Can automated systems deal with unique events?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Tourist points out, humans give the illusion of carrying out massive quantities of calculations. In most cases it is muscle memory in response to repeated stimulus. In fact I can personally attest to the fact that an injury I can hardly perceive has affected my ability to do a repeated task, in such a way that my brain doesn't recognise the fact until another sense reveals the error. Human senses are easily tricked in to causing the wrong response.
An effective automated system has a large number of sensors and effectors with a number of hierarchical goals along with a series of transfer functions and an adaptive error matrix. It doesn't have any concept of "trusting its senses or using its instinct" it simply acts, measures the effect, judges how well it did then acts again. This it can do thousands of times a second.
The reason automation hands over to a human when things "go wrong" is because we build it in. I don't believe that this is always the best option. But it is the rules by which we currently play.
An effective automated system has a large number of sensors and effectors with a number of hierarchical goals along with a series of transfer functions and an adaptive error matrix. It doesn't have any concept of "trusting its senses or using its instinct" it simply acts, measures the effect, judges how well it did then acts again. This it can do thousands of times a second.
The reason automation hands over to a human when things "go wrong" is because we build it in. I don't believe that this is always the best option. But it is the rules by which we currently play.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did watch a fascinating lab demo of automatic drone flying. First there was a maze, then a 3D maze and then a labyrinth to negotiate. OK it had been pre programmed. It was brilliant. Then they performed formation square dancing, and then in 3D. Astonishing. But it had all been pre-programmed in a perfect environment. Calm winds etc. I would like to see it performed with some air wave activity to see if they could adapt, both laterally & vertically. Adapt, that's what we are good at. We are mission orientated and that can be a good AND bad thing. Fixated on success, get home-itis, but also adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
I've no hesitation in saying an a/c can get airborne from a large runway in A and fly a profile and land in B 1000's nm away. Heck, they went to the moon and back and I wonder how much stick time Buzz logged. Perfect world, perfect day, no problem. Now add the endless what if's and I doubt the there is a computerised solution for all of them. Until there is, and with HUGE agree of certainty and reliability, I expect there to be Captain Kirk, Spock & Mr. Zulu around for yonks to come.
Which XAA will be the brave one to authorise such pilotless ops? It would have to be worldwide agreement, with worldwide standards. Heck we can't even get a standard size of cabin bag; and look how long it took to get common EU FTL's, and even then there are dispensations etc. There are not even worldwide FTL's or even a/c certification specifics.
I've no hesitation in saying an a/c can get airborne from a large runway in A and fly a profile and land in B 1000's nm away. Heck, they went to the moon and back and I wonder how much stick time Buzz logged. Perfect world, perfect day, no problem. Now add the endless what if's and I doubt the there is a computerised solution for all of them. Until there is, and with HUGE agree of certainty and reliability, I expect there to be Captain Kirk, Spock & Mr. Zulu around for yonks to come.
Which XAA will be the brave one to authorise such pilotless ops? It would have to be worldwide agreement, with worldwide standards. Heck we can't even get a standard size of cabin bag; and look how long it took to get common EU FTL's, and even then there are dispensations etc. There are not even worldwide FTL's or even a/c certification specifics.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which XAA will be the brave one to authorise such pilotless ops? It would have to be worldwide agreement, with worldwide standards. Heck we can't even get a standard size of cabin bag; and look how long it took to get common EU FTL's, and even then there are dispensations etc. There are not even worldwide FTL's or even a/c certification specifics.
I've been intentionally staying out of this debate, but it's late Saturday night - Halloween - I've had several "adult beverages" - and what the heck 
This is something that is all to often overlooked - just because automation didn't do something that it wasn't designed to do doesn't mean it couldn't have done it had it been so designed.
The progress in autonomous vehicles over the last 10 years has been astounding. By design, aviation tends to be slow to adopt new technologies - there is too much at stake to do otherwise. But it will come.
While Moore's law isn't so much a law as an observation - and it's recently showed signs of slowing - it's held up remarkably well. So computing power continues to increase at an exponential rate, while humans remain pretty much stagnate.
I doubt - or at least hope - it doesn't happen during my lifetime (and I plan to be good for at least another 30 years
), but I foresee a future where fully autonomous vehicles are so much safer than those driven by humans that driving your own car will be severely limited - if not banned outright. Basically those of us who love driving will be limited to what today we call "track days" 
I don't want to in any way diminish Sully's "Miracle on the Hudson" - but an all engine power loss is actually relatively easy to design for (and not exactly an unknown since it's happened multiple times) A computer can determine the maximum glide distance, suitable landing points within that distance (if any), determine the lowest risk alternatives for a forced landing/ditching, and notify air traffic of what's going on. Oh, and do all that in less than second.
Air France 447? In the event of 'unreliable' airspeed, the autopilot was designed to disconnect and give control to the humans, lest the autopilot do something stupid. As we all know, a human pilot then did something incomprehensible stupid and killed everyone onboard. The computer could easily have been designed to perform the 'unreliable airspeed' QRH procedure - or better yet look at GPS, AOA, power setting, etc. and synthesize airspeed until ADIRU airspeed was again reliable - and we'd never have even heard about it.
Now, that's all within today's automation capabilities. Moore's law says that in 20 years, we'll have over 100x that capability. Today, the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to/from the airport - what happens 30 years from now when autonomous cars have a near zero accident rate but human pilot error makes flying the most dangerous part of the trip?
They were not designed to be autonomous, so they are not autonomous.
The progress in autonomous vehicles over the last 10 years has been astounding. By design, aviation tends to be slow to adopt new technologies - there is too much at stake to do otherwise. But it will come.
While Moore's law isn't so much a law as an observation - and it's recently showed signs of slowing - it's held up remarkably well. So computing power continues to increase at an exponential rate, while humans remain pretty much stagnate.
I doubt - or at least hope - it doesn't happen during my lifetime (and I plan to be good for at least another 30 years
), but I foresee a future where fully autonomous vehicles are so much safer than those driven by humans that driving your own car will be severely limited - if not banned outright. Basically those of us who love driving will be limited to what today we call "track days" I don't want to in any way diminish Sully's "Miracle on the Hudson" - but an all engine power loss is actually relatively easy to design for (and not exactly an unknown since it's happened multiple times) A computer can determine the maximum glide distance, suitable landing points within that distance (if any), determine the lowest risk alternatives for a forced landing/ditching, and notify air traffic of what's going on. Oh, and do all that in less than second.
Air France 447? In the event of 'unreliable' airspeed, the autopilot was designed to disconnect and give control to the humans, lest the autopilot do something stupid. As we all know, a human pilot then did something incomprehensible stupid and killed everyone onboard. The computer could easily have been designed to perform the 'unreliable airspeed' QRH procedure - or better yet look at GPS, AOA, power setting, etc. and synthesize airspeed until ADIRU airspeed was again reliable - and we'd never have even heard about it.
Now, that's all within today's automation capabilities. Moore's law says that in 20 years, we'll have over 100x that capability. Today, the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to/from the airport - what happens 30 years from now when autonomous cars have a near zero accident rate but human pilot error makes flying the most dangerous part of the trip?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did watch a fascinating lab demo of automatic drone flying. First there was a maze, then a 3D maze and then a labyrinth to negotiate. OK it had been pre programmed. It was brilliant. Then they performed formation square dancing, and then in 3D. Astonishing. But it had all been pre-programmed in a perfect environment.
These videos make that perfectly clear.
https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_...rs?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-dkonAXOlQ
Note that these videos are a few years old now, and the tech has moved on a long way since.
Note also that these are low budget toys, not state of the art.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to cheer up the naysayers....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrxvqYlCDs
There's still some details to be worked out....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrxvqYlCDs
There's still some details to be worked out....
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The computer could easily have been designed to perform the 'unreliable airspeed' QRH procedure - or better yet look at GPS, AOA, power setting, etc. and synthesize airspeed until ADIRU airspeed was again reliable - and we'd never have even heard about it.
No, the computer cannot be programmed easily to deal with 'unreliable airspeed', rubbish data or unique events for which FAC is impaired.
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/71e...m8o80e2vzg.jpg
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The important thing is that we need to understand better the interaction between the automation and the human. Optimising this I feel would yield better results than striving for full automation irrespective.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are misunderstanding what he means.
He does not mean that an actual A330 could be programmed to do what he says.
He means that you could easily program a system to do what he says if you were building one with that intention.
ie the A330 handed a bag of spanners back to the pilots because that is what it was designed to do rather than because there is no other option.
He does not mean that an actual A330 could be programmed to do what he says.
He means that you could easily program a system to do what he says if you were building one with that intention.
ie the A330 handed a bag of spanners back to the pilots because that is what it was designed to do rather than because there is no other option.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dClbydalpha understood well.
But, the alternative to run using g-load would not save the day, since FAC will continue to maintain the g-load of stall condition then the pitch trim runs to full nose up, as AF447 demonstrated. From that point recovery is impossible without human intervention to reduce pitch trim manually.
I completely agree with:
But, the alternative to run using g-load would not save the day, since FAC will continue to maintain the g-load of stall condition then the pitch trim runs to full nose up, as AF447 demonstrated. From that point recovery is impossible without human intervention to reduce pitch trim manually.
I completely agree with:
The important thing is that we need to understand better the interaction between the automation and the human. Optimizing this I feel would yield better results than striving for full automation irrespective.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that point recovery is impossible without human intervention to reduce pitch trim manually.
Future aircraft may be based on a different design philosophy, elaborated previously.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly much my thinking, Tourist.
The software in most aircraft is designed to a philosophy that corresponds with the overall architecture. Driven by regulations and safety cases. To do something different usual requires a change in that philosophy, which touches a lot of the design.
The avionics are normally monitoring a vast number of sensors 20 - 50 times a second. At those intervals most things are approximately "linear" and so integrating inertials etc can give reliable results, at least in the short term, to allow stability to be retained. Automation could hold things steady before defaulting to handing over control, giving the human a chance to familiarise, assess and decide on a course of action. I am also in no doubt we could fully automate operations, with the correct airborne and ground infrastructure. But then we are swapping a set of human vulnerabilities for a set of machine ones. For me we need to learn how to overlap the strengths. I feel the AF447 disaster yields a valuable lesson about automation and human interaction.
The software in most aircraft is designed to a philosophy that corresponds with the overall architecture. Driven by regulations and safety cases. To do something different usual requires a change in that philosophy, which touches a lot of the design.
The avionics are normally monitoring a vast number of sensors 20 - 50 times a second. At those intervals most things are approximately "linear" and so integrating inertials etc can give reliable results, at least in the short term, to allow stability to be retained. Automation could hold things steady before defaulting to handing over control, giving the human a chance to familiarise, assess and decide on a course of action. I am also in no doubt we could fully automate operations, with the correct airborne and ground infrastructure. But then we are swapping a set of human vulnerabilities for a set of machine ones. For me we need to learn how to overlap the strengths. I feel the AF447 disaster yields a valuable lesson about automation and human interaction.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing that the A330 Atlantic Glider didn't ring the egg timer when the fuel was balanced and tell them to stop X-feeding. Then they would have realised, 30 mins later, that there was a leak and behaved differently. Such a sophisticated a/c, such a basic human error.
Mind you, the same could be said of AF 447; except the egg timer.
Mind you, the same could be said of AF 447; except the egg timer.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future aircraft may be based on a different design philosophy, elaborated previously.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phoenix
You are not listening.
Nobody wants an AI in the cockpit.
Nobody.
Seriously.
As mentioned by many on here, neural networks can do some very clever thinking.
RAT 5
How good were mobile phones in the 80s?
That is what a A330 is.
It is not sophisticated. It is stone age.
Nothing about any system on board belongs in any place other than a museum.
Unfortunately, certification requirements stifle advancement.
You are not listening.
Nobody wants an AI in the cockpit.
Nobody.
Seriously.
As mentioned by many on here, neural networks can do some very clever thinking.
RAT 5
How good were mobile phones in the 80s?
That is what a A330 is.
It is not sophisticated. It is stone age.
Nothing about any system on board belongs in any place other than a museum.
Unfortunately, certification requirements stifle advancement.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many on here have mentioned, we are in a very odd place in the cockpit at present.
We have automation doing some things, but some things the human has to do even when the automation is better.
ECAM
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
Computer sees you do it, and moves on to next item.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
You are merely an error vector.
You can mention times when you shouldn't follow ECAM, but how do you know not to follow ECAM? Because you are told not to in the book. Therefore it is just a rule that a computer could follow itself.
TCAS
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
Its a simple manoeuvre that a computer would always do perfectly
You are merely an error vector.
EGPWS
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
Its a simple manoeuvre that a computer would always do perfectly
You are merely an error vector.
We have automation doing some things, but some things the human has to do even when the automation is better.
ECAM
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
Computer sees you do it, and moves on to next item.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
You are merely an error vector.
You can mention times when you shouldn't follow ECAM, but how do you know not to follow ECAM? Because you are told not to in the book. Therefore it is just a rule that a computer could follow itself.
TCAS
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
Its a simple manoeuvre that a computer would always do perfectly
You are merely an error vector.
EGPWS
Computer tells you what to do.
You do it.
You are not supposed to think, just do.
Its a simple manoeuvre that a computer would always do perfectly
You are merely an error vector.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - very interesting. I believe an aircraft can aviate more accurately and navigate more precisely when automated than when under manual control. It can sense not just acceleration, but also velocities, orientations and positions. It can react faster than a human and with more precision. But we don't need AI in the cockpit ... we've already got natural intelligence there. It is important for us to work on the new relationship between pilot and machine. They should never end up fighting each other but should work to their relative strengths, easier said than done I know. A machine could be programmed with gains to calculate whether it is better to spend a little time avoiding uncomfortable weather at the expense of time and fuel etc. but that's the kind of strategy best left to a human who can take a larger number of factors in to account, including physiological and emotional ones.
I bring up the point I made previously of what do we gain by fully automating air travel? Air travel is still an experience, however often we do it. Automation wouldn't take that into account. I'll give a philosophical example. A few years ago I was flying back home. The aircraft was ready at the end of the runway, when the pilot made an announcement that "... the view of the sunset from the cockpit is spectacular, I am awaiting permission to carry out two turns following our take off so I can share it with all of you." This he did, and the view of that sunset over the alps was truly breath taking. Even if you programmed a machine to sense sunset, how could it make such a judgement call to enhance the experience for the passengers? We could automate the whole process of flying with a lot of investment, but why bother ... we're not short of people who want to be pilots and pilots get it right the vast majority of the time. When it goes wrong it is usually because of the limitations of giving a pilot full SA or of the pilot not being able to understand what the automation is doing for them at that moment. If we can crack that problem then I think it will be as good as we can get.
I bring up the point I made previously of what do we gain by fully automating air travel? Air travel is still an experience, however often we do it. Automation wouldn't take that into account. I'll give a philosophical example. A few years ago I was flying back home. The aircraft was ready at the end of the runway, when the pilot made an announcement that "... the view of the sunset from the cockpit is spectacular, I am awaiting permission to carry out two turns following our take off so I can share it with all of you." This he did, and the view of that sunset over the alps was truly breath taking. Even if you programmed a machine to sense sunset, how could it make such a judgement call to enhance the experience for the passengers? We could automate the whole process of flying with a lot of investment, but why bother ... we're not short of people who want to be pilots and pilots get it right the vast majority of the time. When it goes wrong it is usually because of the limitations of giving a pilot full SA or of the pilot not being able to understand what the automation is doing for them at that moment. If we can crack that problem then I think it will be as good as we can get.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think where we're not seeing the wood for the trees and becoming clogged up in the discussion is this:no doubt automatics can FLY an a/c adequately and mostly as good as or better than a human. After all, now, once we've gently made an input to the elevator and slipped our earthly bonds, engaged HAL and relaxed, we then listen to a human ATC voice telling us what to do; we then respond verbally and input this into HAL. HAL then, supposedly, does what we tell it to after having had an air-ground conversation. We all know this whole process could be digitised or even controlled from an earthly pilot. The a/c can then navigate itself in 4D all the way to an ILS/RNAV approach & land anywhere we choose. A technical doddle.
The human is/will become a manager. They use intuition to make decisions about predicted circumstances, i.e. preventative action. They use experience to handle unforeseen non-technical events. They use experience to make choices when confronted with scenarios where there are a multitude of options; they have gut feelings; they have ingenuity; they have inventiveness when required; they are very good in grey areas where a computer might be black & white yes/no; they can employ finesse and dexterity and be as brutal as necessary; they can adapt to unknown/unforeseen circumstances.
Captain Kirk was a Starship manager. He decided what he wanted to do and then commanded Mr Zulu & HAL to achieve it. If Plan A needed altering he switched to plan B or C, usually after Mr. Spock had whispered in his ear. (they should have been married). Is that the way we shall go? Whatever the evolution I do not see the removal of the human manager. It might be that the pilot is less involved with the act of flying and is even more of a manager & monitor than now (almost certainly) but they will still need to be able to save the day when HAL goes AWOL.
The human is/will become a manager. They use intuition to make decisions about predicted circumstances, i.e. preventative action. They use experience to handle unforeseen non-technical events. They use experience to make choices when confronted with scenarios where there are a multitude of options; they have gut feelings; they have ingenuity; they have inventiveness when required; they are very good in grey areas where a computer might be black & white yes/no; they can employ finesse and dexterity and be as brutal as necessary; they can adapt to unknown/unforeseen circumstances.
Captain Kirk was a Starship manager. He decided what he wanted to do and then commanded Mr Zulu & HAL to achieve it. If Plan A needed altering he switched to plan B or C, usually after Mr. Spock had whispered in his ear. (they should have been married). Is that the way we shall go? Whatever the evolution I do not see the removal of the human manager. It might be that the pilot is less involved with the act of flying and is even more of a manager & monitor than now (almost certainly) but they will still need to be able to save the day when HAL goes AWOL.
Tourist.
You are a subscriber to the illusion that with 'progress' more sophistication and processing power in computers we are getting closer to the point we can 'hand off' all human piloting tasks to them.
With more sophistication there are more possibilities for error and even if we reach that technological nirvana you dream of with a perfect robot it doesn't matter.
There will always be faults we can't anticipate, dynamic situations that can't be programmed for that will require the judgement and real life experience of a human pilot.
Finally, if you really believe you can be replaced as an airline pilot by automation then you have no business working as one.
You are a subscriber to the illusion that with 'progress' more sophistication and processing power in computers we are getting closer to the point we can 'hand off' all human piloting tasks to them.
With more sophistication there are more possibilities for error and even if we reach that technological nirvana you dream of with a perfect robot it doesn't matter.
There will always be faults we can't anticipate, dynamic situations that can't be programmed for that will require the judgement and real life experience of a human pilot.
Finally, if you really believe you can be replaced as an airline pilot by automation then you have no business working as one.