Can automated systems deal with unique events?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Tourist
there is a surplus of 'average' pilots out there. Why a 'mechanical', a bit 'above average' and very expensive is needed ?
my belief is that, flawed, limited humans can not create perfect flawless machines and history keeps proving my point.
regarding perfection a quick link http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/...ated-by-humans
answer is 'yes' only if you settle for the...'2nd best'
You need to judge any computer against the average, not the exception, and the average is very very average......
my belief is that, flawed, limited humans can not create perfect flawless machines and history keeps proving my point.
regarding perfection a quick link http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/...ated-by-humans
answer is 'yes' only if you settle for the...'2nd best'
Last edited by vmandr; 28th Oct 2015 at 12:21. Reason: link
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vmandr
There you go again
Why should the computer have to be perfect?
I used the term average as a derogatory term.
It only has to perform better than the average human pilot, and average human pilot performance is not good a lot of the time.
So poor, in fact that engineers have quietly snuck in various automation devices without people noticing such as TCAS and EGPWS.
There you go again
Why should the computer have to be perfect?
I used the term average as a derogatory term.
It only has to perform better than the average human pilot, and average human pilot performance is not good a lot of the time.
So poor, in fact that engineers have quietly snuck in various automation devices without people noticing such as TCAS and EGPWS.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slast
If you like that then I recommend this TED talk.
It is a great talk all the way through, but the bit at 6:46 is relevant
https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_...ge=en#t-394181
If you like that then I recommend this TED talk.
It is a great talk all the way through, but the bit at 6:46 is relevant
https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_...ge=en#t-394181
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to have two distinct requirements for a (human) pilot.
One is a technical ability to understand information and to control the mechanics and electronics involved in a commercial flight.
The other is the ability to 'fly' which is a motor skill.
I know people who fly a Cessna who cannot use a computer and I also know wizards on the computer who would never be able to fly a Cessna.
Does a commercial pilot have to have both abilities and if so are we asking the impossible to be a driver of a modern airliner - might this be the reason for the suggested pilot errors in aircraft disasters?
One is a technical ability to understand information and to control the mechanics and electronics involved in a commercial flight.
The other is the ability to 'fly' which is a motor skill.
I know people who fly a Cessna who cannot use a computer and I also know wizards on the computer who would never be able to fly a Cessna.
Does a commercial pilot have to have both abilities and if so are we asking the impossible to be a driver of a modern airliner - might this be the reason for the suggested pilot errors in aircraft disasters?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that is the main problem.
I think the problem is that a modern airline pilot never has the chance to practise his skills often enough to remain good at them, plus the sort of people who are good at these things is rarely the sort of person who copes well with endless tedium waiting for something to happen.
I heard, possibly on here, a really good idea that would unfortunately be very hard to keep safe and effective.
Make the two sides of the cockpit selectively independent, and run one side at a time in the cruise in computer game mode.
Each take an hour at a time flying sim emergencies all flight.
That would produce decent involved experienced pilots.
I think the problem is that a modern airline pilot never has the chance to practise his skills often enough to remain good at them, plus the sort of people who are good at these things is rarely the sort of person who copes well with endless tedium waiting for something to happen.
I heard, possibly on here, a really good idea that would unfortunately be very hard to keep safe and effective.
Make the two sides of the cockpit selectively independent, and run one side at a time in the cruise in computer game mode.
Each take an hour at a time flying sim emergencies all flight.
That would produce decent involved experienced pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
the OP posted a philosophical question to which i can only commend ...'philosophically'
i can not introduce 'technological' views - such as those mentioned by you -
as philosophy and technology do not blend.
in my early years in aviation a friend, a Captain, told me once 'you cant possibly provide for every eventuality' to which i will add 'conceivable'
if it is 'not perfect' then who needs it ?
if it is 'near perfect' how you ensure that it 'adapts' to 'dynamic environmental changes' when those changes can not be ...'conceived' and thus predicted.
'bookies' make a living out of this very fact. 'non-predictability'
I mean it is a question of a human 'Vne' that will to 'exceed its own limitations' . With all technology available to military, why they still use human pilots ? even their drones have 'pilots'.
the OP posted a philosophical question to which i can only commend ...'philosophically'
i can not introduce 'technological' views - such as those mentioned by you -
as philosophy and technology do not blend.
in my early years in aviation a friend, a Captain, told me once 'you cant possibly provide for every eventuality' to which i will add 'conceivable'
Why should the computer have to be perfect?
if it is 'near perfect' how you ensure that it 'adapts' to 'dynamic environmental changes' when those changes can not be ...'conceived' and thus predicted.
'bookies' make a living out of this very fact. 'non-predictability'
I mean it is a question of a human 'Vne' that will to 'exceed its own limitations' . With all technology available to military, why they still use human pilots ? even their drones have 'pilots'.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Sully's actions are being held to be the gold standard of dealing with an unexpected event, it might be worth comsidering his options again.
Returning to the airport he had just taken off from was unviable.
Landing at another airport nearby was potentially possible but involved flying over a built up area.
Looking for the longest, largest unobstructed area to put down the aircraft.
Aircraft are strongly built to survive in the air but perform very badly when coming into contact with solid immovable objects like buildings. Aircraft are designed to potentially survive a ditching, they even carry liferafts and life jackets for passengers and crew.
Sully acted in the only logical manner to ensure the best chance of survival for those on board. Even if the aircraft had hit a vessel on the Hudson and disintegrated, it is likely that some on board would still have survived.
If he had gone for a landing elsewhere on land and hit a building, undoubtably everyone aboard would have perished.
It wasn't such a hard decision to make although the flying skills and great deal of luck required to carry out a successful ditching were exceptional.
An automated control system may well have opted for heading for the nearest airport if the figures indicated it was possible to glide there. The automated system might then be caught out by windshear nearing final approach and landing, because that was a factor it was unable to detect in advance. So the aircraft could have landed short and hit buildings killing everone aboard and causing casualties on the ground. A human pilot will at least consider the possibility and additional risks of windshear and act accordingly.
Automation can only act in accordance with the information it receives from its sensors. It cannot autonomously consider the possibility of events for which there are no data, so it is pointless and impossible to plan ahead for every eventuality.
Computers effectively live in the moment but humans are always looking to the future, even if it is a simple as putting one foot in front of the other, we are constantly aware of our surroundings and potential danger through millions of years of evolution.
Perhaps computers will evolve sentience and be able to consider and take control of unlikely events, but will a sentient computer put people or its own survival first? The survival instinct is the most basic one found in nature. All living things ultimately act in a way that best ensures their own survival, so why would a sentient computer be any different? Could a rogue sentient computer decide to crash an aircraft deliberately because of some perceived threat to computers generally? Perhaps one of the passengers on board is a computer programmer intending to 'adjust' the level of autonomy of the computers used in aircraft or false data is being input for testing purposes, shades of HAL in 2001.
Automation should assist to the point where it disappears into the background, not assume overall control. That is a human perogative.
Returning to the airport he had just taken off from was unviable.
Landing at another airport nearby was potentially possible but involved flying over a built up area.
Looking for the longest, largest unobstructed area to put down the aircraft.
Aircraft are strongly built to survive in the air but perform very badly when coming into contact with solid immovable objects like buildings. Aircraft are designed to potentially survive a ditching, they even carry liferafts and life jackets for passengers and crew.
Sully acted in the only logical manner to ensure the best chance of survival for those on board. Even if the aircraft had hit a vessel on the Hudson and disintegrated, it is likely that some on board would still have survived.
If he had gone for a landing elsewhere on land and hit a building, undoubtably everyone aboard would have perished.
It wasn't such a hard decision to make although the flying skills and great deal of luck required to carry out a successful ditching were exceptional.
An automated control system may well have opted for heading for the nearest airport if the figures indicated it was possible to glide there. The automated system might then be caught out by windshear nearing final approach and landing, because that was a factor it was unable to detect in advance. So the aircraft could have landed short and hit buildings killing everone aboard and causing casualties on the ground. A human pilot will at least consider the possibility and additional risks of windshear and act accordingly.
Automation can only act in accordance with the information it receives from its sensors. It cannot autonomously consider the possibility of events for which there are no data, so it is pointless and impossible to plan ahead for every eventuality.
Computers effectively live in the moment but humans are always looking to the future, even if it is a simple as putting one foot in front of the other, we are constantly aware of our surroundings and potential danger through millions of years of evolution.
Perhaps computers will evolve sentience and be able to consider and take control of unlikely events, but will a sentient computer put people or its own survival first? The survival instinct is the most basic one found in nature. All living things ultimately act in a way that best ensures their own survival, so why would a sentient computer be any different? Could a rogue sentient computer decide to crash an aircraft deliberately because of some perceived threat to computers generally? Perhaps one of the passengers on board is a computer programmer intending to 'adjust' the level of autonomy of the computers used in aircraft or false data is being input for testing purposes, shades of HAL in 2001.
Automation should assist to the point where it disappears into the background, not assume overall control. That is a human perogative.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't put all discussion around flying into one basket!
There are pilots and airmen flying airplanes.
There are airliner's and automats air-transporting SLF from A to B.
The future may be more automated flying cattle paddock or stapled coffins, as discussed lately.
The art and joy of flying is in the first, not in the two others.
That is why pilots and airmen don't like the other two option.
There are pilots and airmen flying airplanes.
There are airliner's and automats air-transporting SLF from A to B.
The future may be more automated flying cattle paddock or stapled coffins, as discussed lately.
The art and joy of flying is in the first, not in the two others.
That is why pilots and airmen don't like the other two option.
Thread Starter
Thanks Tourist, again a very interesting video.
I found your comment re dealing with tedium interesting. In the late 80s when the automation of the F/E was being done I suggested at meetings with manufacturers that the stated objective that e.g. the stated objective that "normal workload" on the B744 should be lower than that on the B757" was misconceived. What we actually needed was a not workload reduction but workload optimisation through a variable degree of automation.
E.g operating LHR-MAN-JFK in a 744 would require max automation on the 40 minute LHR-MAN leg, but it should permit much more pilot involvement when en route on the oceanic leg, as strategic issues could be more relevant as well as maintaining alertness and situational awareness.
I said in a 1987 paper at a Flight Safety Foundation meeting on this subject "We have to do better in achieving optimum arousal levels. If you were setting up experiments to study people sleeping, I suggest you might look for a person due for natural sleep on his body clock, in a comfortable chair, low light level, minutely changing light patterns, temperature about 75 deg. F, a white noise background, and the elimination of body movements and intellectual stimuli.
Anyone who's flown long night flights in oceanic airspace on a B-757 or B-767 will recognize the scene well! Our problem arises when something goes wrong, because on these aeroplanes the abnormal workload appears to be, and in some cases is, extremely high - certainly monitoring breaks down almost entirely for a high percentage of the time. It is the step function between workload levels which is hazardous, not necessarily the absolute levels."
Keep it coming...
I found your comment re dealing with tedium interesting. In the late 80s when the automation of the F/E was being done I suggested at meetings with manufacturers that the stated objective that e.g. the stated objective that "normal workload" on the B744 should be lower than that on the B757" was misconceived. What we actually needed was a not workload reduction but workload optimisation through a variable degree of automation.
E.g operating LHR-MAN-JFK in a 744 would require max automation on the 40 minute LHR-MAN leg, but it should permit much more pilot involvement when en route on the oceanic leg, as strategic issues could be more relevant as well as maintaining alertness and situational awareness.
I said in a 1987 paper at a Flight Safety Foundation meeting on this subject "We have to do better in achieving optimum arousal levels. If you were setting up experiments to study people sleeping, I suggest you might look for a person due for natural sleep on his body clock, in a comfortable chair, low light level, minutely changing light patterns, temperature about 75 deg. F, a white noise background, and the elimination of body movements and intellectual stimuli.
Anyone who's flown long night flights in oceanic airspace on a B-757 or B-767 will recognize the scene well! Our problem arises when something goes wrong, because on these aeroplanes the abnormal workload appears to be, and in some cases is, extremely high - certainly monitoring breaks down almost entirely for a high percentage of the time. It is the step function between workload levels which is hazardous, not necessarily the absolute levels."
Keep it coming...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the most basic google search will find many that are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...l-syst-374389/
I should also point out that the challenge of operating a military aircraft autonomously is orders of magnitude greater than an autonomous airliner.
I will restate.
It does not need to be perfect, merely better than humans to be worth the effort.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are just making things up based upon no knowledge of systems.
Your example is a case in point.
All you need to do is build in an error bar to the decision making process.
Can aircraft glide to runway?
If yes, how much flex is there?
For glides, demand 10% flex.
If not available and route is over built up area with river option available then choose river.
Job done.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be three distinct areas involved.
1. Driving the aircraft under 'normal' circumstances
2. Dealing when conditions drift outside of normal
3. Coping with a potentially fatal emergency situation
It would appear to me that it is in situation 3 which some pilots have been unable to deal with or indeed some pilots have deliberately caused.
In the cases over the last couple of years, are there any that a computer could have been programmed to rectify?
The rest, general flying, must be the easy stuff.
1. Driving the aircraft under 'normal' circumstances
2. Dealing when conditions drift outside of normal
3. Coping with a potentially fatal emergency situation
It would appear to me that it is in situation 3 which some pilots have been unable to deal with or indeed some pilots have deliberately caused.
In the cases over the last couple of years, are there any that a computer could have been programmed to rectify?
The rest, general flying, must be the easy stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean like fly an approach and land a 777 on a VMC huge runway in good weather without hitting the water?
or don't fly the new Russian airliner into a hill?
or don't hold a A330 in a stall until it hits the water?
or not stick a Super Puma into Vortex ring?
I'm actually struggling to think of an accident recently where a computer wouldn't have been better.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Northrop' UAV
...capable of semi-autonomous operation
...designed to allow ground crews to steer the X-47B while on the carrier deck
...the aircraft expected to enter service in the early 2020s
humans present here...
'BAE Taranis' UAV
a. A semi-autonomous unmanned warplane...
b. ... is intended to incorporate "full autonomy", allowing it to operate without human control for a large part of its mission
c. The Taranis is planned to be operational "post 2030" and used in concert with manned aircraft
more humans involved...
nothing about orders, production, operation besides the tests by the prototypes.
anyway the issue here is air transport aircraft not 'wannabe' UAVs.
...capable of semi-autonomous operation
...designed to allow ground crews to steer the X-47B while on the carrier deck
...the aircraft expected to enter service in the early 2020s
humans present here...
'BAE Taranis' UAV
a. A semi-autonomous unmanned warplane...
b. ... is intended to incorporate "full autonomy", allowing it to operate without human control for a large part of its mission
c. The Taranis is planned to be operational "post 2030" and used in concert with manned aircraft
more humans involved...
nothing about orders, production, operation besides the tests by the prototypes.
anyway the issue here is air transport aircraft not 'wannabe' UAVs.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do realise that "ground crews" is referring to the deck move team?
Like the push back crew?
It is deck landing and airborne refuelling by itself.
Do you have any idea how much more difficult that is than cruising an airway.
If you are not going to bother debating sensibly after reviewing the evidence then why post?
You will notice that the last link was to a BAe baby airliner trialling systems for airliners...?
Like the push back crew?
It is deck landing and airborne refuelling by itself.
Do you have any idea how much more difficult that is than cruising an airway.
If you are not going to bother debating sensibly after reviewing the evidence then why post?
You will notice that the last link was to a BAe baby airliner trialling systems for airliners...?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
The examples you posted are all those where sensory data was misinterpreted (by humans) or missing due to a fault condition. Inexperience of the pilots and failure to follow best practice was a contributing factor.
A computer can only react to the data it receives. If all airspeed data disappears and the angle of attack indicators are giving out of range readings, the computer can then only follow a best recovery procedure programed by humans, based upon previous experience, by humans. Nose down, throttles to two thirds and pray the wings don't come off due to overspeed. The computer will consider all data sources which a human pilot might disregard in the stress of the moment, so on that basis, a computer could potentially achieve a better outcome.
The examples you posted are all those where sensory data was misinterpreted (by humans) or missing due to a fault condition. Inexperience of the pilots and failure to follow best practice was a contributing factor.
A computer can only react to the data it receives. If all airspeed data disappears and the angle of attack indicators are giving out of range readings, the computer can then only follow a best recovery procedure programed by humans, based upon previous experience, by humans. Nose down, throttles to two thirds and pray the wings don't come off due to overspeed. The computer will consider all data sources which a human pilot might disregard in the stress of the moment, so on that basis, a computer could potentially achieve a better outcome.
Thread Starter
"Artificial Neural Network" capabilities
Tourist,
Reading quickly through the Dryden "Self-repairing Flight Control Systems" paper, if I understand it correctly an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) flight control system would use continuous feedback from the control surfaces so that under damage or failure conditions, the system re-allocates control to non-traditional flight control surfaces and/or incorporates propulsion control, when additional control power is necessary for achieving desired flight control performance, and that is now well proven.
In this discussion, the relevance would be that much of the human pilot creativity demonstrated in the United DC10 uncontained failure could have been replaced by automation. Also much of the aircraft flyability aspects of Qantas A380 uncontained failure. So I take your point about that aspect having been addressed - to a degree.
So can you explain how an ANN would deal with e.g. the BA 747 Nairobi T/O event, where prior human failures involving engine and airframe hardware, and system logic, resulted in undamaged surfaces ending up incorrectly configured for the actual flight regime?
In CX 780 where the engine fuel control units simply got "stuck" and unresponsive, the 70%/17% assymetry problem could also be handled automatically at least in some parts of the flight envelope by such ANN reconfiguring. And by chance the total energy being delivered was not too much to prevent the crew landing.
But if both had been at high power the outcome might have been different. From what I have read it appears that that for an ANN to be effective, there needs to be a transition to a lot more involvement of electrics in actuation as well. E.g in the Dryden document there's a picture of the F15 wing opened up for the replacement of mechanical actuators with electric servos. In other cases engines and other mechanical components may simply ignore control inputs including shut down. How does an ANN deal with that?
Reading quickly through the Dryden "Self-repairing Flight Control Systems" paper, if I understand it correctly an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) flight control system would use continuous feedback from the control surfaces so that under damage or failure conditions, the system re-allocates control to non-traditional flight control surfaces and/or incorporates propulsion control, when additional control power is necessary for achieving desired flight control performance, and that is now well proven.
In this discussion, the relevance would be that much of the human pilot creativity demonstrated in the United DC10 uncontained failure could have been replaced by automation. Also much of the aircraft flyability aspects of Qantas A380 uncontained failure. So I take your point about that aspect having been addressed - to a degree.
So can you explain how an ANN would deal with e.g. the BA 747 Nairobi T/O event, where prior human failures involving engine and airframe hardware, and system logic, resulted in undamaged surfaces ending up incorrectly configured for the actual flight regime?
In CX 780 where the engine fuel control units simply got "stuck" and unresponsive, the 70%/17% assymetry problem could also be handled automatically at least in some parts of the flight envelope by such ANN reconfiguring. And by chance the total energy being delivered was not too much to prevent the crew landing.
But if both had been at high power the outcome might have been different. From what I have read it appears that that for an ANN to be effective, there needs to be a transition to a lot more involvement of electrics in actuation as well. E.g in the Dryden document there's a picture of the F15 wing opened up for the replacement of mechanical actuators with electric servos. In other cases engines and other mechanical components may simply ignore control inputs including shut down. How does an ANN deal with that?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 60
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are the cancer.
I mean that positively and I mean that in the context of omeone who has been involved in supporting mission-criticl systems over decades.
If I as a doctor discover the means to cure every ill but cancer, then cancer will rocket in the statistics as a means of death. I've eliminated every other cause of death, but something will still grab ya. Cancer will now become ever more prominent as a vector of death.
If utomation becomes the new deal, no matter how well it is developed it will still be down to the pilots to be the failing backstop.
I mean that positively and I mean that in the context of omeone who has been involved in supporting mission-criticl systems over decades.
If I as a doctor discover the means to cure every ill but cancer, then cancer will rocket in the statistics as a means of death. I've eliminated every other cause of death, but something will still grab ya. Cancer will now become ever more prominent as a vector of death.
If utomation becomes the new deal, no matter how well it is developed it will still be down to the pilots to be the failing backstop.