An airplane has, for the first time, automatically landed itself after an in-flight emergency, according to the system’s manufacturer.

Two people emerged unscathed from the Beechcraft Super King Air 200 after it stopped on the runway at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport near Denver, according to video posted by emergency responders.

The twin-engine turboprop landed under the control of Garmin’s Autoland system, which the company says is now installed on about 1,700 airplanes. “This was the first use of Autoland from start-to-finish in an actual emergency,” Garmin said in a statement.

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

It's disappointing to see so many posts from outraged users railing about the dangers of automation, who clearly haven't read the article and don't seem to understand what actually happened.

This story is actually what it purports to be, it's an example of a safety system working correctly in an emergency. That's all it is, not all that exciting to be honest. There was no bug or accidental activation, or AI uprising.

The only weird part is that the pilots could have landed themselves if they had wanted to, but chose not to. If there were any passengers on board that would have certainly been called a criminally reckless choice. As it was just the pilots though, I suppose it was just bold/dangerous/dumb. (Though on the other hand, they learned more about their aircraft in the process and they tested a critical safety feature, which are both good things.)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago*

    any mention of AI/automation triggers people now into thinking it's evil/wrong. And any rational support of it gets you downvoted.

    People just need something to irrationally hate i guess? It's funny how every lemmy poster things they are so smart but their responses are overwhelmingy knee-jerk and emotional and often totally disproportionate to the context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Poor, poor flight sim folks. Their fantasy of stewardess calling someone able to land in case of problems just got demolished xD

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I know this has happend before, but it was usually on small aircraft with a single pilot lol.

    There's a high chance that many domestic flights will have another pilot in a jump seat or just traveling off duty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    ATC recording including robot voice

    https://youtu.be/K3Nl3LOZNjc

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago
    [+] 76 points 10 months ago* (33 children)
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago*

    the pilots COULD NOT TURN THE THING OFF.

    The article does not say that, and I have not seen a source that does. The FAQ says holding the autopilot disconnect button deactivates the system. If two turboprop pilots can't manage that, then they are incapacitated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    This almost belongs in the "f* AI" sublemmy.

    Yeah I think that's going too far.

    Look, the fact that this has never been needed before is a testament to how often all the redundant safety systems work the way they're supposed to. It's not like there's a problem here.

    That said, when the auto-land system was triggered it worked as it was supposed to, landed the plane safely, radio'd its intentions, and nobody was injured. Keep in mind it was triggered during an actual emergency, exactly when it's supposed to. If the pilots weren't familiar enough with the safety systems on their plane to disable the auto-land functionality, then they're functionally ceding control of the plane to the emergency systems, and at that point it's correct for the automated systems to take over. In this case it seems the pilots decided not to take control back. So really, this was just the safety protocols working as intended.

    I'm glad everyone including the pilots were fine though, that really is the most important thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I almost wonder if it is smarter to have the autoland not be possible to turn off if pilots were for example hypoxic / mentally incapacitated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Heh, good luck trying to push an automation technology that a pilot can't disable. You're right, there probably are situations where that makes sense, but they would be very rare edge cases. And pilots really do hate being taken out of the control loop. Ideally they really don't want there to be any computer action that doesn't have an override (which I think generally makes sense).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    So it still landed automatically though. That’s the entire point of the article. Pilots didn’t control it, the fact that it wasn’t a real emergency is entirely moot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Well no, the whole point of the news event was the supposedly real emergency. Autoland has worked in testing and training for yearrs. This time it was basically credited with saving humans, but it didn't do that. Instead it surfaced a bug in its own progamming, it sounds like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    What bug? It worked as it was supposed to.

    There was a loss of cabin pressure (a real emergency) and it decided the pilots were unresponsive. The pilots could have taken control back, but by not doing that, they were functionally unresponsive. I don't see a bug here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The first automatic landing of a commercial airliner was apparently in 1965. So yeah it was just the entire process for this individual emergency system by this company being call a first as well. 60 years ago apparently we succeeded, which makes sense, 4 years before we landed on the moon, believe that was 69'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (17 children)

    This falls in the same category as the MCAS crashes. An automated system wrested control from the pilots, and the system evidently could not be disabled. That is the exact scenario that caused the MCAS crashes. While the outcome here was much more positive than “it crashed”, an automated system refusing to allow pilots to exert manual control is Not Okay. The positive outcome is incidental; the refusal of the automation to allow resumption of manual control is the core issue. That is a flaw that should ground the system until a bug fix is deployed. My dogmatic opinion on this comes from having worked in aerospace previously - this isn’t ivory tower speculation/assertion.

    Edit: rtfa lol - the pilots left it engaged intentionally. There’s nothing wrong here - this wasn’t a control authority override.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago*

    This falls in the same category as the MCAS crashes. An automated system wrested control from the pilots, and the system evidently could not be disabled. That is the exact scenario that caused the MCAS crashes.

    The only thing though, is that is absolutely not what happened here, at all.

    Here's a quote from the (quite short) article:

    Autoland “automatically engaged exactly as designed when the cabin altitude exceeded the prescribed safe levels” and the pilots “made the decision to leave the system engaged,” Townsley said

    The pilots saw the warnings and presumably could have taken over by doing just about anything, but with no passengers to put in jeopardy, they decided to sit back and see what happened.

    There is no flaw here, no bug, this is not a problem. This is what happens when everything works.

    Edit: Well, not everything was working, that beechcraft does have to have its pressurization system checked out for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Yea not every airport has a tower. The Garmin system cannot detect obstructions. It announces an intent to land and lands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    If it finds an airport with an ILS runway, and it has even remotely up to date aviation charts with minimum altitudes what obstructions does it need to avoid?

    Uncontrolled airports probably aren't where this system is programmed to fly into in an emergency. Not only would that be more difficult to program, but I suspect there wouldn't be emergency crews to assist with whatever the emergency was either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    So… my $1400 DJI Avaya2 has a more sophisticated automatic landing system? Yeah… lots of stuff just started making sense 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    And presumably lots of other expensive acronyms that I don’t care about, because I’ll never own a plane 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Think the acronyms are bad now? Wait until your plane is in the cloud!

    "Plane pod bay doors open unexpectedly! Engaging emergency AWS FaaS! AWS unavailable! Engaging GCP FaaS! GCP unavailable! Local CDN AZ cannot be found! No MSP available! Engaging SRE! Blaming DNS!"

    Pilot: "We haven't even taken off yet! Also, I told you to open the doors, you dumb AI!"

    "Good catch! Would you like me to continue blaming DNS?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I mean that’s essential when your HAL malfunctions right? ;-)

    I have the upmost respect for pilots… I don’t know that many personally… although one flying lesson comes acutely to mind:

    I was in the back of a small plane, not even sure there was a seat… though I believe there was a lap belt. My old boss was in the passenger seat, his friend was giving the lesson, the GPS was blaring “Altitude, altitude, altitude!” every 30 seconds…

    Took all my self control to concentrate on not crapping my pants :-) But still an amazing experience. Glad I went!

    You make a wonderfully narrative point about the necessity of all those acronyms. I’m curious what was in your pods?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Then why are you trying to have a technical discussion on this matter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I would have called it a sarcastic discussion… I make an ass of myself for the amusement of the “class”. People laugh, people cry, a good time is had by all.

    I do appreciate the achievement here, sounds very cool and I’m looking forward to learning more. Seems like I need to learn a lot more acronyms first though ;-)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Hey, it's the drunk guy at the party who thinks that everybody thinks he's hilarious!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    pany CEO Chris Townsley in a statement. Autoland “automatically engaged exactly as designed when the cabin altitude exceeded the prescribed safe levels” and Townsley said.

    the pilots “made the decision to leave the system engaged,”

    the pilots made the decision

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Having control wrested from you in an emergency or not is relevent. Boeings MCAS comes to mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    The pilots could not turn off the automatic comms which were saying that they were incapacitated. They could turn off the emergency autoland feature as a whole with a press of a button (someone else linked a source for the FAQ).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Honestly surprised this is the first time, this isn't that new of a feature when it comes to airplanes, even in commercial jets it predates chatgpt by years. Thanks to Instrument Landing Systems, which have been around an even longer time, pilots can land using solely the instruments in the cockpit without ever looking out the window. It's not easy to automate landing and many pilots wouldn't trust it except as a very last resort but their automation problem does avoid some challenges an pitfalls autonomous cars run into.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Non-emergency autoland like you describe had been around for a long time. But you have to manually pick your flight plan and approach, and at least point the aircraft in the general direction of the flight plan so that the AP will engage and handle the rest.

    This is a totally different beast because the emergency autoland picked the route and approach, managed the AFCS and comms, and then did the normal autoland stuff after all that. Garmin's emergency autoland only came out a few years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The Energia Buran, the Soviet "copy" of the Space Shuttle, also landed automatically

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    So did the space shuttle most of the time. For the first few years the shuttle was piloted manually, but that changed at some point and I believe the majority of flights were landed automatically.

    The buran on the other hand only actually flew at all once.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 10 months ago

    No to ALL of this.

  • source