Why Integrate the Autopilot ?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Shoalcove

That clarified the last 20 pages

And now for something completely different...

You just mentioned 20 pages, and someone else mentioned "the post I made on page X", but in these cases I often don't have that many pages on my count, or "page X' was way off the mark. Right now, I see 8 pages max on this thread.

This happens often on the forum, and it is difficult to follow some long threads because of it.

Is the whole forum relative? And no, I don't mean that in the absolute sense! I mean, do some people see time and space differently on their computers/setup/whatever than I do (ignoring the odd deleted post or two)?

Mark

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sidmon

Hence the Sirens meme..

As for the rest of the snipped quote, I believe that as an "automation engineer" you are too locked down in the minutiae of the problem, and it would benefit you greatly to back out and look at the more holistic aspects.

Have you read The Right Stuff?

If not, you really should, as you need to see how this said same sentiment played out a half century ago...

(now this kind of dialogue is worthwhile)

Actually I'm not focused on the minutiae, I just need to get the human out of the design Lol ! Then I could remove the complex HMI and the pseudo manual override logic.

The right stuff, god I read that ages ago mercury 7 wasn't it. , we've long since designed out that seat of the pants stuff and good riddance too.

Dave

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by sidmon

... what ties the cases cited in the links above is the common elements of "automation addiction ".

In the case of Schettino, that fostered a dangerous sense of complacency and imprudence. ...

So what is your evidence that the Captain's dangerous sense of complacency was fostered by "automation addiction"?

I suppose it could be true, but there could be any number of reasons why the guy felt comfortable hot-dogging. I read interviews with officers who had sailed with him previously, and the common thread was his reckless nature, and his tendency to drive his vessel as if it were a sports car.

Complacency, instrument addiction, etc, are real problems, but I don't think you are helping your cause by trying to shoehorn the Concordia incident into that particular pigeonhole.

[Jim Cate]

G'Day all,

Ya know, in all the days that I have followed threads on CF, this has strayed farthest from answering the OP's question, and become embroiled in personal (sometimes fairly erudite) discussions of issues which have no bearing on the questions under discussion.

Airplane crashes, no matter what their causes, ship groundings, under the command of either complacent, drunken, lecherous, or flamboyant users of either conventional or esoteric nav systems... none of these have much to do with Eelebana's wondering about how to hook up his autopilot.

Let's give Greg a break and try to address his concerns without our egos and fields of expertise interfering with the fairly simple question.

My personal opinion, as the operator of a moderately integrated system: hook it up, and then as your experience develops, decide how you should use it. In my experience, the answers will become self evident, and you won't need to consider the opinions of aircraft crash experts, ship salvors and other pundits.

Cheers,

Jim

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

G'Day all,

Ya know, in all the days that I have followed threads on CF, this has strayed farthest from answering the OP's question, and become embroiled in personal (sometimes fairly erudite) discussions of issues which have no bearing on the questions under discussion.

Airplane crashes, no matter what their causes, ship groundings, under the command of either complacent, drunken, lecherous, or flamboyant users of either conventional or esoteric nav systems... none of these have much to do with Eelebana's wondering about how to hook up his autopilot.

Let's give Greg a break and try to address his concerns without our egos and fields of expertise interfering with the fairly simple question.

My personal opinion, as the operator of a moderately integrated system: hook it up, and then as your experience develops, decide how you should use it. In my experience, the answers will become self evident, and you won't need to consider the opinions of aircraft crash experts, ship salvors and other pundits.

Cheers,

Jim

In fairness Jim we are trying to answer that question, most posts say of course connect it up, just watch the complacency. The argument then proceeded to debate exactly what that complacency or skills atrophy was.

Threads dont and shouldn't remain true to the original , or any particular post, it is after all a " discussion" much like sitting around on a bar stool and shooting the breeze. As far as threads go this one is still fairly on topic.

Dave

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sidmon

As is the practice on long haul flights, there are 3 pilots with each taking turns resting during cruise. "Inexperience" is a relative term in that world, you don't get there until you are already a seasoned. pilot.

58-year-old flight captain Marc Dubois had joined Air France in 1988 and had approximately 11,000 flight hours, including 1,700 hours on the Airbus A330; the two first officers, 37-year-old David Robert and 32-year-old Pierre-Cedric Bonin, had over 9,000 flight hours between them.

By contrast, military pilots don't reach the totals the two FOs had through an entire career.

As for stalls. Aerodynamic stalls no matter the altitude share one trait: Push the nose down to recover. Its the basic flying skill of recognizing and recovering that was dangerously atrophied in this case.

Why? A culture of dependence on the automation. (I won't go into the differing design philosophies of Boeing and Airbus...my airline operates both BTW) at Air France at the expense of connecting all that automation back to basic airmanship.

How does that relate to the nautical side of things? The cruise ship industry has long fostered a similar culture, but has not really recognized the problem as a "global trend":

DIRECTIONS FORWARD WITH AUTOMATION. If the Royal Majesty shows one thing about automation, it is this: Increasing automation to reduce the influence of human weaknesses does not work. Automation creates new human weaknesses, and it amplifies
existing ones. Human error does not vanish; automation changes its nature. And the more autonomous the machine, the more the consequences of error get displaced into the future, further compromising opportunities to recover. The question for successful automation is not “who has control” (and then giving automation more and more control as technological capability grows or economic imperative dictates). The question is “how do we get along
together”. Indeed, what designers really need guidance on today is how to support the coordination between people and automation. In complex, dynamic, non-deterministic worlds, people will continue to be involved in the operation of highly automated systems. The key to
a successful future of these systems lies in how they support co-operation with their human operators—not only in foreseeable standard situations, but also during novel, unexpected circumstances. The question is how to turn automated systems into effective team players.

Now before the dynamic duo of Colon claim yet again that that I am advocating for a call to return to 17th century nav standards (hey they were high tech then with quadrants and chronometers!) let me again say that is not the case. The advanced automation systems in ships (and aircraft) HAVE contributed greatly to safety... And I am a full advocate of using the best and latest equipment to its fullest capabilities.

But as the bold red observes above, that doesn't come with zero risk.

When I posit that Schettino fell victim to "Automation Addiction" its because the systems in place through his entire career have rendered cruise ship operations nearly accident free. Cruise ship voyages are now highly programmed -and automated- evolutions. And that's the norm this guy has known throughout his career in the cruise ship business.

Now, given his age, its most likely that he learned his seafaring long before the GPS era, and once knew all the "Old School" tricks of the trade. But as with the flying pilots in AF447 such skills can atrophy if not used.

But, as anyone who has observed Carnival's operating practices ( a friend calls them the cruise line for the trailer park set), you would know that they are ONLY concerned about the bottom line and efficiencies to make that happen.

I could equate such to a similar operating culture endemic in the airlines until Value Jet...But I won't

So, given that culture of nearly always ensured safety, he became complacent:

Behaviour drifts towards danger. If the efficiencies that we use to meet our schedules and targets do not result in an accident over a long time, the organisation may drift – often unnoticed – towards and across safety limits. This is sometimes referred to as complacency. However, labelling it as such and issuing warnings about it is highly unlikely to challenge those of us who, as far as we are concerned, are operating within acceptable levels of risk...

So, while the electronics ARE NOT TO BLAME (sorry but need to cap it to keep certain ones from saying I say otherwise), the culture on that bridge engendered by the efficiencies of routinely relying solely on them for routine operations, allowed a captain to not only underestimate the risks of maneuvering a ship as big as an aircraft carrier near shoal water at night, but also to grossly overestimate his own eroded skills (as the AF pilots did not recognize theirs-hence the captains snark about the commercial license) as well.

lastly, found this interesting tidbit from Nigel1 over in the cruise ship thread #277
( and who does advocate integrating the autopilot in this thread...AS DO I -sorry again)

Just be aware of the subtle human factors risks as you do though. Those who think they are immune are the most likely to fall for the "Call of the Sirens."

For one who claims to have the discipline of an accident investigator you certianly have jumped to a number of conclucions in this post.

And now you toss in ValeuJet and Apollo 13 which were something like 30 and 45 years ago.

I agree with you that one should practice certain manual skills and should not become complacent about automation. However none of your citations are making your case in a pure sense regardless of font colors, bolding or capitalization.

There are at least three people trying to help you understand that but at this point I think your mind is closed.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

There are at least three people trying to help you understand that but at this point I think your mind is closed.

Oh no! Now you will also receive his insulting PM's, blog visits etc.....

I am still wondering about simple nautical things like how steering a windangle by an integrated autopilot leads to complacency while the old wind-vane steering system does not? Questions that our accident investigator chooses to ignore.

ciao!
Nick.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

G'Day all,

Ya know, in all the days that I have followed threads on CF, this has strayed farthest from answering the OP's question, and become embroiled in personal (sometimes fairly erudite) discussions of issues which have no bearing on the questions under discussion.

Airplane crashes, no matter what their causes, ship groundings, under the command of either complacent, drunken, lecherous, or flamboyant users of either conventional or esoteric nav systems... none of these have much to do with Eelebana's wondering about how to hook up his autopilot.

Let's give Greg a break and try to address his concerns without our egos and fields of expertise interfering with the fairly simple question.

My personal opinion, as the operator of a moderately integrated system: hook it up, and then as your experience develops, decide how you should use it. In my experience, the answers will become self evident, and you won't need to consider the opinions of aircraft crash experts, ship salvors and other pundits.

Cheers,

Jim

I think that the OP's question was answered pretty thoroughly -- the great majority answered that he should integrate the autopilot with the nav system.

Then there was a lot of discussion about whether or not this gives rise to other risks or not, and how to deal with them. In my opinion the thread has evolved and grown beyond the original question -- which is different from when a thread just goes into the ditch off topic. While I think it has been a little overaggressive at times, I think it has been a great thread which I continue to follow.

Particularly interesting and useful -- and actually totally relevant to the original question -- has been the various descriptions of the various ways people use their systems. I personally have learned a lot, and I bet others have too.

To recap the most essential and direct of what has been said:

If you connect your pilot to your nav system, this is what will happen:

1. You will get heading data on your nav system, from the pilot's fluxgate -- very useful.

2. You will get access to several autopilot modes besides just steer a constant heading, namely (a) track mode; (b) wind-following mode; (c) route mode. The benefits, pros and cons of these modes have been discussed pretty thoroughly.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

. . . I let the autopilot sail in windpoint mode almost every time we need to go to weather, and have done that for more than 25,000 miles.

The surface wind fluctuates in strength and direction due to atmospheric convection. These convection cells are typically about 10-20 minutes in duration and can be observed even on cloudless days, and range from 5 degree and 3 knot changes to 50 degree and 30 knot changes depending on the vertical cloud development.

A look at your boat's polar diagram or a little sea time will teach you that boat speed is very sensitive to apparent wind angle when you are close-hauled WITHOUT THE ENGINE. If you insist on steering a compass course when the apparent wind angle goes from say 35 to 25 degrees, your boatspeed will drop by 25% or more. If the wind goes the other direction, from 35 to 45 degrees, you boat speed might pick up by only 5 to 10%.

All this means to the cruising sailor is that if you let the autopilot follow these constant wind shifts, you can sit back and enjoy a cool one as you pass all those catamarans and the silly buggers who have their autopilots on compass mode (or even worse, waypoint mode). Or you can take a nice nap at night instead of feeling the boat shake as the sails luff when your SO ignores the wind shifts.

The windshift alarm on my autopilot goes off when the wind shifts more than 15 degrees, which is a PITA on the open ocean. It has alarmed for days on end, but it NEVER STOPS STEERING THE BOAT. As far as safety is concerned I use the windpoint mode even more when I am beating in close waters--its improvement in efficiency saves tacks, and the autotack function puts you on the same angle on the other tack. The increase in VMG may make the difference in arriving before dark or not.

+1

When sailing hard on the wind, wind-following mode rules! My semi-antiquated RL80CRC+ ST60+ system steers better than I could ever dream of doing by hand, hard on the wind. It provides a large advantage in VMG over hand steering, not to mention steering in constant heading mode -- would never dream of going to weather without it.



Hard on the wind in wind-following mode, on a 100 mile passage across the English Channel.

[s/v Jedi]

There is another mode that some APs support and that is "depth contour following" mode. The AP needs depth sensor info plus operator input to tell the AP which side is deep or shallow water. Some areas of the world, like off the NE coast of South America, this mode is very usefull. It was developed for fishing.

ciao!
Nick.

[Shoalcove]

Moving beyond the "Chicken Little" posts, I would agree that there has been a lot of good info here. I followed this thread with interest because of my plans to add an autopilot to the boat (to share the load with my existing Monitor windvane). One of the questions I pondered was how various manufacturers AP's would integrate with my existing ST60 SL&DS and MNEA0183 Chartplotter and moreover, was that desireable? I've decided that (for me, at least) it is the way to go and that a wind instrument will be needed to get full utility out of the equipment. I was curious about how well the AP worked in "wind mode" and the personal endorsements have made a compelling case.
I'll be spending some time sorting through some manuals to plan my approach but have found this to be a very helpful thread including the possible negatives of becoming complacent.

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by Shoalcove

Moving beyond the "Chicken Little" posts...I'll be spending some time sorting through some manuals to plan my approach but have found this to be a very helpful thread including the possible negatives of becoming complacent.

Chicken Little?

I guess so...As long as its not YOUR boat.

Dismiss the threat as you will...but

Still is interesting that the editor of Sailing Magazine is seeing the potential negatives the same way...

And its interesting that Nigel discourages the professional mariners who work for him to keep the autopilot coupled ("integrated").

Like I said, if you think you are immune, you are likely the most prone to find out otherwise.

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

For one who claims to have the discipline of an accident investigator you certianly have jumped to a number of conclucions in this post.

And now you toss in ValeuJet and Apollo 13 which were something like 30 and 45 years ago.

I agree with you that one should practice certain manual skills and should not become complacent about automation. However none of your citations are making your case in a pure sense regardless of font colors, bolding or capitalization.

There are at least three people trying to help you understand that but at this point I think your mind is closed.

I am not a party to this investigation...

So I am free to speculate.

As for Cali; for AF447; the San Francisco; the Port Royal; the Arleigh Burke; the Lamoure County, the Pride of Canterbury; the Royal Majesty; the Shockwave... If you did not see the documented causal factors that automation played in each, then I will speculate that you didn't bother to open the links provided.

Yeah...Carnival needs to look at their corporate operating philosophy. While you don't think so, yet another aviation case is pertinent.

As a matter of fact, my speculation is they will use lessons learned in aviation safety as they attempt to right themselves. Wanna bet?

Next it wasn't Apollo I was referring to. It was the big fight over manual control in Mercury. Dave got it. As for his idea of engineering the human out of the process because we just screw it up, well, humans are humans and just don't see it happening.

And on the last, you're right.I don't care. Just got tired of the Nick/Mark snarks -which have added nothing material to the discussion and were outright distortions of what I have presented- getting a pass.

Guess there are different rules for different posters around here?

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

So what is your evidence that the Captain's dangerous sense of complacency was fostered by "automation addiction"?

Complacency, instrument addiction, etc, are real problems, but I don't think you are helping your cause by trying to shoehorn the Concordia incident into that particular pigeonhole.

We shall see...

[Shoalcove]

You've identified the threat of complacency; I don't see where anyone here ( including me) disagrees with that point of view. I do disagree with some of the connections you try to make between some aviation accidents and a autopilot coupled to a chartplotter. I guess we'll continue to disagree and make our choices accordingly. Your suggestion that I am somehow cavalier towards safety is hogwash.