Computers need to know what they are doing
 

Computers know how to do things but don't know what they are doing.

If you want the computer to know what is happening then it seems to me that all it really needs to be able to do is to run a simulation in real time with current conditions and look ahead to see what is going to happen so it can take the appropriate action. I think Google self-driving cars do exactly that. (As do our own brains)

No it will not be omniscient. No it will not be infallible. No it will not replace the pilot. But it will be much smarter.
Anybody that thinks that smarter computers is a bad thing has rocks in their head.

Some of the recent airplane crashes would have been prevented if the computer had simply been able to look ahead and see what was going to happen

Google patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US9248834

What would a computer have done on the IGS approach to kai tak?

What would a computer do when the spacing on final gets tight?

What would a computer do at 200ft if it gets a report of possible windshear?

What would a computer do if low on fuel and an aircraft crossed the hold short line, but was not actually on the runway surface?

There are lots of examples in day-to-day operations where the default computer response, or airline SOP would be the less safe course of action. You can't program for everything. What you're talking about is artificial intelligence. We're quite a bit away from that in an airplane. A car can pull over to the side if something doesn't compute. We don't have that luxury.

All of those are perfect examples of why the computer needs to be able to run a simulation in real time with current conditions and look ahead to see what is going to happen so it can take the appropriate action.

And if it cant do anything else then it can at the very least alert the pilot

Do you really think the computer can't figure out that if it only has enough gas for one last attempt at Landing that it must land no matter what? I should think that would be very easy for it to figure out

Yes that's been the cause of several recent accidents and that is exactly why we need computers that are able to run a simulation in real time with current conditions and look ahead to see what is going to happen so it can take the appropriate action.

The key is for the computer to be able to run a simulation and see not just what is happening but also what is about to happen and what actions can be taken to steer events in a desirable direction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_processing_unit

Read what the patent is all about: Detecting motion and assessing possible outcomes based on likely scenarios. The computer can only choose from scenarios that are programmed into it.

There are several examples of such computer behavior in airplanes today: TCAS, EGPWS, Predictive WindShear. In all of these, however, the final step - actually taking the corrective action - is left to the pilot. Adding an interface to the autopilot and autothrottles would be a straightforward step IF the regulators wanted to place that much trust in the computer algorithms.

Very true.
See: https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20010207-0
edit.
"The cause of the accident was the activation of the angle of attack protection system which, under a particular combination of vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks, not considered in the design, prevented the aeroplane from pitching up and flaring during the landing."

Airbus FBY Normal Law computers don't allow the pilot to over ride them.
(B777 & B787 FBY computers do permit the pilot to over ride them)

Great. Now extend that concept. Look further into the future.
Compute what the probable state of the airplane will be every 100 meters down the length of the runway.
Determine if any of those states are problematic.
Determine what actions need to be taken to avoid any difficult situation.

The human pilot will always be better than the computer at certain tasks.
But the computer will always be better than the human pilot at certain other tasks

Hit the nail on the head. That's why we build computers with only so much authority now, and the ability to turn them off if necessary. With TCAS, EGPWS etc, they advise the pilot, and it's left to him to take final action.

Ever had the EGPWS go off in cruise at FL350? How about a defective radio altimeter triggering a configuration warning on approach? What would your computer do?

Computers, as we know them today are great at doing repetitive tasks and monitoring. Decision-making, no so much.

not to beat a dead horse but that's exactly why they need to know what they are doing and that's why it needs to be able to run a simulation in real time with current conditions and look ahead to see what is going to happen so it can take the appropriate action.

Neither approach - human pilot nor computer pilot - will ever be 100% reliable. However, humans can think and react to situations that the computer programmers never thought of or allowed for.

I think the question we need to ask is why do you want computers to fly our aircraft? Well humans cause crashes you might reply. Well sometimes, (but so do badly programmed computers or computers that have lost their power supply when the fuse/CB trips). The real problem is that us pilots:-

Are working longer and longer duties.
Are receiving less and less basic handling instruction and practice.
Are working earlier or later in the day/night.
Are working in high stress phases of flight during the WOCL.*
Are flying in busier and busier airspace with fewer and fewer ATCOs.
Are more stressed because of the downward pressure on salaries and the effects that has on our family life.
Are seeing worse terms and conditions year on year.

Why is all this happening? To save money. Oh right - so are we all getting better and better salaries, year on year then? No, quite the reverse. Meanwhile somebody somewhere is making big profits out of us, but it is not us, and pilots and passengers alike are suffering because of it.

I love technology, but I am first and foremost a pilot. I like having computers to help me fly and manage the flight (FMGC, automatic cabin pressurisation, fuel trimming, efficiency predictions, Autolands etc) but I don't think it would be safe or sensible to replace pilots with computers.

Give us better training, more handling practice, and remove the unecessary daily stressors in modern flying, even if that means adding £10 to every ticket.

* Window of circadian low: 0200-0559 hours local time.

I am not suggesting that the computer should replace the pilot. I am suggesting that the computer should be smarter. Maybe replace the first officer. Then again maybe not.

Nope.

EASA certifies new "Autopilot/Flight Director" TCAS mode for A380 | Airbus Press release

10 If height => 20000ft then ignore EGPWS.

Problem solved.

Next?

1. I'm aware of that option. It's imperfect. My company management explained why they decided against the option after a company aircraft was involved in an incident. Having an automatic AP RA would have caused a collision. In any event, the re button is still there.

2. How do you account for mountainous terrain above 20,000ft, incorrect altimeter setting or a defective altimeter?

You have written about "the pilot". This seems to be a very common misconception. Are you aware that there are two fully qualified pilots on a commercial passenger airliner? One is designated the Captain, the other is designated the First Officer. And that both pilots have the same flying licence and therefore have passed all the same flying tests? (The Captain has passed more tests than the F/O to become a Captain, but flyingwise they are the same. It's not one pilot and a secretary.)

Why do you want to only have one pilot? There can be only one reason - to save money. Why do you want to save money? Will you receive the extra profits or get cheaper air travel? Is that sensible?

Yes there are two pilots but only one is flying the plane at any given time

But computers in aircraft already have this capability which you use all the time. The FMC takes the uploaded list of waypoints, speed schedules, weight information etc., and creates a 'trajectory' description. The FMS then provides guidance to follow the trajectory and slow down/speed up; climb descend to follow the aircraft trajectory and meet the required time of arrival.

In research, aircraft have been able to forecast their touchdown time at destination to within 5 seconds at the time weight came off wheels for a 2 hour flight 'knowing' their trajectory for the entire flight..

The more complex the requirement the more extended the development of the computer system required and the more exhaustive the testing. The more safety related the computer function, say dealing with common and less common failure modes. the more certification testing is required. All these are expensive.

So it is has been easier for the system and software development project to assume that as there is always a qualified pilot, each time the computation becomes difficult for whatever reason - sound an alarm and "you have control"
Now it is being found that 'qualified pilot' may on occasion be an overstatement for many even 'routine' contingencies. At the same time computers are getting significantly more powerful and for that matter analyst/programmers much better.

As with all things aviation whether we like it or not the arbiter is cost. As soon as wetware pilots are more expensive than the automation that appears just as capable, they will be replaced by automation.

Just wonderful, em3ry.

Simulation? The rules, algorithms, and such will be written by humans. The computer will operate on signals provided by remote instrumentation. The output will go to a screen that we hope has not gone blue. You want redundancy? Go for 2 or 3 independent parallel systems; they can then out-vote the human pilot.

This is a metaphor for central planning, is it not?

With all due respect, your "today" seems to be some two or more decades out of date.

These days, fr'instance, some 75% or so of trading of financial instruments on the major financial exchanges (USA, UK, Japan, Germany, etc) is done by "computers" (automated trading systems) and their "decision-making". And, interestingly enough, no calls from anyone to get rid of the computers and bring back the jackets, the shouting and the paper pads.

One aviation example that I've worked on is lost-contact recovery in ASW, where the system ("computer") does indeed project forward in time to see what might happen and then make a "decision" based on future possible outcomes.

Now, there is the occasional operator whose skill and intuition is "better" at times, but the system will - for the greatest part - outperform the human. And when it's not just one system, but cooperative systems with serious informational flows, the humans just cannot compete.

My point is that if the computer can run a simulation then the computer can "know what it is doing".
Anybody that thinks that is a bad thing has rocks in their head.
It is not knowing what you're doing that gets people killed

Are you saying that those pilots "had rocks in their heads" because the Airbus FBW would not let them flare before impact with the runway?

From post #7 "The cause of the accident was the activation of the angle of attack protection system which, under a particular combination of vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks, not considered in the design, prevented the aeroplane from pitching up and flaring during the landing."

that was because the computer didnt know what it was doing.
if it had run a simulation then it would have known what it was doing

thats the whole point of this thread
and I just restated that point for you in the very post you just quoted

Don't you think that Airbus would have run thousands of simulations for every conceivable combination they could have imagined?
The difference is that in real life there can be a combination of things which result in something we never expected.

It's great to use computers to perform routine tasks - but please still give us the authority to over ride.

thats why it needs to run a simulation in real time with current conditions
so it can know what is happening and take appropriate action

of course the pilot should override.
thats what he is there for

This is the issue - you can program a computer for every conceivable problem, and combination thereof. Then a problem occurs that no-one conceived of and the computer has no answer, what then? You need a human with the experience to solve the problem there and then, and the computer to fail safe and help out when required.
Anyone who thinks a computer can be made to cope with every possible situation is deluded, and when failure means likely death you can't just wait and "turn it off and back on again".
Maybe AI may eventually have the answer but it's a long, long way off yet.

exactly what I just answered in the post before yours

AI is not that far off.
all it needs to do is run a simulation in real time to see what is happening

AI based on previous experiences in here, but AI that can deduce a solution to a new unknown problem based on other experiences (as a human can) is still in the early stages yet. It will come one day though.

Hi em3ry,
I'm glad we agree on that.
Pity Airbus don't permit pilots to override in Normal Law.

em3ry

I absolutely agree with you.

You are never going to persuade the luddites though.

Even when they are flying around, they will still deny their existence....

Who is this human with experience you talk about?

A vanishingly small % of airline pilots have any experience of any emergencies whatsoever in their entire career.


I had one "emergency" and I use the term loosely in my civil airline time. It ended up essentially autopilotless and autothrustless with all the captains side instruments failed.

It was the most serious thing that the captain had seen in his 20 yrs.

This is not a bad thing, this is a testament to the exceptional engineering that goes into these aircraft, but it certainly does not translate into experience.

em3ry,

You are so busy repeating yourself I don't think you are actually doing any thinking.

This has been quoted at you twice, and you don't seem to have comprehended it.

The point of this quote was that this scenario could NOT have been simulated in advance by the computer because no-one predicted this scenario in advance.

You say:

What are these "current conditions" you speak of and how are they relevant to the quoted scenario? How could the computer have predicted the combination of vertical gust, windshear and simultaneous actions of the crew members?

As for AI being not far off, they've been saying that for decades. What is often not discussed is that there is a difference between "simulated AI" and "real AI". Real AI is real intelligence. That would be handy, but that is a looong way off. However simulated AI is not real intelligence, it's just a pre-programmed dumb machine. That's what the Google Car will be. If you throw something at it that the programmers have not thought of, game over.

In principle, however, I think I agree with your general point that predictive systems such as TCAS, EPGWS and Predictive Windshear could (and very likely will) be expanded upon to extend to other predictions and warnings. A dynamic warning system for runway overruns (takeoff and landing) wouldn't be that hard and could save a lot of regular incidents/accidents.

But then again we come back to your "simulate with current conditions" argument. What are the current conditions and how does the aircraft know them? How is it going to know the friction co-efficient of a contaminated runway? It won't. So your argument might save the day sometimes, but not always.

Where to draw the line in the human/computer interface will continue to be controversial. The two largest aircraft manufacturers don't agree, and the recent trend from both manufacturers is that the pilots have been pushed a little too far out of the loop - they are now trying to bring them back in.

Three recent high profile crashes (Asiana, Air Asia and Air France) have all been put down to lack of basic flying skills. You either take the pilots out all together or you let them fly the aircraft. You can't just have them sit there doing nothing and be expected to save the day when the computer gives up.

And that last paragraph sums it up nicely!

Em3ry,

I'm sure this all sounds fantastic in your head (more so every time you repeat it), but it's science fiction.

A computer system that can simulate, predict and counter all possible flight scenarios is simply not going to happen in our lifetimes. Even if current aircraft systems were literally 100% reliable, you need humans to make the decisions the machine cannot, of which there are thousands of possibilities.

And your comment about perhaps "removing the First Officer" indicates you have little to no idea about the modern flight deck and how it actually operates, like most of the general public who think there's a "pilot" (who always flies the plane) and a "co-pilot" (who helps out in the hope he too can become a "pilot" one day).

What is your point? Because the computer isnt omniscient therefore it can never fly the plane? Neither is the human pilot!

Don't you think the computer in the recent crash could have determined that if the pilot is attempting a go-around and has forgotten to give it thrust that it will end badly?

All too often they crash turns out to be due to some mundane pilate or computer error that would have been prevented had the computer simply been able to look forward into the future

If humans make mistakes like that then by your reasoning humans should never even be allowed near an airplane

As I said earlier
And as I said earlier

And all of this is relevant to my original post. All I'm suggesting is a way of making the computers smarter.
Are you people seriously suggesting that smarter computers would be a bad thing?

running a simulation is science fiction? Really? I didnt know that!

If I were guessing I would guess that you people already have this technology and the government and the airlines have made you swear an oath that you will keep it secret