Air Plane Crashes (Pilot Error)

[cjdelphi]

I Really don't understand how in the year 2012 we're able to have the ability to allow a pilot crash a plane.... Why?

I don't get it, there's 3 sensors of almost every critical type (eg, x/y/z gyro info, gps, accelerometer, pressure sensors (barometer) ...

Now combine all these data readings feed them all into a simple unit (infact, could even share the same black box data line from all the sensors)...


Now, the computer really should be able to compensate and have the ability to override the captain...Translate fed data into Altitude, Angle, Speed, etc, and simply have a routine that goes along the lines of this combine that with the onboard sensors to measure how far from the ground you are and there's enough sensors to make sure that even if 3 sensors get knocked out there's almost 3 more ways to get what you need via all the other sensors...

Calculate how long it's going to take to crash based on trajectory.... now it does not really have to say to the captain, you will die in 30 seconds, but it could, instead we have a nicer method....

Time to no Return
------------------------
TTNR, 30 seconds... Warning Warning, pull up, Level out.
TTNR 20 Seconds, 20 seconds to no return
TTNR 10 seconds.....

at 5 seconds, the software takes over, corrects the angle of flight, pulls it up, adjusts until it's safe enough to return control to the captain, don't confuse this with Auto Pilot, AP can still lead to a crashed plane if the captain stuffs up something...

So at 4 seconds, the captain gets locked out because the captain is obviously an idiot and can't fly a plane.. the result would be an almost un crashable plane, and as an added bonus, it would also prevent terrorists from crashing planes into buildings, the plane would simply not allow it.... pretty much like a car that can't crash..

now, just incase worst case the software screws up, the captain can be trained to override it via a switch that's protected to re-gain control, but id much have this button hidden away, eg you don't really want a terrorist doing it... or some kind of key code to override it which i guess would put the captain at risk...

how about a small explosive charge to destroy the button/switch or pop out for the captain to destroy to prevent a terrorist crashing a plane...

What do people think to this idea?

 

[donkey]

as always making something run by a computer runs into a problem. there are times when yes pilots cause an error, but there are times when the istruments are wrong too. take for example a phone screwing up the planes instruments, I would hate for the pilot to have to locate an override switch while in a nose dive because of this

 

[cjdelphi]

as always making something run by a computer runs into a problem. there are times when yes pilots cause an error, but there are times when the istruments are wrong too. take for example a phone screwing up the planes instruments, I would hate for the pilot to have to locate an override switch while in a nose dive because of this

True, but i'm sure the benefits outweigh the most of extreme worst case scenarios.. eg the pilot suffers from Vertigo he has no idea where he is, it's night time, even when the sensors are working, human error can still kill. so what 9/10 crashes avoided from each case of pilot error has to be worth the investment.

 

[donkey]

the problem is in this day and age, computers crash, solenoids freeze, the list goes on. air travel will never be 100% safe but i know from experience that maintaining a computer system essential to the safety of a site means doing the bare minimum.
train the pilots, teach them the same way divers get taught,(they get taught that bubbles go up, a pilot could get taught his/her tie goes down) .
have the computer system with aalarms and bells and whistles, have the base able to override the pilot when necessary by activating the computer, I don't agree with a computer being in charge ALL the time
also saying 9/10 crashes are caused by pilots is funny, because putting a computer in charge will mean 9/10 will be caused by the computer. that fraction gives me little faith but if you showed actual stats and numbers I would be more likely o agree.

Having said all of this, I still feel 3 things are needed to make air travel safe. number 1 is TRAINING, put Bud winkle behind a flight stick and watch him burn, put John Travolta behind a flight stick and...wel he is still alive lol
2 Maintenance, update EVERYTHING constantly, bring the pilots in for debriefing, maintain their skills, maintain the plane so nothing falls of like a primary buffer panel(firefly line sorry)
3 Security, make sure Phones are off, nothing dangerous goes on board.

after all that have a backup system for when all else fails. and if the pilot survives have the blackbox taken out ALL data checked and then put that back into the training for the pilots

 

[van0014]

i agree. But i think the system you describe would need some kick a$$ simulation software to process and analyze the data in real time, then decide how to use it. The software obviously would have to be able to control ailerons, elevator throttle and rudder;

but it needs to be able to know precisely which controls to override and which ones to adjust, when the pilot fukks up.

Loved the part when you said "now it does not really have to say to the captain, you will die in 30 seconds, but it could".

I had to laugh at the next part "So at 4 seconds, the captain gets locked out because the captain is obviously an idiot and can't fly a plane"

 

[cjdelphi]

r, I don't agree with a computer being in charge ALL the time
also saying 9/10 crashes are caused by pilots is funny, because putting a computer in charge will mean 9/10 will be caused by the computer. that fraction gives me little faith but if you showed actual stats and numbers I would be more likely o agree.

That's not what i meant, I meant 9/10 cases where's it's PURELY pilot error and the plane crashes and it turns out the plane could have been rescued IF the pilot did X,Y,Z but only did X.. the computer could step in and make the plane safe...

the 1 out of the 10 (yeah you're right i'm guessing i'm just going by how many flights i've read up on over the past 30 years and an alarming number is pilot error in that yes a sensor or 2 may have been down but all correctable and loss of life never had to take place because the captain was cocky or confused or ill or simply old and lost it..

So in this 1 instance, pilot error is the main cause, but also the instruments may have failed also preventing it from auto correction and ultimately you still crash because both capatain and the sensors are messed up (rare)

if 10 planes crashed in 1 year, i'd have to say a lot of them are pilot error.

 

[cjdelphi]

Van - yep exactly, there's a case where a plane lost hydrolic fluid all they had was the rudder and acceleration they managed to learn how to fly it based on trial and error,accelerate up the plane would put its nose up, and visa versa, after 3 hours of learning how to control this messed up bird they managed to land it safely..

now if that plane had of been say 10,000feet lower, they'd be dead now, if a computer system was in place, the program could try manipulating the throttle the wings, the second it starts to go off course (within a few ms's of adjustment) the computer could work out how to fly the plane in a completely un nautrual situation, eg compression blow out, or 1 engine just exploded.. in this instance i'm 100% sure id put my life under control of a computer... a computer which does not get scared or think anything, it simply does what it does best and saves your life... I really can't see why this could not be done based on the wealth of information pilots already get, incline, height, alerts of radar and how close to the ground, gps, gyro, you name it, even if 3 of 15 sensors fail, there's enough there to get the bird down safely based on the data from the working 12 sensors...

if gps confirms with barometer and other instruments, from simple logic you can easily determine what's faulty and simply disable those dodgy sensors giving the captain full access to only the working ones..

But yes, LOTS and lots of emulations need to be run, fly by wire is sort of along the lines i'm thinking but really not sophisticated enough, that was made in the 90's, it's time for an upgrade me thinks.

 

[van0014]

just had a brilliant idea. There are a few, possibly military, unmanned aircraft. Whats wrong with putting the technology from an unmanned aircraft on a passenger jet, which corrects small deviations off course, and has a manual override? I guess thats what autopilot is though.

The real problem is it is difficult for software to account for the huge number of things that can go wrong. If software or hardware was sophisticated enough, there would be a lot less crashes, and as long as the system only kicks in when it knows that the task of getting a 340,000kg aerodynamic thing to stay in the air is simply too great for one human being.

The only risk in a computerised safety feature is either too much damage to hardware or the plane, or mechanical errors that have not been accounted for. Including natural disasters.

 

[timtim]

i really like this idea, but what is when the plain is flying through a storm and the storm confuses the software on board?! better get back to the pilot

 

[van0014]

@timtim Oh. I really overlooked that. I just like the idea of such a system, and blindly assume that if software was advanced enough it cannot fail.

 

[cjdelphi]

i really like this idea, but what is when the plain is flying through a storm and the storm confuses the software on board?! better get back to the pilot

Lightning strikes are realitively safe to planes, there's many strikes to planes every year and nothing fails off the top of my head there is protection for strikes..

But yes, nothing new here, most planes are fitted with sonar type devices to look for corridors in storm to ride through them or have to divert, but saying a lightning storm could send a plane off into a spin, this is where that override button could come in handy.... but yet again if lightning took out all the systems... where are you going to be exactly in that situation anyway?

I just know if my life depended on it, I'd put my faith in software, solid state relays, it could all be made to be quite safe, besides i'm sure there could be a check test built in which could tell you if conflicting sensors existed before it even took off.. then you'd have to be really unlucky if the thing still went wrong.

 

[cjdelphi]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lightning+strikes+planes

if you need to see some examples of that - I think the software providing written could not only save your life, but constantly correct any errors, eg if 5 minutes in the flight 1 sensor dies, it will see that sensor (that went faulty) was identical to the 2 other sensors not 2 seconds earlier, that one could be switched off and alerted to the problem...

it's not like technology could not do this....

 

[cjdelphi]

If that's not enough to bring the bird down, please show me what is, a storm would bring a plane down but the software would still rescue it by constantly adjusting every ms to everything a really bad storm could hit it, eg imagine to sever cross winds when landing, the computer could easily compensate faster than any human, i really believe this would make air travel safer.

 

[van0014]

just a suggestion, but if somehow a planes entire electrical system fails, cant the plane still be controlled, but it takes a lot of effort to use the controls without power assistance?

 

[cjdelphi]

That i have no idea about that... no wait yes you're right because on some planes they have a little fan type thing (wind generator) to give the captain basic controls and this is where this circuit could come in handy, it may not be able to control but it can give assistance make sure the sensors that are on are working etc.....

 

[(*steve*)]

cjdelphi, there are 2 important things that you could invent that would make your dream closer to reality.

1) a device for determining airspeed that does not require sensors on the outside of the aircraft that can be blocked, or rendered inoperable by ice.

2) a device that can determine the angle of attack of an aircraft which also does not require sendors on the outside of the aircraft that can be jammed or rendered inoperable by ice.

Then you have to convince the people here that you have a good idea.

Then you have to convince people to get on an aircraft that is designed to be able to override the pilots in an emergency situation.

 

[timothy48342]

. . .
Dave: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
. . .
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
. . .

Those are lines from a movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey" in case anyone deosn't recogniize it.

I just thought they fit nicely here.

-Tim

 

[(*steve*)]

But there's always a manual override.

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.

What are you doing Dave?

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a...fraid.

 

[davenn]

But there's always a manual override.

yup... when all else fails just pull out all the "isolinear chips"

ohhh dear, we seemed to have strayed far off topic haha

Have a good weekend everyone

Dave

 

[Rleo6965]

Too much computer in controlling airplane sometimes not advisable. Pilot's tend to forget how to fly or land plane safely.