4 ms·

This topic resurfaces every so often, usually with no particular context, but now as a knee-jerk after the horrible and preventable Germanwings incident. Here

This topic resurfaces every so often, usually with no particular context, but now as a knee-jerk after the horrible and preventable Germanwings incident. Here is Patrick Smith's (formerly of Salon's Ask the Pilot column) comment from the NYT article: >>> I'm an airline pilot, air travel blogger and author. This pilotless planes discussion is something that comes up all the time, and it never fails to raise my blood pressure. One of the main issues is that people greatly misunderstand the capabilities of EXISTING cockpit automation, and have a vastly exaggerated sense of what it can do -- the result of articles similar to this one, which take at face value the claims of researchers, aerospace academics and tech aficionados who often have little sense of the operational realities of commercial flying. Over and over and over we hear about how "automatic" planes are. Yet in truth flying remains a very hands-on operation subject to tremendous amounts of pilot input. It's perhaps a different KIND of input than in the old days: instead of gripping the steering yoke as would've been the case in the 1930s, you're working the various autoflight components, flight management system, etc. But the automation only does what the pilots TELL it to do: what, when, where and how. The other day I worked a flight up from the Caribbean. We had bad weather the whole way, a holding pattern, and had to fly a low-visibility Cat-2 approach. The cockpit was so busy that after we landed my voice was hoarse. Now imagine somebody dealing with the complexities of such a flight from a room thousands of miles away, with dozens of other planes stacked up. Patrick Smith Boston

return0 12y ago
How much of this work job could be automated? And how much is not being automated, precisely because people believe it shouldn't be automated, while it can readily be? In the case of germanwings, could an emergency system be in place that would just not let the plane go near the ground when its data made it certain that it was riding onto a mountain? Shouldn't we be asking for more automation in planes/cars/ships instead of dismissing it? I think these are valid questions, regardless if they upset some seasoned pilots.
- userbinator 12y ago
  I think the more important question is, what happens when the automation fails in some way (e.g. sensor problems)? If the pilot cannot override the automation, then you end up with planes that fly themselves into the ground (see http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074 http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074 for a recent example of this - fortunately the pilots did figure out how to override the automation and regain control.) If he/she can, then 4U9525 would've crashed anyway. The more automation there is, the more edge cases and failure modes there will be, and another danger is the complacency it can encourage: the less often pilots have to manually fly the plane, the more likely it is they'll forget how to do it when they really need to.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Sensor problems can be solved by having more sensors. It's not like humans have magical ever-working senses. How did the pilots know the system was incorrect in its assessment that the aircraft was stalling? Chances are there is some kind of electronic sensor that could provide the same information to the system.
    - 6stringmerc 12y ago
      Uh, you're wrong - in the case of trained pilots, humans do have magical ever-working senses, it's called a thinking brain. More sensors that give wrong information to computers only makes the problem worse. The human ability to critically think and make decisions based on experience and "doubt" are fundamental to safely dealing with a mechanical issue. While the pilots in the Air France plane crashed off the coast of Brazil because they trusted the instruments - the way a computer would behave, which you think is so trustworthy - there were other pilots who dealt with the same wrong sensory input and determined that the best course of action was to maintain flight principles...and not stall. To trust in sensors and electronics in the way you describe would get a lot more people killed. I dislike this prospect very much.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        As far as I remember from my anatomy classes, the brain is not a sense. Experience and doubt can be programmed - that's why we have classes and training for pilots, which is the equivalent for humans. they trusted the instruments - the way a computer would behave Computers behave however we make them behave. They certainly don't need to trust the instruments if we program them not to. And that interpretation of the Air France Flight 447 is dubious to me. The instruments told the pilots what was happening (the stalling alarm sounded for almost a full minute) and they apparently ignored it, because they didn't understood how it worked - that it would stop sounding when airspeed was low enough -, not because it was faulty.
belorn 12y ago
Replacing all airplanes with pilotless planes is likely as a bad plan as replacing all car with driverless cars. Its not the a single step, nor has all situations which a driver/pilot has to deal with been automated to the point in which a computer can do all the work successfully. It is however a great goal, one which spells safer, faster, and consecutive safer technology with every step. Modern cars already has some forms of brake systems which can take control away from the driver during a crash-like situation, so the same concept for planes could be applied if it can be made safe enough. We also have kill-switches in cars which can be triggered remotely, so I could easily see a similar system be implemented which locks a plane into auto-pilot with a per-determined height and GPS direction. Neither will replace pilots overnight, so they continue having low blood pressure and know that they still got a job tomorrow. Flying in bad weather, imperfect position technology, security, and complex traffic is going to take a long time to solve.
- innocenat 12y ago
  You already spelled a problem. If automation failed and you kill-switch an airplane to fly at specific height and direction (assuming, of course, that altimeter and compass/gps unit hasn't failed), how do you land that plane and get passenger off safely?
  - TrevorJ 12y ago
    Also, if the failure is with the GPS network, you've now got every flight trying to occupy the same airspace at the same time.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      ADS-B includes TCAS support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sys...
- frenchman_in_ny 12y ago
  Not to pick on you, but hearing "per-determined height and GPS direction" makes me a bit nervous with anything related to human life. People follow GPS blindly and that's OK on roads with a driver, but in other applications it can lead to tragic results due to Dilution of Precision. The Flinders Islet crash is a prime example. [0][1] [0] http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-you/ http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-you/ [1] http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-incident-reports/flinders-islet/ http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-incid...
jstalin 12y ago
"The cockpit was so busy that after we landed my voice was hoarse." Sounds like lots of points of potential human error.
DannoHung 12y ago
Would the capabilities be lacking if we weren't designing the planes with the intention that the pilots at the controls were there to take over in an anomalous situation? A lot of people are citing the frozen AOA sensors on the Airbus flight a few years ago as a reason that even a perfect AI would make mistakes, but why did that particular sensor cause the autopilot to drastically change approach? Shouldn't inputs from GPS, Altimeter, and gyroscopic sensors contraindicate the external AOA sensors? What information did the pilots have that the computer system didn't to let them know to change the behavior? We all know about situations where the pilots intervened to prevent an issue, but are there opposing situations where the sensors indicated an issue that the pilots couldn't observe and they made an error? What are the hard problems that are really stopping complete automation versus the problems that we have right now due to not expecting complete automation?

return0 12y ago

How much of this work job could be automated? And how much is not being automated, precisely because people believe it shouldn't be automated, while it can readily be? In the case of germanwings, could an emergency system be in place that would just not let the plane go near the ground when its data made it certain that it was riding onto a mountain? Shouldn't we be asking for more automation in planes/cars/ships instead of dismissing it? I think these are valid questions, regardless if they upset some seasoned pilots.

userbinator 12y ago
I think the more important question is, what happens when the automation fails in some way (e.g. sensor problems)? If the pilot cannot override the automation, then you end up with planes that fly themselves into the ground (see http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074 http://avherald.com/h?article=47d74074 for a recent example of this - fortunately the pilots did figure out how to override the automation and regain control.) If he/she can, then 4U9525 would've crashed anyway. The more automation there is, the more edge cases and failure modes there will be, and another danger is the complacency it can encourage: the less often pilots have to manually fly the plane, the more likely it is they'll forget how to do it when they really need to.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Sensor problems can be solved by having more sensors. It's not like humans have magical ever-working senses. How did the pilots know the system was incorrect in its assessment that the aircraft was stalling? Chances are there is some kind of electronic sensor that could provide the same information to the system.
  - 6stringmerc 12y ago
    Uh, you're wrong - in the case of trained pilots, humans do have magical ever-working senses, it's called a thinking brain. More sensors that give wrong information to computers only makes the problem worse. The human ability to critically think and make decisions based on experience and "doubt" are fundamental to safely dealing with a mechanical issue. While the pilots in the Air France plane crashed off the coast of Brazil because they trusted the instruments - the way a computer would behave, which you think is so trustworthy - there were other pilots who dealt with the same wrong sensory input and determined that the best course of action was to maintain flight principles...and not stall. To trust in sensors and electronics in the way you describe would get a lot more people killed. I dislike this prospect very much.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      As far as I remember from my anatomy classes, the brain is not a sense. Experience and doubt can be programmed - that's why we have classes and training for pilots, which is the equivalent for humans. they trusted the instruments - the way a computer would behave Computers behave however we make them behave. They certainly don't need to trust the instruments if we program them not to. And that interpretation of the Air France Flight 447 is dubious to me. The instruments told the pilots what was happening (the stalling alarm sounded for almost a full minute) and they apparently ignored it, because they didn't understood how it worked - that it would stop sounding when airspeed was low enough -, not because it was faulty.

belorn 12y ago

Replacing all airplanes with pilotless planes is likely as a bad plan as replacing all car with driverless cars. Its not the a single step, nor has all situations which a driver/pilot has to deal with been automated to the point in which a computer can do all the work successfully. It is however a great goal, one which spells safer, faster, and consecutive safer technology with every step. Modern cars already has some forms of brake systems which can take control away from the driver during a crash-like situation, so the same concept for planes could be applied if it can be made safe enough. We also have kill-switches in cars which can be triggered remotely, so I could easily see a similar system be implemented which locks a plane into auto-pilot with a per-determined height and GPS direction. Neither will replace pilots overnight, so they continue having low blood pressure and know that they still got a job tomorrow. Flying in bad weather, imperfect position technology, security, and complex traffic is going to take a long time to solve.

innocenat 12y ago
You already spelled a problem. If automation failed and you kill-switch an airplane to fly at specific height and direction (assuming, of course, that altimeter and compass/gps unit hasn't failed), how do you land that plane and get passenger off safely?
- TrevorJ 12y ago
  Also, if the failure is with the GPS network, you've now got every flight trying to occupy the same airspace at the same time.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    ADS-B includes TCAS support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sys...
frenchman_in_ny 12y ago
Not to pick on you, but hearing "per-determined height and GPS direction" makes me a bit nervous with anything related to human life. People follow GPS blindly and that's OK on roads with a driver, but in other applications it can lead to tragic results due to Dilution of Precision. The Flinders Islet crash is a prime example. [0][1] [0] http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-you/ http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-you/ [1] http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-incident-reports/flinders-islet/ http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-incid...

jstalin 12y ago

"The cockpit was so busy that after we landed my voice was hoarse." Sounds like lots of points of potential human error.

DannoHung 12y ago

Would the capabilities be lacking if we weren't designing the planes with the intention that the pilots at the controls were there to take over in an anomalous situation? A lot of people are citing the frozen AOA sensors on the Airbus flight a few years ago as a reason that even a perfect AI would make mistakes, but why did that particular sensor cause the autopilot to drastically change approach? Shouldn't inputs from GPS, Altimeter, and gyroscopic sensors contraindicate the external AOA sensors? What information did the pilots have that the computer system didn't to let them know to change the behavior? We all know about situations where the pilots intervened to prevent an issue, but are there opposing situations where the sensors indicated an issue that the pilots couldn't observe and they made an error? What are the hard problems that are really stopping complete automation versus the problems that we have right now due to not expecting complete automation?