RE: PH Blog: blind faith

RE: PH Blog: blind faith

Monday 19th December 2011

PH Blog: blind faith

Can you really trust the black boxes?



Strange the kind of stuff people put up on Facebook. Like this scary but fascinating report into what happened on the Air France flight that plunged, apparently mysteriously, into the Pacific.

Having recovered the black boxes the full truth of what happened makes fascinating - and horrifying - reading. Especially if you ever worry about how much control we hand over to the machines.

Coming at you under radar guidance...
Coming at you under radar guidance...
It seems the pilots had so much belief in the idea that the Airbus A330 wouldn't let itself crash that they ignored ever more strident warnings and eventually stalled. They were so convinced by the manual's assurances that the Airbus simply wouldn't let itself stall they ignored the warnings, thinking there must be a fault with the instruments. That blind trust ultimately led to the deaths of 228 people.

And there's a danger cars are going the same way too. Take the E63 AMG test car we've just handed back for example. Though it seems utterly counter intuitive you can cruise in stop-start traffic with your feet off the pedals under radar automatic pilot that'll even bring you to a halt when the car in front stops. Brush the throttle and it'll move off again, maintaining an electronically metered distance whatever the speed. These systems have been round a while but we're breeding a generation of drivers who, eventually, might never have had to make these kind of decisions themselves. As Riggers has reported this week, a new patent marks the next step to cars that can drive themselves. But if, as in Flight 447, the computers go a bit screwy where does that leave them?

So who's actually in control?
So who's actually in control?
Blind trust in electronics can bite and it's actually had me off the road too, leaning against the mid-way 'show-off' ESP setting on a wet slip road. I was counting on a nice electronically enhanced - and recovered - slide. But the computers said no and off I went. Dumb, but previous experience said it'd have given me a quick half a turn of opposite lock and then tidied things up for me. When it didn't I was suddenly on my own and out of talent. I'd been lulled into a false sense of security that tricked me into thinking I could drive like that with impunity but, on my own, my skills weren't enough to recover the situation. A sobering moment indeed.

When they work these systems are incredible and mean a 500hp-plus rear-drive estate car with an aggressive limited-slip differential like the E63 is viable family transport even in the weather we've been having the last few days. A few years back that would have been considered ludicrous but now we take it for granted. And the E63 is a wonderful thing. But as Flight 447 proves it's sometimes worth trusting your instincts, as well as the black boxes.

Author
Discussion

brillomaster

Original Poster:

1,242 posts

169 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
i think far more accidents are caused by human error than computer error - obviously there will be teething problems though!

v8will

3,301 posts

195 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
Reminds me of a sign I saw many years ago.

To err is human, to foul up completely requires a computer.

Draexin

147 posts

169 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
Article said:
These systems have been round a while but we're breeding a generation of drivers who, eventually, might never have had to make these kind of decisions themselves.
Exactly!

Here in the Netherlands, apparently quite a few accidents were caused by people relying too much on what their sat-nav told them to do, ploughing right into ditches because they didn't look but blindly trusted their TomTom or Garmin...
Being able to use electronic aids such a sat-nav are a requirement for driving tests/lessons now.

However, when using sat-nav *you* are still in control of the car..
Things get really scary when the car (partially) drives itself.

soad

32,829 posts

175 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
Good read, thanks. Not a fan of endless electronic gadgets wizardry myself frown

964Cup

1,407 posts

236 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
I think ESP, ABS and the rest of the safety TLAs have terrific value as back ups to your ability. If you start using them to drive beyond your own talent, you're bound to come a cropper at some point.

I've valued ESP most when - for instance - driving gently, but tired, and coming across a patch of diesel on a bend. Having the car cut power and continue round unruffled was vastly preferable to having to summon a sudden correction from my weary reflexes. The same goes for ACC (radar cruise); I always covered the brake when using it, but it was the best thing ever in fog - set it to maximum range, drive at the right speed for the conditions and it would likely pick up the car in front before you saw it. I still always drove at a speed which meant I could stop within visual range, but could be much more relaxed about it.

On the other hand my race car now has no driver aids at all, by choice, since my biggest crash can be blamed on over-reliance on ABS (and on stupidity, and overconfidence, and overdriving etc - it was still my fault).

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
Clapton. Baker. Winwood and the other one. Blind faith were a great band, despite only doing one album...

LuS1fer

41,085 posts

244 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
When that laser in the Seat Mii fails - and the car crashes into the car ahead - will it say "It wasn't Mii"...

ballscript

24 posts

147 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
PH Blog said:
But if, as in Flight 447, the computers go a bit screwy where does that leave them?
Popular Mechanics said:
We now understand that, indeed, AF447 passed into clouds associated with a large system of thunderstorms, its speed sensors became iced over, and the autopilot disengaged. In the ensuing confusion, the pilots lost control of the airplane because they reacted incorrectly to the loss of instrumentation and then seemed unable to comprehend the nature of the problems they had caused. Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots.
Hang about, you can't cite an article and then just draw the complete opposite conclusion to it.

Poko

303 posts

168 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
ballscript said:
Hang about, you can't cite an article and then just draw the complete opposite conclusion to it.
I'm assuming it means that people wouldn't know how to react or what to do when the computers go wrong, not that it was the electronics as fault as such?

Also, that A330 article is actually quite scary.. All it took was the loss of the airspeed for the 2 highly trained pilots to seemingly forget how to fly? All I read is that one of them decides to then increase the altitude, stall it and ignore all the warning signs simply because apparently they're impossible to stall?!

Edited by Poko on Friday 16th December 22:52

kicks

144 posts

186 months

Friday 16th December 2011
quotequote all
ballscript said:
Hang about, you can't cite an article and then just draw the complete opposite conclusion to it.
You're right. Article was wrong. The computers didn't go screwy. They went from normal law (it won't let itself stall) into alternate law (it will let itself stall). The pilot flying at the time fked up not the computers.

I still would cover the brake with all that automation on cars. But how hard is it to drive it yourself. Even on long drives surely doing nothing will help you fall asleep more then just sitting there waiting for car to arrive at it's destination.

Reardy Mister

13,757 posts

221 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
If the computers were telling the pilots it was going to stall, didnt it do exactly what it was supposed to? Where is the fault of electronics here?

People see the power-sliding heroics of Top Gear etc and set about trying to pull the same stunt. But in order to overcome the electronics, you have to be ever more violent with the throttle and steering inputs. The problem comes when its not switchable or is still activated in some way and you set about trying to push the limits (as the author discovered), by the time you overcome the brain, youre in so deep that no amount of talent will save you. But you cant blame the computers for that.

Tail out action ought to be induced and controlled using power, not sheer momentum. You can shut the power off to stop the action but once you've got a pendulum swinging, you're a passenger. You'll get a better result on the big merc by grabbing your balls and turning everything off. The action will start sooner (with a lower terminal speed) and will be easier to keep a lid on.

I can see the author's point but I dont think he's made it very well here.

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
Just how reliable are control systems? One slightly dodgy sensor and the car is being lied to, so how does the software work out that a particular sensor (or two) is not reliable? Doesn't really matter with an air bag warning light, but brake by wire is a bit trickier... as the driver is half asleep, assuming that it won't go wrong.

Reardy Mister

13,757 posts

221 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
A more pertinent point here is to what extent manufacturers now make cars that are really only driveable with all the gadgets switched on.

If that's not the case at all, then how are we really benefitting apart from having our driving experience and our skills levels, dulled?




Crikey, an idea for some actual journalism...


Edited by Reardy Mister on Saturday 17th December 01:06

EDLT

15,421 posts

205 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
eldar said:
Just how reliable are control systems? One slightly dodgy sensor and the car is being lied to, so how does the software work out that a particular sensor (or two) is not reliable? Doesn't really matter with an air bag warning light, but brake by wire is a bit trickier... as the driver is half asleep, assuming that it won't go wrong.
If a brake position sensor fails the car probably won't start. I assume if it is already running it will go into an extremely slow limp home mode and scream at the driver to stop. Cars just aren't badly made to the point where the brakes could fail without the car or driver noticing.

Before anyone mentions Toyota, go read up about their failed attempts to recreate the "accident"

_g_

741 posts

200 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
Reardy Mister said:
If the computers were telling the pilots it was going to stall, didnt it do exactly what it was supposed to? Where is the fault of electronics here?
Indeed. The problem here seems to be they DIDN'T trust what some of the black boxes were saying, not the other way around.

Bonefish Blues

26,445 posts

222 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
_g_ said:
Indeed. The problem here seems to be they DIDN'T trust what some of the black boxes were saying, not the other way around.
Sad but true. Plane says "I'm going to crash, no I really am" over and over and the pilot in control ignores it.

Other pilot didn't notice until too late that the stick was hard back because his didn't synch with the other - perhaps someone more expert than me could explain why the two don't synch, as it seems counter intuitive?
ETA
I've had a wander across to Planes, Boats etc and now better understand the non-synching issue.

Edited by Bonefish Blues on Saturday 17th December 10:20

Mr Will

13,719 posts

205 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
The problem is not computers, or even humans, but having two drivers who do not communicate. Both think the other has control and neither does.

The move to full automation (whenever it comes) will cause a drastic reduction in accidents but the question still remains - will we as a society tolerate any at all while the car is in the hands of a computer?

Superjuiced

257 posts

193 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
I can't help but thinking the captain has to take the biggest portion of blame. going off for a nap and letting two inexperienced copilots fly the plane through such a weather system, especially after the they had not done the necessary research on weather systems of the day like their fellow pilots in the sky at the time.

can the copilot be blamed for inexperience an being immersed into that scenario without the proper training? Or am I missing something??

Ed.

2,169 posts

237 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
The cruise is the most straight forward stage of flight, the experienced pilot was resting to be ready for the more complicated approach stage.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 17th December 2011
quotequote all
eldar said:
Just how reliable are control systems? One slightly dodgy sensor and the car is being lied to, so how does the software work out that a particular sensor (or two) is not reliable? Doesn't really matter with an air bag warning light, but brake by wire is a bit trickier... as the driver is half asleep, assuming that it won't go wrong.
on the airbus, there is more than 1 pitot tube (airspeed sensor), the A330 (as with most other types) have 3, in the Air France crash, 2 of them were reading erroneously, the autopilot had disengaged because of this, and the pilot's failed to understand what they were being presented with.

you cannot blame the autopilot or the flight control systems for this, at the end of the day, the pilot's should have been capable of dealing with the loss of 1,2 or all 3 pitot sensors.