Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilitirit | Hacker News Reader

Apparently idea that computers exclusively run the AirBus has been debunked:

[...] THE SYSTEM WILL NOT FIGHT THE PILOTS. The system just gives me the best the airplane can do at the moment without me having to stop and consider my conditions.

If I as the pilot deflect the stick left, if the autopilot is engaged, it will be disengaged for me. The load factor is considered and the airplane will begin a maximum-rate roll in the direction I deflected the stick. I keep holding the stick and the airplane will keep rolling up to the limiter. That's when Normal Law is active. If we're in Alternate or Direct law, there is no roll limit and I can roll the airplane onto its back and crash it if I desire. [...]

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1261521&cid=282...

View on HN

But this isn't what the article is asserting. They are not saying the autopilot couldn't be overridden. The article is saying that it appears that while flying into a very bad storm the pilots disengaged the AP and attempted to make an emergency, beyond-limits, turn, which the plane 'allowed', and then at some point after that the disaster struck (structural failure, for example). Whatever happened, did so before (presumably very busy) pilots could radio anything.

The article possible alludes to maybe pilots used to making very small changes to the very capable AP might loose their skills over time, but that's like saying cruise control does the same to drivers (and it might, I have no idea)

I didn't get that from the article. From what I understood, the point he was making was that the AP systematically relinquishes control of the plane as conditions deteroriate. By the time human pilots get hold of the plane, the conditions are for too difficult for them to handle. My issue with the article is the implications he makes. He compares the Boeing to the Airbus and then talks about the philosophy behind the Airbus. As I replied to sweetdreams, his statements about the plane (eg. Who's in charge here?) are misleading. It's as if he's saying that pilots are in full control of Boeing, but not in an Airbus.

I don't think he was saying that computers exclusively run the Airbus. He's saying that the failure of the autopilot in a difficult situation leads to a cascade of problems that can be harder to deal with in the more simplified Airbus cockpit.

Yeah, I should have made it clear that I was talking about autopilot. I have read other stories about the disaster that toyed with the idea that the Airbus autopilot cannot be overriden, and that the computers will always decide whats best for the plane.

For example, this statement from his article is misleading:

The computers are programmed with some strict rules (in fact, Airbus calls them “Laws”) designed to assess the human commands from the flight deck – and veto them if they would put the plane in harm’s way. Point the nose too high or too low – or bank to steeply and the computer will correct your bad airmanship. Who’s in charge here?

I dupnt know: it syncs perfectly with the extra detail you posted - that is what it does :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com