Automation, "computers", You have to go one way or the other guys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub:- I see you are also not sure of how much should be "automated" You mention my understanding of TCAS and the fact it does not take over. Which is correct. I said ""In my opinion at that point both aircraft TCAS systems should have told the pilots "TCAS.. I have control..HANG ON!!!" and the systems should have taken control of both aircraft and only released control when the near miss was over"" However I qualified it later in my post by saying ""But that can't happen without TCAS being a multiple redundant system and being a lot more complicated than it is already.""
However you stated ""If things have deteriorated to the point that TCAS has issued a resolution, then that really must be followed"" as in if you HAVE to do what TCAS tells you then why not cut out the middle man (pilot) and let it do it for you?
It is an interesting dilema is it not?
arcniz:- You know what is going to happen in aviation don't you?.. There is going to be a steady increase in the complexity of the onboard systems so passengers can be transported more cost effectivly and safe but to make it all work they will have to add yet another onboard computer at a cost of say $98,000 a year to help monitor all those systems. (3rd guy at the pointy end...)
I have thought about this for several days now and I think commercial aviation is now a tried and tested "mature" technology. If there were any major changes needed they would have happened by now.
Look at Personal Computers, they crashed regularly in 1982, they still crash now... but they do it in style!
Anything "automated" that is now added to aviation is iceing on the cake, it is the safest way to travel, and I think that even includes walking/passenger miles,
However you stated ""If things have deteriorated to the point that TCAS has issued a resolution, then that really must be followed"" as in if you HAVE to do what TCAS tells you then why not cut out the middle man (pilot) and let it do it for you?
It is an interesting dilema is it not?
arcniz:- You know what is going to happen in aviation don't you?.. There is going to be a steady increase in the complexity of the onboard systems so passengers can be transported more cost effectivly and safe but to make it all work they will have to add yet another onboard computer at a cost of say $98,000 a year to help monitor all those systems. (3rd guy at the pointy end...)
I have thought about this for several days now and I think commercial aviation is now a tried and tested "mature" technology. If there were any major changes needed they would have happened by now.
Look at Personal Computers, they crashed regularly in 1982, they still crash now... but they do it in style!
Anything "automated" that is now added to aviation is iceing on the cake, it is the safest way to travel, and I think that even includes walking/passenger miles,
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kagerplassen
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are a few of my thoughts to the subject:
If I had let my quadruple-redundant autopilot fly the go-around for me instead of taking over the airplane manually, I would have been dead by now, and so would my 130 passengers and crew have died as well, due to a weird softwarebug, which caused the autothrust to close the throttles at only 1000' AGL with a pitch attitude of 17 degrees ANU and a now very quickly decreasing airspeed.
An autoland is way overestimated. People seem to forget that an autoland is a very critical flight manouvre, that, when CAT3 ops are in progress, causes a lot of delay, due to the increased distances to prevent interference with radiosignals.
The expansion in capacity needed to cope with an autoland-only operation would be virtually impossible with all the environmentalists around.
Furthermore, usually an autoland is made in dense fog, when it is windstill. The autoland system of the Airbus fades out the glidslopesignal in the last 100 feet and produces a kind of flare there. No reaction will follow in gusty wind-conditions, where the ground is suddenly a lot nearer or further away than expected. Only today I was able to correct a (manual) landing where I got a lowlevel windshear in the flare. An autoland would have ended up in disaster in the same conditions.
Autocoupled approaches are not always possible, because the systems have not been designed to cope with those conditions.
Human beings are creative, and it seems that a human being on the spot (i.e. a pilot) is more creative than a guy behind a desk. Yes offcourse airplanes could take off and land automatically, but as you cannot foresee all possible events, and because flying (and weather for that part) is a lot more dynamic than a piece of paper, you will keep a need for human interference.
As stated in this thread before: Several cases are knowm where a human pilot overruled the system wrongly and crashed the aircraft. I never crashed, but in my short experience took over control from the 'machine' several times already to prevent a creash from happening. And because that is actually pretty normal, most cases never got documented. So before stating that computers should fly instead of humans... get your facts straight.
Last but not least, I had my emergency recurrency training yesterday, and we discussed the possibility of cabin crew observing fire coming from an engine. I explained to them that relaying that information to the cockpit is vital! Because our fire-pickups in the engine are made for a few writingdeskthoughtof-cases, there could very well be something burning without the system knowing and without any alarmbells ringing.
Here I remember an incident, where the entire cockpit filled with a very light smoke which smelled like burning electric cable. All systems were functioning normally, but the captain and I needed less than 2 seconds to decide to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. Safely on the ground everything was handled perfectly well by the fire brigade, ground crew etc. and we all survived some anxious moments. A machinecontrolled aircraft could never have sensed it would be on fire, because the cause of this fire was not being picked up by any kind of mechanism. The machinecontrolled aircraft would have flown on to the destination and would have given a great romantic view over the night mediterranean with all passengers dead aboard just before exploding in midair.
So I conclude: Yes we can fly automatically, sometimes we even need to, but that is possible only in selected circumstances, and due to the limitations of computers and machines and their pickups, I'm damn glad that there are 2 human beings up front.
P77
If I had let my quadruple-redundant autopilot fly the go-around for me instead of taking over the airplane manually, I would have been dead by now, and so would my 130 passengers and crew have died as well, due to a weird softwarebug, which caused the autothrust to close the throttles at only 1000' AGL with a pitch attitude of 17 degrees ANU and a now very quickly decreasing airspeed.
An autoland is way overestimated. People seem to forget that an autoland is a very critical flight manouvre, that, when CAT3 ops are in progress, causes a lot of delay, due to the increased distances to prevent interference with radiosignals.
The expansion in capacity needed to cope with an autoland-only operation would be virtually impossible with all the environmentalists around.
Furthermore, usually an autoland is made in dense fog, when it is windstill. The autoland system of the Airbus fades out the glidslopesignal in the last 100 feet and produces a kind of flare there. No reaction will follow in gusty wind-conditions, where the ground is suddenly a lot nearer or further away than expected. Only today I was able to correct a (manual) landing where I got a lowlevel windshear in the flare. An autoland would have ended up in disaster in the same conditions.
Autocoupled approaches are not always possible, because the systems have not been designed to cope with those conditions.
Human beings are creative, and it seems that a human being on the spot (i.e. a pilot) is more creative than a guy behind a desk. Yes offcourse airplanes could take off and land automatically, but as you cannot foresee all possible events, and because flying (and weather for that part) is a lot more dynamic than a piece of paper, you will keep a need for human interference.
As stated in this thread before: Several cases are knowm where a human pilot overruled the system wrongly and crashed the aircraft. I never crashed, but in my short experience took over control from the 'machine' several times already to prevent a creash from happening. And because that is actually pretty normal, most cases never got documented. So before stating that computers should fly instead of humans... get your facts straight.
Last but not least, I had my emergency recurrency training yesterday, and we discussed the possibility of cabin crew observing fire coming from an engine. I explained to them that relaying that information to the cockpit is vital! Because our fire-pickups in the engine are made for a few writingdeskthoughtof-cases, there could very well be something burning without the system knowing and without any alarmbells ringing.
Here I remember an incident, where the entire cockpit filled with a very light smoke which smelled like burning electric cable. All systems were functioning normally, but the captain and I needed less than 2 seconds to decide to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. Safely on the ground everything was handled perfectly well by the fire brigade, ground crew etc. and we all survived some anxious moments. A machinecontrolled aircraft could never have sensed it would be on fire, because the cause of this fire was not being picked up by any kind of mechanism. The machinecontrolled aircraft would have flown on to the destination and would have given a great romantic view over the night mediterranean with all passengers dead aboard just before exploding in midair.
So I conclude: Yes we can fly automatically, sometimes we even need to, but that is possible only in selected circumstances, and due to the limitations of computers and machines and their pickups, I'm damn glad that there are 2 human beings up front.
P77
