Trend of machine design trying to protect, or think better then humans?

Ran across this article this morning.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ulletin-for-737-max-after-indonesia-jet-crash

AOA issue, potentially due to airspeed sensor issue, computer puts a/c in dive to regain speed. Pilot must know corrective action, not to keep the a/c flying, but rather to stop the a/c from wrecking itself due to computer inputs.

This trend is on current cars.

A new 2018 F150 has "pre-collision" warnings, that measure your deceleration rate (or lack of) to the vehicle in front of you, and throw up flashing lights, bells and whistles, and apply the brake for you if you don't turn it off. If you're driving the first time in one and are going to pass someone, it can be an interesting mix of WTF!! as the truck fights you for speed management.
It also has blind spot indicating mirrors, auto shutoff in case you forget your engine is running, and perimeter warning that honks the horn when you take 2 steps away from the truck with it running. A front camera so you don't bump something in front. Perimeter cameras to encourage you to look at the screen instead of out the window when backing up.
Do people REALLY need these things? Are we that dumb? Careless? Lazy? Did we forget that we are operating a machine?

Don't get me wrong, the ability of sensors and software, at a low enough cost, to install an accurate velocity rate-of-change sensing system in a vehicle is awesome. And I'm sure a by-product of the autonomous vehicle development push. But really... we still have windows....

When the first driver (teenager?) tells the officer, "it's not my fault, my car didn't put the brakes on", I'll be over here saying I told you so. If you want to ride, call an uber.

There was a story on the news this morning about the skyrocking costs of auto repairs because of all the sensors that need to be replaced and recalibrated after even a minor impact.

I'm really worried about this ever growing trend that the aircraft is a fully automated/autonomous machine, and the pilots are basically just systems managers. When something goes significantly wrong with the "system", nobody seems to know how to actually fly the machine. Kind of like the Asiana crash at SFO in 2013. In that case, the flight crew just sat there and watched the airspeed decay and watched the airplane fly itself right into the rocks. In the case of the recent Indonesia crash, I have to wonder why nobody tried to take control away from the auto-pilot. Were they in IMC with no visuals?

txpacer said:

There was a story on the news this morning about the skyrocking costs of auto repairs because of all the sensors that need to be replaced and recalibrated after even a minor impact.

Click to expand...

Friend of mine has a new F350 big Ford truck he uses for business... Left side view mirror got knocked off by a trailer... Cost to replace, $2000... side view camera and sensors..

That's the cost of tech... My 03 Tundra is fairly low tech comparably...

Brian

those 03 tundras are pretty much bullet proof also, good truck.

More detail on correcting the Boeing 737 AOA error and elevator trim management : https://airwaysmag.com/industry/lio...ns-737-max-operators-of-potential-trim-fault/

Gary

First of all the "stick pusher" on the B737 is not new. As aircraft go even the new 737 Max is not very sophisticated, certainly not on the scale of an Airbus. Stick pushers have been around for 50+ years. Airbus has for several years had procedures for dealing with a faulty stick pusher which reflects in my mind a higher level of consideration as to dealing with errant systems. I think after AF447 Airbus realized they had to "amp their game" in this regard. Boeing seems a little behind and Asiana does not seem to be as seminal for Boeing as AF447 was for Airbus.

Now we can complain about all this automation all we want and from our point of view it might make sense. However we are a "first world" nation. What do you do with nations where a Tut-tut is high level ground transport? It is entirely possible many of the pilots in these countries have never owned an automobile, nor do they now. About 30 years ago the entire industry did a study and came to the realization that on the present course of aviation expansion, especially in second and third worlds, given the then current accident trends that world wide there would be a catastrophic accident on average......once a week. Clearly that has not happened and it has not because in large part the protection systems that have been engineered into jet transports.

The real problem is how do you train with those systems active? Recently I purchased an automobile that is considered the most sophisticated in the world. On the one hand it has things such as adaptive cruise control which I sometimes find myself cussing because it slows for the car in front unwittingly to me until I note the change in the HUD when I should have changed lanes earlier to maintain speed. On the other hand, the other day a truck to my right rear quarter started drifting into my rear quarter panel. If it had not been noted by the car the truck could have "pitted" me resulting in a rollover. The car quickly assess conditions (400 times/sec), accelerated, checked the lane to the left and moved over while at the same time announcing the imminent collision on the HUD. That kind of watch cannot be maintained unless you have your eye buried in your right mirror and the blindspot at that. I note your complaint about insurance the comprehensive on this car is higher than the collision coverage. That means the insurance companies (who do not loose money) understand the statistics of these systems. In fact these systems have lessened collisions beyond their own estimates.

https://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/vehicle-shopping/discounts-collision-avoidance-systems.html

The bottom line is these systems will become more prevalent than less and their value has been proven to be more additive than subtractive. 6 decades ago we heard stories about prop Captains transitioning to jets. Stories about high sink rate approaches (not wanting to powered up engines on approach) etc. We have similar challenges now in training pilots how to use these systems when they work, how to note system failures and how to fly with failed systems. It is more likely for a pilot now to deal with a dual air data system failure than an engine failure at V1 within his/her career. We need to deal with those facts and train for them. As we do, our Cubs will become more valuable, because pilots like to be pilots. Checking out in the Airbus was a big driver for me to buy mine. But all the Cubs flying in one year do not equal the one day of hours of operation of one large air carrier and that is why these systems are needed.

More on this 737 control issue: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614857-indonesian-aircraft-missing-off-jakarta-36.html

Gary

More addictive than subtractive. That sounds like something my teens would be into. Lol.

None the less good points. A very good friend of mine recently transfer transitioned to the airbus, after nearly 3/4 career of flying Boeing products. Based on our discussions it was a very difficult transition and I know he works very hard at getting to know anything he flies, as he’s a pilot first. He’s wants to be the best at anything he controls.
Unfortunately, this might not be the pilot that the new generation of airplanes is designed for. Maybe they’re looking for software programmers and engineers, to have the analytical mindset to rapidly decipher the situation?


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

We can look at the "old way", i.e no control augmentation, which as an example is the DC-9/MD-80 series aircraft. Not much in the way of protections there. Heck you even have to manually select standby power when both generators go kaput. Based upon data from the two largest operators in the US, do you know based on FOQA data what the number one parameter that is deviated upon in flight? Stalling the airplane. Yep more than any other aircraft, and more often than any other inflight departure, stall is numero uno. Not the case with other fleets.

Regarding my car in Alaska. Nope it does not belong there anymore than a Cirrus belongs on a soft field. That is why I also own an F-250 4x4. The first thing you do is evaluate your operating conditions before you grab the keys. Just like flying.

And with the amount of time on the phone/computer rather than actually doing “stuff” they are losing their peripheral vision. Teaching new pilots, its always fun to see the transition from fixed focus tunnel vision to where the world opens up to them and they start using peripheral vision to control and fixed focus for collision avoidance and cross checking. It seems more and more that the transition takes longer and longer than students say 10 or 20 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a more complex environment that it was 20 years ago.

On the other side of the fence, I don't miss the days of pulling out of the field to drive up a hill on a tractor with no brakes, pulling a side rake, and praying you don't miss the shift because if you don't hit it perfectly you'd never find another gear before rolling backwards unable to stop. Did that once. Wrecked the rake.

They didn't have hill assist back then.

Farmboy said:

On the other side of the fence, I don't miss the days of pulling out of the field to drive up a hill on a tractor with no brakes, pulling a side rake, and praying you don't miss the shift because if you don't hit it perfectly you'd never find another gear before rolling backwards unable to stop. Did that once. Wrecked the rake.

They didn't have hill assist back then.

View attachment 39694

Click to expand...

But.....................that's why all of us older kids can drive anything that moves. See if some kid today can hold the clutch in with his left foot and with the right foot heel hold the brake and pump the gas pedal slightly with the middle all while your right toe is pushing on the starter button in the middle of the firewall. The new vehicles are training units for dummys

Glenn

And ABS...Everyone should learn to drive in a '53 Chevy pickup where you have to pump the brakes and plan ahead.
We've hired young guys who had never driven anything with a clutch and a stick shift... Forget about them using two feet to operate four pedals.

My wife made her daughter learn how to drive a standard at 15 so she could get in anything and drive away if she needed to.

Those same kids can do things on computers and with math that most of us middle aged guys don't know exist. Those kids don't need to know about manual transmissions. It's a new world. We're the relics.

Hardtail John and I do some relic stuff. This was yesterday, Fjord horses I trained for a client in Japan. Tomorrow I'm taking them to quarantine in preparation for their flight to Tokyo. Thread-drift, except not really - different skill sets for different purposes.

Could not see the pictures, Gordon.

All of us grew up with technology of some sort (cars, airplanes, Mr. Coffee machines) that our forepeople probably whined about also. I love the good old days as much as the next guy, but frankly, these are pretty good days too and I really enjoy watching the advancements. Some might be "dumbed down" by it, but I think safety will win out.

Now this on the other hand... heck, if you can't back a trailer, you should not have a boat! The lakes will be FULL of incapable boaters..
https://www.tfltruck.com/2018/11/wi...mated-boat-trailer-backup-system-patent-news/

Pretty amazing stuff...

sj

The other beauty of advancement is the ability of people to combat technology with their own technology.
With a $30 OBD adapter and free software, I can access Fords modules and turn the annoying horn chirp and auto stop/start features off.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

The only constant across generations of people in a world that’s seen rapidly advancing technology since the industrial revolution is that old men complain about change. As younger men they embraced it. To me that defines getting old better than the number of years does.

stewartb said:

The only constant across generations of people in a world that’s seen rapidly advancing technology since the industrial revolution is that old men complain about change. As younger men they embraced it. To me that defines getting old better than the number of years does.

Click to expand...

Good thing to remember. In my 20s I was sort of a retro-curmudgeon: I built tube amplifiers and rejected newfangled CDs.

But now my library has thousands of volumes and is mostly digital. I use voice recognition to type and have my smart phone read 100 page pdfs to me while I drive. My entire office is in my laptop tablet and yet backed up in several places. Younger colleagues come to me with their tech problems.

But I'm also happy to know what lapping compound is and how to use it (unlike the young clerk at the local NAPA).

I took my old Tacoma to the dealership for recall repairs and they gave me a new one to drive. It was a devious plot to get me to buy one. This thing had more radar emitters than an aircraft carrier. Satellite infotainment system standard, warnings for any deviation. It's a truck, for crissakes, all it needs is a stick, a clutch and maybe a radio. I have to admit, though, the backup camera would make hitching a trailer a lot easier.

RVBottomly said:

Good thing to remember. In my 20s I was sort of a retro-curmudgeon: I built tube amplifiers and rejected newfangled CDs.

But now my library has thousands of volumes and is mostly digital. I use voice recognition to type and have my smart phone read 100 page pdfs to me while I drive. My entire office is in my laptop tablet and yet backed up in several places. Younger colleagues come to me with their tech problems.

But I'm also happy to know what lapping compound is and how to use it (unlike the young clerk at the local NAPA).

Click to expand...

I resist becoming a grumpy old man. Change is good. Learn something new. Try something different. Keep an open mind. Life is good.

I like technology, I really do, and I don't resist what I consider to be improvements.

What I resist or have a hard time wrapping my head around is when a group of people decide to implement a feature that is designed to eliminate my need to think, or simply be conscious of my actions. If I need the truck to notify me that I have stepped away from the vehicle and left it running, then it's time I turn in my license to operate a motor vehicle.

Then there's the cost. Why should I pay for something I'll have to figure out how to disable? The days of the cheap truck are gone.

stewartb said:

Those same kids can do things on computers and with math that most of us middle aged guys don't know exist. Those kids don't need to know about manual transmissions. It's a new world. We're the relics.

Click to expand...

Yup, till their battery dies.

Glenn

Steve's Aircraft (Brian) said:

Friend of mine has a new F350 big Ford truck he uses for business... Left side view mirror got knocked off by a trailer... Cost to replace, $2000... side view camera and sensors..

That's the cost of tech... My 03 Tundra is fairly low tech comparably...

Brian

Click to expand...

Bought a new 2018 F150. I asked for simple. Manual windows, manual transmission...vinyl seats and floor... what I bought has electric windows...those damn auto door locks, cloth seats, the auto engine shut off, 6 spd auto trans and the rear view camera. The remainder is simple. Cheapest one on the lot at $26k. Will disconnect the auto lock feature for the tail gate..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

My dog prefers electric widows. I like auto trans and traction control. The rest is baggage.

Gary