Cockpit Automation

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 27 May 2006, 20:54

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... in_tff_top

While I generally agree with Boeing on the aircrew controlling the aircraft, I think that the collision situation is narrow enough situation that it can be automated and the crews can react better.

However, Airbus cannot just impose that solution on the world. If the new owner does not have the option to refuse it, then there will be an ugly fight. I suspect they would loose in a court case, as this does not have an force of civil aviation regs or law behind it.

In the case of aircraft already sold, I think Airbus sill wind up with a bloody nose if they try to change the software on the current owners without their agreement.

That said, I do not think a pilot has the information (nor the reflexes) to deal with mid airs, and the industry would be better off with that as the default (now that virtually all commercial aircraft have it on board).

I also think the US Navy should go to an auto land system for carrier ops. It would save far more lives and cost fewer airframes than the occasionally situation where the whole thing just did not work and they had to try to land manually.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 27 May 2006, 22:20

Once again Airbus is doing things before asking their customers, they seem to have forgotten who buys the planes, and more importantly who flies them. All pilots who sit in the left seat are called Pilot in Command, not computer in command.

Airbus seems to have forgotten that, it is the pilot who is ultimately responsible for the safety of every soul on board his or her aircraft, Airbus has not had great success with computers trying to fly their Aircraft.

This is an ill thought out proposal, and just advances the opinion of many that Airbus just blunders ahead without thinking about the consequences.

There are certainly procedures and warnings in place that seem to work eminently well, really how many mid-air collisions have there been.

Computers just like humans are fallible but the Pilot must at all times have the option to disregard the computer or switch it off.

Remember computers are programmed by humans , are they pilots too?

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 27 May 2006, 22:31

https://www.aviation24.be/posts16032-start0.html

JoNnika · Post by **JoNnika** » 28 May 2006, 01:20

bits44 wrote:Once again Airbus is doing things before asking their customers, they seem to have forgotten who buys the planes, and more importantly who flies them. All pilots who sit in the left seat are called Pilot in Command, not computer in command.

Actually the Pilot in Command (PIC) is the pilot actually in controls of the aircraft and this can be either the captain (left seat) or F/O (right seat) depending on the captains choise.

Ie if the F/O is handed over controls by the captain (sign "You have controls" reply "I have controls") then the F/O is PIC on the right seat, not the captain on the left seat.

Now back to the topic.

In flight school JAR FAA rules state that all pilots should have done "Human performance and limitations". That was one of my favourite lessons.
Nothing, not even a perfectly programmed computer, is more powerfull then the human instinct to survive. Pilots actually already have saved lives in situtations where computers would have failed to do so. Example: Crash Landing at Sioux City after full hydraulic failure. The pilots directed the aircraft to the airport using trust, ie more power right side to turn left and vice versa. This has been tested a few times in the sim and a computer never succeeded in even reaching the airport, killing all aboard where the humans actually succeeded saving lots of lives.

In this particular case i would think that TCAS is good and enough information for pilots to avoid mid air collisions but the pilots themselves should keep control over the aircraft together with the input they get from the TCAS. I stand by the fact that pilots should NEVER depend fully on a computer and should ALWAYS have the option to override.

Regards.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 28 May 2006, 14:53

JoNnika wrote:In flight school JAR FAA rules state that all pilots should have done "Human performance and limitations". That was one of my favourite lessons.
Nothing, not even a perfectly programmed computer, is more powerfull then the human instinct to survive. Pilots actually already have saved lives in situtations where computers would have failed to do so. Example: Crash Landing at Sioux City after full hydraulic failure. The pilots directed the aircraft to the airport using trust, ie more power right side to turn left and vice versa. This has been tested a few times in the sim and a computer never succeeded in even reaching the airport, killing all aboard where the humans actually succeeded saving lots of lives.

That's a load of luddite nonsense! I suggest you read up on PCA (propulsion-controlled aircraft) systems, before saying another word on the topic. The video of the MD-11 using such a system to perform a flawless landing without the use of control surfaces is also higly informative.

pressman · Post by **pressman** » 29 May 2006, 20:43

The FO is NEVER PIC , there is only one commander on the plane and that is in the left seat , when the FO is manipulating the controls then he is the "pilot flying" .The only possibility for the FO to log PIC is as PIC under instruction or "PICUS" for which a TRI or TRE is required .

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 29 May 2006, 23:35

Actually the Pilot in Command (PIC) is the pilot actually in controls of the aircraft and this can be either the captain (left seat) or F/O (right seat) depending on the captains choise.

Ie if the F/O is handed over controls by the captain (sign "You have controls" reply "I have controls") then the F/O is PIC on the right seat, not the captain on the left seat.

Pressman is right, the F/O is never the PIC. He might be able to log PIC, but he/she may never act as the PIC under 14CFR Part 121 (with a few exceptions).

FlyA330 · Post by **FlyA330** » 30 May 2006, 09:26

I think he means PF (Pilot Flying) and PNF (Pilot Non Flying).

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 02 Jun 2006, 06:30

PIC and all that aside (and I am a pilot so I know the duties and responsibilities of that), should the pilot (PIC or not) control the aircraft in that situation?

I base that on reflexes and judgment at those speeds.

I have only once been in a jet that crossed paths with another jet. There was no collision hazard, but we did cross closely and at only about a 30 degree angle. It was incredible how fast it happened, and I would not have been able to determine if he was at our altitude, a hazard or not and reacted in time (not to mention a number of time when the horizon was goofy and while fairly clear, to maintain level I had to rely on the instruments). Make a snap judgment where you are in regard to another aircraft under those circumstance, and you may just run into him.

Recall the accident in Eastern Europe where the pilots went against the CAS (because of a controller).

I think CAS should be made automatic, just not going about it this way.

And for every case of a pilot saving an aircraft in extremis that it would not have been programmed for, there are at least 10 where the pilot caused the accident to take place.

I am not ready for full computer control, but I do think in some cases the computer can do it better.

CaptainEd · Post by **CaptainEd** » 08 Jun 2006, 21:18

I had a real close call once in MIA flying the L-1011. A DC-10 on a go-around passed just a few feet above me.

No info from approach control.

They experienced a controller overload, which is what I was told when I queried them on the ground after landing.

Mudvayne · Post by **Mudvayne** » 09 Jun 2006, 00:21

pressman wrote:The only possibility for the FO to log PIC is as PIC under instruction or "PICUS" for which a TRI or TRE is required .

PICUS is Pilot In Command under Supervision and you don't need a TRI or TRE for that, any captain is good as far as I know... (Correct me if i'm wrong ! )

But you can only log your Pilot Flying hours as PICUS