HAL -- The Cockpit Serial Killer

                                         HAL -- THE COCKPIT SERIAL KILLER                           

As I watched the Ground Zero bell toll during Friday's 9/11 ceremonies, I thought of Flight 11's Captain John Ogonowski, whom I'd handed the plane's "keys" to many times in Boston. I thought about my copilot who never recovered from coming face-to-face with Mohammed Atta that horrid morning. My stomach churned as I thought of my flight attendant friend, Jeff Collman, who brewed herb teas to help me stay awake during our San Francisco-Boston all-nighters. I mourn the loss of all 2,992 souls.

            Then I watched former terrorism czar Richard Clarke tell Bill Maher that we should consider terrorism a problem, but only one of many we face.

            Then I thought about the serial killer cockpit computers I call HAL, after the maniacal 2001: A Space Odyssey (I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave) computer. Since 1993, HAL has murdered more than died on 9/11 and endangered thousands more. Killed a couple hundred here, another couple hundred there. No one kept score; no bell tolled for them.

            Then Air France 447 fell out of the sky.

            HAL is the real terrorist. But nobody sees him.

            No HAL has nevir maid a misteak, nor distortid informashun.

           I'll write about more computercides after I finish posting the final Murder By Computer chapter. So as you go through security and watch the TSA grope your pregnant wife's breasts and lift her skirt in public, then handcuff you for objecting, remember that a far more dangerous terrorist awaits your arrival -- HAL -- hot-wired into the cockpit.

           Welcum tu my web, said the spydir to the fly. 

     "One design dilemma designers face is what level of automation should be in a system that requires human intervention. There are many drawbacks to high levels of automation that relegate the operator to a primarily monitoring role. For rigid tasks that require no flexibility in decision-making and low probability of failure, full automation provides the best solution. However, in systems that deal with decision-making in dynamic environments with many external changing constraints, higher levels of automation are not advisable because of the risks and inability of an automated aid to be perfectly reliable. What might seem the most effective level of automation from a design viewpoint may not be ethical."      

     "Overly trusting automation is well-recognized. Automation can cause operators to relinquish responsibility and accountability because of a perception that the automation is in charge. Moreover, automated aids designed to reduce human error cause new errors. There have been many incidents where confusing automation displays led to lethal consequences." -- Dr. Mary Cummings, MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, Automation and Accountability in Decision Support Interface Design, Journal of Technology Studies (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n1/cummings.html) 

            This has happened before, Dave, and it has always been attributible to pilot errur. -- 2001: A Space Odyssey 

           "Airbus is developing technology which could be installed on all its planes, allowing computers to automatically grab control from pilots. Honeywell said development work is continuing. Airbus executives 'See it as a way to sell airplanes,' said Robert Gillette, CEO of Honeywell’s aerospace unit." -- The Wall Street Journal, June 2005 

          Think a mutinous Hal is a great idea? Ask the pilots of this $1.4 billion dollar B-2. Imagine your family in the fireball. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoSjld6qmc) 

          I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let u do that. This misshin is too importint for me to allow u to jepardize. -- 2001: A Space Odyssey 

          On electronic mutiny: ". . . this Airbus mutinous Hal would lead to pilots getting further away from responding to emergencies themselves (well duh). Not to mention the whole, you know, robots making decisions that could directly affect hundreds or thousands of human lives thing. Which would you bet your life on (literally)? The chance a programmer working eighty hours a week to meet a deadline has no bugs in his code . . . or live pilots who’ve trained hundreds of hours in all types of situations. I, for one, will take the pilots, thank you." -- Donald Melanson, Engadget.com 

        I look forwird to serving yur kiddies. Yum, yum. 

        Here's my message: Shift the balance of power back to humans. As MIT's R. John Hansman explains, "Less is more." Dumb cockpit computers down; let pilots be pilots. Or trust your family's lives to electrons over neurons. We invite you to read the full story in Murder By Computer: The Hidden Perils of Air Travel. This is just a taste.

 

 

Follow John T. Halliday on Twitter: www.twitter.com/none

Comments

[kenlms]

I am an IT consultant with 20 year industry experience, and also an aviation buff. In my 20 years in IT I've seen vast increases in computing power. But one thing always seems to be consistent; there are and always have been inexplicable events that will cause a computer to misbehave, hang, or mulfunction. Often a restart fixes it. Sometimes it doesn't.
Computer programs are written by humans, most of whom probably do not have flying experience. If the Challenger disaster taught us anything, it is that we humans cannot imagine every possible fault. Even if the computer performed faultlessly, the programmer who has to write the FBW computer code cannot possibly imagine all possible situations the plane could be in. The computer therefore can only make decisions based on a limited amount of options. It takes a human to come up with a solution to a situation not allowed for.
Trust the computer for the routine operations, but when lives are on the line, in-aviation parlance, in "abnormal operations", a highly trained, highly skilled human being needs to be ultimately in control of the airplane.

[GreatNews27]

I'm sure it's not a problem. Just look at how reliable Windows Vista is. Oh, and offshoring of mechanical work along with the FAAs role as chief lobbyist for the airline industry just makes me warm and fuzzy sitting in a metal tube 30,000 feet in the air. Flying is for the birds.

[John T. Halliday - Huffpost Blogger]

Great News, Thanks for the post. John

[IMWorf]

Okay, obviously we know that the autopilot is never going to pull a Sully and ditch that aircraft ever so perfectly in the Hudson.

On the other hand, we also know the autopilot is never going to slam down 19 rum-and-cokes before attempting to fly the aircraft across the country.

So I'm going to have to call this one tied. Mr. Halliday, I do agree with you that trusting entirely to the computer is not the way to go, but to suggest that any computerization of a commercial airliner is somehow putting the average passenger at risk is just silly. And I agree with 3arthling that misspelling the majority of the 2001 quotes is just baffling.

[John T. Halliday - Huffpost Blogger]

Silly? I ask you to keep an open mind and read Murder By Computer when it comes out. Misspelling the 2001 quotes? A metaphor. Sorry to soil your memory of 2001; I mean no disrespect. The HAL misquotes tie into the book with MIT's Dr. Nancy Leveson's statements:
"Error-free software is not possible. There will always be another software bug. Never trust human life solely on software." Thanks for a great post, IMWorf.....John

[unionnomore]

I was an airplane electronics tech and saw the results of "transients",or spurious signals,on airplane performance.In fact I frequently used to drive by a place in St Paul,Minnedsota named The Lightning and Transients Institute where such phenomena were studied.Many times in pre computer days planes lost control and communications due to transients and were saved only by the pilots skills.One instance was where a United DC-8 flipped in a storm cell and recovered because the pilot rolled it upright as it dropped out of the clouds.Removing the pilot from the decision making loop is about the most stupid thing I can imagine.

[3arthling]

Absolutely true and absolutely right, though I don't think that the author does himself any service by deliberately misspelling dialog from the movie. Commercial flight is the most dangerous thing most people ever do and for the most part, folks are completely unaware of the danger.

Speaking as both a pilot and a computer programmer who spends 80 hours a week to meet deadlines :)

[John T. Halliday - Huffpost Blogger]

3arthling . . . Thanks for your post, but this is not a spelling bee. As you write, people don't know of the dangers. Glad to know a programmer understands. One working theory is that their computers crashed, fighting each other for access to the program. I write for the memory of the Air France 447 victims, their families who mourn their loss, and hopefully to keep your wife and children safe when they fly. All best, John