Why it's probably safer if your pilot is asleep than awake

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/27/safer-pilot-asleep-awake-autopilot

by Libertatea • 13 years ago

67 75 13 years ago

I thought this was going to be about how awake pilots interfere too much with the controls and just leaving the autopilot on is safer.

Not yet anyway...

I wonder how long until an autopilot landing will be safer than human pilots.

bdonlan• 13 years ago

Autoland is already quite safe. However it requires special procedures on the ground to ensure the ILS signals are of sufficient quality, and so it is normally only used either in inclement weather where visibility is to low to trust human reaction times, or as a monthly system test with a pilot ready to take over in conditions suitable for a fully manual landing (in which accuracy of the ILS radio signals cannot be assured as ATC is not making sure other planes stay sufficiently far away from the path of the radio signals).

wehadfun• 13 years ago

I made a comment a few days ago basically saying that the reasons that pilots don't do dumb things as opposed to surgeons is because their life is on the line if they mess up.

I take it back.

masklinn2• 13 years ago

As the article notes, taking a nap while flying on autopilot is extremely safe, and definitely much safer than ending up completely blown during landing.

mikeash• 13 years ago

Plenty of pilots of smaller planes do dumb things. They usually get filtered out of the system if they try to become airline pilots, but there's plenty of room for dumbness in small single-engined aircraft too, and their life is just as much on the line, if not more so, than in an airliner.

A lot of dumb pilot stuff comes from overconfidence or a feeling of "it can't happen to me".

adestefan• 13 years ago

I like to refer to that as the "Hold my beer" mentality.

masklinn2• 13 years ago

It argues that in certain circumstances, under the proposed new rules, pilots could be expected to land planes after 24 hours without sleep.

Holy...

forktheif• 13 years ago

I've often thought they should get rid of pilots from Aircraft, and fly them by autopilot. The number of accidents caused by human error is terrifying.

But also have a multiply redundant remote control system for emergencies the autopilot can't handle. So if something crops up, a crew of pilots trained to deal with nothing but emergencies can take over remotely.

vowelless• 13 years ago

As someone working in this domain, I absolutely agree. Piloting an aircraft is also one of the riskiest jobs in the US [1]. Significant progress was recently made in fully autonomous flight [2].

[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-of-the-most-dangerous-jobs-...

[2] http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/aerial-robots/robocopters-...

mertd2• 13 years ago

The number of accidents caused by human error is terrifying.

Problem is that we don't know about the number of accidents avoided thanks to human interventions. Also, remote pilots will never be sure about the reliability of information transmitted from a failing aircraft.

SEJeff2• 13 years ago

I wonder if an autopilot would have landed the plane into the Hudson river, thereby saving everyone's lives? Something tells me no. If you have humans on the plane, you will need to have humans flying the plane. Yes! We should automate more to enhance the human's cognitive abilities, but no, we should not remove the human element. The human mind is still the biggest supercomputer we have when it comes to improvisation.

JshWright2• 13 years ago

re: reliability of information... The same can be said for pilots sitting in the cockpit (see Air France 447).

In some ways, having the pilots outside the plane would be an advantage in an emergency. It's much easier to trust the gauges (which is almost always the right thing to do) when you aren't experiencing any of the physical sensations in the cockpit. There have been countless cases where pilots trust their own sense of up/down/left/right (in zero visibility conditions), and ignored the relevant cockpit indicators, to disastrous result...

WalterBright3• 13 years ago

A lot of accidents are avoided by human intervention, and often very creative "not in the book" intervention. For example, I know of one L1011 that got stuck in a nose up attitude, and the pilot regained control by having the passengers all move forward.

Furthermore, pilots are far, far better at detecting that a problem even exists. There's a heluva lot of information you can get from sound, vibration, smell, the 'feel' of the stick, view out the window, etc. Heck, even going back into the cabin and eyeballing the wings and engines have saved airliners from disaster. A Concorde prevented a crash this way.

Software, on the other hand, usually fails to recognize that anything has gone wrong, and pretty much never is able to correct itself, and certainly won't think of anything creative.

mortenjorck• 13 years ago

It's interesting how flying a plane is far more challenging for a human than driving a car, but in the same way that solving a calculus problem is far more challenging than reading the subtext of a conversation: It's totally flipped for computers, because the former is about making adjustments based on a lot of interrelated numbers while the latter is about identifying signals and making lateral connections to respond.

It might be fair to say a human has to think a lot like a computer to fly a plane, while a computer has to think like a human to drive a car.

adrianN• 13 years ago

Well, you don't have kids jumping in front of your plane and the planes around you can't suddenly stop.

quarterto• 13 years ago

solving a calculus problem is far more challenging than reading the subtext of a conversation

Speak for yourself...

ballard2• 13 years ago

Pilots are already expected to deal with all sorts of emergencies.

Will never happen:

0. Guidance signal loss 1. Guidance signal jamming 2. Guidance signal hijacking 3. Pilots on the ground don't have a vested interest with passengers, so the survival instinct won't necessarily kick in because they're not there. 4. Cost of mitigating all of the above would be much more than the risks of such a drastic change.

MattRogish• 13 years ago

A couple of points:

1) Flying is incredibly safe

2) Tired, fatigued pilots crash planes

3) Airlines are low-margin businesses

4) There is no economic incentive to have pilots fly less and sleep more

Since there will always be a tension in allowing pilots to sleep more and work less (thus costing airlines more money) we have to conclude that pilots are going to fly without sufficient sleep.

To make the system more resilient to failure, we should take the ad-hoc napping that pilots do now (which is undeniably adding some safety via fatigue reduction) and add a blame-free procedure around it to ensure safety (e.g. when one pilot goes to the bathroom the other one puts on their oxygen mask in case of explosive decompression; something similar should be done for the awake pilot.)

squidi2• 13 years ago

Does anyone know if the latest airplanes detect pilot drowsiness, as various cars have been implementing that for a while (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection)

eterm• 13 years ago

The car keep the driver awake long enough so the driver can pull over and stop driving. What's the plane going to do in that situation?

If the autopilot is detecting the pilot is drowsy I'd rather it let the pilot sleep than prod the pilot awake into further drowsiness.

rflrob• 13 years ago

While Toyota's apparently monitors the driver herself, it seems most of the others on that list monitor driver input. Especially on a long haul flight where autopilot is on, they aren't likely to have any direct input, but should be monitoring the radio, engines, destination, and other key systems. The real concern with sleeping pilots is something like this happening [1], for which I never found a explanation other than sleeping pilots as particularly likely.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/26/airliner.flyby/

United857• 13 years ago

Yes, some models of the B777 (at least) will sound a warning if no controls have been moved/activated for 15 minutes:

"CREW ALERTNESS MONITOR The FMC continuously monitors the activation of switches on the mode control panel, EFIS control panel, display select panel, CDUs, and VHF/HF push-to-talk (PTT) switches. When a predefined time elapses after the last control activation, the EICAS advisory message PILOT RESPONSE is generated. The PILOT RESPONSE message can be cleared by pushing any control on any of the monitored systems or panels. If there is still no response after a short time, the EICAS caution message PILOT RESPONSE is displayed. If there is still no response, the warning message PILOT RESPONSE is displayed. Any control activation on the MCP, EFIS control panel, display select panel, CDUs, or VHF/HF transmitters resets the PILOT RESPONSE message. The PILOT RESPONSE message is inhibited at all altitudes below 20,000 feet while the aircraft is in a climb and the flaps are not up."

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

There is no economic incentive to have pilots fly less and sleep more

Crashes are tremendously bad for business. Also, the laws about pilot rest are incredibly strict. That doesn't mean that pilots won't break them, but it does mean that the "economic incentive" aspect is pretty much moot.

Zigurd• 13 years ago

Trouble is, airlines have always been a strategic asset to governments, a situation the airlines play like a fiddle. So even if one is willing to use a crash as a "market signal" it is likely to get washed out by TBTF.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

Doesn't point #4 contradict point #2. I mean, presumably, crashed planes have a cost.

vinceguidry• 13 years ago

True, but until you can quantify exactly how much more likely a tired pilot will be to crash the plane, it's impossible to quantify the cost. It may be impossible to accurately measure.

PeterisP2• 13 years ago

The same incentives apply to long-haul truckers and international passenger bus drivers - but there somehow regulation works, and they're not allowed (at least in EU) to drive nearly as much as airline pilots, due to the same fatigue concerns. It's trivial to deny airlines the possibility of scheduling pilot shifts with '5 hours sleep in the last two days' as in the original article - the regulators simply have to do it, and as it will apply to all airlines, then even the low margins will accomodate the extra cents needed for less flexible scheduling of pilots.

krstck• 13 years ago

Whenever I get into an argument with someone about the merits of self-driving cars, I point out that we're pretty much there already with flying.

daigoba66• 13 years ago

Except for the traffic control part: for flight that's still done by human operators.

vital_sol• 13 years ago

Except for saving human lives in emergency situations. I doubt the self-flying plane would land in the Hudson river and saved all the passengers.

hackinthebochs• 13 years ago

I've seen this referenced a few times in this article. Did the pilot consciously attempt to "land" in the Hudson River, or was the plane simply going down in the Hudson and the pilot was able to correct its pitch enough to land? If its the latter, I would say the autopilot could have done it better.

RogerL• 13 years ago

You can always find outliers. The question is, does the self-flying plane reduce the # of deaths and injuries, or increase them?

gjm11• 13 years ago

As daigoba66 says, air traffic control (the equivalent of which is a large part of driving) is still done by human beings.

Two other points.

1. Driving happens "in 1-and-a-bit dimensions" (i.e., cars are on roads, which are 1-dimensional plus a bit of width) and aviation happens "in 2-and-a-half dimensions" (i.e., planes are in the air, fairly close to earth, but with quite a lot of flexibility as to height), which means that there's far, far more space for planes than for cars.

If all the world's drivers were completely unable to tell where other vehicles were, all the roads would be filled with crashed cars within seconds. If all the world's airline pilots were completely unable to tell where other planes were, the effect would be minimal. Except that there'd be a bit of danger at takeoff and landing -- which, not altogether by coincidence, are two other things that are best done by human pilots rather than unaided machinery.

2. Cars operate in a world where there are also pedestrians, buildings to crash into, etc. Planes, not so much.

It seems to me that, to a very good first approximation, none of the problems self-driving cars need to solve apply to planes in sufficiently similar ways for "we can do it with planes, so why not with cars?" to be a good argument.

mertd2• 13 years ago

This reminds me of the Northwest flight that overshot the airport 150 miles because the pilots fell asleep. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222401/Pilots-suspe...

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

I'd potentially trust a well designed autopilot a lot more than I trust the human pilot for routine tasks. As long as there's some sort of alarm for things changing significantly, I don't really see the problem if they want to sleep half the flight - just, you know, wake them up and give them a coffee before landing.

infinotize• 13 years ago

Could have been a good article promoting awareness about horrendous quality of life for most air crew but the editor just couldn't resist the horrible title and cliches about dangerous humans interfering with autopilot systems.

Automated flying isn't as cut and dry as is commonly thought, or as some of the other comments might indicate. Human error is definitely a problem and it's compounded by the realities of pilot working conditions which, unless you're a senior pilot at a major airline, means long hours and low pay. Pay (and most hours counted by regulations) is usually only counted from push-back to the gate and doesn't count hours pilots have to spend commuting, briefing, etc. This is difficult to change with the weight airlines have with the FAA and an industry where an unlimited supply of people who will suffer through anything to fly for a meager living, or in some cases even pay to work (see: "Shiny Jet Syndrome").

Autopilots fly and land extremely accurately [in the US at least, in visual conditions most landings are hand flown, and 'autolands' are done just enough as to keep up with periodic test regulation], but aren't feasible for a complete airline flight. I'm not convinced there is an automated flight management system with sufficient robustness to handle all the contingencies that have to be accounted for on a passenger flight. Drones are a completely different story. They're expendable, and get performance savings from not having life support. An airliner needs a pressurized cabin anyway, so you might as well shove a few pilots inside. And what if the guy remoting into the plane from North Dakota falls asleep? Or the network goes down, for that matter. How long before onboard autopilot figures that out, and has the plane going into survival mode looking for an airport to land (better hope they had great QA), and creates cascading delays throughout the airspace system. Or, hate to say it, another earthquake-tsunami occurs and takes out a couple airports, leaving dozens if not hundreds or airplanes looking for alternates within range. Now you're talking about a total integrated ATC automation. I'm just not convinced we're there yet, or it's coming any time soon. Leave the pilots be and give them some sensible rest/fatigue regulations instead.

The best analogy I have seen is that autopilot isn't flying the plane any more than robots in a modern operating room perform surgery while the surgeon sits back and takes a nap. Maybe they'll write an article about how that might be safer for us tomorrow.

Disclaimer: pilot. Also, I stole a lot of my information from Patrick Smith, who blogs frequently and crusades against common air travel misconceptions on http://www.askthepilot.com/

brianmcconnell2• 13 years ago

Pilot here (learned to fly at age 16). There really should be a system for allowing air traffic control to remotely control flights en route, so pilots can sleep, read a book, bang their favorite stewardess/steward, etc.

The only phases of flight where you really need humans at the controls are takeoff, landing, and uh-oh what the fuck is going on (this being a broad "catch all" category which encompasses everything from an exploded engine and hydraulic failure, see United Airlines / Sioux City, to a medical emergency).

I would never fly on a pilotless airliner, but I'm fine with the pilots being asleep at the wheel during the en route phase of flight. There really isn't much to do except look at the GPS moving map and say "yep, we're over Iowa...... yep, we're still over Iowa". Course/altitude adjustments could all be beamed in from ATC.

I'd prefer them to be rested up for landing, or in case something unexpected pops up.

gadders4• 13 years ago

Hopefully this would also stop pilots interrupting the films every five minutes to tell you what the weather is like and how high the plane is etc etc.

YOU'RE A GLORIFIED BUS DRIVER. JUST GET US WHERE IT SAYS ON THE TICKET.

visakanv• 13 years ago

Do you have a problem with bus drivers?

mmariani• 13 years ago

Yeah right! Last time I checked starting up a bus was easy as starting up an airbus. ;) [1]

[1] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e54_1379836442

jessedhillon• 13 years ago

YOU'RE A GLORIFIED BUS DRIVER.

I hate this type of sentiment. Guess what: most programmers are glorified plumbers!

kunai• 13 years ago

I hate when people equate being at the helm of a majestic craft to being a bus driver.

There's far, FAR more akin to sailing than driving when you fly aircraft. Fluid dynamics are very similar, regardless of whether it's water or air you're sailing through.

I don't think being a sailor has ever been a shameful profession; much the opposite, in fact.

3pt14159• 13 years ago

Why don't pilots learn to code then? They'd like, triple their salary and there would be only upside!

TheAnimus• 13 years ago

Myself, I think this would be safer.

I disagree with the other pilot (but I'm only PPL) on his views about sleeping during boring stages of flight. Say for instance you've piloted badly into a CB, you suffer a freezing on your pitot static systems. The autopilot disengages.

If you were asleep, it might take a while for you to get your act together, co-ordinate to ascertain who has the flight controls and start CRM procedures.

If you were wide awake, thinking how to solve this tricksy problem, you might do a better job as your mind is already warmed up!

mistercow• 13 years ago

and uh-oh what the fuck is going on

So presumably you would have an alarm that wakes up the pilot if this happens. Here's the problem: humans wake up pretty slowly. For 10 minutes or so after you wake up, you might as well be drunk as far as your reaction time and judgment are concerned. I don't know if this has been tested in high stress situations, and I would guess that the "warm up time" is faster if your adrenaline is pumping, but it's still going to be a lot worse than having already been awake.

brianmcconnell2• 13 years ago

There are two pilots. So assume they sleep in shifts.

The point is that the several hours en route are a good time for the pilots to rest. Takeoff and landing are the riskiest phases of flight. I'm mainly concerned that the pilots are on top of their game then.

JshWright2• 13 years ago

I wake up with a hit of adrenaline a couple times a week (thanks to Plectron tones going off, indicating an emergency call of some nature).

I'd say that 'might as well be drunk' period lasts around 30 seconds for me (the process of getting dressed is generally just a foggy blur...). By the time I'm moving toward the truck, I'm more or less firing on all cylinders.

30 seconds is still an awfully long time in a plane when stuff is going sideways...

Malician• 13 years ago

This is true, but the chance of an incident occurring during neither takeoff or landing, when both pilots happen to be asleep at the same time is fairly low.

On the other hand, sleep deprivation (which as the article mentions, can be far worse than being legally drunk) is common and pilots probably often perform the most difficult parts of the flight while under its effects.

I would think the risks of pilots sleeping (and, very rarely, getting caught unprepared for an emergency) would be minimal compared to the risks of pilots being regularly incapacitated by fatigue during the most difficult parts of the flight.

nicholassmith• 13 years ago

It'd make sense for a sleep schedule on flights over 5 hours, let each pilot get an hour sleep after an hour or so in. That way both are rested well before they need to worry about landing.

('bang their favorite stewardess/steward', wait, that still happens? I suppose it could be fitted around a sleep schedule)

blowski2• 13 years ago

The cockpit of the future will contain a pilot and a dog.
The pilot is there to feed the dog.
The dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

Not sure who originally said it.

djim• 13 years ago

me neither but it instantly reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut

Dobbs• 13 years ago

Originally it was about the "Factory of the Future".

blowski2• 13 years ago

Oh yes, found it now you said that. Author was Warren G. Bennis.

jedmeyers• 13 years ago

"No aircraft in the history of aviation has crashed because a pilot has gone to sleep at the controls," says David Learmount, a former RAF Hercules pilot and safety editor at trade magazine Flight Global.

This is simply not true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_7425

ksrm• 13 years ago

It seems that they were very fatigued, causing them to make an error. The crash wasn't caused by the pilots being asleep.

sokoloff2• 13 years ago

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001206X... (pilot asleep, non-fatal)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120922X... (pilot asleep, fatal)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20020715X... (pilot asleep, fatal)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110323X... (ATC-no crash)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20091223X... (fuel truck driver)

I spent 5 minutes looking, which appears to have been more fruitful than the research the original author did.

EliRivers• 13 years ago

Must be about time the meatbags were removed from the equation. The technology has existed for decades.

Why it's probably safer if your pilot is asleep than awake

Related Stories