Radar Cruise Control

[Buzzman12]

When a commercial airline pilot, who actually is capable of the act of flying aircraft, tells me he's tired of fighting against the planes trying to kill him (and retires, early), what do you believe that to mean?
How many times must this comparison be made in these discussions...do you really know and completely understand why an entire fleet of (half-azzed) over-automated aircraft are still sitting on the ground? First and foremost, short answer, they got caught being stupid, greedy, and cheap. Aside from that, there's not enough time for me to beat the hell out of my keyboard to educate you technically.

I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it is to read your posts.
Most of the time I just scan through (or skip) long posts without really digesting them.
Yours are extremely well written and to the point, bang on the money.

On a side note and probably off topic,
I'm a big fan of a show called "Mayday". It chronicles plane crashes, and the subsequent investigation and results of why it crashed.
A majority of them are human error involving misinterpretations of the technology, or lack of knowledge of the technology, or even lack of basic flying skills and knowledge of the pilots on how an aircraft actually stays in the air.
They are trained on how to fly a computer, not an airplane.
One very interesting episode involved the crash of Air France 447 (airbus 330) in 2009.
An entirely preventable incident.
From the report:
"The BEA's final report, released on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements—likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals—caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall, from which it did not recover. "
In a nutshell, all the crew had to do was manually maintain a steady level flight path.
In other words, fly the damn plane.
They panicked, and put the plane into a stall, and the first officer had no clue how to fly it out of that stall. Flying 101.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

I like safety tech. Has it's place. Far from perfect.

Supplements our skills, not supplants.

I would not have paid separately for most of the tech that came with my Reserve, but I really like it now that I have it. The only thing I have not tried is Lane Keep Assist, and that's because there are few lane markers where I live.

I really like the Blind Sport Monitoring because I'm a habitual turn signal user (I even reflexively signal when pulling out of my driveway.) I like the ♪Beep♪Beep♪Beep♪ when I signal to lane change and there's a car in that lane. Just an added layer...

 

[velocityc6]

I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it is to read your posts.
Most of the time I just scan through (or skip) long posts without really digesting them.
Yours are extremely well written and to the point, bang on the money.

On a side note and probably off topic,
I'm a big fan of a show called "Mayday". It chronicles plane crashes, and the subsequent investigation and results of why it crashed.
A majority of them are human error involving misinterpretations of the technology, or lack of knowledge of the technology, or even lack of basic flying skills and knowledge of the pilots on how an aircraft actually stays in the air.
They are trained on how to fly a computer, not an airplane.
One very interesting episode involved the crash of Air France 447 (airbus 330) in 2009.
An entirely preventable incident.
From the report:
"The BEA's final report, released on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements—likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals—caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall, from which it did not recover. "
In a nutshell, all the crew had to do was manually maintain a steady level flight path.
In other words, fly the damn plane.
They panicked, and put the plane into a stall, and the first officer had no clue how to fly it out of that stall. Flying 101.

Since we are making these pilot error crashes merge with Mazda driver assists....the equivalent would be the Radar Cruise Control disables due to snow accumulation on the forward sensor (fact it can/will happen in snowy conditions)....the CX5 driver then is confused (doesnt know how to drive the car) and slams on the brakes or just lets off the gas coming to a complete stop. Resulting in a rear end impact from trailing traffic and a pile up on the freeway.

Back to planes. Fact is you would not have modern air travel today without automation. Lets be reasonable and realize (part) of why modern society has it so good is due to automation. Otherwise we would ALL be farmers growing crops to feed our families.

 

[Buzzman12]

Since we are making these pilot error crashes merge with Mazda driver assists....the equivalent would be the Radar Cruise Control disables due to snow accumulation on the forward sensor (fact it can/will happen in snowy conditions)....the CX5 driver then is confused (doesnt know how to drive the car) and slams on the brakes or just lets off the gas coming to a complete stop. Resulting in a rear end impact from trailing traffic and a pile up on the freeway.

Back to planes. Fact is you would not have modern air travel today without automation. Lets be reasonable and realize (part) of why modern society has it so good is due to automation. Otherwise we would ALL be farmers growing crops to feed our families.

That exact scenario (snow covered sensor) has happened to me several times. That's the price I pay for living in the great white North.
When the radar cruise kicked off, I didn't slam on the brakes or stop, like you suggest someone would do. I drove the car manually. (What a concept.)
If you have an understanding of how your car works, then there shouldn't be a problem when one of the nannies kicks out.
Same with planes. If you understand what keeps them in the air, and know how to fly it when the automation shut down, then there's no problem.
The issue today is that a lot of operators, drivers, pilots (cars, planes, whatever) have no clue what actually makes their machine work.
What they are doing is operating the automation and not the machine. That's how they're trained. Once that automation malfunctions, they're screwed.
My wife is a perfect example. She doesn't have a clue how the nannies work in the Mazda, and freaks out whenever it beeps, or flashes a message on the dash, or does something unexpected.
It scares me when she drives it.
That's how the Air France plane went down btw. The Captain was not in the cockpit when the autopilot shut off, and the two officers in control of the plane had no idea what to do.
They were not trained properly to fly the plane when not on autopilot.
After the speed sensor malfunctioned and the autopilot disengaged, for some reason, the co-pilot put the plane in a steep climb, until it stalled.
The plane then dropped like a pancake from 40,000 feet into the ocean.
All he had to do was point the nose down to get some air under the wings and regain some lift.
Instead, he panicked, and kept pulling back on the stick hoping it would somehow climb.
He didn't have an understanding of what keeps a plane in the air or how to get out of a stall.
Apparently, the Captain came back into the cockpit when he realized something was wrong, and by the time he figured it out, the plane didn't have enough altitude left to correct the problem.
There wasn't enough time or space to drop the nose and get some lift.
The plane hit the water with the copilot still pulling back on the stick.

 

[Ronzuki]

Back to planes. Fact is you would not have modern air travel today without automation. Lets be reasonable and realize (part) of why modern society has it so good is due to automation. Otherwise we would ALL be farmers growing crops to feed our families.

Sure you would have air travel. The folks up front would have to fly the planes, just like they used to. Recall me stating we've hit the apex on how far our reliance of automation has progressed? And that now we're moving to the dark side of automation? @Buzzman12 gets it.

I am being reasonable and realize there are growing numbers of perfectly good reasons why I'm not at all interested in getting on any commercial aircraft any longer, after at least 2 decades of flying all over the place for business, unless absolutely necessary. Here's merely one of a thousand reasons that's not even tech related:

Boeing 737 Max Aircraft Inspection Reveals Debris in Fuel Tanks of Undelivered Jets - News18

A person familiar with the matter said that more than half of the undelivered 737 MAX jets inspected thus far have had debris found in them.

www.news18.com

Modern air travel, not at all impressed. Just as I'm no longer impressed w/ modern automotive technology utilized for my everyday travel. Boeing can fiddle-fart around w/ their ballistic missile technology/software in that half-azzed flying death trap until the cows come home, I would never strap my azz into that thing, ever, after reading some of the reports. You know, when the people that worked on the aircraft's program go on record stating they'd never get on one...there's a serious problem w/ your modern air travel. These same issues are now being inserted in to the every day rolling road weapon.

 

[Ronzuki]

I was stunned to be honest. I know basic math skills are not taught in schools anymore, but didn't realize how bad it could be.

My wife works in our local High School...you have no idea.

 

[Ronzuki]

I like safety tech. Has it's place. Far from perfect.

Please refer to post #38 above...not safety tech, not even close...this is an important fact, and again, another large part of the overall problem and misunderstanding of automation...you perceive this stuff to be safety because it's marketed as such. But when it quits working...oh well, we threw up a warning, disclaimers in the user manuals no one reads, etc. Real world automation safety systems don't operate that way. They are redundant, tested thoroughly, extremely expensive components, and certified to fail-safe. The junk in your $30k rolling techno marvel is anything but that, Just because the manufacturer's marketing makes the claim, does not make it so. I made a claim a couple days ago the market was going to go up 1500 points. I stated it, twice now, so it must be true. So how's that been working out for the ole 401k? I'll state it again, just to ram it home, the market's going up 1500 points, tomorrow.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

Oh ya, been there.
Not that long ago I was buying some small items at a grocery store, and the cashier was a young girl, probably still in her teens.
She rang up my small purchase and keyed in what she thought I was tendering.
I then added 26 cents to my tender, to round out the change coming back to me.
She totally panicked and freaked out. She had no idea what to do, and even though I tried to help her, she actually started crying.
A manager had to come over to settle her down and help with the math.
She was 100% relying on the cash register to do the calculations.
I was stunned to be honest. I know basic math skills are not taught in schools anymore, but didn't realize how bad it could be.

This could be the subject of its own [depressing] epic thread.

You make an $11.36 purchase, hand the cashier $20+$1+51¢ and they hand you back the $1 and the change, keep the $20 and say "You gave me too much." They not only lose the ability to think, they have no concept whether the answer the computer gives them is right on not...and many don't really care.

I was just telling someone that I fenced in a 2,300 ft² garden a few years ago. When I was laying out the fence and truing up the 90° corners (so I had a rectangle and not just a parallelogram), I calculated the hypotenuse in my head. I had to think a bit, but I was able to do it.

Makes me sad...and a little frightened.

 

[Ronzuki]

A majority of them are human error involving misinterpretations of the technology, or lack of knowledge of the technology, or even lack of basic flying skills and knowledge of the pilots on how an aircraft actually stays in the air.
They are trained on how to fly a computer, not an airplane.

Ding, ding, ding...just replace 'plane' w/ 'car', and 'fly w/ 'drive', and you've just hit the nail on the head.

 

[NathanH]

Would love to find ONE thread on this site where users could be helpful rather than condescending and accusatory. Regret having started this one with my initial question.

 

[Buzzman12]

Would love to find ONE thread on this site where users could be helpful rather than condescending and accusatory. Regret having started this one with my initial question.

Sorry, but I don't get where we are being accusatory or condescending.
I think that for once on this site that we have been having an informed and intelligent conversation and discussion on modern day technology, and how we humans interact with it.
It's not all roses and rainbows as we've seen, and it's important to recognize that.
As for your initial post about radar cruise control: I don't use it in city traffic, so I can't comment on what happened to you in your particular circumstance.
I drive the old fashioned low-tech way around town: gas pedal to speed up, and brake pedal to slow down.
Been driving that way for a long time. Seems to work pretty good so far. No accidents, ever.
I only use cruise on the highway (adaptive or regular).
Hope this helps.
Cheers.

 

[Buzzman12]

My wife works in our local High School...you have no idea.

I can imagine.
It's not only basic math skills that have seriously eroded, it's also basic language (oral and written) skills that have plummeted.

I'm retired now, but worked in the Corporate world for 40 years.
During that time, I was in a position where I interviewed and hired people all the time.
I was constantly shocked by some of the applications and resumes that crossed my desk.
I swear some of these university educated people had the language skills of a ten year old.
On the plus side, it was easy to ferret them out before inviting anyone in for an interview.
And it's not getting any better.

 

[Ronzuki]

Would love to find ONE thread on this site where users could be helpful rather than condescending and accusatory. Regret having started this one with my initial question.

OK, I don't agree, but fair enough. Regret, why? What exactly were you hoping to gain as an answer to your original post? The answer or reinforcement you were seeking? I'm sorry then, but the reality is that you, like many others, were fooled into thinking you purchased something that doesn't live up to the advertising hype.

 

[pstiller]

OK, I don't agree, but fair enough. Regret, why? What exactly were you hoping to gain as an answer to your original post? The answer or reinforcement you were seeking? I'm sorry then, but the reality is that you, like many others, were fooled into thinking you purchased something that doesn't live up to the advertising hype.

As someone who agrees with what you and Buzzman12 have been saying I can’t see how you could not reread your posts and realize that they are condescending. And TBH it’s got to the point where you’ve devalued your well thought out and informative posts with this superior attitude. If you come across as a human being genuinely trying to help it’s likely that more people will appreciate your input and take heed.

 

[Mazdiod2]

Part of the problem Air France 447 had was flying right into a super cell because the radar let them down .

Also the wing size and loading of modern high efficiency jets makes them difficult to control in level flight at 6 miles up WITHOUT computer control. The crew found themselves in a storm they didn't anticipate. Control would have been difficult even if they planned on flying straight into a storm. I don't think it was surprising that they crashed.

I've read that the F35 would be 'all over the place' and almost impossible to control without computer assistance. The tradeoff is extreme maneuverability.

Boeing is discovering that software debugging can be extremely difficult. (They should ask Microsoft, they sell defective products year after year then after a certain amount of time declare them 'obsolete' and force people to upgrade).

Pilots probably do need more and better training AND experience. But automation is probably going to become even more important in the future. I'm sure we all hope they get 'the bugs out'. But I don't think we'll be going back to all manual control.

 

[Ronzuki]

As someone who agrees with what you and Buzzman12 have been saying I can’t see how you could not reread your posts and realize that they are condescending. And TBH it’s got to the point where you’ve devalued your well thought out and informative posts with this superior attitude. If you come across as a human being genuinely trying to help it’s likely that more people will appreciate your input and take heed.

When people fail to understand reason, logic, facts, and what long-lived experienced individuals are attempting to convey, (as opposed to being wowed by media and marketing hype) folks in our business tend to digress easily, and rapidly. The lack of comprehension about the seriousness of these issues gets old, not just on a forum, but in daily work related exchanges as well. And until the masses push back (no, I don't want that nor need to pay for it), this automotive "progress" will continue down its merry, expensive, way until we arrive at the point where the aviation biz has landed. I realize that will never happen, of course, and for obvious reasons.

Just for kicks, I sent my colleague (pilot) the link to this particular post...his response:

Wow, that’s quite an interesting mix. It looks like there are a few folks in this blog that have an IQ over 100, though, just like the one guy that found it refreshing to read your remarks. The plane/car analogy is quite on target regarding automation. Another of my pilot friends, (different than **** you referred to) who is a Captain for ******* Airlines, told me years ago that he could not even remember how to fly a Cessna at this point in his life and it bothered him a bit that he had to rely on so much automation that he didn’t understand. He only knew how to react to it (disable, etc.) when it and/or the redundant backups failed. He also said he and his union will refuse to ever set foot back in Boeing Max. What a hoot – the first paragraph in the article linked below says it all…

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/skills-shortage-engineering-safety/

As you can see to one extent or another, after so many years of pushing rope uphill, we're all pretty much the same way. Agree, disagree, take heed, don't, appreciate it, or not...makes no difference to me. If you perceive it as condescending, so be it. I'm me, you're you. I'm not a politician nor an orator and explain things I'm certain of in a certain way, and usually rather bluntly. You explain it your way. Touchy-Feely PC speak has been less and less successful over the years yielding countless "I must have misunderstood you" responses that have consistently caused delay, grief, expense, and aggravation. Frankly, it is generally a waste of time.

Bottom line, I'm seriously not interested in the mode of transportation that I rely upon for my very existence (a damn car) becoming what everything else has become... far too complicated, far too expensive, unreliable, inconsistent, not understood, unknown, and throw-away when it doesn't work because no one can figure out how to repair it or becomes too expensive to repair it. Last two generally go hand-in-hand.

Let me ask this, is there any confusion on the topic at this point? If so, well you can lead a horse to water.... Ye be warned. If not, great, mission accomplished.

 

[pcardoza]

Automation and advanced driver-assistance technologies are two very different things. One should not be confused with the other. I find the advanced driver-assistance technologies to be extremely helpful during my daily commute. I'm also of the belief that full automation would be a huge mistake for any car company to move toward in the near future. Too many variables with the vast majority of drivers not using either Automation or advanced driver-assistance technology in my view.

 

[NathanH]

I created this thread in the CX5 forums, to ask why a feature included in my CX5 (for better or worse) failed to behave as it has done before. What this has to do with airplanes and pilots? If you want to rant about the proliferation of unsatisfactory drivers aids, perhaps you should make a thread of your own regarding said topic rather than hijacking someone else's thread that involved a simple question. As it is, a topic such as that should be in a general forum rather than model, or even manufacturer, specific. Have the common courtesy to realize the proper place for a specific discussion.

 

[sm1ke]

Would love to find ONE thread on this site where users could be helpful rather than condescending and accusatory. Regret having started this one with my initial question.

I'm not sure how much this will help, but I'd like to apologize for the experience you've had in this thread. Rest assured that most threads do not end up this way. I, and many others, try to find ways to open up the discussion without letting my passion (or whatever one wants to call it) spill into what I type. Of course, I'm far from perfect, and I do rely on others here to keep me in check.

To circle back to your original question (which I STRONGLY recommend we all do) of why the cruise control disengaged at 20mph... My initial thought was that MRCC used the radar above a certain speed, then relied on the front camera for lower speeds (similar to the way that SCBS and SBS work). I'm not actually sure if this is the case, but if it is, then any obstruction could cause the front camera to be obstructed and the feature would not function correctly. However, in those cases, the system throws a warning. With no warning, I'm inclined to believe that the radar system (for whatever reason) deemed that there was no car in front of you anymore and let off the brakes. In the fine print, Mazda states that the radar sensor may not always detect a vehicle in front due to it's shape or other factors. I'm thinking that's what happened. The good news is that at that speed, the car's SCBS should kick in to prevent a collision (which wasn't necessary as you had been attentive enough to recognize the situation and apply the brakes as required).

Just as an additional note, the front camera can also be "blinded" by sunlight in rarer cases, triggering a warning even in clear conditions.

As someone who agrees with what you and Buzzman12 have been saying I can’t see how you could not reread your posts and realize that they are condescending. And TBH it’s got to the point where you’ve devalued your well thought out and informative posts with this superior attitude. If you come across as a human being genuinely trying to help it’s likely that more people will appreciate your input and take heed.

Well said. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it. Trying to impose an opinion on others, saying "I'm right, you're wrong", can very easily carry a crass, demeaning tone, even if that is not the intent. I've been guilty of this (fairly recently too). That tone defeats the purpose of the conversation, and people can become distracted by how they feel about what was written instead of digesting the information and responding with a level head.


As a reminder, the thread was started to ask why MRCC disengaged at 20 mph in this instance. If the off topic discussion continues, I'll have to clean the thread up (which I would prefer not to do as there is a lot of useful information in these posts). Please try to stay on topic everyone, thanks.

 

[GTA-CX9]

If it is the word safety that has some up in arms, call it what you will. Call it Lucy. So my post becomes:

I like Lucy's tech. Has it's place. Far from perfect.

You'd think the last 3 words there would cover all the naysayers.