

Pilot explains why it is impossible to fly with autopilot only - znq
http://www.askthepilot.com/germanwings-crash/

======
discardorama
If blogging were around ~100 years ago:

 _An abacus operator explains why it is impossible to automate calculations._

 _A buggy driver explains why it is impossible to automatically control
horses._

etc.

I'm not equating being a pilot to one of the occupations above; but just
saying that we have successfully automated a whole lot of things (think self-
driving cars, for instance), and if the will was there, we could automate
piloting too. A majority of the air accidents are caused by pilot error, so
it's about time something was done about it.

~~~
EpicEng
>but just saying that we have successfully automated a whole lot of things
(think self-driving cars, for instance)

We have not automated cars. We can automacar driving under very specific
circumstances, but they're nowhere near ready for primetime.

------
cheradenine01
So, a pilot explains why we all will forever need to have pilots.

I am friends with a pilot (commercial 737 short-haul captain for a 'value'
european airline). He will happily tell you that

a) Much of what he does is automatable and rather boring (takeoff, landing
interesting; the rest very dull), and that it's mostly punching settings into
computers. Indeed, he does not have complete ability to do whatever he pleases
- if, for example, he climbs too fast or steps outside flight parameters set
by the airline (set mostly for cost issues), he would expect to be facing
disciplinary action.

b) That a large amount of the training book-work that they have to go through
is irrelevant for flying a modern airliner - but is in place mostly to act as
a barrier to entry and to keep wages high.

c) That the biggest barrier to 'self-flying planes' (which doesn't mean
'autonomous', it may be drone-style remote-control or other options) is the
_perception_ of safety.

It's the last part that's interesting. The Economist ran an article years ago
(I can't find a weblink sadly) about how a UPS cargo plane was flown entirely
remotely on a test flight. It noted that humans seem to prefer the risk of a
"human being" flying them around vs a "computer" \- _Even If_ the data showed
that the latter was much safer. It went on to point out that this might well
be the case given the proportion of accidents classified as "Controlled flight
into terrain" (I.E: the pilot crashed an airworthy plane into the ground).

It will be interesting to see if that public perception shifts given recent
events. This article is however exactly how I'd expect a pilot to respond.

~~~
ComSubVie
Your 3rd point is not only valid for air traffic. Some of our subways are
fully automated and the driver just opens/closes the doors - and sits in the
front for the perception of the passengers that the train is driven.

~~~
cheradenine01
True. In fact, it's even stranger in the UK, or so I'm told...

Trains have drivers. Some stations have shorter platforms than others. Thus at
those stations a smaller number of train doors need to open to allow
passengers on and off - as some doors won't be next to a platform, they'll be
above fresh air.

You could have a 'open all doors' button and a 'open <x> doors' button. But
the driver is not trusted to do this, so instead there is a GPS on board so
the train 'knows' where it is, and opens the appropriate number when the
button is pressed.

I think in London, certainly for the underground, the lack of driverless
trains is more to do with strong unions than it is safety perceptions (the DLR
line is driverless). E.g:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-
transpo...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-
transport/11150671/New-driverless-tube-trains-unveiled-by-TFL.html)

"Unions have fiercely opposed the introduction of driverless technology on the
tube, with the Aslef drivers’ union threatening “all out war”, but the Mayor
said drivers would not lose their jobs because "train captains" will still be
required."

Train captains! :-)

Though that doesn't mean that risk perception doesn't cause us to make other
poor decisions. The UK had some rather bad train accidents (again, human error
with 'signal passed at danger'\- see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_passed_at_danger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_passed_at_danger)).
Politicians get involved - and phrases like "this must never happen again" get
pushed around, and huge cost estimates for the engineering required to chase
this improbable 100% 'never again' target (>£1bn in 1988) are submitted. This
inevitably delays implementation (if it ever works anyway - governments and
big systems after all) - when we could be doing something simple (GPS is a
thing. Trains move only in one dimension, and don't suddenly reverse
direction. Finite number of tracks. Build system monitor for "train about to
hit another train") that gives you 80/20.

~~~
wlesieutre
>there is a GPS on board so the train 'knows' where it is

I would hope they didn't use GPS for that. Not much of a satellite signal when
you're underground.

~~~
csixty4
This is usually handled with GPS re-transmitters that have an antenna on the
surface, or with eGPS from underground cell phone "towers".

------
ComSubVie
So he tells us, that pilots are still flying, and then writes

> And though a pilot’s hands aren’t gripping the steering column for hours at
> a time, as was the case decades ago, they are manipulating, operating, and
> commanding the various systems and subsystems that carry you to your
> destination.

Well, I guess that are all things that could be automated and/or remotely
controlled?

------
upofadown
In a world where subway trains still need an operator (1 dimensional control
on a track) it isn't that hard to imagine that we have a ways to go before we
trust our lives to an automatic system that needs to do 3 dimensional control
in the wildness of the atmosphere.

------
sgnelson
I'm not a pilot. But did anyone else read what he wrote about the steps of
descending to prepare for landing and even not understanding all of the terms
(which he intentionally left as acronyms as if that means the reader is
incapable of understanding the idea. I've always hated this 'trick' to show
people how smart you are.) think too yourself, "that actually sounds rather
basic and easy."

Because I did. And I also thought, shit, I can automate that with a raspberry
pi.

We can certainly argue over whether having a pilot is a good thing or not. But
to say that it's impossible to fly with "autopilot" only (which may be true
with 1970's technology, but certainly not true given the technology of today),
seems rather short sighted.

~~~
upofadown
>I can automate that with a raspberry pi.

Pretty sure that the Pi would have a hard time talking over the radio to
ATC...

Smith isn't claiming that autonomous flight is impossible, just that it can't
be done with present systems. He is also suggesting that such a thing doesn't
make economic sense at this point in time.

