3 ms·

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 read

by 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.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > To trust in sensors and electronics in the way you describe would get a lot more people killed. I dislike this prospect very much. I dislike how bad humans are already at judgement, both in cars and aircraft. The sooner we automate their jobs away, the better. If a human can recognize bad sensor input, algorithms can as well, and those algorithms can deployed fleet-wide after a test/release cycle.
    - mdekkers 12y ago
      > the pilots in the Air France plane crashed off the coast of Brazil because they trusted the instruments As far as I know, this crash was caused by erroneous human intervention. An (inexperienced) co-pilot was hanging on the flight joystick near constantly, unseen by the others on the flight-deck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...

by return0 12y ago

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.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > To trust in sensors and electronics in the way you describe would get a lot more people killed. I dislike this prospect very much. I dislike how bad humans are already at judgement, both in cars and aircraft. The sooner we automate their jobs away, the better. If a human can recognize bad sensor input, algorithms can as well, and those algorithms can deployed fleet-wide after a test/release cycle.
  - mdekkers 12y ago
    > the pilots in the Air France plane crashed off the coast of Brazil because they trusted the instruments As far as I know, this crash was caused by erroneous human intervention. An (inexperienced) co-pilot was hanging on the flight joystick near constantly, unseen by the others on the flight-deck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_re...