Airbus to Expand Cockpit Automation

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Martin Hotze writes:

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

They encounter situations that weren't anticipated. Their reactions
are even worse than human reactions to unanticipated situations.
They're often *better* than humans for the rest of the time, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Bob,

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.


And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
the Ueberlingen accident investigation.

So who's more right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
the Ueberlingen accident investigation.

So who's more right?

what's your point?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob,

what's your point?


Are you familiar with the Ueberlingen case? Automation of the proposed
kind could have prevented it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Bob,

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.


And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
the Ueberlingen accident investigation.

So who's more right?

The first poster.

Ueberlingen is a case where the Russian crew ignored the ACAS and in
following ATC instructions did exactly the opposite of the ACAS guidance.
If it were automated, the crew would have likely disconnected the A/P to
follow the ATC instructions. You also should recognize that if the Russian
crew had done nothing, they would have been safe (assuming the DHL crew
followed their guidance.)

ACAS exists to provide a last line of defense if ATC fails to provide safe
separation. Following ATC instructions against the advice of an ACAS alert
defeats the purpose of the system. That's the reason for the wording in 14
CFR Part 91.123. If safe separation is maintained, there won't be an ACAS
alert. The current system works well.

If you were to automate it, the benefits are marginal; a bit quicker
response, a bit more accurate flying of the maneuver. But normal pilot
reactions and performance is included in the design. OTOH, the ACAS is a
complex system. When there are faults, it can result in erroneous alerts.
Responding to these alerts may be more dangerous than doing nothing. In the
real world, when these occur, they are usually fairly obvious to a crew, so
they crew ignores it and writes it up for maintenance. Add flight controls
into the system and you just added a huge level of complexity and more
opportunities for bad results.

Gerry

John wrote:
European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands. 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.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article... main_tff_top
or http://tinyurl.com/lnlky

Yep, evolution:
Scarebus
Scarierbus
Scariestbus

Whats the difference between an A320 and a chainsaw? About 100 trees
a minute. (see the A320 autoland video if you don't get it)

wrote in message
ups.com...

Whats the difference between an A320 and a chainsaw? About 100 trees
a minute. (see the A320 autoland video if you don't get it)

Or:

What's the difference between a Cri-Cri and an A320?

One's an airplane with lawnmower engines, the other a lawnmower with
airplane engines.

;-)

"John" wrote in message
European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands.

Bus wanted to do the same with TAWS. Fortunately, us stupid peelots know
just enough to figure out which circuit creakers to pull and reset to fix
their pioneering computers and software.

D. (likes Boeing more every flight)

In article
,
"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"John" wrote in message
European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands.

Bus wanted to do the same with TAWS. Fortunately, us stupid peelots know
just enough to figure out which circuit creakers to pull and reset to fix
their pioneering computers and software.

I am still awaiting an explaination as to the propper procedure to
follow when the autopilot initiates an evasive manuever, immediatly
followed by the AirBus blue screen of death when the computers decide
it's time to recycle.