Slashdot Mirror

If it's "Far from autonomous", they shouldn't be calling it autopilot.

Seems like an appropriate name, actually. A plane on autopilot also just keeps course and altitude, but doesn't fly around storms, or start an automatic landing procedure when fuel is running low.

If you'd like to try an experiment and you work in a reasonably large office, pick 10 of your co-workers at random and ask them to explain to you what autopilot on a plane does. I bet that at least 7 out of 10 will claim that autopilot can land the plane and possibly other things that it doesn't really do. Given how the average person probably doesn't actually understand the name correctly, it wasn't a good choice.

Actually, some Autopilot systems CAN land. I think the Airbus 380 and Boeing 777 both have Autopilots that can (and often do) land the plane.

And in fact, they are used routinely when conditions are such that a pilot would have difficulty landing manually. So, in the case of airplanes, the Autopilot is actually BETTER than a human "driver".

I think that Auto Takeoff is also possible, IIRC.

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/f...

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

And they aren't doing it at Mach I.

Maybe not Mach 1.00, but Mach 0.80 to Mach 0.85 (airliner cruising speeds) aren't that far off.

From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do - he/she can not make the plane do something the computer doesn't approve of.

The pilot can't make any *rash* actions that the computer doesn't approve of, but the pilot can still turn the protections off and after that do anything. I don't think that's ever been necessary, though, apart from the computer automatically giving the pilot more control when the aircraft has been damaged.

And the autopilot automatically disengages as soon as the pilot takes the controls.

An autopilot isn't the same thing as computer protection. An autopilot just lets the pilot let go of the controls, and can be mechanical. The A300 that's discussed in that article is so old that it doesn't even have computer protection. If the above situation had happened on an A320, the flight computers would probably have overridden both the pilot and the autopilot, saving the plane. And that generation's primitive autopilots wouldn't be used in modern designs anyway.

Airbus philosophy is to automate everything to avoid human error - but slashdotters generally know that computers are only as smart as their programs, and are _never_ as adaptable as their programmers.

But those programs still make less mistakes than pilots.

Airplane manufactures do it for their fly by wire systems so that the pilot always stays in control, even when the system would rather beg to differ on the matter.

If I recall correctly, this corresponds to somewhat of a philosophic difference between Airbus and Boeing. From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do - he/she can not make the plane do something the computer doesn't approve of. Boeing, assumes the pilot knows best, and allows the pilot to 'override' the system (do things with the controls that seem unwise to the computer). Boeing's POV is that the computer may be wrong, and/or the situation may not be one the computer is ready for.

I did a bit of Googling 'airbus and boeing philosophy' and found many interesting links. Boeing still insists on classic controls, which require the pilot to act like a pilot instead of automating everything (even though it's automated). And the autopilot automatically disengages as soon as the pilot takes the controls. Airbus philosophy is to automate everything to avoid human error - but slashdotters generally know that computers are only as smart as their programs, and are _never_ as adaptable as their programmers.

Interesting here would be some statistics. How many Boeings have come into serious trouble, and how many Airbuses?

Besides the GP's point about Airbus pilots being unable to override the computer being complete and utter bollocks (Airbus' still have a analouge actuator control (Electronic) in them), there have been a few near misses which if it were not possible to take manual control would have resulted in a crash such as the JetBlue landing at LAX in 05.

On the other hand, there have been incidences with Boeing aircraft which are believed would have been solved by automated systems such as AA flight 965 (Colombia 1995) where if the airbrake was automatically retracted the pilot would have been able to climb a way safely.

Here is a good post on the subject. According to the ASTB who conducted the investigation there have only been 3 such incidents in 128 Million hours of A330 operation as of 2008. That is a damn good rate of failure wouldn't you say? Pilot error being the cause of approx 48% of all accidents, Airbus or Boeing. Modern aircraft are getting safer all the time, they see more mechanics and engineers in a week then your car will see in its entire lifetime. Everything is checked and double checked, anything suspicious gets replaced. I never think I'm in danger stepping onto an an Airbus or Boeing aircraft.

The whole Airbus Vs Boeing argument is a dick pulling contest between biased pilots. It's like a Xbox/PS3 fanboy war. Utterly senseless to third party observers (and bronzed fingered PC gamers) Now amongst the 25 worst airlines you have a 1 in 850,000 chance of dying and I dont fly any of those airlines (1 in 9.2 million for the 25 best), hence my practice of congratulating myself at the check in counter as I've survived the most dangerous part of air travel, the drive to the airport. Compared to our road toll, our air toll is minuscule.

Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine.

There are several sources for the information I presented.

A simple cursory search would have turned up enough information for you to have seen that.

From "Ask Captain Lin":

"On the Boeing 777, the autopilot can be selected on at 200 feet above ground level after take off. Most of the time, the pilot would make use of the autopilot on the climb because it eases the workload of the crew especially during an emergency. Sometimes, a pilot may elect to fly manually during the climb just to get his hands on the control column or to maintain his proficiency because during a flight test, one of the exercise calls for flying without the aid of autopilot. Otherwise, the autopilot is engaged throughout most of the flight. It is smoother, more economical and safer with the autopilot on. In fact, in really bad weather with very limited visibility, the autopilot even lands the aircraft by itself. The pilot only resumes control of the aircraft after it has safely landed on the Runway."