Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbus Plans to Expand Cockpit Automation

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thank-you-very-much-mr.-roboto dept.

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Airbus plans computerized systems that could automatically maneuver jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without pilot input, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'For the first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with another airborne aircraft. Currently, all commercial pilots are required to instantly disconnect the autopilot when they get an alert of such an emergency, and manually put their plane into a climb or descent to avoid the other aircraft. The change, which hasn't been announced yet, comes after lengthy internal Airbus debates and despite skepticism from pilot groups and even some aircraft-equipment suppliers.'"

12 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. If it stops accidents... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wasn't there a plane crash a few years back caused by both planes trying to avoid a mid air collision actually moving into each other? A system which ensures the planes do actually move apart seems a good idea

    1. Re:If it stops accidents... by uniqueUser · · Score: 5, Insightful
      wasn't there a plane crash a few years back caused by...
      As we start to automate transportation (all forms) with computers, we will always remember when the computer got it wrong. Even if the computer is better most of the time. If a man makes one mistake out of a hundred, and a computer makes one mistake out of a million, the media will will always highlight the computers faults. We will always hear "...had a person been driving..."
      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    2. Re:If it stops accidents... by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Had both listened to the air control tower or the onboard warning systems everything would have worked.

      And this new system will not solve that problem, because it would require all aircraft to be equipped with it to work, not just Airbus.

      If the new system commands the airplane to dive, and the other pilot follows instructions from controllers on his manually-controlled plane to also dive, then you're still looking at an accident. This solves nothing, really.

      Relying on ATC in this situation is, in any case, about the worst thing you can do - and it's the reason why standard procedure in the west is not to. Only the pilots of the airplanes, by virtue of their accident avoidance systems, have the situational awareness required to take appropriate action in time to avoid an accident. And these accident avoidance systems will never give conflicting instructions - if the system in one plane says to pull up, the system in the other will say dive.

      Anyway, there are good reasons why airline pilots dislike having control taken away from them, especially in critical situations - because software in airliners, just like software in home computers, is prone to bugs. If you could see the software service advisories for the 747-400 flight management computer alone over the life of that airplane, you would probably never want to fly one again. Some of the lesser bugs have still never been patched; the manual simply contains workarounds for them. (These manuals are available to the public, despite the government's security concerns - you can buy one online, legally, if you'd like to see for yourself.) Obviously, anything safety-related would be patched as soon as it was found, but what if the first time a bug is discovered is after it causes an accident?

      No thanks. Flight management systems have evolved to the point where I feel comfortable enough flying in airplanes that I know are on auto-pilot in nominal flying conditions (as most are from shortly after takeoff to shortly before landing, or even right through landing), but in critical situations, I want somebody with both learned skill and judgement flying that plane. The key word being "somebody".

  2. Poor pilots by Rorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Soon they'll have nothing left to do at all..

    I was always under the impression that pilots were trained pretty much entirely for these once-in-a-lifetime events, such as mid-air collision and having one jet fail. I guess they are only going to be useful for take-off and landing now?

    Maybe they're trying to phase out pilots all together? Sure would put an end to the whole pension-deficit issue that airlines are facing (well, once all the current pilots die of old age).

    --
    Will program for karma.
    1. Re:Poor pilots by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A computer cares about what it's programmed to do, and that's all it cares about. A computer doesn't care about how tired it is, or the problems it's having with its marriage, or how it doesn't think it gets paid enough. A computer cares about one thing: executing code. And if that code tells it to fly the plane without crashing, then it cares about flying the plane without crashing more than any human possibly can.

      In other words, "caring" is great, but it doesn't fly planes. If you or I found myself at the controls of an airliner, we'd care a great deal about not crashing it, but odds are we'd still end up making a big smoking hole in the ground. The idea that a flight computer (or an android, for that matter) will do a worse job than a human because it "doesn't care as much" is ridiculous.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. trust the machines. by happyrabit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We will have too trust our lives more and more too machines, we already do it in hospitals...
    Machines and electronics are less subject to stress... pilots will have to share their responsabilities with electronics, it's inevitable.

    Still, we should first have a good quality check procedures on those programmers and engineers work, as a programmer myself I wouldn't trust my own code to keep me alive :)

    --
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
  4. Unspoken implication by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "For the first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with another airborne aircraft or a building."

    --

    Technoli
  5. Airbus vs Boeing design philosphy by vijayiyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Airbus's design philosophy is that the airplane knows best, and Boeing's is that the pilot knows best. I tend to agree with Boeing. For example, AFAIK, one cannot cross control a modern Airbus - the airplane automatically maintains coordinated flight under all conditions. Normally, this is a good thing. However, in the case of Air Canada flight 143, where a Boeing 767 was improperly fueled, the pilots intentionally slipped the aircraft to avoid disaster (http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html). In the case of American Airlines flight 587, where the tail of the Airbus broke off, the cause of crash was determined to be the pilot's rapid full extent rudder inputs. However, when one looks into _why_ the pilot put in those rudder inputs, you find out that Airbus uses a very high detent load (high load before initial travel) combined with very low load progression as the pedal is depressed - kind of like a keyboard key. Try to press a key on your keyboard 1/4 way - it's not easy. Bottom line - Airbus has some decent technology, but their aircraft are not always pilot friendly. To ignore what the end user - the pilots - have to say about design is just plain foolish.

  6. Almost Automatic Anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The system to avoid mid-air collisions is already mostly automatic.
    It's called Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). It intercepts
    other aircrafts' transponder position signals, and, in case of
    intersecting traffic, actually communicates with the other aircraft's
    TCAS system, and they both agree on which of them will ascend or
    descend. This decision is then communicated to the pilots via audio.
    Therefore, if both aircraft have TCAS installed, they are guaranteed
    to receive opposite instruction (i.e., one to ascend, one to descend).

    In the mid-air collision over Germany a few years back, both aircraft
    had TCAS, and they both worked perfectly, and their instruction would
    have avoided the crash. However, at the same time that the TCAS alarm
    sounded, the traffic controller advised the one aircraft to sink,
    in disagreement of the TCAS instruction. Unfortunately, the pilot
    decided to ignore the TCAS, and followed the traffic controller's
    instruction, driving right into the path of the other aircraft,
    which was following TCAS advice to sink.

    Since then, pilots have been trained to always follow TCAS
    instruction. When pilots must follow TCAS instruction, it is
    logical to automate that decision. With the appropriate controls
    to override the autopilot, of course.

  7. Good point... by Graboid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had a good friend who once read a story about a guy who was thrown from a car accident and walked away because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He used that example for many years as justification for NEVER wearing a seatbelt (and, ironically, he suffered a concusion from a 15 mph fender bender).

    So, humans have an incredible capacity for ignoring the facts that don't support what they want to believe. In this case, even if the computer makes the RIGHT decision and a collision is avoided, passengers will get pissed for minor injuries in a severe turn, the computer will be blamed and a massive investigations will be launched.

    And, in some cases, very senior, experienced individuals will make better decisions, but these aren't the guys that will flying the planes most of the time. They're the guys that need to train the computer systems (like chess - you need really great chess players to 'teach' the computers and, at some point, the computer will outplay the master).

  8. Re:More noteworthy... by nsayer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    b. On 26 June 1988, a brand-new Air France A 320 that was participating in an air show crashed in a wooded area in the Alsatian town of Habsheim near Mulhouse while performing an extremely low altitude fly by.

    To be fair, a number of overrides, including the disabling of the GPWS, were done to the computers on this plane in order to make the fly-by possible. It was a combination of those overrides that resulted in the engines being nearly powered down when they were needed to power the plane back up into the sky... with the result we know.

    In actual service, an A320 in such a situation would have already at least sounded a number of alarms and probably would not have allowed the airspeed to drop so low without the flaps and gear to be in landing configuration.

  9. Re:More noteworthy... by wired_parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The statistical data flat out contradicts your conclusion, despite your anecdotal evidence. Take a look at the NTSB accident reports at www.ntsb.gov. Human error is attributable as the cause of accident in close to 80% of cases (see http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/ARC0401.pdf and http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/ARG0401.pdf for an annual summary of accident data for 2000 as an example). Aircraft related causes were a factor in less than one third of cases. One can always find anecdotal evidence supporting your point of view, but skim across a listing of recent accident reports and one quickly finds that human error is the overwhelming majority cause in most accidents. Automating the cockpit and reducing the human element therefore is the best way to reduce the number of accidents in the sky.