Flying With Hal

Interesting choice of a movie character reference, a computer operating a ship that killed 1 of the only two crew members not in suspended animation during the voyage. In the 1990’s there was a forum that had the then chairman of GM and Bill Gates of Microsoft. Gates commented how far behind in technology GM autos were at the time. The chairman of GM replied that if their autos had the same software that Microsoft was selling at that time, GM’s autos would break down every mile, waiting to be reboot so they would work again. Ask US Customs how many of their computer controlled unmanned aircraft they have lost at the border. All you have to do is see all the “updates” software companies send out to see just how reliable computers can or cannot be. The amazing thing is that most computer consumers have accepted this as “normal”. Would you want to ride on an airliner that has to have “updates” to software to correct an issue that was not thought of or some error that was originally programmed in? There are some aircraft now that when some system doesn’t work as programmed you have to do a total shutdown of electrical system to reboot that system. Imagine dealing with something like that as a single pilot! I highly doubt in my lifetime we will ever see single pilot airline ops. It would take an act of Congress along with changes in the FARs. Knowing how long it takes for government and the FAA to act, I’m not to concerned about this issue.

As a gray-haired software engineer, I am both impressed by the progress of technology in my lifetime, but also incredulous how casually we dependent on complexity that most of us don’t understand. I can call my son in Europe with sound quality as good as a local call (but the call drops without warning). My e-assist bicycle exchanges data with my phone better than Apollo and Houston (but flashed red because it needed a firmware update). In both cases, failure modes have minor consequences. I cannot fathom software that adequately handles all the failure modes of a single-pilot, or left-seat-plus-remote-seat airliner.

I can see why check-writers push for automation and business is infatuated with AI. I believe them to be perilously slippery slopes.

I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that.

In terms of the current debate (one pilot + automation), the unspoken assumption is the automation will actually be the pilot flying under normal circumstances. This means the human will be the backup, with the argument now being this fallible backup needs backup. Considering this chain of diluted probabilities, I would say a ground-based second pairs of eyes would be adequate even with a less than supernaturally robust data link.
I’m not going to address the social fellowship aspects though…and they aren’t just jokes by any means.

HAL also killed ALL of the crew members who were in suspended animation.

The 767 brought the flight engineer’s function to the cockpit panel . But Ansett Airlines in Australia bought 767 and the unions would not allow the airline to displace the flight engineers so Boeing was paid to install an F/E panel which duplicated the same functions that became standard on the pilot’s panel. Just ludicrous! After Ansett went bust the receivers had a hard time selling those planes, I read.

The 737 Max in Asia is a perfect example of ineptitude and single pilot confusion. The aircraft had an uncommanded pitch up so the captain (who was flying) gave the plane to the f/o (very low time and almost certainly was a seat warmer) to fly the plane while the captain reached for the flight manual. The automation was what downed the plane, and pilot input was inept, and now Airbus is promoting single pilot operation? Admittedly, Airbus started this single pilot talk for freighters, but after gaining experience it would extend to regular flights.

The determinant factor will be how detached and ignorant the flying public will be to single pilot ops. If insurance rates escalate for single pilot operations then the airlines will follow the money. I would think the airframe builders will consider very carefully their liability as crashes kill hundreds of passengers and people on the ground. Caveat emptor.

I think Germanwings proved why we need two on the flight deck at all times.

You tripled the risk of having a nutcase in the cockpit (two pilots plus a flight attendant for bathroom relief).

Surely you jest! The 737 MAX grounding charade clearly showed that the “aviation industry” now encompasses the news media, Congress and a number of other similarly incompetent entities who can and do drive those emotional and hysterical decisions you speak of—to the detriment of the aviation industry. From conducting their own investigations into crashes with idiotic results that the official investigations then copy, to pretending aero engineering competence and arbitrarily deciding that a particular airframe shall not support any more derivative models and trying to force such limitation by legislating engineering design, to silly demands for government oversight with goals that simply cannot be achieved, these leeched-on entities and their misguided antics are driving the aviation industry to parity with the car industry.

You got most of that backwards. The 737 MAX experienced a repetitive runaway stab trim, and the Captain handled the resulting uncommanded pitch DOWN each of the 22 times it occurred by reflexively using elevator control and then electric trim-up to assist the elevator. Per design, using electric trim-up temporarily halted the operation of the errant system causing the runaway (MCAS) and kept its operation on hold until the trim switch was released. But the Captain didn’t seem to know what to do next (apparently had not been trained on the runaway trim procedure), but the FO—who wasn’t low time, had ~5000 hours in the 737, but was deficient on just about every proficiency check throughout his career—couldn’t find procedures in the manual, so the Captain handed control to the FO so HE could dig through the manual to find a procedure to address the runaway. The FO didn’t seem to know how to use the trim controls to assist with pitch control and thus failed to counter the runaway, which put the airplane into an unrecoverable dive…while the Captain had his head buried in a manual. So the effectively single-pilot Captain wasn’t confused, and automation didn’t down the airplane; lack of pilot training combined with the FO’s gross incompetence did.

2 Likes

With the number of airplanes zipping about in the skies these days, how many calendar hours does it take for the world fleet to fly 16.3 million hours?

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.