The Great Drone Debate

[HiFlyer 9,362]

But I have no doubt you will lead the pr campaign against this using cartoon images of Hal9000.

 

In all potential universes its a possibility, but unlikely in this one. The greater likelihood is that I wouldn't have to lift even a finger. (except maybe to sign a petition or join a group) There are probably more than enough people out there to carry that particular torch, doubtless led by the pilots unions, and while I might not support them in everything, I would be cheering them on enthusiastically regarding this.

[january 19]

Cause I'll say right now, if there is a non-drone alternative, that's where I will go.

 

We don't yet know whether the ASIANA crash at kSFO was caused by human error or mechanical failure.

But we do know that three humans in the cockpit failed to prevent it.

january

[HiFlyer 9,362]

We don't yet know whether the ASIANA crash at kSFO was caused by human error or mechanical failure.

But we do know that three humans in the cockpit failed to prevent it.

january

I would still go with a human. Stuff like that avoids mentioning all the accidents avoided by people who do stop such things, simply doing their jobs everyday.

[KevinAu 441]

In all potential universes its a possibility, but unlikely in this one. The greater likelihood is that I wouldn't have to lift even a finger. (except maybe to sign a petition or join a group) There are probably more than enough people out there to carry that particular torch, doubtless led by the pilots unions, and while I might not support them in everything, I would be cheering them on enthusiastically regarding this.

I would certainly support it as well. But I hold no illusion on which direction technology marches and how people make purchasing decisions. It will be a noble effort, but a likely failure.

I would still go with a human. Stuff like that avoids mentioning all the accidents avoided by people who do stop such things, simply doing their jobs everyday.

What exactly is 'such things'? I've prevented plenty of bad outcomes while flying, but then I think most of those situations were created by human error.

[HiFlyer 9,362]

I would certainly support it as well. But I hold no illusion on which direction technology marches and how people make purchasing decisions. It will be a noble effort, but a likely failure.

This one is a pretty easy win I think, public relations-wise at least. In fact, I don't think it would even be a contest.

 

Then we see if the Airlines will still put their money on the table in the full face of public opinion.

 

Reasonable doubt FTW

[HiFlyer 9,362]

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there about reducing the automation technology in aircraft. Can you point it out for me? I must be missing it.

 

I didn't see or say anything about reducing automation....... Just humans blind reliance on and confidence in it, sometimes to the point of allowing it to override their own instincts.

 

I imagine that if information confusion and pilot overload can happen in a multi-person cockpit, it would be that much worse for some poor guy on the ground with nothing but automation to guide him.

 

Its a recommendation for a return to a more human-centric approach.

 

• Highlight and stress that the responsibility for flight path management remains with the pilots at all times.
• Focus the policy on flight path management, rather than automated systems
• Identify appropriate opportunities for manual flight operations
• Recognize the importance of automated systems as a tool (among other tools) to support the flight path management task, and provide policy for their operational uses
• Distinguish between guidance and control
• Adapt to the operator’s needs and operations

[Holdit 551]

Who ever said it had to benefit YOU? 

 

In business it's generally a good idea for the customer to perceive some benefit coming their way.  :smile:

[january 19]

accidents avoided by people who do stop such things, simply doing their jobs everyday.

 

Like the Spanish train driver who took a curve way too fast and killed 79 - or the Ottawa municipal bus driver who drove into the side of a moving passenger train killing 6?

And we know that auto accidents have risen sharply by drivers distracted by cell phones.

The human, as a controller of moving machinery, is not all that reliable.

That's why automatic braking systems are being introduced for cars- probably to be mandatory in the near future.  And Ford acknowledges the incompetence of drivers by now offering an automatic parking system!

january 

[HiFlyer 9,362]

Like the Spanish train driver who took a curve way too fast and killed 79 - or the Ottawa municipal bus driver who drove into the side of a moving passenger train killing 6?

And we know that auto accidents have risen sharply by drivers distracted by cell phones.

The human, as a controller of moving machinery, is not all that reliable.

That's why automatic braking systems are being introduced for cars- probably to be mandatory in the near future.  And Ford acknowledges the incompetence of drivers by now offering an automatic parking system!

january 

To which I might reply with the examples of United Airlines Flight 232, Eastern Airlines flight 935, the Baghdad DHL Shootdown Attempt, The aforementioned Sullenberger incident and others where the adaptability and ingenuity (and desperation!!!)  of humans saved themselves in out-of-the envelope situations where an automated system would almost certainly not have been able to cope.

 

We could probably go back and forth on that point, but there's really no need since I've already acknowledged the potential of automated systems.

 

I just don't acknowledge the likelihood of myself and probably many others to trust such systems exclusively if there are any other choices available.

 

A nice video for those interested, landing with no flight controls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6wVikB9s4A

[january 19]

I just don't acknowledge the likelihood of myself and probably many others to trust such systems exclusively if there are any other choices available.

 

The choice might be a CAT3b landing OR your airplane diverting to another airport a few hours away and so being unable to catch that all expenses prepaid cruise!

(I doubt if the captain will ask for a show of hands as to which is preferred- the decision being simply that he is qualified & the airplane is so equipped as well as the airport itself).

Personally I'd go for a Cat3b as opposed to a pilot who thought his low vis experience would be adequate.

january

[HiFlyer 9,362]

The choice might be a CAT3b landing OR your airplane diverting to another airport a few hours away and so being unable to catch that all expenses prepaid cruise!

(I doubt if the captain will ask for a show of hands as to which is preferred- the decision being simply that he is qualified & the airplane is so equipped as well as the airport itself).

Personally I'd go for a Cat3b as opposed to a pilot who thought his low vis experience would be adequate.

january

That was never the argument, as in the situation you describe, there are still humans there and available in those cockpits. Where I want them to stay.

[mgh 89]

There are statistics.

 

Boeing published a Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2012. Page 22 analyses Fatal Accidents – Worldwide Commercial Jet Fleet – 2003 Through 2012. this shows that Controlled Flight into Terrain was the second largest cause (22%) of  fatal accidents. According to the FAA  "a CFIT accident occurs when an airworthy aircraft, under the control of a pilot, is flown into terrain (water or obstacles) with inadequate awareness on the part of the pilot of the impending disaster."  That is obviously human error.

By contrast there were no fatal accident caused by System/Component Failure or Malfunction (Non-Powerplant) and less than 3% of fatal accidents were caused by System/Component Failure or Malfunction (Powerplant).

 

In other words there were at least 8 times as many fatal accidents caused my human error than by system/component failures bearing in mind that human error must be involved  in some of the other accident categories..

[KevinAu 441]

I didn't see or say anything about reducing automation....... Just humans blind reliance on and confidence in it, sometimes to the point of allowing it to override their own instincts.

 

I imagine that if information confusion and pilot overload can happen in a multi-person cockpit, it would be that much worse for some poor guy on the ground with nothing but automation to guide him.

 

Its a recommendation for a return to a more human-centric approach.

Actually it sounds like you've misinterpreted those recommendations. They are a result of recent crashes caused by humans hand flying the aircraft inappropriately. It was instead the improper instincts of humans that caused such crashes as Colgan, Air France and Asiana.

[HiFlyer 9,362]

Actually it sounds like you've misinterpreted those recommendations. They are a result of recent crashes caused by humans hand flying the aircraft inappropriately. It was instead the improper instincts of humans that caused such crashes as Colgan, Air France and Asiana.

 

To me its all synergistic, not just one thing or the other. In modern aviation, the Flight Crew and automation work as a team to augment each others respective strengths and weaknesses. But in the rush to cut costs, pilots can become button pushers first and pilots second, reluctant to override their infallible systems. We can also bring up fatigue caused by the very types of cost cutting that drive the increasing automation.....

 

Human error is involved, but sometimes that human error is caused by information overload that can lead to missed signals/opportunities to catch problems before they get out of hand. The humans need to regain the instincts and experience lost to automation-centric training......

 

And that's exactly why I think the study specifically called for more manual flying rather than less.

 

I also note the study did not call for more automation, it called for the automation to work better with people.

 

EDIT: I wanna stress again that I have nothing against automation: its great. But I want that automation completely subservient to supremely experienced and trained pilots that are johnny on the spot sharing any risks. I want something that however fallible, wants to make it home at least as much as me.

[mgh 89]

 

 

I also note the study did not call for more automation, it called for the automation to work better with people

 

I think it called for people to work better with automation.