Timeline for Why do passenger jets accept input that will cause the aircraft to perform dangerous maneuvers it was not designed for?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2016 at 20:57 | comment | added | JAB | @LorenPechtel I'd say it's the greatest of your worries, actually. Collisions tend to be quite stressful. | |
| Jan 22, 2015 at 5:25 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | And a related aspect of this--in an emergency the correct maneuver may be to risk the airframe. When you see the mountain in front of you an overstressed airframe is the least of your worries. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 21:34 | comment | added | Joshua | Well that's not the one but it's the same essence. The computer doesn't know the current trajectory will crash and even in stall airspeed will be traded for altitude. The one I recall the plane collided with a mountain that should have been cleared if the pilot's steering was followed. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 18:33 | comment | added | fooot | I did find a reference in this book to Iberia 1456, where the protections incorrectly pitched the aircraft down, causing it to land very hard. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 18:31 | comment | added | Voo | @Joshua Huh? Why exactly would a flight computer be unable to "see ahead"? While there might be a few cases where the computer caused a crash, the statistics are very clear that the vast majority of crashes are caused by human error. People just don't like the idea of not being (or at least having a fellow human) in control, even if it'd objectively safer. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 17:51 | comment | added | Joshua | I'd be hard pressed to find it again, sorry. It was taught as standard material in CS courses 10 years ago. The problem is the flight computers can't see ahead and so will fly into a mountain rather than attempt too radical a maneuver. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 17:29 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | @Joshua: Which ones? For Airbus many cases are known where the protections prevented crash, a couple where they failed to prevent it (usually when the sensors failed so it couldn't provide the protections) and no cases where the outcome without them would have been better. | |
| Jan 19, 2015 at 21:12 | comment | added | Joshua | Indeed. There have been fly-by-wire that would refuse "dangerous" input. They had to go back in and convince the control software to permit the maneuver if the pilot moved his controls to the stops after a couple of crashes that might have been prevented by an out-of-range maneuver. | |
| Jan 19, 2015 at 18:21 | history | answered | fooot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |