Airbus Plans to Expand Cockpit Automation

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.'"

Comments

If it stops accidents...

[abigsmurf]

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

Re:If it stops accidents...

[uniqueUser]

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..."

Re:If it stops accidents...

[badasscat]

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".

trust the machines.

[happyrabit]

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 :)

Good point...

[Graboid]

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).

Re:Poor pilots

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.