
The untold story of QF72: 'psycho' automation leaves pilots powerless - bspn
http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-gw26ae.html
======
perilunar
Couple of clangers in the technical details.

> how can the plane stall and over-speed at the same time? The aircraft is
> telling him it is flying at both maximum and minimum speeds.

Stalling is due to angle of attack, not speed, and it is possible to overspeed
and stall at the same time. Though admittedly not while flying straight and
level, in cruise, as they were here.

> In the Boeing 747 jumbo – the backbone of global aviation for almost five
> decades – pilots' control sticks are connected by wires and pulleys to parts
> of the plane such as the tail.

Pretty sure the 747 was all hydraulic.

------
meesterdude
> The bottom line is that automation of the computer codes and the algorithms
> are designed by people, which is what they are actually being designed to
> protect against

If this can happen in a multi-million dollar airplane that has 3 computers, it
is no far stretch to see it happening with self-driving vehicles that only
have 1 - and much less R&D. The upside being you're not 35K feet in the air.

There is a phrase I like to murmur to myself that I think is applicable here:
"Apple knows best". As of late, Apple has made numerous technology and
software decisions that I find quite disagreeable. And many of these have, in
fact, significant implications for myself, consumers, and their products
overall. But "Apple knows best!" In their infinite wisdom, they call all the
shots, good and bad. And if it's a bad one, which to me many are... you suffer
with no recourse, because there is ONLY their way.

I feel this relevant because one of the main issues the pilots faced is that
the computers are _above_ them in command. They are authoritative - and so
don't reveal things to their underlings. In a computer system that is meant to
have no single point of failure, they neglected to realize that the computer
system itself is a single point of failure. This means the designers of the
airplane, purposefully removed control from pilots and gave them no recourse
or alternatives.

These are the lessons we need to learn from. While automation of flight has
improved safety and reduced human error, it does not allow for humans to
reduce automation error. In symbology, the two can work together to improve
safety even more, as this article makes clear. With better communication from
the computers to pilots, and better ability for pilots to seize control from
systems that are misbehaving, there is a greater chance for success.

But I think this solution is in contrast of where the industry wants to go: to
remove pilots entirely. And for the bottom line of airlines, that's pretty
dreamy. But at what cost to potential lives saved? If QF72 was solely
automated, this would have been a very different story.

~~~
labcomputer
> This means the designers of the airplane, purposefully removed control from
> pilots and gave them no recourse or alternatives.

While I prefer Boeing's approach to Airbus's, the above statement isn't true.
Airbus aircraft do have an Alternate Control Law (less flight envelope
protection) and Direct Control Law (no flight envelope protection). These are
in addition to the Normal Law (full protection), which is similar to what you
describe, as well as a mechanical backup.

The aircraft is designed to automatically revert to more-manual control when
sensors return unexpected values--and that's what happened to AF447. In that
case, the computer recognized strange AoA readings, so it reverted from Normal
Law to Alternate Law. The pilots, being insufficiently trained in the use of
Alternate Law, stalled the plane into the ocean because they expected the
plane to override them in the case of a stall.

Pilots also have to option to manually revert to Alternate, Direct, or
mechanical control by pulling the appropriate circuit breakers in the cockpit.

------
505
smh.com.au is the Sydney Morning Herald. It has some of the best news in
Sydney but I hate the website. When I follow a link like this one and the
article is interesting, I invariably forget to check the ads. When I get
started reading, there always seems to be a movie with audio that will start
playing off the screen.

~~~
valuearb
Someone needs to make a succcessful ad free service for news articles that can
support good journalism.

~~~
baq
News is a market of lemons - bad free pushes out good paid. I've come to raise
that I want to pay for a good newspaper but it seems like each one is crap.

