planes are fully fly-by-wire, so you could build software to attempt to address the issue. The problem is identifying a suicidal action. A descent is not suicidal. There are many cases that make a sudden descent a life-saving procedure. For example, cabin depressurization. Alternately, an ATC could require a plane to descend rapidly to clear airspace for another flight that is disabled. Now, consider that programmers make mistakes (even in aerospace) much more frequently than pilots decide to commit suicide. If a software system is given first-authority instead of a pilot you'll have more deaths due to the system than due to pilots intentional attempt to destroy a plane. The problem of suicidal pilots can be addressed by a number of known mechanisms, none of which jeopardize the safety of a flight. Pernicious problems of software quality are still incredibly difficult to address in any context.
- return0 12y ago
  I wonder, since the plane wasnt nosediving, it was descending, and the radars could probably detect that it wasnt descending to any place to land. Couldn't a remote operator stop the descent?
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Now you've just changed the scenario from "rogue pilot crashes airplane despite efforts of other pilot" to "rogue air traffic controller crashes airplane despite efforts of pilots."
    - return0 12y ago
      Yeah obviously, the point is how to find the best compromise. It's not just for security, i m thinking of the unlikely scenario of pressure loss and the ability to maybe remotely bring the plane down or land it on the sea or anything.
  - Piskvorrr 12y ago
    No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")

by lsadam0 12y ago

Is there any good reason that auto-pilot could not be enabled to override suicidal actions of a pilot? Perhaps a system that requires input from both pilot and co-pilot to override?

celticninja 12y ago

What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot? Averting and intentional maneuver could also hamper the ability to fly the aircraft and given that these incidents, while they result in huge loss of life, are incredibly rare. As such the cost/benefit is not there. But fuck that co-pilot.

lsadam0 12y ago
I think auto-pilot already can override intentional actions of the pilot. It's my understanding that auto-pilot will prevent a pilot from many actions that would result in a stall?
- avar 12y ago
  No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes#Alternate_...
- mikeash 12y ago
  Technically I believe the autopilot is a higher level in the system, and the anti-stall stuff (among others) is part of the lower-level fly-by-wire system. It's sort of like with a car and the difference between anti-lock brakes (fly-by-wire), cruise control (basic autopilot functionality), and autonomous steering to reach a certain location (advanced autopilot functionality). In any case, you're right that the automation (by whatever name) can already override the pilot in many cases. But it's a really tricky problem because you can easily make things worse instead of better. For example, one reason that Air France 447 crashed was that one of the pilots was commanding the airplane as if it were in a fly-by-wire mode it was not actually in. The plane had already stalled, but he was flying it as if the computers would prevent him from stalling, rather than taking proper corrective action. A proper recovery maneuver would have saved it. This is ultimately pilot error, but automation is a strong contributing factor. For another example, Asiana 214 crashed because the pilot assumed the airplane was doing more for him than it really was, trusting the automation to keep his speed steady, which it wasn't set to do. Again, pilot error, but with automation as a contributing factor. It seems likely that automation is a net gain when done right, but it requires careful consideration.
- cotillion 12y ago
  It can, depending on the flight control mode. But a pilot with time alone in the cockpit can most likely trick the flight computers into whatever mode he wishes.
ptaipale 12y ago
>What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot The co-pilot flies. That's why there is a co-pilot. (On really long flights there can be two co-pilots so that pilots can work in shifts, but medium-range flights like this can physically be flown by one pilot, two are there for safety).
mtviewdave 12y ago
"Co-pilot" is just a colloquial term for the first officer on a flight. Both the captain and first officer are "pilots" and both are fully qualified to operate the plane. http://www.askthepilot.com/copilots-are-pilots-too/ http://www.askthepilot.com/copilots-are-pilots-too/

hydrogen18 12y ago

Newer planes are fully fly-by-wire, so you could build software to attempt to address the issue. The problem is identifying a suicidal action. A descent is not suicidal. There are many cases that make a sudden descent a life-saving procedure. For example, cabin depressurization. Alternately, an ATC could require a plane to descend rapidly to clear airspace for another flight that is disabled. Now, consider that programmers make mistakes (even in aerospace) much more frequently than pilots decide to commit suicide. If a software system is given first-authority instead of a pilot you'll have more deaths due to the system than due to pilots intentional attempt to destroy a plane. The problem of suicidal pilots can be addressed by a number of known mechanisms, none of which jeopardize the safety of a flight. Pernicious problems of software quality are still incredibly difficult to address in any context.

return0 12y ago
I wonder, since the plane wasnt nosediving, it was descending, and the radars could probably detect that it wasnt descending to any place to land. Couldn't a remote operator stop the descent?
- mikeash 12y ago
  Now you've just changed the scenario from "rogue pilot crashes airplane despite efforts of other pilot" to "rogue air traffic controller crashes airplane despite efforts of pilots."
  - return0 12y ago
    Yeah obviously, the point is how to find the best compromise. It's not just for security, i m thinking of the unlikely scenario of pressure loss and the ability to maybe remotely bring the plane down or land it on the sea or anything.
- Piskvorrr 12y ago
  No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")