When 'psycho' automation left this pilot powerless
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2017
- For the first time since 2008, the captain of the imperilled Qantas Flight 72 reveals his horrific experience of automation's dark side.
#news #aviation #plane #australia #usa #flying
Read the full story - www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/th...
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel:
/ smh
Subscribe to our journalism:
subscribe.smh.com.au/
subscribe.theage.com.au/
Listen to our podcasts:
podcasts.smh.com.au/
podcasts.theage.com.au/
Background music should be in the background!
Muzak took control.
Could have been an interesting video but the dreadful and unnecessary background racket ,aka MUSIC (?) ruined it all, why must all these videos have ridiculous music over powering the narrative?The noise does nothing to enhance the technical content and in all cases it is sheer rubbish PLEASE ,producers,think about this.
J
John Johansen 😂😂😂
you have no right to vito the background music
Why are pilots named Sullivan are always in trouble
or that majority of airplane accidents involve with military fighter pilots now captains of commercial airlines
Arimitra Chakrabarti
Because pilots named Sullivan solved the problem and survived....
Because envelopes ✉️
I think you're confusing Sullivan with Sullenberger.
KryzMasta
Of course I am. And happy to do it. Capt. Sullenberger was made a honorary Sullivan. Ask any Sullivan! The man sits at the right hand of God. Ask any of his passengers!
This pilot is far better than any computer will ever be. Give him the airplane.
Computers can and do fly better than any pilot ever could. We however do need a switch to turn off that computer when it screws up.
@@flyingdutchman6984 I understand what you are saying. However when I am riding very uncomfortable in coach my money is with a older military ,ex fighter old school true pilot. Bless all of you ! 8k hr CFI 60 years in the air. most all the ratings & I will never be as calm, cool & collected as you !!1
@@pauleyplay - given a choice I would prefer an old school pilot too. Easier to talk to people my own age. 🤣
@@flyingdutchman6984 It's a proven fact the onboard Computers react far faster than the human brain. The Computer will get you out of trouble very quickly!
However, the Computers don't have the Human factor that sometimes is needed in emergencies. MEANING: Sometimes the Computer is wrong, and it doesn't realize it's wrong!
computers are fucking trash HAHA
‘Psycho’ automation is the perfect term for it.
People forget that computers are built by men and programmed by men and are not infalliable.
@@watchgoose the computers were allways overrideable. And they detected the malfunction of the flight envelope after 3seconds and returned All controlls to the pilot.
The video is weird, for not telling those facts.
After the flight. A item was added to the emergency protocolls that points to the fact that in such cases overriding the flight envelope should be done.
A J Its not a psycho
Its misinformation
The adirus didnt think the other adiru was wrong
because they disable adirus if they keep doing misinformation for more than a second
the misinformation adiru avoided the system
and made the system think the plane was stalling and tried to stop it but it made the people indangered
I think it did that because of radiation and particles of space but i could be wrong
probably the particles bit flipped the system
and turned 0 to 1
It's amazing how he rotates his miniature airplane by exactly 50 degrees :-)
that or the one who placed the cgi protractor that way
Maanup Bhullar
are you dumb? 50 degrees is 50 degrees no matter how you place your protractor
I agree! I replayed it to see if the protractor was non-linear, if they moved it or if 90 wasn't 90, but no, he was almost bang on! Spooky!
Ascendancy are you daft? CGI still needs to calibrate the protractor to show 50 degrees
Ascendancy 50 degrees is 50 degrees no matter how you place your protractor unril you place your protactor with 0 degrees at about 10 degrees when level to earth is 0.
Lesson learned all AI must have an OFF switch.
D Jaquith. If you somehow were able to turn the AI off, you would have no way to send signals to the flight control surfaces, and therefore no way to control the airplane.
Maggie Lou
No, you're confusing a control layer with no control at all, disabling AI is disabling its control, equivalent to manual versus automatic control.
Since pilots initiate half of all fatal accidents we need FULLY AUTOMATED aircraft.
Not this half assed shit that's in the air at the moment.
Bruce Baxter
As soon as an AI is 100% infallible then I'll agree with you. To argue otherwise is asinine.
D Jaquith
When pilots have around 75%failure rate and a 50% fatal initiation rate,
I'll take a set of interlinked computers every time
This pilot saved everyone’s lives. ❤️. Just watched a 40 minute documentary about this and at the end he said he felt so bad because he felt like passengers were looking at him and blaming him for their injuries. In reality, they won the lottery that day having him for their pilot. I really don’t think anyone blames him. If anyone did, they’re an idiot.
Even if he had, it profoundly affected him, to the point he stopped flying in 2016. But he deserves the recognition of what would have been a forewarning of MCAS on 737 Max that had previously claimed 346 lives.
@@ROBLOXGamingDavid , yes, I agree with you.
Guys like this make it possible for us to learn and avoid it happening to us. He brought everyone back down safely, a true hero.
Thats why you should always wear your seatbelt when seated
head injuries were from the beginning when it was unexpected, like the pilots advise keep seatbelts on if planning to remain seated
Always wear your seatbelt when seated but never when standing.
They said people that were wearing seatbelts also got serious injuries from the incident. Didn’t help much, but it still did
A fastened seat-belt might have helped them *walk away from the plane* which is what the whole crash procedure promotes. Turbulence has been proven to injure un-belted people. Wear the belt...
A seatbelt is great as a deterrent frm getting flung about when turbulence hits the plane, but the bigger issue is getting better locking mechanism on the overhead baggage compartments dat are coming undone & flinging baggages everywhere & causing head injuries even to the seated & belted passengers..
Capt Sullivan has what it's called superb Airmanship
This happened at 37,000 feet, if this was triggered while taking off at 3,700 feet - none would be alive to tell the story.
Komputar it is the case in lion air and ethiopian air
both of you ,smart asses are right !!!!!!!! sometimes automation put you in the dark !!!! @@samuelderek7029
@@samuelderek7029 difference is that this plane was not designed by moneyhungry american morons, instead by Europe's finest. This has only happened on this particular route with this particular airplane so the risk when flying in an airbus is so much lower compared to flying a boeing. If it ain't airbus, i'll take the bus.
@@specialperson335 Then hop off UA-cam and stop giving money to MoNeY hUnGrY aMeRiCAn MorRoNs😬
Important to note. While this Airbus plane was fully autonomous in this regard, Boeing's automated pitch-down can be easily disabled by either Flaps 1/more or stabbing the trim, which would both disable MCAS (the system that pitches down when the angle of attack is way too high), preventing the accident from occurring.
How did he regain control?! Why did the video stop before explaining it?
Colin Southern
Very informative
Explaining the simple "off" button (or 2 in this case) available to the pilots on the overhead panel would've made the story sound less dramatic.
They all died except the pilot. He bailed out at 10000.
@@starbucks3954 Dude, what's up with the hate? Take a nap or have a Snickers.
@@colinsouthern re: "the aircraft have always had a way to quickly override the automation, but it wasn’t published as a required memory checklist item until after (and because of) this incident." TRANSLATION: it's all fun and games until our "blind faith" in automation kicks us in the ass and reminds us that there's NO SUCH THING as perfection. anything and everything made by man has a "failure mode".
Seems like if you are a pilot, and your surname starts with "Sull" you are in trouble.
or that they flew military aircraft
Especially if you fly an Airbus
Sully
Steven Bai sullyyyy
I would go as far as saying. If you are going to have a problem in flight.... Your Captain better be a "Sully."
Suddenly showed up in my youtube list, may be because of 737 Max..
Surendra Balu Me too! Boeing 737 MAX is Horrible!!Boeing in deep trouble now.....😁（︶︿︶）=凸
me to i was watching mcas video and then sullevin happed
Me too! Somehow the MCAS video from Mentor Pilot led me here.
It is relevant I suppose. Awesome youtube AI.
@@fumingjeh 737 MAX is not horrible, Boeing managers and FAA are the one horrible. The plane itself is fine, the automation system is fine, but somehow, they rush thing and overlook problems that can be optimized and fixed easily. An update to the software, using data from 2 available sensors instead of one, telling the pilot about the system, either of them can stop the accidents from happened. They were too rushed and negligent.
Thank you for not informing how the problem was solved during the flight.
Yeah, right. Ridiculous.
There's a link to the full story, so read it.
@wattlesong Yes. But how? It is not told in the video.
@@valeriegriner5644 And why not show it in the video instead?
Buy his book. It will be published on 31 May 2019.
Every software package ever designed got released into the marketplace with bugs known and unknown. Did you think aircraft would be different?
I think that this shows that while tech can make our lives safer, we absolutely need to be able to override it even if the overwhelming majority of the time it works correctly and actually makes us safer. When it does get it wrong, we need to be able to correct it with full control.
Forgive any ignorance on my part, I got the impression from this video that the Override option did not exist. In fact, the video seemed to specifically say that the Pilot did not have an override on his Airbus. Additionally, my comment is not just about Airbus, it's about all Automation. With that said, thank you for your reply. It's good to know these things.
Joe Will The pilot did say that the computer is first then comes the pilot and that it wont let you override it.
That's Boeing's philosophy. On their newer designs there is the same flight envelope protection as Airbus, but if the pilot applies more force to the yoke s/he is able to override the limits. There is also better situational awareness for pilots with linked left & right seat controls & autothrottles that move the thrust levers rather than the fixed detentes in AB. Personally I'd rather a slightly higher chance of being killed by a pilot mistake than any chance of being killed by design errors in the automation system. At least with the pilot we are all in it together.
It was a design sir if that was the case. A design error caused by humans. Not AI. So AI really isn't to blame here.
Marvincent Acuña Everything we build was designed by humans so everything is human error. You can never blame AI because AI was built by humans. The real question is can an engineer on the ground ever be able to predict all the situations the aircraft and or pilot might find themselves in and program a solution for every single instance. I hope you agree the answer is no. Having a pilot that can override everything and break the plane if he has to is in my opinion the right way even if on average it doesn't save lives. It is part of what makes us human.
Well there are a couple of switches on both the 777 and the Airbus, that you can pull.
This disables the flight control computer and allows you to take control, you still don't have "Direct control" of the surfaces like on a 747-400.
But, your inputs are no longer being checked by the computer.
Long as it cant be overridden, thats ok with me.
Colin Southern so their crap performing uncommanded 50 degree pitch down maneuver in less than a second slamming passengers off the top of the plane was the crews fault. Good job with Airbus it's always the cruise fault except it's always Airbus weird it's almost like it's something to do with Airbus. By the way clearly did something right since the pilot was actually talking and not a grease stain like so many other Airbus Cruise have become
Was thinking the same thing, why didn't he reach up and push the two switches that would have given him direct law of the flight control..... dunno.
I agree with you completely as a matter of fact the first a320 at an airshow would not follow the pilots commands to climb and went into the woods and became a fireball. They always blame the crew, the way I see it the pilot is second in command on airbus and airbus is running the show so liability is solely on airbus.
he sounded like he was about to cry at the end. :( must have been very traumatic for him.
33,3 Anders yes . He blames himself . How tragic . Wish he knew how much of a hero he is
It's very noticeable that the pilot had talked about the incident dozens of times before. His comparisons were amazing and in general, he was fun to listen to.
Presumably he managed to switch off at least 1 ADR to regain control. Terrible when it happens, luckily he kept his head cool and was able to land the airplane. Well done captain!
Fun automation fact (tangential to airplane control): any general AI system will always try to prevent you from switching it off. At least, that is the default and it will be very hard to make it otherwise. Robert Miles' videos about AI safety are a must watch. We are in a worldwide AI arms race and the loser is going to be humanity if it continues.
But yet the same technology couldn't save the Air France flight when the pilot was stalling the aircraft out
Kyle Campbell No kidding. Isn't that exactly the kind of accident the airbus system should have prevented, yet it made it worse.
To be completely fair, in that incident the aircraft did disable its envelope protection because it wasn't getting enough data to fly safely, and then the pilots who were too reliant on the plane to do the flying for them couldn't figure it out and deep stalled the fucker into the ocean. Really, if you put the same retards in charge of a 747 and the autopilot disconnected they might manage to pull off the same thing (though without FBW the stick shaker would be going off the entire time instead of intermittently).
MillionFoul this. The PIC of 447 failed epically.
everything failed all at once. the auto pilot disengage and the pilot now has to think what the correct airspeed he should have. You know what happened but it's a different scenario where even the pito tubes failed
Except that the aircraft returned to a normal flight condition _minutes_ before it struck the water. Even in alternate law the stall warning horn sounded twice and both pilots were trying to control the plane at the same time, with contradictory inputs, and ignoring their incredibly high descent rate.
Correction, it's not the computer that is #1 and the pilot #2,
it is the computer programmer that is #1.
I was on a plane that dropped a thousand feet in a second. It sucked. every one became weightless and the flight attendants were flying. fortunately no one was hurt.
Thats fun.
Sounds fucking awesome.
The pilot should always be the redundant system not the computer. Automatic systems are great but when they go wrong I’d like a real person who can make a calculated decision, easily switch the system off and do things the old fashioned way.
@@Happydrumstick93 obviously you have no clue how modern airliner is flown and what is the missed approach / go around procedure. "Heavy fog both pilots looking outside" !? Where did you pull this out of - your A$$?
@@Happydrumstick93 Computers are made by humans so they are prone to failure just as the pilots are, We seen that already too. Because of the improvement in safety leading to fewer incidences companies have gotten lax. Pilots still need stiffer training and the technology needs more redundancies.
@@Happydrumstick93 Yeah it's a case of letting double digit IQ morons pilot airplanes.
Me, too. If this pilot hadn't been a veteran "Top Gun" Navy fighter pilot, this story would not have ended well. You should read the entire article...there's a posted link.
You can clearly see that this guy was traumatized by this event ✈️😳
Everyone needs a wake up call when it comes to AI
Especially AI that has remote master command.
You can be killed without a trace of who done it.
You should read the article for the full story. There's a link to it. He has PTSD from this incident...for good reason.
@Kula Cnt what not him it's Airbus and their shitty computers if it was another pilot we would be happy to having a different talk
It would be terrifying to find that you have no manual control of an aircraft, albeit briefly, in a very remote area.
eyestoenvy Apparently, he was so traumatized by the event, he retired as a pilot right after.
this is why pilotless airplanes concept is not possible and dangerous , a faulty computer can lead to tragedy .
So can a faulty human, or just one that made a mistake.
I/O switch. Without it, it’s pure technological arrogance.
You can't, the airbus is fly-by-wire, shutting down the electronics is as good as shutting down the entire plane itself.
Fly-by-wire means that the flight control surfaces are operated by electric motors reciving signals over wires instead of by hydraulics. This not imply that the behavior is different. Allowing a computer to substitute its judgment for the pilot’s is a separate thing. Computer control is implemented on wires, but that does not mean that the computer has more authority than the pilot. Whether it does or not is a matter of systems design.
not true. These control surfaces are electrically actuated but hydraulically operated. There's a difference.
....Systems design. Yes. And that design has to change. Very soon!
The PILOT must be number ONE again, and the computer number TWO!!
A computer ALWAYS have to be just an 'assistant'. NOT the one who is flying the aircraft!! That's insane!! This goes, by the way, also for cars!! NO 'self-driving "cars" anymore!! Nothing is more STUPID to lay your life in the 'hands' of a computer!! We should NEVER do that!!
And there's something else we should realise: Progress doesn't always mean that it is GOOD!! Progress is NOT always improvement!!!
No computer is ever going to replicate the experience, determination and quick thinking of a human pilot. The passengers of this flight are lucky to have had an exceptional pilot as their captain.
Great pilot, glad to see him speak publicly about the real reason for the situation. It goes to show that the airlines didn't censor him.
I think MCAS stands for "might crash again soon" !!!!!
Make Crash Automatic Sysytem
@@mountainconstructions LOL! GOOD ONE
"...MUST crash again soonest"
MCAS is Boeing. This was an Airbus. Similar issue (one erratic sensor sending an automated system haywire), different chain of events, possible solutions and final outcome.
You missed the part where he said automation has made flying safer.
This exact thing happened to a Malaysian Boeing 777 only a few months earlier...aircraft made a return to Perth. The manufacturer of the Air Data Unit was the same.
Captain Sullivan is a hero!!! He along saved everyone!!!!
Bad data from one source again.
Time for these modern aircraft to have more redundant air data sources and better disagree logic before acting to 'correct' something.
And the ability for the pilot to override the computer when necessary.
Also, only the French/Euros would engineer a system that would so wildly react to a situation as to cause such a dangerously fast "correction" to the aircraft's pitch. I would think an easy does it approach would be better. Also, some common sense engineering would say: "Hey, this is a truly extreme angle of attack. Perhaps I should ask the pilot if they think there is a data problem or are we really stalling." I'm an engineer. When you encounter extreme values, you've got to first assume an error in data, not "we're crashing right now." Love the French engineers.
@@mynameisgladiator1933 Oh my, you really went there. At least the first thing this aircraft did when bad data occurred was auto disconnect autopilot. It only pitched down when autopilot was re-engaged. They flew the remainder of the flight manually.
Now by your xenophobic logic, how daft is a system which when fed bad data from one AoA sensor, continually commands -2.5 deg pitch despite repeated opposite trim from pilots *during manual flight??*
No wonder the FBI is now involved in the 737 Max debacle.
@@mynameisgladiator1933 "Debate" is an exchange of ideas. Your ad hominem diatribe when presented with harsh reality aka 'facts' hardly qualifies.
Care to try again or is 'if it ain't Boeing I ain't going' xenophobia all you've got?
@@damonreynolds6775
Complains about being attacked. Uses language like: xenophobic logic, a fake, made up pejorative term like racist you fucking moron!
I love how stupid you libtards are.
I hope they fixed this issue. The human should always have a veto over the machine.
When you say veto, do you mean like Danny Devito?
Yes, 2001 a space Odyssey and the Terminator movies warned us about that.
@@boataxe4605 Don't forget iRobot
Except the ones susceptible to MKUltra if the only other pilot goes for a crap
I disagree. These systems are designed to stop humans from making mistakes, and they're really really good at it. You've seen the graph - flying today has never been safer. And the great thing about the level of automation that goes into these planes is that, when there IS an accident, that accident will generate lessons that can be used to make the systems even better.
Human pilots are very limited in how much information they can take in, and they're limited in the sense that they make mistakes. Computers don't have those limits to the same degree.
Again: keep in mind that flying today has never been safer. What you're saying will undo a lot of that.
Shaking my head is the name of this channel
Andrew Anane smh
The full story is in "No Man's Land", the book written by @Kevin Sullivan and published through Harper Collins and ABC Books.
Very adequate approach to the question of man versus computer.
When the captain becomes passenger 1.
computers are great aides, but they do screw up. when they do a human needs to take charge. "Override!"
Humans screw up way more often than computers though.
What happens when people screw up, when does the computer get to override the idiot humans?
Lucas R Yeah, especially in computer programming, which an AI could exponentially improve itself.
Andron MacBeton Most likely it had nothing to do with bad programming. A team of aerospace engineers built the spec that the programmers followed, and I’d bet that the engineers were aware of the risks, heck they probably fought for more hardware redundancy but ultimately settled for a risky design to cut costs due to pressure from management. I don’t know for sure but that usually the way it goes.Very unlikely to be lazy programming.
Bravo Capt. Sullivan, I salute you SIR!!!!!
The pilots more or less spontaneously recovered control at lower speed and altitude. It’s on UA-cam. The Captain and a senior cabin crew met much later in San Diego. It was evident both fear computer controlled (Airbus) aircraft.
Was this pilot Sullivan the same pilot that safely landed in the Hudson River in NYC, saving the lives of all on board?
Pilots should always be in charge! That is the bottom line. That pilot deserves a metal of honor for saving all his crew members and passengers.
WHY oh WHY must video producers have over loud 'BACKGROUND 'MUSIC' which virtually scrubs out the narrative, after all, it is the voice/s which are of interest, NOT the abysmal racket aka 'music' which ruins, absolutely, ALL such videos, time producers grew out of this kindergarten approach, it does NOT add drama, it is infuririating. Please take note.Some watchers do not have perfect hearing, thus extraneous rackets, such as added to this particular video ruin the storyline by imposing idiotic noise. Get it?
I agree. There's way too much music (shitty ones) in each and every video these days. What we need is less music, but a good one when it's needed and not otherwise.
Unfortunately - no - they definitely do not get it.
I wish this story had included how the pilot did or did not resolve this issue, and if any changes are proposed to address this situation, even if it is unusual.
Modern boats have the same problem, there have been several cases of the control computer crashing leaving the Captain powerless as the boat crashes into the dock.
Don't bring a knife to an airplane fight.
I always wear my seatbelt in a plane, from the begin to the end. A good habbit :)
As you should. I hate when people stand during turbulence because I have seen it get really bad.
So is it just me or is there something missing here? If the computer thought that the AOA was to high, and was pushing the nose down and disregarding all inputs from the captain, then what happened to stop it from smashing the plane into the ground or sea? What happened or what did the pilot do to save the plane?
Airbus would be insane not to include an override function. It's simply that the pilot took some time to realise that it was the computer's mistake and not a physical problem with the control surfaces or any other number of possible factors. I presume the accident occurred rather quickly.
Thanks Collin, that was very helpful :)
Colin Southern people were knjured but at least everyone survived to teach us about this problem. whew.
Superb job flying! Thank goodness
One thing i don's understand. If you switch off one or two the ADIRU's then the sidestick goes to 'Direct law' wich means. There is a directional link between sidstick movements in relation to the control surfaces. It "bypasses' the computer so that the pilot has full authority over the aircraft.
That is my worst nightmare! I just can't imagine the terror
737 Max 8 brought me here.
Patrick Tomasso :
Lucky you. It appears that most 737 Max planes will only fly to the scene of the crash. And they get you there first!
@@muimasmacho This is an AIRBUS plane. AIRBUS planes have had several accidents involving computers suddenly misreading pitch and speed due to sensor failure.
[CCLGamer]
*_"Put a'nother quarter init Daddy!"_*
*_"I'na go agin'!"_*
Fast forward 10 years and you have two fatal crashes directly caused by bad ai
About the Max 8; Keep salespeople, their calendars and customers away from the airplane until the test engineers have fully tested the airplane.
*Answer to JT610 and ET302 in one entire video*
Engineers and companies who claim automation is the future, have alot of blood on their hands. Majority of pilot error accidents..... are automation failure accidents.
Rubbish. They've saved far more lives than they've taken. Utter rubbish. People are always always always going to die, it's a fact of life. Things aren't perfect, that's humanity. If you want to be safe, stay inside and die anyway.
this is how humanity and technology evolves dude !! unfortunately this is how things move forward ... Astronauts, pilots, medicines, cars, food ... many times comes with fatal tolls.
Note to self. Always make sure to book a flight with a pilot named Sullivan
Problem was the plane was synced for northern hemisphere. It couldn't comprehend the reverse toilet flush thing.
and here were are and we have no right to vito the background music
Because on board computer has decided to play music for the safer of Video watchers.
Although this was an interesting video with a very compelling story. There is a large chunk of the story that is missing... How did Captain Sullivan manage to gain control of the plane in order to make the emergency landing? Why did the plane not nose dive into the ground? Oh, I know... he put on the air brakes!
Double redundancy or triple redundancy of critical systems in some cases. This (supposedly) means an alternate system can take over in the event of a fault. This is however no good if the primary system has already killed you to death. If you see what i mean.
It's indeed the lack of nowadays computers that explains quite a few of the massive number of crashes that happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The CFITs for instance are totally a thing of the past when it comes to airliners today.
Captain Sullivan was definitely on point. I went to a seminar at March Reserve Base. It was about his quick wits and engineering on the Airbus he was flying. I found it crazy that If 1 engine is down, the plane's computer shuts down fuel to all engines. That man is a hero. And against all odds.
Rich Bund We definitly need more info. Sounds to me the skipper was able to over ride whatever caused his problem in the first place. FBW has it's disadvantages@
I found this video RAGE inducing because of that reason. What the fuck happened?! How did he land the plane?????!!!!!!!
Great job landing that runaway airplane Skipper!!! I began my career in electronics first as a technician and later as an engineer. I started so long ago that they were using card punch machines, monster Winchester drives and computers in huge racks. I can tell you that as the technology "improved" the control we had over it was greatly reduced.
And people said this kind of thing does not ever happen to Airbus , it seems like the sensors in these things are to blame there certainly is a need for redundancy with tubes and sensors and an off switch on every system
This is exactly what’s going wrong with the 737 Max
no, the MCAS system was written to allow corrections for stall up to 7 degrees, now being re-written to reduce that to 2-3 degrees. Also, third world airlines will be given more information about the system and how to use it.
I've never had my computer lock up or go crazy. NEVER!! 😁😁🤣👌
No, the difference is that the 737 max is an inherently unbalanced plane due to the addition of much larger and heavier engines, it’s computers are not just controlling the plane, they are compensating for a design flaw.
watchgoose watchgoose: I think you are wrong. Read the best comment above from @Boat Ace. Do not trust media 100% then you are in trouble. They will sell your mind to the highest bidder.
@@zdzmi6799 You're the one selling your mind to the highest bidder. Watch goose is right.
Fly by wire is not junk what airbus fails to realize that Boeing still has going is the the human at the end of the day should always have the final say automating to make the plane safer and more fuel efficient is really good and stuff but you should never take the control away from the pilot
なかやまかずえ It didn't crash. Who knows what would happen in some situations if control is giving to pilots. Fbw and the flight envelope is why there are fewer crash nowadays
You realise that 787 and the 737 MAX have fly by wire systems in it?
cohen200 777 has fbw too, and 747-8 is also partly fbw
I never said Boeing doesn't have fbw I'm simply saying most Boeing aircraft allow pilots to have full control regardless of what the aircraft thinks its doing like I said fbw is good and both airbus and Boeing should continue to improve on it but it may just be me but I would much rather know that I can take control whenever I feel like without the airplane interfering or overriding my inputs
Pilots have direct control in any Airbus. You switch off the flight directors and you immediately revert to "Direct Law" which is direct control by the pilots - no protections. The bigger problem is that once the computers are switched off the pilots do not have the skills to hand fly the aircraft any longer - i.e. Air Asia crash.
I had heard the edge details about this case. I won't even switch to electronic shifting on my bicycle, so I know how he feels. It's good to learn from other disciplines as a means of gauging what changes will coming to yours. Conserve your resources and make ready to leave your chosen profession when the changes overwhelm your patience.
This error of engineering is inexcusable. The design took the engine thrust off-center to accommodate larger engines without redesigning the plane. They used automation to patch this faulty design, but relied on a single mechanical sensor prone to failure to automate correction of faulty flight characteristics. This should have used at least a trio of pitch sensors with majority "voting" for redundancy. If no two sensors agree, the algorithm would be disabled and a clear warning from the flight system hands it over to the pilot, who is trained for reacting.
Following the tragic events involving the boeing 737 max 8, it appears that the computers should NEVER be allowed to override the human pilots.
Clearly you know nothing about aviation but that's fine
Yea just throw a switch but these pilots not trained to turn auto stab trim off. That's how the lion air flight was saved months before. A guy flying center seat turned them off in the dive and saved the plane so for me, its training.
There is a fundamental difference in philosophy between Airbus and Boeing fly-by-wire designs.
Boeing systems pass all autopilot commands through the pilot's hand controls in the cockpit, so they can be forcefully overridden at any time. Also, the pilot can overpower any envelope protection by pushing/pulling hard enough on the controls. Finally, if an unthinkable combination of faults occurs in the computing, the pilot can resort to Direct mode which takes computers out of the control path.
Airbus gives final authority to the computers and they cannot be overridden by forcing the cockpit controls.
You have to be bit of a genius to be able to determine what should be done in all aircrafts based on just one example.
@@satyamfifa You're right, you said it first :)
Let - the Force be with you.
Very ENLIGHTENING! I remember back when the 'FLY BY WIRE' TECHNOLOGY was in it's infant stages in the YF-16.
As 'Virginia Slims' used to say:
"You've come a long way baby!"
I am naive of course, but why cannot there be a simple off button to some computer functions so it can be over ridden?
There is, as explained by someone else above.
The computer will revert to human input if the computer detects errors. As long as the computer sees "sane" data, the pilot is out of the loop. Catch is, it's multiple computers, and the pilot can turn some of them off -- which causes the remaining of them to detect errors (specifically, "Hey! Where'd those other computers go?!" thereby giving the pilot control...
... it's just not an obvious function/procedure, and until this incident, pilots weren't trained on it.
The same thing happened two weeks ago Ethiopia airline
No
No, that was not the same.
Boeing made software changes, adding MCAS, so the plane would handle the same as previous 737 models even though they made physical changes to the engines / wings on the 737 MAX 8. None of which pilots were informed of.
Autopilot with manual mode, yes. Fly by wire? No.
No software layer between the pilot and the mechanical control, please.
fun fact, the pneumatic on a non-fly-by-wire can sill fail, but they fail harder when they do, btw did you listen when it was shown that fly-by-wire was safer?
This was really interesting, cheers for the vid
Ight fine but in those two seconds its weird how much you actually think; the guy had no way of knowing whether the safety systems would even come on! And you say only 650/400 feet, yet that's a 1/10 of a kilometre and it nearly killed a bunch of people
I’m sorry Sullivan, I can’t do that.
(Edit:) I posted this, then they made the reference. R.I.P.
Did you try Ctrl-alt-delete?
Terminator Skynet has taken over.
Not really; the aircraft's software just failed. It wasn't maliciously trying to bring down the aircraft, it just broke.
One thing you can do is put the landing flaps down the minimum amount. The flight computer allows the pilot to take control if the flaps are down, presumably to land the aircraft.
That's crazy because usually the rear of the plane is the safest place to be seated in an accident
That reminds me so much to the recent 737 MAX crashes
*Fly-By-Wire brought down the A320 first air show*
Intellectual Hazard*/_\* nope, poor planning and piloting did. You can research it
Brendan Petry nope. The airbus went into landing mode and wouldn’t let the Captain have his increased engine power until it was too late. There was no such condition as landing mode in a conventional aircraft unless the flight crew specifically selected auto land.
Apparently, black box analyses regularly reveal pilots last words as “why isn’t this aircraft doing what II want?!” before impact.
@@helmethead72 The airbus doesn't have a "landing mode" so to speak. The reason that airbus crashed was because the pilot performed an airshow manouver way too low and too slow. The aircraft was heading for the trees so the pilot pulled up on his stick and throttled up. Engines have a spool up time so until the engines reached full power he couldn't climb. The computers did the right thing in preventing him from pulling up. This avoided a stall which would've led to a way worse accident. 3 people died whereas a stall would've led to a horrible catastrophic accident. Read the crash report.
Qantas seems to have the most bizarre issues. Flew them in 2010, from LA to Brisbane and turbulance was insane.
Dude had some serious flight hours.
I really dislike how they totally failed to mention that the malfunctioning ADIRS was made my Northrop Grumman. The ADIRS sent false information to the computers and the computers acted as they were programmed to do. Seeing comments going on about how they prefer to fly Boeings, and all other totally misguided comments, are totally frustrating.
if the pilot is number two behind the AI systems, then why have a pilot at all?
seems like common sense to allow the pilot to override the computer.
Colin Southern , in this particular situation, I think you are incorrect. The system was not protecting but killing the lady who's head got stuck in the broken ceiling, for example. There were fatalities through a mechanism very similar to Boeing 737 MAX crashes.
I'm guessing since he, the passengers, and crew are still alive, that means he beat the computer.
While this automation does cause the occasional incident like this, and even the crashes recently of the max 8, its important to remember that the same automation has prevented even more crashes from pilot error.
@Bugler55 More commercial flights, yet less crashes. Planes are getting safer with technology.
I pointed out the danger of these computers having primacy when I went through A-330 training - transitioning from B-767 Captain - in 2003 and later in A-320 school, as well. In my view, the pilot must have the final say and be able to turn off these automatic systems. The override procedure should be simple and accessible.
I also think it is highly debatable whether these fly-by-wire aircraft with three computers "voting" on whether to allow a pilot's flight control inputs to be transmitted to the movable surfaces have been the reason for the multi-decade declining rate of accidents, as is implied in the video. I think procedures, cockpit discipline, improved training and aircraft reliability, especially engines, have constituted most of the driving force in improved safety statistics. I am not, and never have been, an Airbus fan, despite years of flying them across the Atlantic Ocean.
That's why I'm not flying without a pilot ...
what? lol
Rocksmith Pdl What is so hard to understand and/or comprehend about my post ?
isnt there always a pilot when you fly lol
Yeah , but my comment was referring to if the pilot environment became automated and no pilots were onboard.
lol probably in the future
Scary to know that this video was made long before the recent 737 crashes.
Question: why can fly by wire not be manually overridden , at least to a basic extent?
MCAS on the max8 anyone?
MCAS was first designed for military jets. It’s safe and reliable but it has to be properly programmed by a complex algorithm.
Why do you have the background noise?
Muzak took control of SMH?
It's traditional. Sort of like cow farts, it just happens!
Max 8 made this video super relevant now
Pilot should ALWAYS have final control....Any computer should "not let" the pilot have final say in such a situation.
Kinda eerie with two accidents with the 737-8 MAX since then..
Why didn't he simply turn the plane off and on again?
Well, so, how did he recover?
So what now? How did he regain control? Did he switch off automatic flight or did the plane save itself?