Computers Key To Air France Crash

It's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized, but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds, we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases, airline pilots' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation.It's been well established that Air France Flight 447 went down because on-board computers received conflicting information from sensors on the outside of the plane.

But while most reports are focusing on why the sensors gave incorrect information (icing, an electrical fire. etc.), the more substantive issue is that the pilots of Flight 447 never had a fighting chance because their airplane's controls were never in their hands -- they were in the hands of the on-board computers made by the likes of Northrup Grumman, Litton and Honeywell.

Flight 447 was an Airbus, which uses so-called "fly-by-wire" technology that relies entirely on electronic rather than hydraulic and manual systems. Boeing jets also use fly-by-wire, but allow pilots to override computers in an emergency -- whereas Airbus systems don't.

A report from 2000 shows that, far from revealing an inadvertent design flaw, the difference highlights a real philosophical divide over whether computers or humans are best left to handle emergencies: It's essentially a question of what do you trust most-- a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information. It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.

The Airbus and Boeing jets have similar safety records, although many pilots have seen parallels between the Air France crash and an incident involving a Qantas flight in October 2008 that managed to land safely.

The Airbus approach is something that makes many airline pilots very uncomfortable, as you can see by checking out a forum of professional commercial airline pilots. One of them wrote that

Another pilot added that pilots have become too dependent on computers:

On the other hand, some pilots feel that humans aren't well equipped to deal with flying huge aircraft blind, at night, in turbulence, without computers:

So far, this debate has been confined to the professional classes -- the engineers and pilots themselves -- and has been largely kept from the general public. As the moderator of this professional forum made clear,

And it's true that we newbies don't have enough knowledge to have legitimate perspectives on the technical aspects of flying. But that's beside the point. We should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.

Personally, I'm not worried about flying in an Airbus, Boeing or other commercial jet, because I realize that the odds are very, very low that I'll be involved in an airplane accident.

But it's time the airline industry stopped treating passengers like children and began informing us of what airplanes we're flying on and how they're flown--and allowing us to decide how we're taking our lives in our hands.