Both pilots of an A320 fell asleep in the cockpit for 28 minutes(airlive.net)
airlive.net
Both pilots of an A320 fell asleep in the cockpit for 28 minutes
https://airlive.net/reports/2024/03/09/report-both-pilots-of-an-a320-fall-asleep-in-the-cockpit-for-28-minutes/
124 comments
"'More than half' of pilots have slept while flying" - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544
It’s actually harder to do nothing and just watch things, it’s its own special kind of fatigue. I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often.
A small anecdote, I learned/realised this when visiting CERN (many years ago) and seeing someone in the control room playing a computer game on a laptop next to his big displays.
So I asked and they said something along the lines that yes, it's allowed because otherwise the people would fall asleep, especially during the night shifts when their job is just to sit there and let the experiment run an be ready to react if necessary.
This seems like a useful solution, but I guess it's hard to do as a policy as there is a fuzzy line between the game taking too much attention and not being interesting enough.
This seems like a useful solution, but I guess it's hard to do as a policy as there is a fuzzy line between the game taking too much attention and not being interesting enough.
So we’re actually being told not to do this, even on night shifts, but I don’t think it’s actually being enforced. I did to some work on my PhD thesis while on shift, though.
Ok, thanks for the updated info, maybe it changed, it was over 10 years ago
Same must apply to many control jobs, including nuclear plants. They can run themselves for most of the time. And it is probably preferable if there is no fiddling on going.
For context, I was a private yacht chef for 7 years. On long legs of a trip I had to hold watch at the helm for 3 or 4 hour shifts while everyone else rested for their watch. Staying awake while using auto pilot was a special type of mental anguish.
I did delivers up and down the Atlantic in 2000s I remember it being awesome. Granted I was 20 and like the time we got too close to a us aircraft carrier and they launched a helicopter that did a fly over to check us out that was pretty great. We also always had lines out to catch fish and let me tell you when that line caught something didn’t matter if it was your shift or not it was “fish on” everyone jumping out of their bunks to help. Best fish tacos ever. I do remember the captain could be pass out drunk and still dock the 70 footer without issue and then stumble below to pass out. But yeah we slept a lot too but underway maybe 6-7 so plenty of time to fix or react big difference from an airplane or even autopilot car
We passed an aircraft carrier going up the East Coast while they were doing exercises. They radioed us and made it clear not to come close to the ship. I have video of fighter jets doing low passes over our yacht every 15 minutes or so using us as a practice target. Going South once, as we came towards the inlet at Fernandina Beach on the Florida, Georgia line, a nuclear submarine was leaving port. I was at the helm in the afternoon while everyone else was sleeping. Good thing I was awake because we were met with the Coast Guard helicopter with a mounted machine gun pointed at me and a Coast Guard response (defender class) boat with a .50-caliber machine gun also fixed on me while they sat off our bow. I communicated with them on the radio; they said I should hold my position and not move. The sub came out with two large ships on each side with blast shields on the each ship.
This is all very interesting and completely foreign to me!
> Coast Guard helicopter with a mounted machine gun pointed at me and a Coast Guard response (defender class) boat with a .50-caliber machine gun also fixed on me while they sat off our bow.
Why'd they do that?
> they said I should hold my position and not move.
Why?
> The sub came out with two large ships on each side with blast shields on the each ship.
...why?
> Coast Guard helicopter with a mounted machine gun pointed at me and a Coast Guard response (defender class) boat with a .50-caliber machine gun also fixed on me while they sat off our bow.
Why'd they do that?
> they said I should hold my position and not move.
Why?
> The sub came out with two large ships on each side with blast shields on the each ship.
...why?
I have be boarded by Coast Guard while entering US territorial waters. They will line up all boats moving from Bahamas towards Florida and have them hold speed and direction. Then they push an inflatable boat onto the stern and board with about 6 people all armed with fully automatic rifles. Mostly, they look under the floor boards for drugs and make sure the registration and documents are correct. The Coast Guard does not mess around.
When a $2,000,000,000 Ohio class submarine carrying ballistic missiles is most vulnerable leaving port moving towards water deep enough to dive in. The Coast Guard is tasked with keeping all potential threats away. The ships on the side would protect the submarine from RPG and similar attacks while the submarine is surfaced.
When a $2,000,000,000 Ohio class submarine carrying ballistic missiles is most vulnerable leaving port moving towards water deep enough to dive in. The Coast Guard is tasked with keeping all potential threats away. The ships on the side would protect the submarine from RPG and similar attacks while the submarine is surfaced.
> why?
Safety and security. A small boat can be a threat and cause damage to a larger boat if you let it get close enough. Small boats can easily capsize if they get too close to a larger boat.
Safety and security. A small boat can be a threat and cause damage to a larger boat if you let it get close enough. Small boats can easily capsize if they get too close to a larger boat.
> captain could be pass out drunk and still dock the 70 footer without issue
Brings up memories…
This was same with my father, he stopped drinking later but when I was a teenager and stuck somewhere after midnight I would call home and he would say “sure buddy” and come pick me up. On the way back his eyes were almost closed and sometimes we would joke about how the car knows about the roads and can go way back home itself. He is too old now and actually has a 12 meter boat which can’t dock himself alone.
Like the “mostly self driving” car systems where the driver is expected to pay attention well enough to take over if needed
This is the worst of both worlds, I would (and do) rather just drive “manually”
Driving cross country in a car is actually the worst when you're in stop and go traffic, or cars keep slowing down and then speeding up. I can't wait to get my hands on adaptive cruise control because I get so aggravated and tired from having to shift and adjust speed. If I can just sit in one position and listen to comedy podcasts and audio books I do so much better
I finally got a car with adaptive cruise control and lane assist a couple of years ago. It is the best. Driving feels relaxing. I actually feel less fatigued. I can just listen to music /podcasts /audiobooks and not care about how others are driving. Feels like sitting in the passenger seat and watching the road.
I wouldn't feel safe if I wasn't listening to something that kept me engaged though. I would totally nod off.
I wouldn't feel safe if I wasn't listening to something that kept me engaged though. I would totally nod off.
I don’t have good “lane centering” but knowing that it has the lane departure warning and will automatically bounce me back into the lane if I slip up for a moment is enough to make driving less stressful.
I was excited to get adaptive cruise control, but I’ve found I don’t like using it very much. It’s too aggressive with hitting the breaks to maintain the following distance instead of being able to ease off the gas to fall back like a human driver would. Assume some brands are better at this than others, but anyway I didn’t buy a Mazda to not drive it. So I use that only intermittently for long drives as a bit of a break for my right foot.
I was excited to get adaptive cruise control, but I’ve found I don’t like using it very much. It’s too aggressive with hitting the breaks to maintain the following distance instead of being able to ease off the gas to fall back like a human driver would. Assume some brands are better at this than others, but anyway I didn’t buy a Mazda to not drive it. So I use that only intermittently for long drives as a bit of a break for my right foot.
Having done both, there’s just no going back to boat or car without autopilot.
Definitely slept a bit while doing night passage (alcohol). Would be impossible in a car given how much driver monitoring is out there.
Definitely slept a bit while doing night passage (alcohol). Would be impossible in a car given how much driver monitoring is out there.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often.
From context I guess you meant either "I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens more often" or "I would be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often." (https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=273 has many fun examples of this sort of thing)
From context I guess you meant either "I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens more often" or "I would be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often." (https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=273 has many fun examples of this sort of thing)
Oops. And this is what happens when you accidentally double your negatives, thanks for the point out even if it’s too late to edit.
I cannot deny that your comment couldn't have failed more to displease me. Cheers,
One of the reasons the current "Self Driving" cars kinda suck. Majority of the time you're just not doing anything, but still have to be 100% attentive.
It really is comically reversed. Robots are far better than humans at watching for a long time and jumping in to help instantly with an acute problem when needed (like braking or swerving to avoid an obstacle). Humans are better at interpreting a complex scene and making a high level plan.
And this is basically what most other manufacturers’ driver assists do.
My wife’s car has adaptive cruise. It just needs to watch constantly and adjust your speed to ensure the distance between you and the car in front remains relatively constant.
It has lane keeping assist and lane departure alerting. It constantly tracks where the lines on the road are and either gently nudges you back in the lane, or beeps at you if you cross a line.
It has emergency braking, it’s constantly watching and if it sees you approaching something at a rate or distance that suggests you are likely to hit it, it will alert you. If you continue, it will apply the brakes for you.
If you’re stopped for a period of time (like at a light) and the car in front of you pulls away and you don’t after a brief moment, it will ding to get your attention and let you know traffic is moving.
Pretty much all of this is making use of the strengths of the computer (uninterrupted attention, quick reaction times) to make up for the weaknesses of the human (distractable, slower reaction times) instead of trying to do the reverse.
My wife’s car has adaptive cruise. It just needs to watch constantly and adjust your speed to ensure the distance between you and the car in front remains relatively constant.
It has lane keeping assist and lane departure alerting. It constantly tracks where the lines on the road are and either gently nudges you back in the lane, or beeps at you if you cross a line.
It has emergency braking, it’s constantly watching and if it sees you approaching something at a rate or distance that suggests you are likely to hit it, it will alert you. If you continue, it will apply the brakes for you.
If you’re stopped for a period of time (like at a light) and the car in front of you pulls away and you don’t after a brief moment, it will ding to get your attention and let you know traffic is moving.
Pretty much all of this is making use of the strengths of the computer (uninterrupted attention, quick reaction times) to make up for the weaknesses of the human (distractable, slower reaction times) instead of trying to do the reverse.
I've found the self-steering of new cars to be not at all useful for the stated use case. In my car, the self-steering pushes back a bit and deviates from the course ever so slightly so that you have to keep your hands on the wheel. I'd rather steer it myself.
But in those moments where I'm trying to find the UI for adjusting some climate setting, and I don't have my eyes on the road, that's when the self-driving is useful.
Maybe technology creates its own problems. To be fair, the radar cruise control is nice for long drives.
But in those moments where I'm trying to find the UI for adjusting some climate setting, and I don't have my eyes on the road, that's when the self-driving is useful.
Maybe technology creates its own problems. To be fair, the radar cruise control is nice for long drives.
I think sweet spot is probably somewhere with adaptive cruise control and light lane assist. Too much beyond that and you have to be fully autonomous in all situations.
In the case of Waymo, you're sitting in the back seat and don't have to pay attention to the driving if you don't want to.
> still have to be 100% attentive.
Starting absolutes is poor.
This just an oxymoron. Highways are designed to take attention off.
On a chill highway drive I’d guess most drivers are no more than 50% attentive, driver assist or not.
Starting absolutes is poor.
This just an oxymoron. Highways are designed to take attention off.
On a chill highway drive I’d guess most drivers are no more than 50% attentive, driver assist or not.
Perhaps you could interpret "100% attentive" as "at the same level of attentiveness as being without the current generation of 'self driving' technology"?
First question - how do we tie this to Boeing? (A joke, of course)
Second, interesting to note planes don’t have deadman switches.
Second, interesting to note planes don’t have deadman switches.
Unlike trains, there isn't one action that is basically always safe (stop the train). A dead man switch activating at the wrong time, could itself cause an accident.
That’s true, but there are plenty of other options. For example, a dead-man switch could:
Send an alert via transponders that it has been activated.
Maintain level flight but avoid terrain. (After a waiting period in which a pilot can deactivate this feature.) Or descend to a safe altitude if cabin pressure is lost.
Activate a mode in which the plane could be remotely flown or directed to land itself.
Alert flight crew that the pilots are incapacitated.
Or the most basic: make some noise to wake up the pilots.
Send an alert via transponders that it has been activated.
Maintain level flight but avoid terrain. (After a waiting period in which a pilot can deactivate this feature.) Or descend to a safe altitude if cabin pressure is lost.
Activate a mode in which the plane could be remotely flown or directed to land itself.
Alert flight crew that the pilots are incapacitated.
Or the most basic: make some noise to wake up the pilots.
The existing action is to maintain current settings. A flight in Australia flew across the continent that way, after (theory says) somehow depressurizing during takeoff so everyone passed out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Australia_Beechcraft_King...
IMO that story shows that unless you do the remote control option (which I see as unlikely) it doesn't matter what happens...what can anyone outside the plane do except crash it earlier?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Australia_Beechcraft_King...
IMO that story shows that unless you do the remote control option (which I see as unlikely) it doesn't matter what happens...what can anyone outside the plane do except crash it earlier?
>That’s true, but there are plenty of other options.
Well we can't settle it in the comments, nor should we. So which of those options can successfully survive a detailed engineering review on its merits?
Well we can't settle it in the comments, nor should we. So which of those options can successfully survive a detailed engineering review on its merits?
> Maintain level flight but avoid terrain
Your other ideas are good. But this could kill people if it misfires and takes the plane off course and too far from an airfield.
Your other ideas are good. But this could kill people if it misfires and takes the plane off course and too far from an airfield.
Not having anyone flying the plane when it is on manual control can also kill people...
> Not having anyone flying the plane when it is on manual control can also kill people
Not as quickly. Routes are programmed into an airliner before takeoff. Those routes are planned with emergency landing in mind. Left to its own devices, a plane flying its flight path is safer than one simply holding FL (while avoiding terrain).
Not as quickly. Routes are programmed into an airliner before takeoff. Those routes are planned with emergency landing in mind. Left to its own devices, a plane flying its flight path is safer than one simply holding FL (while avoiding terrain).
I recall reading that certain aircraft manufacturers do offer more robust security features if the airlines are willing to pay for them. I don't have a link or source handy, but it's entirely possible that these features have been discussed, but through the lens of how much more would it cost to implement them.
Garmin has a system that can notify ATC of an emergency, choose an airport, fly there, and land the plane, autonomously.
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-thi...
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-thi...
There are fighter jets that will take over for an incapacitated pilot. I think it just goes to straight and level.
It doesn't have to stop the plane, it could just trigger a cockpit alarm.
Or alert air traffic control, and maybe they can send an alert into the cockpit. But there must be a way to raise an alarm.
My guess is basically nobody cares that much about this rare condition. It's much more likely the pilots are incapacitated rather than asleep, in which case the alarm is pointless.
But I guess it's not that rare:
My guess is basically nobody cares that much about this rare condition. It's much more likely the pilots are incapacitated rather than asleep, in which case the alarm is pointless.
But I guess it's not that rare:
- https://www.newsweek.com/pilots-boeing-737-both-doze-off-overshoot-airport-two-hour-flight-1735435
- https://jalopnik.com/tale-of-both-pilots-sleeping-during-flight-reminds-us-t-1849014190
- https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/pilots-sleep-cockpit-airline-safety/index.html
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24296544
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/both-pilots-fall-asleep-during-british-airbus-flight-incident-report-reveals/
- https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=A9AAFE58-18F4-40B5-B59A-EBE316BBE878
- https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932040,00.htmlSome planes can land themselves now:
https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland
https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland
Autopilot and autoland have been around for a while, but they still need to be set up by the pilot, only operate under certain conditions, and autoland in particular only works at some airports. This is probably not a solution, not for quite a while at least.
The Garmin autoland can automatically activate, determine which airport to land at communicate on ATC frequency to say it is going to land at X airport.
Each pilot can have a button they must always press, if both are released loud tritones alarms and flashing will fill the cockpit, something no one can sleep to.
Well... You can. Sleep deprivation is one hell of a drug. After ~23h on a plane without sleep, I slept through a fire alarm at a hotel. It's unlikely that both pilots and other staff would ignore it, but "no one can sleep to" threshold is not that low.
Have the alarm go off in the cabin as well.
That doesn't work at all. There are often times like takeoff, landing, dealing with adverse weather events, re-routing, mechanical failure, etc where they're going through a detailed checklist. The last thing you want is some random device that takes attention away from them dealing with a serious problem.
That's not impossible, but the pilots' limbs are already largely "spoken for" by other controls and tasks, so it would be a harsh tradeoff.
Sorry but this a bit ill-informed.
First off, you cannot just put an alarm on everything. The sonic experience inside a cockpit is very carefully designed to give pilots the correct information at the correct time. False alarms are not only not appreciated, they are actively dangerous. If a flight experiencing an emergency situation, a blaring alarm that is incorrectly going off can prevent pilots from getting timely information.
Airbus have side-sticks (like a game controller), not yokes and you really shouldn’t be inputting on them unless you’re hand flying for whatever reason.
In all two-pilot aircraft (all commercial jet aircraft), there are two separate roles that each one assumes: Pilot Monitoring (PM) and Pilot Flying (PF). The PM’s job is usually to run checklists, communicate/operate the radio, check various indicators, and support the PF to fly the aircraft. The captain and first officer swap between these roles en route. The PM should NOT be inputting controls unless there is a good reason to do so, but for safety/redundancy, one side’s controls are never disabled unless a lockout/override is active.
Most airlines have a policy to cruise with the autopilot on, which keeps the aircraft on its plotted course at it’s cleared altitude. The time where “flying” comes into play most often is during takeoff and using various levels of ILS from just indications of glide slope to a full autoland.
While not fantastic, a cruising airbus will keep its current course and stay airborne if the pilots snooze off.
First off, you cannot just put an alarm on everything. The sonic experience inside a cockpit is very carefully designed to give pilots the correct information at the correct time. False alarms are not only not appreciated, they are actively dangerous. If a flight experiencing an emergency situation, a blaring alarm that is incorrectly going off can prevent pilots from getting timely information.
Airbus have side-sticks (like a game controller), not yokes and you really shouldn’t be inputting on them unless you’re hand flying for whatever reason.
In all two-pilot aircraft (all commercial jet aircraft), there are two separate roles that each one assumes: Pilot Monitoring (PM) and Pilot Flying (PF). The PM’s job is usually to run checklists, communicate/operate the radio, check various indicators, and support the PF to fly the aircraft. The captain and first officer swap between these roles en route. The PM should NOT be inputting controls unless there is a good reason to do so, but for safety/redundancy, one side’s controls are never disabled unless a lockout/override is active.
Most airlines have a policy to cruise with the autopilot on, which keeps the aircraft on its plotted course at it’s cleared altitude. The time where “flying” comes into play most often is during takeoff and using various levels of ILS from just indications of glide slope to a full autoland.
While not fantastic, a cruising airbus will keep its current course and stay airborne if the pilots snooze off.
Charlie Victor Romeo was a very interesting watch for that cockpit fly-on-a-wall experience
A proper deadman's switch can't just be a button - you could weight it down, or just fall asleep on top of it. Trains commonly use a pedal you have to hold down halfway. Not sure this is really the best idea though, as pilots typically need both hands (and usually feet) free to actually, you know, control the plane.
[deleted]
Another of seemingly infinite reasons why trains > planes.
"how do we tie this to Boeing?"
One of the Boeing 737 Max safety features is that the pilots are so anxious flying it that they are too scared to fall asleep
One of the Boeing 737 Max safety features is that the pilots are so anxious flying it that they are too scared to fall asleep
Easy:
* No wheels fell off (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-...)
* No doors departed the plane (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/business/ntsb-boeing-alaska-d...)
* No anti-ice ignited the engines (https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/faa-proposal-targets...)
* No gear failure (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39644341)
* No unintended pitch-down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...)
* Pilots well rested :)
* No wheels fell off (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/united-...)
* No doors departed the plane (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/business/ntsb-boeing-alaska-d...)
* No anti-ice ignited the engines (https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/faa-proposal-targets...)
* No gear failure (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39644341)
* No unintended pitch-down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...)
* Pilots well rested :)
Well rested now! Sounds like they may have needed extra time on the ground.
Sounds like ATC and a nearby plane was trying to get hold of them while they were napping. Wonder how this would have been handled in another part of the world. Unresponsive aircraft for 28 mins…
Sounds like ATC and a nearby plane was trying to get hold of them while they were napping. Wonder how this would have been handled in another part of the world. Unresponsive aircraft for 28 mins…
[deleted]
While not the exact same situation, it seems the response is to keep trying and to ask nearby planes to find them and get their attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=027yV9p7W5I
Following flight plan and ensuring the plane doesn't crash is already a great deadman switch for a plane mid flight !
This[1] StackExchange thread does give some pointers as to why that may be.
[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81234/is-there-...
This[1] StackExchange thread does give some pointers as to why that may be.
[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/81234/is-there-...
> deadman switches
Seems like they could address this by just changing procedures.
If one pilot wants to take a nap, require a third crew member to come sit in the cockpit and make sure the other pilot doesn't doze off. When two pilots are awake, they can monitor each other, but if one is (intentionally) asleep, they can't do that, so have someone take over that function.
Seems like they could address this by just changing procedures.
If one pilot wants to take a nap, require a third crew member to come sit in the cockpit and make sure the other pilot doesn't doze off. When two pilots are awake, they can monitor each other, but if one is (intentionally) asleep, they can't do that, so have someone take over that function.
Procedures don't work well when people are incentivized to violate them. Confessing to sleeping on the job is a career threatening move.
I'm not a pilot, but it seems like in some cases (depending on who sets the rules), it's allowed.
See this: https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/controlled-rest/
See this: https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/controlled-rest/
i can beat this. my dad was an RAF Vulcan captain and he and his entire crew fell asleep overflying Indonesia going from Australia to UK (they had being delivering to Australia a rocket component in the Vulcan's capacious bomb bay). the flight over Indonesia was completely illegal, but the crew figured that the Indonesian radars could not track the Vulcan (early stealth) and their fighters could not intercept it.
anyway, everyone woke up (reason for sleep never identified, afaik - i suspect hangovers)
this would be mid-60s.
anyway, everyone woke up (reason for sleep never identified, afaik - i suspect hangovers)
this would be mid-60s.
Late 50’s, Dad’s F-86 didn’t have a real autopilot but you could slave it to the vor-dme.
It dinged when you went over it and heading went to/from. And now you know why I’m here.
It dinged when you went over it and heading went to/from. And now you know why I’m here.
Have a countdown that has to be actively reset by the pilot before it gets to zero or it makes an audible alarm. Can allow it to be turned off manually for busy times or just make any pilot action reset the counter. Can research the optimal counter length but maybe a couple of minutes.
I don't know about in other countries, but commercial pilots in India have random daily schedules - for example, today the flying time could be 1 pm to 8 pm, tomorrow it could be 8 pm to 3 am, then two days later it could be 2 am to 9 am. Given how random the timings are, I'm not surprised about captains falling asleep (maybe not first officers, who are younger (saying this out of hearing an anecdote about this)).
Like a train driver facing a similar issue, the cabin is equipped with a lever that must be continuously pressed, otherwise, an alarm will sound. This lever is designed in a manner that prevents it from being pressed if the driver falls asleep, serving as a mechanical safeguard against dozing off.
The Guardian article [0] mentions
> One of the pilots had not rested adequately on the night before the flight, according to the report.
> “The second-in-command had one-month-old twin babies. His wife took care of the babies and he assisted while at home,” the report said.
More evidence of the importance of mandatory paternal leave.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/09/indonesia-open...
> One of the pilots had not rested adequately on the night before the flight, according to the report.
> “The second-in-command had one-month-old twin babies. His wife took care of the babies and he assisted while at home,” the report said.
More evidence of the importance of mandatory paternal leave.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/09/indonesia-open...
> More evidence of the importance of mandatory paternal leave.
With negative population growth being such a concern I’m really surprised that there’s not far reaching, comprehensive, pro-family policies being enacted. Society seems stuck in the “productivity” graveyard spiral.
With negative population growth being such a concern I’m really surprised that there’s not far reaching, comprehensive, pro-family policies being enacted. Society seems stuck in the “productivity” graveyard spiral.
Where is negative population growth a concern? I’m concerned about the opposite.
In many developed nations, this is a valid concern which is even more problematic given that developed nations have the wealth to afford to let people take parental leave.
If you are still hearing about population explosions with the same urgency that we heard about 20 years ago, then you’re being fed information meant to vilify the “others”.
If you are still hearing about population explosions with the same urgency that we heard about 20 years ago, then you’re being fed information meant to vilify the “others”.
Not familiar with any of this - I'm guessing it's ok for one pilot to be asleep as long as there's another active one?
Happens all the time.
Both asleep, though, is a big problem. About ten years ago there was a (Delta?) flight to Vegas (?) with both pilots asleep. They flew past their destination and went on their merry way until a flight attendant check up on them.
Both asleep, though, is a big problem. About ten years ago there was a (Delta?) flight to Vegas (?) with both pilots asleep. They flew past their destination and went on their merry way until a flight attendant check up on them.
> flew past their destination and went on their merry way until a flight attendant check up on them.
That... doesn't seem like a great illustration of why both pilots asleep is a big problem :)
That... doesn't seem like a great illustration of why both pilots asleep is a big problem :)
They overshot the airport by about 40 minutes, which means they had to fly an extra 30 minutes back. Every minute the flight attendant delays in waking up the pilot is doubled.
That's not a huge deal in Vegas, but if you miss Honolulu that's a big problem.
That's not a huge deal in Vegas, but if you miss Honolulu that's a big problem.
Sounds like it: "The PIC then asked permission to rest from the SIC and was granted. A few seconds later, the PIC slept and the SIC then took over the PIC duty as PM."
So we need an automatic AI system that will watch pilots and sound an alarm if it detects sleeping.
We can adapt that for software engineers to make sure they’re working!
Doesn't that already exist? My work laptop has all kinds of spyware installed. I assume they are watching all the time.
whoop whoop Wake Up
I know it's an Airbus but I can see this happening in the not so distant future.
I know it's an Airbus but I can see this happening in the not so distant future.
Until airlines cease to need a scapegoat, they will keep pilots in the cockpit.
I dont really know much of anything about aviation, other than being a passenger, but I feel like taking off and landing is still something that needs a pilot. I've been on some rough landings, and I don't think ML is quite there yet to do it.
You don't need ML to do this, there are already auto landing (and auto take off) systems that work very well. The hardest part is taxiing on the airport and taking part in air control procedures doesn't work at all AFAIK.
And for taxiing hard part is likely not moving the plane, but not getting in a way of anyone else. You really don't want to be at wrong part of runway at wrong time.
Ground movements and runway clearances are still very manual processes unfortunately, and mistakes happen especially in high task-load situations or poor visibility or flight number collisions etc. The safe part about being in the airplane is actually being in the air, lol - once you push back you are at fairly elevated statistical risk until you’ve got some altitude. Takeoff/landing are high risk and there’s a lot of people and a lot of chances for mistakes on the tarmac.
There are statistically an enormous number of ground movements carried out safely but boy does the potential body count get big with runway incursion scenarios. Two 757s colliding is a lot of people, and in high-energy scenarios at least one of the aircraft isn’t walking away. You can be doing nothing wrong and someone just landings on your taxiway etc. The close calls are terrifying.
There are statistically an enormous number of ground movements carried out safely but boy does the potential body count get big with runway incursion scenarios. Two 757s colliding is a lot of people, and in high-energy scenarios at least one of the aircraft isn’t walking away. You can be doing nothing wrong and someone just landings on your taxiway etc. The close calls are terrifying.
I don't know much about the cockpit monitoring systems that Airbus has, but I know every cheap toyota in the past 10 years yells at me if I so much as glance at a billboard.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Can someone explain to me why we still need pilots? Could we at least have pilots serve as a backup to a fully autonomous system?
Takeoffs, landings, and navigating dense air traffic in controlled spaces are all still "not smooth enough" for autonomous sytems if human life is valued.
Yes, planes can take off and land on auto pilot - but real world conditions throw curve balls, ditto approaches and departures from high traffic airports.
Even "boring" 10 hour point to point legs that might normally be fully autopilot can be a problem in case of mechanical failures or other unexpected events.
Yes, planes can take off and land on auto pilot - but real world conditions throw curve balls, ditto approaches and departures from high traffic airports.
Even "boring" 10 hour point to point legs that might normally be fully autopilot can be a problem in case of mechanical failures or other unexpected events.
This is such an “armchair expert” take on this.
Planes are not fully autonomous. They will not be for a very long time due to the regulatory environment aviation is entrenched in.
Planes are not fully autonomous. They will not be for a very long time due to the regulatory environment aviation is entrenched in.
Frankly it seems more like an "SWE take" more than a regular armchair take.
So it’s even more uninformed than a normal armchair take?
Jesus dude (and general HN culture) OP just asked a damn question, they are starting a conversation.
They didn't make a point, they claimed ignorance by making it a question. Chillllll
They didn't make a point, they claimed ignorance by making it a question. Chillllll
Because the people who own those planes, and people who regulate the airline industry don't want human casualties under their watch - a fairly reasonable concern.
Status-quo is not something you typically argue for, its what you need to argue against. At which point you need to make a positive argument with data that can convince them otherwise.
Status-quo is not something you typically argue for, its what you need to argue against. At which point you need to make a positive argument with data that can convince them otherwise.
This is likely achievable in theory now, at least between major airports with ILS-equipped runways, but fully automated systems couldn't handle present traffic coordination procedures. You'd need a series of new standards to replace human-oriented air traffic control with a scheme in which ground computers could directly interface with aircraft flight management systems. Developing something like this and rolling it out on a global basis, in such a safety-critical application, would likely take two or three decades. Not clear it's really worth the trouble, since you'd want backup pilots for unexpected situations anyway.
What would probably make more sense is to just add a single-button auto-land feature, that sends an emergency destress call and configures and invokes existing automatic navigation, approach, and landing features to find the nearest appropriate airport and land. Given how rarely this would be used, there wouldn't be a need for the system to navigate complex traffic patterns, as ATC could just clear other aircraft out of the way. Something like this has recently become available for general aviation aircraft, but I haven't heard about anyone working on it for airliners yet.
What would probably make more sense is to just add a single-button auto-land feature, that sends an emergency destress call and configures and invokes existing automatic navigation, approach, and landing features to find the nearest appropriate airport and land. Given how rarely this would be used, there wouldn't be a need for the system to navigate complex traffic patterns, as ATC could just clear other aircraft out of the way. Something like this has recently become available for general aviation aircraft, but I haven't heard about anyone working on it for airliners yet.
There is no fucking way I'm stepping onto a commercial airliner without highly trained human beings at the helm. That is my SWE/"stemlord" take-- complex software systems, or at least the organizations that produce them, are generally not to be trusted with your life.
Pilots already serve as a backup to an autonomous system. They're also useful for takeoff and landing.
In addition to the other reasons - if someone is going to be qualified to fly the plane as backup, they need regular hours of practice. They could get that in a simulator perhaps, or flying practice flights, or ... by flying the actual plane.
You propose replacing pilots with … pilots?
IANAP. I think a lot people enjoy flying airplanes. I think most landings are manual. Thus pilots highly skilled to land safely also in difficult situations. And instruments can fail.
What do you hope for with removing humans in the loop?
What do you hope for with removing humans in the loop?
You would end up in a world where no human pilots remain to land aircraft where the automation isn't ready to do so.
Even if unassisted takeoff and landing were possible, no airline is going to accept the risk of operating such a system.
You’re ignoring the hard part that they don’t yet use 100% autopilot for.
Edge cases
Did they self report after or was there a review triggered somehow? Their excuse actually was pretty impressive honestly, almost like this has happened before.