Slashdot Mirror
Automagic No-Fly-Zone Enforcement
An anonymous reader writes "SoftWalls is the name of an aviation project at UC-Berkeley that's developing a system for commercial airliners that establishes and enforces no-fly zones. Basically, through GPS, if a plane begins to enter a no-fly zone (eg, around a mountain, or over Lower Manhattan), an alarm goes off in the cockpit. If ignored, the system actively removes control of the plane away from the pilot and co-pilot to steer the plane out of the no-fly zone. The technology is intended as both an accident prevention technique and a deterrent to terrorists planning to ram a building. ABCNews recently profiled the project (with video) and also rode along with a working prototype built by Honeywell that successfully kept a Beechcraft from hitting a mountain."
>>The technology is intended as both an accident prevention technique and a deterrent to terrorists planning to ram a building
Why do people seem to think that terrorists are just dumb camel jockeys from the middle of the desert who are easily impressed by internal plumbing? If an al Qaeda operative wants to smash a plane into a building, he'll figure out a way to disable such a system.
What happens if I'm on a flight that for whatever the reason HAS to land at La Guardia (low fuel) and cannot navigate AROUND lower Manhattan, but instead wants to go over it. And this system won't let the pilot do that, and by steering around, runs the plane out of fuel and crashes it.
So someone says "Oh, there will be an override for situations like that" -- well, why won't that override get used when someone is bound and detmined to fly a 757 into a tall building? At that point its just another warning system, which is fine, but the computer control part scares me. I like pilots in control when necessary.
Because it's a stupid idea.
A computer can't know the myriad of decision factors that the pilot does. There's a lot more to safe flight operations, especially during an emergency, than simply pointing the airplane in the right direction. There's considerations of how bad the weather may be in one direction, which engine may have failed causing difficulty in turning in one direction, which heading the aircraft needs to be on after completing a turn to line up with the desired runway so as to make a landing the first time (because there might not be a second time), how critical is it to get to a certain altitude rapidly, and hundreds of other factors that might (or might not) be important. The pilot is the one best to rapidly rank order what's important and what's not given the particular situation he's found himself and those several hundred passengers in.
Just what computer program could decide that it's a better decision to allow the plane to fly close to a mountain (how close? 1000 feet? 2000 feet? 50 feet?) in order to meet some criteria the pilot (you know, the person deemed competent to make such decisions) has decided is most critical.
Aids that assist in flying are wonderful - keep bureauacracy and "for the children" politics out of the cockpit though.
The system being discussed here would take ultimate control of the plane away from the pilot. In the century of powered flight we have just completed, such ideas have have always turned out to be the Wrong Thing.
If we could always trust the flight computers and control systems, we wouldn't even need pilots: today's jetliners are smart enough to fly themselves. The problem is that the systems are just not reliable enough, and the system designers are not prescient enough, to handle every eventuality.
For ages, the question has been A modern corollary might be:
I'm all for a plane avoiding mountains, and taking over when the pilot is incapacitated so the plane doesn't crash -- but I hate seeing articles about new technology being promoted with "it'll stop those nasty terrorists! Woohoo!"
I'm sure the (surviving) terrorists are ROFL at us scrambling to prevent them repeating something they know they'll never repeat. We need to harden our other systems -- water/electric supplies, who's driving the oil/gas tankers/trucks, etc.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
And I don't think it will work. This is the kind of system you'd see on an airbus, and probably not a boeing- unless it could be defeated easily, like all the autopilot-type systems boeing installs.
Many others have posted great reasons why taking control away from a pilot is a bad thing, so you can read them- but if it's terrorists you're worried about, they now have much more to fear from the passengers than from a computer system. The stakes couldn't be higher now for airline hijackings, and knowing the stakes, no US group of passengers will allow any hijackers to carry out their mission. (Flight 93) This, incidentally, is a social solution to a social problem.
Sure, this kind of thing would be great for terrain avoidance. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Between jamming, spoofing, misplaced confidence, programming errors and the like, it can be quite problematic.
Basically, you're swapping your trust in the pilot for your trust in the programmer. Not necessarily a good trade.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What's to stop terrorists for distorting the GPS signals and making the plane think that a mountain isn't where the mountain is? And if the terrorist can broadcast multiple spoof signals (spoofing a constellation), they could steer a plane to any location by simply moving the no-fly barrier to herd the plane to the desired (but undesirable) location.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Yeah, I guess 3000 hours of flight time with 500 hours in combat including more emergencies from engine failures due to fire to hydraulic failures to electrical failures to lightning strikes to ... than I can count doesn't mean shit on slashdot.
How do you think the pilot knows of bad weather ... oh thats right he gets ground reports through his computer
Well, he could always look out the window ... perhaps a difficult concept to comprehend for those that believe that the pilot should only do what's been preallowed by some programmer who is completely unaware of the particulars of the situation that may occur.
Further more how do you know which engine is out without the computer
There's a significant change in thrust from one side of the aircraft when an engine has failed. Turning into a dead engine, especially with a heavy fuel load, is usually not the smart thing to do because of the greater difficulty of turning back - but if the pilot makes a concious decision to turn in a particular direction then a computer should not attempt to override it for reasons that are less critical than safety of flight (such as some BS no-fly zone).
99% of the time you are in the air the FMC is guiding the plane including *gasp* your headings out of turns
Sigh. An autopilot system is an aid for the pilot - it's not a substitute. A system that calculates the headings and lead points is fine for rolling out on a certain course, but is irrelevant to the situation of a pilot flying the aircraft where he wants it to be, vice some erroneous decision made by software.
FMC is going to be able to calculate out how fast you can and can't climb a hell of alot better than any human
No it can't. It can calulate the optimum climb rate to get to some altitude using the least fuel or least time or least distance - but that is not definitely better - the system doesn't know what may be most important at any given moment. That's the job of the pilot. People that advocate being able to hinder the pilot's options are doing no favors to either the pilots or the passengers they are responsible for.
Responsibility for the lives of hundreds of others is a big deal. Maybe you've never been there.
Maybe I was a little harsh but the points I made are still valid. How many hours have you logged in a modern day commercial airliner 777 , A320 (We are talking about commercial fly-by-wire systems).
... well i've been down in the code for an FMC dealing specifily for those type of situations ... so yeah I truly understand your aero dynamics and flight capability changes but ... it still doesn't change the fact that its a fly-by-wire system most of those things are handle for you by the FCC and FMC (we are not talking about a piston driven AC but rather a 777).
As for the weather I full understand looking out the window is very important. but can you really tell that much about which way the wind is going when your 200 miles off? If your in a bad weather cell that different. (but at no point in my post did I say the pilot should not be able to fly his plane)
As for the signifacant changes due to an engine lose
See I understand in emeregence situations autopilot is not a substitute for a pilot. At the bottom of my post I said I hate the idea of taking the control out of the pilots hands. I also freely admit computers are not perfect and that why pilots routinely change setting in the FMC to make it do what the pilot wants
I will give you the point that the computer may not make the right descion and there should be a way to take control away from the computer. You also have to admit that there are times where the pilot wont make the best descion (see the crash in swiss airspace where the pilot went against his TCAS and people died because of it).
I ask you to find one thing in my post where I said the pilot should not have the ability to break away. Hell I know computers aren't perfect and I agree a 100% that taking control away is a bad idea. I just disagreed with your reasons because they weren't applicable to current commercial jetliners.
As for responsibility of hundreds of lifes, your right I have not been up there with the lives in my hands but before my current job I used to write ATC systems which are mission critical (in production in germany) so I do full understand its not kids play and that when things malfunction you put lives in danger.
I think you had the right idea your reason just where off. And I'm sorry if I offended I was probably a little harsh but I didn't agree ande I need to post on it.