We're obviously witnessing a really extraordinary set of events with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's sometimes very hard to follow what line the United States and NATO is following in deciding to provide some forms of assistance and not other forms of assistance to Ukraine. Do you think we're getting the line right? Well that's something we're actively debating and I'm actively wrestling with and reflecting on Michael. One of the challenges as elected officials in the Senate and House make public pronouncements about whether we should or shouldn't send MiG-29s for example or S-300s or different weapon systems either from the American inventory that we captured at some point during the wars in southwest Asia or from NATO allies is that I keep urging my colleagues we should rely on the professionals in our intelligence community and in our military who are advising our president on which weapon systems and which level of engagement will prove to be too escalatory but as someone who has sat through a number of classified briefings and a fair number of open briefings on the topic the simple answer is we don't really know we are coming right up against a Cuban Missile Crisis moment in terms of a direct confrontation between NATO the United States the West and Russia. Vladimir Putin I don't need to tell you or this audience shocked most of Europe by launching the largest military invasion of a neighboring country since the Second World War as the Polish ambassador recently told an assembled group of several dozen senators incredulous in the first days after this war began this is a 1939 moment and so as we watch night after night as our news shares with us graphic details of horrific assaults that are killing tens of thousands of civilians and decimating ancient cities throughout Ukraine we have to ask ourselves that very question how far are we willing to go what is the line we're willing to push and to hear President Zelensky's plea that we need to make sure that freedom is armed better than tyranny. Thank you senator when you're thinking about the situation in Ukraine some people have trouble understanding why we might not really defend them when we have promised to defend all of NATO so if if there's an attack on Ukraine that's you know 10 miles from the Polish border we're going to be kind of careful but if we see a bomb land in Poland then are we all in so what's the what's the dividing line that we should be thinking about between countries that are in NATO and Ukraine. So in the first week of the conflict and frankly in the week leading up to the conflict I had a number of exchanges with Republican colleagues one of I won't name him but a midwestern Republican colleague who was in the military and is quite a hawk and he was saying to me that he thought it was a big mistake for President Biden to clearly say that American troops would not be going into Ukraine that we would provide military arms we would provide intelligence we would provide other financial support but we would not send troops we would not fight Americans in Ukraine and he also said we will defend every inch of NATO territory and this colleague of mine was saying the president made a mistake in preemptively declaring that line that we this side of the line we will we will defend every inch that side will provide material but not troops and I reminded him that that was a line that needed to be reinforced because of our previous president I don't want to spend too much time relitigating the international record of President Trump but he put at question whether or not we really would come to the defense of NATO publicly and privately in statements speeches and actions he's significantly undermined the strength of our commitment to article five of the NATO treaty which which says that we will all come to each other's defense so I think the question that we have to ask ourselves and that Europeans are asking us is first will we actually meet that commitment will the United States across electoral cycles reliably come to the aid of Lithuania or of a Balkan or Baltic state if invaded by a neighboring country first and President Biden has repeatedly and forcefully reassured that second will we come to the aid of a country like Georgia Moldova Ukraine that has sought NATO membership is trying to get into NATO is trying to align with the West but is not currently covered by that NATO treaty and then last and this is a point President Zelensky of Ukraine has made repeatedly pointedly and at least in my case effectively that really troubles my conscience in 1994 Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world they willingly gave it up in exchange for a written commitment from the United States the United Kingdom and Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity so as President as President Zelensky forcefully said to those of us assembled at the Munich security conference is your word worth anything now President Biden just announced I think yesterday another 800 million dollars in materials including how it serves and drones and armored personnel carriers we are overwhelmingly the largest provider of arms and humanitarian support to Ukrainian refugees and to the Ukrainian armed forces and territorial defense forces but we are still respecting that line and to the point of your question Michael it is somewhat arbitrary and the fact patterns are going to force this question there almost certainly will be an incident where Putin goes too far either within Ukraine by using chemical weapons or just over the border by claiming an accident in which a cruise missile strikes an arms depot where Americans are unloading stinger missiles from a C-17 about to go across the border we are in a very dangerous moment where it is important that on a bipartisan and measured way we in Congress and the administration come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid and defensive Ukraine if the answer is never then we are inviting another level of escalation and brutality by Putin but so far that is the answer of a majority in Congress and this administration thank you senator you mentioned that you had a chance to hear directly from from solinsky about the events on the ground and that mode of interaction is in in many sense a new one the president of another country directly connecting with the legislators from from around the world with the the public from around the world could you comment a little bit about what it's been like to hear the president talk that way and whether you think it's an effective strategy for him to pursue president Zelensky has redefined himself and his nation in the eyes of the world certainly in the eyes of the american congress with electrifying real-time personal direct appeals i first met him a number of years ago but on christmas eve of last year two dozen of us republicans and democrats house and senate spent more than an hour on a call with him at a point where there was a russian build-up but far from certainty that there would be an invasion in fact the united states was saying we believe you're a genuine risk and there was some frustration in congress and the administration the president Zelensky and many other leaders in ukraine seem more focused on settling scores internally and on other issues than they were on really preparing for this conflict the next time i had as direct an exposure to him was at the munich security conference where we were in the same room as he delivered a really powerful address and then it was just a few days later that the war began since then i've been on several calls with him but the most memorable was he addressed the entire assembled congress of the united states several hundred of us gathered in a big chamber that's underground that's near the capital to hear a real-time address and it was powerful motivating personal the forcefulness behind his appeal frankly michael is rooted in his personal courage he has a young beautiful family and it's now public what we all first learned in a classified setting that the united states when the russians were in circling kiv and that we had credible intelligence that there were several assassination teams hunting for Zelensky and trying to kill him and his family we offered to remove him to exfiltrate him to give him a safe passage outside the country until launch a government in excel and his memorable response was i don't need a ride i need more ammunition and that sort of personal courage those daily broadcasts by him and his most senior advisors from the center of kiv as there were as there were shelling and bombardments and as there were special forces units from russia in the city i think that helped galvanize the world but frankly the willingness to fight by the ukrainian people of all ages and backgrounds genuinely surprised the russians and has genuinely motivated the world the united states has long counted itself the world's principal beacon of liberty and promoter of democracy and open societies ukraine today is showing us what it looks like to actually fight for those principles at enormous cost and to be unwilling to compromise and to simply give up in the face of overwhelming odds


So we're here to do a helicopter support team operation or an HST operation. The purpose of this is to practice carrying loads such as the Humvee via air. So today we lifted a up armored Humvee using CH-53 helicopter. This gives more training opportunities for the landing support of the 0481 community. So part of the LS Marine job is to teach this specific skill to other disciplines or to other MLSs. Same thing as a radio operator teaches people how to use the radio and demand the radio. Langing support specialists are supposed to teach other Marines how to do this kind of operation. We have to spread that kind of knowledge across the board. We're going into the 2030 plan for force design. The smaller groups on the islands is going to require more knowledge to be packed in the smaller units so we can stay spread out, stay moving, mobile. And a big part of that logistics strategy in the Pacific is going to be through HSTs or specifically moving type of logistics that's not relying on motor T. TB used to be TSB, so ECB Transpatient Support Battalion, but now it's Transportation Battalion. Although we've changed our experimenting for force design 2030, we're still moving around some of our smaller assets. My platoon has laying support Marines and HE operators even though it's a Transportation Battalion. Part of that capability is being able to spread out the knowledge that those Marines have to other Marines. So if any of my Marines aren't here, we can still do the mission. For instance, you can give a license to operate a vehicle to any Marine as long as they go through the training. So we're even like this HST. If I have Marines that are off doing training and we're down to a small amount, well now I can ask motor T or I can ask, you know, CR-3 M Barkers or any other Marine that's in my unit. I can ask for them to come to the HST because we're capable of teaching these skills on the spot. So for instance, we had the motor T operator and then we had our HE mechanic who are not supposed to be doing this stuff. Excuse me, who are not trained to do this stuff? We haven't come out to train today so they're familiar with the concept. So should this come up again and we're shorthand or moving around under the EABO mindset, each Marine in the unit has more than just what their MLS is. So that can come into a bigger picture or more information. I don't know how much cross-training has been emphasized in the past, but I will say that history has taught us that we need to do cross-training. For example, Vietnam War, if the radio operator goes out, there's still a radio and we still have to have communication to carry on with the mission. So it's on that leadership to make sure that the cross-training is happening or that the radio operator is teaching the other Marines how to handle it because if that Marine goes down, the mission still carries on. So doing stuff like this I think is going to open up a lot of capability to the commanders and it's overall going to actually decrease the amount of manpower stress that's required.


Hello, people of the internet! My name is Johnny and welcome back to some more Five Nights at Freddy's Security Breach. We just got done surviving about three minutes inside of this office against, uh, Monty and Roxy. And now, we have to go and meet Freddy in the prize area, which I think is all the way past El Chip's Restaurant. So I think we go out this door, and then we can get out from there? I honestly have no clue. I'm just gonna wing it. So, let's just go out, see where the- Okay, well, never mind. Uh, well, now I really don't know what to do. Oh! I escaped. Okay. Um, whoa! Who seen me? Who seen me? What? What? Alright, I don't know what that was. But, I'm gonna assume I'm safe, because I haven't died yet. So, I need to find a fire escape. I'm also trying to find some- Oh, here we go! Some prizes. A Monty Mask. Interesting. Can I jump? Nope. Woo! Woo! Woo! Hello? Hello? What's out here? I can't- I can't go out there. Okay. Let's try this. No! I can't even go out there. It was just opened. I saw it open. Oh! Alright. Slow and steady. And that's exactly freakin' why. Oh God, I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! Dude, I don't know where to go. There's no place to hide. I'm just gonna go back here. Oh no! My icon's red. That means I'm not safe. Can I use my Cam? I can! Alright, I'm assuming- Alright, he's still like in the back stage area. I think I'm good, even though my icon is red. Is that Bonnet Plushie? What the heck? Bonnet Plushie? Toy Bonnie? A little, but I'm gonna hide in here. Okay, so she's there, which is on the opposite side. And I think Monty's still like back here. Sounds like it. Alright, so if I can go and hide in that thing, that'd be great. But I think she's coming to me right now, which is actually not great. Alright, I don't have to worry about Monty. Roxanne? Ooh, save spot. Come on, come on, come on! This is risky! This is very risky! Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello! What the frick? You just levitated bro! Oh, what? Alright, I need to go that way, actually. I can see her. Just barely. Actually, you're pretty close to it. Let's go. I know, right, Chica? Let's run. Alright, let's just, let's find a place to go. What's this, button? No, a donut, okay. Oh, can she open that? She can open that, that's great! I love the fact that she can open that. Keep searching. He can hide forever. I really wish I could though. Oh, what? Wait, that didn't happen. How do I do that? Yeah. Let's go! Whoa, whoa! Hiding spot for being there. Alright, so she is coming this way and this purple circle I'm assuming is the elevator. Alright, so she's actually in front of the elevator, which means I think I can go in here. Quickly hide in this. Double check. Where is she? Good question.  I ideally want to go out this way. So if she, alright, that's actually good. Let's quickly, let's hop in here actually. Take it nice and slow. No need to rush. Okay. So she's looking. That shouldn't matter too much. Oh god. Let me hop in. Where did you go? Alright, she's all the way back here. I am in that thing right there. So we're so close. I will. Elevator! I have one. I have one. I don't need it. I got one. Hi! Vanny? What are you? How did you find me? Also, nice to meet you, my lady. There I am. Look at all this stuff. Pretty? I'm trapped. I'll bet you think you're real clever, Gregory. What? Yeah, I know your name. You're in place now. This is not the night to be wasting my time. So you are going to wait right there and lost and found until your parents or the police arrive. Oh, I'm back in the main lobby. I know where Lost and Found is. Whoa! We freaking knew it, boys! Vanessa is Vanny. We knew that. And now she's got us locked and lost and found. What's this? Not the collectible I thought? I would get... What is going on? Oh. Hello. Uh... Oh! Hello! Ah! Hi, Vanny! Okay. You are going to wait right there and Lost and Found until your parents or the police arrive. That's an interesting switch. Huh. Anyways, let's quickly escape before Vanny gets to us. I'm assuming it's this vent. Yes. Yes. Mmm. I'm just like the sassy Baka imposter. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh! No, no. Oh my God. She's over the intercom. And now she's just walking around? Really? No. In fact, I'm quite concerned. I don't know what to do. Does she just know where I am? Oh no. It's only when she's close. Are you having fun yet? But how is she doing that? Don't tell me she's got an illusion disc. Oh no! Is Vanny using an illusion disc? That would make sense. Are you having fun? How she could switch between Vanessa and Vanny so fast and also the noise when she's close to me. Oh no! Let's go to the elevator. Oh! Ready? Roxy's Raceway. I'm coming. So interesting. I can still hear Vanny. So is she just going to be around for the last like four hours? To Roxy's Raceway. Which I think is down this way. Yes. Are you having fun yet? Wait, is she down here as well? Oh no! Oh no! Excuse me guys. Excuse me. Alright, so this is Phaser Blast. So where is the Raceway here? Whoa. Wow. Alright, so Freddie said he stacked some boxes for me. Oh, a gift. I'll take it. A Roxy balloon. Oh gosh. Boxes. Thanks, Freddie. Oh my god! Dude! Dude!  Hold on, Freddie. I know you're hurt, but I also like secrets, bro. What did I tell you, Freddie? I would have missed out on my furry mask. Alright, Freddie, why are you dying? Freddie, are you okay? There you are. Dude. I was so worried. I waited and waited for you. I missed the hour leaving charge and have been trying to get down to parts and services. I think something is wrong. Is there anything I can do? Help Mimi. Get to parts and services. How do I do that? Of course I will. How do we get there? It is down under the main stage. Normally the stage lift takes me down there after every call. We know that. That is really the only way I know how. Use that door behind Mimi. This one? It will take you to the rehearsal room on the other side of the building. For a backstage pass, then find a way to turn on the lift. Good luck, superstar. Entering rest mode. Okay, I'll do my best. Oh my God, Freddie, are you dying, dude? Freddie Fazbear can't die? Alright. Well, oh gosh. I don't like this. Flashlight charge and a save spot. Oh boy. Alright, here we go. What the frick is going on back here? Is there anybody down here? Are you lost? Well, that answer is my question. Hello? Roxanne? Whoa. Whoa. Okay. Wow. This is huge. Alright, she's all the way down there. What is that? I bet that's where I have to get to. Alright, so let's hug this wall, then. Oh, hello, hello, hello. What's this? Exit, out of order. Perfect. Oh, is that Roxanne? Yes, sir. Alright. Uh, shoot. Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not fair. I was hiding, bro. Alright, I guess I'm safe, then. Uh, let's just keep going this way. Oh, the door's down there. I think we have to go that way. I'm just going to go down this way. I don't know what's down here. But we're going to find out. Ooh, a flashlight recharge. I would love to use that. Oh my god, he's going to find me. No. Don't do it. I'm just running. I don't know where I'm running. But I'm just running. Alright, this is just a huge hallway. What's in here? Oh, sweet fish. Hell, tube. Let's go. Alright, this is from Pirate Ride. Curse of Dreadbear. Interesting. You don't see me? What's in here? Literally nothing. That's great, actually. Dude, I don't know if I'm supposed to be going this way. But this is so creepy. What's in here? Uh... A bunny picture. Ooh! Ooh! Okay. Okay. Dude, I'm so confused, but also present. Let's go. Ooh, damn, Chica.  That's interesting. Alright, I'm assuming this was the way I was supposed to go. Pretty said I can find a backstage pass around here somewhere. Ooh. Ah, interesting. Let's save. Alright, found a present. What's in this one? Monty-themed, I think. Oh, a battery upgrade! I will take that, thank you. Whoa. This is so weird. It's like VIP backstage private, like, songs. That's interesting. What's in this gift box, eh? Fog! Alright, let's charge this. 2.30 a.m. Alright, new battery upgrade. That's awesome. So now I can do what now? Ooh. Don't be around here. Alright. Alright, we're back here. That's interesting. Sounds like Monty's still freaking out. Oh my god. Chica? Monty? I think? Whoa. What the heck is going on in here, dude?  This is so weird. Alright, so I push that. But I want to explore. Ah, don't like the look of that. Seems like we might have a bit of an office segment going on here pretty soon. Let's do it. There's something else in here. What's this? It looks... old. Wait, what's old? Ready? Any time! Oh! I don't know what that means. Oh! True. Okay. Hello, Vanny. No, you won't. Over who? Over what now? Alright, so Monty's just kind of chilling. I think? Oh, that's Chica's. So this? Sorry, sorry. Oh my gosh, it's like five nights at Freddy's AR. Alright, Freddy's door, this one. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Wait, they look like they're hurt. I don't want to hurt them. Five minutes! Jesus! Alright, this will probably be the last thing we do in the video. I feel like I'm missing something. Are you guys good? Alright, she's going to Chica's. You're going to Freddy's. You're banging on Freddy's. Shock. Chica's. Shock you. Sorry. Oh, they don't like that. They do not like that. They are getting very upset.  Where are you guys going? Back to Freddy's. Shock. Where's Roxanne? Monty's door, this one. Boom. I feel bad. Tell me. But I don't want to hurt them. Oh, I need to find Freddy. Jesus. Where are you at? I don't see him at all, actually. Oh, he's at this one. There you go. Alright. Boom. As well as shocking. Roxanne who's going to Monty's door. Alright, here we go. I don't know where you're at, homie. Alright, there you go. Okay. Where you at now? Alright, you're going to Chica's. Or maybe you're not. I don't know. No, I don't, actually. Alright, she stood still. You're at Roxanne's. Alright, Freddy, where are you, dude? Oh, hey, got him. You're at Monty's. Over frickin' way, or you can't say over here. It's like saying under way, or bro? Here. This is a very cool segment of the game. I like this a lot. Oh, right here. Alright, he's at Roxanne's. And escape through the vent. Let me through the vent! Let me through the vent! Oh, Freddy! Oh, I did. Oh. Okay, Freddy. You don't look too good, dude. I'm just going to say it. But I think that's where I'm going to leave this episode. We got a lot done. We saved Freddy. Hopefully he's not going to die, right?  And in the next episode, we're going to activate the lifts. Hi, Freddy. Yes, yes, I know. I'm wrapping up the end of the video. I'll see you next time. Bye. Stop waving at me. Well, that's going to do it for this video of FNAF Security Breach. And I'll see you all in the next one. On the flip side. Goodbye.


تبطه آدك الأيام فتا الشيغ رحمه الله تعالى الشيغ رحمه الله يسأل أفضل يسأل ألياقين لا يزول بالشك و يدخل فيه من العبادات والمعاملات والحقوق الشيء والكثيرا و قاعدة ألياقين لا يزول بالشك فهي بابو العبادات فهو من عبادات العبادات و من معاملات والقصة تقاربت بالقصة و أنهاامة و ألوها معاملات والدفع والحقوق والمعاملات والحقوق الشيء والكثيرا و قاعدة ألياقين لا يزول بالشك و هو و يزول بالحقوق الشيء والسيء فهذا ليس مستخدم لحد مكان ولكنه قاعدة التي يمكن أن تستخدمها كتاب العبادات، كتاب المعاملات، حقوق فهذا هو الشيء رحمه الله نعم فمن حصل له الشك وفي شيء منها رجع إلى الأصل متيقن فمن حصل له الشك أي شخص يتعلم عنه في شيء منها في أي اعبادات أو عمالات أو حقوق أي شخص يتعلم عنه رجع إلى الأصل رجع إلى الأصل ونحن نتحدث عن الأصل حولها رجع إلى الأصل رجع إلى الأصل رجع إلى المتيقن المتيقن المتيقن المتيقن ونحن نتعلم عنه مثل عمال يتعلم عنه ويضع المتيقن ويضع المتيقن كما اخبرنا في اعبادات لو شك الرجل يضع المتيقن هل طلق زوجة هل طلق زوجة هل تتعلم عنه أو هل يتعلم عن حلقه نحن نقول لا انت لن تتعلم عن حلقك انت لن تتعلم عن حلقك لأنه سنعود إلى ، لنعلم عن حلقك ونحن سنبقى على اتصال يجب ان تكون المتت this woman ونحن لدينا أن هذه المتجة لها لانها تعتبر لذا أي ماتاة إنتهي بها إنتهي بها وقالوا وقالوا now what the sheikh is going to do is going to mention 4 things that fall under this قاعدة يقينوا لا يزولوا بالشك the sheikh is going to mention 4 things that will fall under it and they are not only these 4 there are more than that it's just an example and it's not that this is all of it the first one he says is what الأصل الطهارة في كل شيء the original essence of everything is that it's pure unless there comes an evidence that proves it that it's impure or certainty that evidence can be certainty or anything if certainty comes then of course it loses impurity and it becomes impure but if we don't know that we stick with the أصل the أصل is every single thing is pure unless there comes a certain evidence or proof that proves that this thing is not pure so as an example if a person pours water over you and you don't know who it was and you don't know where it came from then the أصل is الأصل الطهارة في كل شيء everything is pure are you sure that it's impure now so let's go back to the أصل is that it's pure so if it was under this قاعدة if it was under this قاعدة and also the أصل is what the أصل is permissibility everything is permissible for you unless the evidence proves that this thing is impure or the evidence proves or the evidence proves that this thing is what it is impermissible so the person who says that this thing is حرام he has to provide evidence he has to give a a certain evidence to remove it from his original essence because the original essence was what permissibility إلا ما دلت دليلو if there comes an evidence and proves it what على نجاستي that this thing is impure or this O is the تنويع or because sometimes O comes as عطف and sometimes it comes as تنويع or تحريمه or it's prohibition meaning they are both separate نجاسة و تحريم are two separate if you say تعطف you connected the two together no they are not و الأسلو الإباحة everything is originally permissible you are allowed to use it as you wish you are allowed to eat whatever you see as long as there doesn't come an evidence that makes it impermissible and of course we talked about the issue of أصل for types that we categorize into نعم و الأسلو براءة الزمام من الواجبات و من حقوق الخلق حتى يقوم الدليل على خلاف ذلك و الأسلو the original essence of what is براءة الزمامي my neck is free from what من الواجبات there's no wajib on me no wajibat is on me from Allah تعالى unless there comes an evidence unless there comes an evidence that says to me this is a wajib you have to do it okay so if somebody says this is wajib I say to him with your daily because the original essence is what براءة الزمامي my neck is free from anything I can't be obliged to do anything unless there comes an evidence and proves that I have to do this that's Allah تعالى also و من حقوق الخلق and also from the rights of the creation as well even the rights of the creation no one can tell me you have to do this I'm a free individual also he said unless there comes a what unless there comes an evidence in a position to the asal an evidence comes and says you have to do this like for example my mother has rights on me my father has rights on me because of the delete that came and that removed the asal here so the asal is براءة الزمامي و من حقوق الخلق حتى يقوم الدليل على خلاف ذلك و من حقوق الخلق و من حقوق الخلق و من حقوق الخلق يعني I'm innocent I'm an innocent individual there's nothing you have on me that you can claim that is yours because the original essence that is when I was born no one had anything against me no one could claim anything on to me you're trying to remove me from my original essence you're the one who has to bring evidence and prove is the fact that I'm innocent you have to prove that I am guilty of this so in the court of law in islamic court this person is innocent the qadi won't look at this person and say prove your innocencey he won't tell him to prove your innocencey he will say to the other one prove he's guilty لماذا why because him being guilty is a مسألة انطارئة it's falling onto him meaning he is guilty is not the essence of the human being or anyone so the judge would turn to the other person who is accusing him of this and say to him bring us evidence bring us what evidence that this person is guilty and this person he says to just be quiet when he brings the evidence now when this one goes and he brings the evidence now all that's needed from the one who has been accused of this I swear that this is false is the other one who has been accused so first this is how it works you say he's guilty prove he's guilty he goes out of his way he brings witnesses he brings proof now this proof he brings he has done his part the other person he has to be what the prophet sallallahu alaihi sallam he said in the hadith if everybody was given what they claim and what they talk about a people would have claimed people's money and their blood everyone would just go and say and used it or he did this to me and he would be killed for it if everyone that's claimed seems to be taking but the prophet then what he would say the one who's claiming bring evidence and the other 1 ..هذا هو ما هذا والله فيه لم أفعله. و والله يخلق أنه يصدرق أكيد فيه الخلق ، فهناك ثانيةً من قادر. و ثم إذا كنت تظهر إلى هذا ، هذا هو الأمر الذي إجزام إسلامي، يُصل به أجل كلها ، بعله كلها ، أجل كلها و سبحانهifyه إسلام ، یہ الكتابة المشاردة التي قتلت للقية الناس. A person committed a sin ... witnesses not one not two witnesses have to come and prove what that this person committed a sin. If one person sees it and he comes and he did see it and it really did happen if he tells it in Islam he is a fasq he is a fasq, his witnesses is never taken into consideration, you see, and he is whipped he is whipped even if he did see it , even if he did happen, why, you don't have the لديك المتابعة معك فهذا قاعدة جداً وانت why I say to everybody every student of knowledge he should always learn what is the essence of every matter what's the essence so the one who's on the essence shouldn't go up his way looking for evidence your evidence is the essence the other person should be the one who's looking for the evidence you're just the one who's just saying بقات مكان على مكان I'm upon the original essence you're the one who has to now go out of his way and prove it don't send me on a goose chase to find the evidence for this matter it's not my job, it's your job are you with me so نعم this one is also the essence of what is what بقات the essence for it to remain مشتغلت به ذيما مو anything that is on your neck which you have placed it somewhere it has to remain upon the way it is meaning I went to your shop and I said to أخي give me this water and you went out of your way and you broke me and then I said to أخي I don't have the money I don't have the money for the water and my family needed so you said to أخي give me a watch I take my watch off I pass my watch over to you this watch now becomes yours until I bring you the money whenever if I don't bring that money then there's a حكام but then you sell this now I have to go give my children the days go by I have to bring back the money the essence is wherever is under your this with you and it's busy on something it's already busy this thing is busy the watch is busy on what it is busy on making sure that I bring back the money is that you're not allowed to tamper with that you're not allowed to try to sell it so I saw the water and I tell a person oh brother عبد الله he has my watch it's in his hand and I'll get it back to you in 3 days no I can't do that وحقوق عبادي or the rights of the creation حتى until يتيقنوا you are certain that you are free from it and you've established the rights of that thing I've given the person their money back and now I take my watch it becomes mine I then and only then can I say to him أخي here is buy it from me and we can sell it to each other the essence is you can't tamper with it نعم so the sheikh before I move on all of those 4 that he mentions there are 4 of those that he mentioned all fall under هل يقينوا لا يزولوا بالشكおっ لا يزالوا بالشك اف flowers أنضم انهم اتجلوا اتجلوا لأ bottle أل يقينوا لا يزولوا بالشك أو لا يزالوا بالشك يجب أن يكونون في ذلك كل من هؤلاء يجب أن يكونون في ذلك فالطالب العلم المدينة المعلمة يجب أن يجب أن يدع out those ويجب أن يكونوا أفهم في ذلك الآن سوف يذهب إلى القاعدة الأخرى فهذا كان كل هذه القاعدة الأولى الآن سوف نذهب إلى القاعدة الأخرى الآن ومنها أن مشاقة تجلب التصير المشاقة تجلب التصير الشغر الحما والله يتعالى يتعالى إلى القاعدة الأخرى فهناك قاعدة الأخرى وانه يتعالى إلى القاعدة الأخرى وهي that the مشاقة تجلب التصير مشاقة brings مشاقة is burden hardship brings ease now the usage of this word مشاقة and the شارع the kitab and the sunnah doesn't use it it doesn't use that word and rather we do find مشاقة in عبادات we do find hardship the word hardship because الله تعالى He said وستعينه بالصبري والصلاة وإنها لكبيرة إلا على الخاشعين so we do find it so the best thing that the sheikh said was he should have used the word العسر سباب لليسري because الله تعالى He said فإنما مع العسري يسرى so that would have been a better usage of the word so مشاقة it brings تيسير نعم وبنوا على هذا جميعا رخص رخص السفر وتخفيفة والعبادة والمعاملات وغيرها وغيرها الشيخ رحمه الله He said that based on this قاعدة the أصوليون the scholars of أصول بنوا على هذا جميع رخص السفر all of the رخص means the ease the sharia built it matters pertaining to traveling when you are a traveler you shoot in the prayer you don't have to fast all of that the sharia based on what this قاعدة وتخفيف في العبادات والمعاملات and making it easy matters of worship and matters of transactions they based on this قاعدة which is أن المشقة تجليبو التيسيراء that ease brings it comes with or the better word that we use which is العسر سبب لليوسري and the evidence for that is the ayah فإن مع العسري يوسرا which is in Surat Surat ألمنا شرح لك صدرك آية 5 نعم ومنها قولهم لا واجب مع العجس ولا محرم مع الضرورة now we're going to go into another قاعدة which is the third قاعدة that the sheikh is mentioning which is لا واجب there is no obligation مع العجزي when there is weakness and when there is lack of ability ولا محرم and there is no prohibition مع الضرورة when there is necessity involved this قاعدة goes hand in hand with the ayah فتقوا الله في الله مستطعتم as much as you're able to even the fear of Allah Allah connected it to what our ability so anything that a person is on he can't come with this obligation تقوا الله is it obligatory yes it is it is worthy but it's connected to what your ability الله تبارك وتعالى he said in another ayah لا يكليف الله نفسا إلا وسعها الله لا يبارك أحد أبقى their ability أبقى their طاقة so if a person is unable to pray standing up he can't pray فإنه يصلي جالسن the person pray sitting down ومن عجز عن الصلاة يجالسن and anyone who can't pray sitting down what does he do صلا وهو مضجع he prays and he's lying on his side where's the hadith for that the hadith in Bukhari من حديث عمراني بن حصين when the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم he sat to him صلي قائما and pray standing up he said فإن لم تستطع if you're not able to pray standing up فقاعدا sit down فإن لم تستطع فعلى جانبن if you're not also able to pray sitting then pray on your side pray on your side so this قاعدة is from the قواعد المقررة في الشريعة it's from the قواعد which are solidified which are mentioned in our religion and also the other one which the sheikh mentions in the same sentence so the first part is لا واجه ومع العجز we spoke about that ولا محرما and there's no prohibition معضرورة when there is necessity involved so if a person is in a state of necessity then the matter becomes permissible for him and this is what the الصوليين say in other words in other in other wordings they say it الضرورة تبيح المحضورات necessity permits the impermissible necessity will permit for you something that is impermissible now this issue of الضرورة people have taken it to an extreme the issue of ضرورة people have pushed it and dragged it to an extreme so it's important that I put in place for you all this قاعدة which is الضرورة الضرورات تبيح المحضورات the necessity it brings the necessity it brings the impermissible so if something is a necessity you're now permitted the impermissible first of all I have to explain to you before I go into the conditions what is necessity a lot of people think necessity means if it's a life and death situation and that is one view of the scholars but that goes against the Arabic language so people think a necessity actually is if you're going to lose a body part or if your life is on the line for what your left is going to go or for what to win or your body part is going to go that is only when it's a necessity that isn't now also that's what it means now I'm going to give you guys the conditions that for something to be a necessity for us to say this is الضرورة it has to meet these criteria it has to meet these conditions then and only then does it become what it become a a necessity the first thing is that the necessity أن تكون الضرورة that this necessity لا تندفع إلا بفعلي المحضور we can't get this necessity cannot be removed unless we do a haram the only way we can is only by doing this haram there's no other option if we're able to find another option إذا أمكان if it's possible دفع الضرورة to remove this by what بغير ذلك المحضور other than this prohibited thing فإنه لا يقال at that point we don't say that you're allowed to go and fall into the haram if we've got another alternative example for this is it is impermissible يحرم الرجل it's haram for a man بالنظر إلى امرأة أجنبية it is impermissible for a man to look at a woman that is a foreigner from him he's not allowed to look at her and the shari'a did it prohibit that it prohibited it it prohibited it explicitly and it also prohibited it implicitly for example Allah says إني آية ولا تقربوا الزنا ولا تقربوا الزنا don't get close to zina in another hadayah hadith sorry in a hadith the professor الله عليه وسلم السلام عليه بن أبيل طالب he said لا تتبع النظرة don't follow a look بن نظرة تبع النظرة فإن لك الأولى the first one is for you meaning if you look at a woman by accident Allah will forgive you for the first one because it was by accident وليس لك الأخر but the second one is not yours or if you keep looking it's not for you anymore the month you look by accident you turn away insha'Allah you're not held in comfort but if you keep looking it's impermissible for you and you'll be held in comfort so you're not allowed to look at a woman this is a something which is محضور حرام but we have an issue here this woman هذه مراعة المريضة she's a sick woman who's ill as an illness and the necessity her situation is that she requires for a doctor to deal with her situation and the doctor who's going to deal with her involves he has to look at her body parts in order for him to in order for him to work on her or whether it's surgery or whether it's any other means he has to look at her and we also looked for a female to do the situation if there is a female doctor and we also gave up at this point it is permissible for this woman this woman to be dealt by a a male doctor it's a ضرورة it's a necessity good so he's allowed to look at her that's the first condition we don't have no other option we couldn't find a female if we have a female we're not allowed to result to him but if she can get cured without the doctor having to see her and in any other ways there are no other ways has to be taken good the second condition is that it's possible and يمكن ضرورة ودفعها بذلك المحظون this impermissible act we are definite that it's going to rebel it's going to get rid of and it can repel the what it can repel the necessity by us doing this حرام we are sure that the situation which is the necessity can be done for example let's take the same situation a girl she goes to a doctor she for example has she's bent her skin is bent and she goes to a doctor and the doctor the doctor is he hasn't specialized in skin and this is not his a field of his field of expertise he doesn't know this for him to go and say I'll do what I can in the شريعة he's not allowed to look at her if he doesn't know anything about this field he's like everyone else he's not allowed to look at her and in this in this point a lot of the فقهاء and the سوليين they add to it the issue of alcohol and I always use this example and which is if a person's in the desert and they're very thirsty and they may die out of thirst are they permitted to drink alcohol the سوليين they say it's not permissible for him to drink alcohol the reason is because alcohol doesn't fulfill the need of thirst rather increases the thirst it is what it increases the thirst but it is permissible for a person to remove something that is in his throat he's about to die because he she's choking or something and the only thing he could find is what the only thing he could find around him is alcohol he drink to remove it can he do that yes he can but can it get rid of thirst in the middle of the desert based on that no so it's not permissible because it can't fulfill the need of it can't fulfill that need of removing the necessity that was there the third condition that they stipulate to this matter is that the person does اللا يرتكبة that the person doesn't do من المحضوري from the thing that is prohibited he doesn't do it except إلا بمقدار ما تنتفع به الضرورة he does it to the extent that the necessity is so he doesn't do for example you had that and a pint of laga or whatever the alcohol that's next to you so what did you do? you sift it to just remove it you're not allowed to carry on carry on carry on carry on no what you do is you stick to the necessity the ضرورة is at its for example a doctor wants to work on a female and he has to see her for example he has to look at her he has to look at her stomach for example now the doctor is only permitted to look at that part of her body because that is what the ضرورة is he's not allowed to look at any other place of her body the only place he's allowed to look at is when he does that's when the scholars they say الضرورة تقدر بقدرها الضرورة اما الضرورة الضرورة تقدر بقدرها we we count it to the necessity that is the prohibition is only limited to what is needed we don't go above it huh at all the fourth condition that the scholars they stipulate to this matter is and they can they put in place is is that the person has to try to remove this necessity he himself first of all he has to try himself to get rid of it before he results to this it has to be the the final there isn't like the final huh he has to try it has to take every other little methods that he could in order to get to this and this should be his final result there's no other way he can get out of it that when those conditions are met it is important now what I really want you to all understand is and since we're talking about the issue of necessity الضرورة there is a matter which I have to explain all of this I'm saying is just a regurgitation it's just me repeating what I've already said in what they already said in قاعد الفقية this author his other book قاعد الفقية I've already explained that over there detailed but there is a matter that I have to go over again and explain it to you all إن شاء الله تعالى which is the issue of الضرورة if you're in a state of الضرورة and the state of you're in a state of necessity and meaning you're in a life and death situation and you go by a a group of camels you go by a group of camels and what do you do and you're about to die life and death you have to eat so what do you do you go and you slaughter yourself one of the camels is it permissible for you to do it نعم it is permissible for you because الضرورة now the owner is he allowed to request for it can the owner of that camel say to you I want the money the money of my camel every time you killed my camel I need the money for it or is he not allowed the scholars they say if when you slaughtered that camel you slaughtered it because you wanted it for yourself to eat then you have to give what is known as my man he has the right to request the money for it and you have to pay him back but if his camel it charged at you and it was about to kill you and you shot it you shot it because it was about to so both of them are necessity he was about to run you over or he was about to harm you or did something to you and then you fought back against it and you killed it then there is nothing on you there is nothing on you نعم so based on those points brothers and sisters the scholars they bring a lot of matters out of لا واجبا مع العجزي ولا محرمة مع الضرورة and I come pay attention with the sharia when it requests and it commands you to do something is connect to it ability when it tells you to do something ability is attached to it but prohibition ability is not attached to it because it's what it's to stay away and not do something ability is not connected to it but to do something and to go out of your way to do something there is an ability that is needed and that's why the Prophet ﷺ حاليث وإذا أمرتكم بأمرين if I order you a matter فأت منه مستطاعتهم come with what you're able from it do it and based on what come with whatever you're able to do from it نعم فالشارع لم يجب علينا مالا نقدر عليه بالكلية the sharia hasn't made obligatory on us the sharia has not made obligatory on us that which فالشارع لم يجب علينا it hasn't made obligatory on us ها مالا نقدر عليه that which we are unable to do بالكلية by by كلية means in totality there are things that we can't do partially but بالكلية in totality that isn't the case the sharia observed the sharia observed our ability when it was legislated it wasn't done for RA it wasn't just done this law didn't just wasn't passed ها knowing that you guys can't do this never so anything you find Allah has commanded you to do you are lying by saying I can't do it you are lying by saying you can't you can't do it because we have to either attribute oppression to Allah a ظلم and our belief of Allah is that he is what he is just and Allah doesn't oppress anybody سبحانه وتعالى and we also attribute to Allah knowledge complete knowledge that Allah is fully aware of you who is his creation Allah is fully aware of you as an individual what you can and what you can't do he knows it very well so when this law was passed it was based on the knowledge that Allah has of you and knows of you and it's also based upon الله تبارك وتعالى as عبدالجسطس so anyone who says to أخي this is too hard for me I can't do it this is وسواسم it's a whispers from the whispers of shaitan shaitan is whispering to you shaitan is whispering to you but then I have to explain to you it's if the person says I can't do it but I can't do it for now then لحبنا شك that's partial that the person can't do it for example the صلاة if a person says I can't pray at all because I haven't got the ability to pray at all then that is incorrect فالشارع لم يوجب علينا ما لا نقدر علي بالكلية but if the person says today I can't pray standing up we'll say to him no problem sit down he said I can't pray sit down even today we say lie down so he lies and he prays so the شريعة has observed that now وما أوجبه من الواجبات فعجز عنه العبد سقط عن وإذا قدر على بعضه واجب عليه ما يقدر علي وسقط عنه ما يعجز عن وامثلتها كثيرة جدا now we are speaking about the issue of اسقط الواجب الشيخ is talking about issue of what the wajib been uplifted from you the issue of the issue of the wajib been uplifted from you there is an اسقط كله sometimes the شريعة it uplifts the wajib in its totality from you for example this matter is obligatory you have to do it and the person says I can't fast Ramadan is in and he says I can't fast the sharia came and said forget the fasting don't fast that whole day that is all lifted from him that's called اسقط كله all of it some of the things the second type is what اسقط جزي اسقط جزي نعم اسقط جزي which is the sharia uplift some of it from you not all of it but some of it and that is like what I can't pray today the sharia says okay part of it is now being lifted from you what is it you don't have to pray standing up okay pray sitting up then he said I can't pray sitting they lie down so the sharia it didn't if you're unable to pray the salah the sharia has never ever lifted up the salah from you it has not lift lack of ability the sharia doesn't lift the salah from you whereas fasting you can't the sharia doesn't say you can't fast till ظهر okay fast after ظهر لماذا why because some of the واجبات يتبعض يتجزع some of the واجبات they can be broken into are you with me some no it's either found or it's absent but there's a third one which is disputed there's a third one which is disputed some of them try to put it into what they try to put it into that اسقط كله and some say some try to put it into what اسقط جزي or they try to add it to the مسائل and the واجبات which are يتبعض and some say لا لا لا يتبعض and they put it into that which is the issue of ظهر the ظهر if a person can do ظهر but he can't for example do on his head today because he's got a big wound on his head so what did you do some of the فقهر they say he does what he can do with the ظهر and he finishes the rest off with that تايمون they believe that يتبعض are you with me others have said لا he can't do ظهر his body the whole ظهر is lifted from him he just he needs to move on to the تايمون that's all lifted from him ظهر is not on his shoulder and we spoke about that in details when we were talking about القواعد الفقية so the شيخ here is trying to say وما أوجبه anything that the شارع has made obligatory من الواجبات from the obligatory matters فعاجز عنه العبد and the slave is unable to do سقط عنه it's lifted from him وإذا قدر على بعضه and if he's able to do some of it


So, dann fange ich schon mal an. This talk was originally announced as being in English. Is there anyone who doesn't speak German? Alright, then I try to do it in English, if that's fine with the rest of you. The slides are in German, I apologize for that. I talk more than is on the slides anyway, so I try to do it in English. No problem. There doesn't seem to be a Herald for this talk, so I have to announce myself, I guess. My name is Bernd Sieker, I'm talking about Autopilots in aviation and Autopilots in cars. Automated driving, autonomous driving, self-driving cars. What can go wrong with Autopilots in airplanes? And what also can go wrong with Autopilots or self-driving cars? We don't know a lot about that yet, because there aren't that many. But there have been a lot of problems with Autopilots in airplanes. Oh, sorry, it's rolling by itself. Okay, I start with this one, I hope it doesn't go automatically. You already know everything, so maybe you can go now, because you've seen everything. So, let me adjust this. Okay, then let's start. This is a brief outline, most of you, I guess, can read German. So, I talk about automation in means of transport generally. Mostly it will be airplanes and cars today. There is a lot of automation in trains. There are actually self-driving trains, some limited lines, some Paris metro lines are completely driverless. And there's a bay area rapid transport in San Francisco, which is also driverless, has been for about 10 years or so. But today I'm not talking about trains, just planes and cars. I try to talk for about 45 minutes, and then there'll be 15 minutes for questions in the end, of which I hope there are many. All right, so automation, what's it about? There are different levels. The lowest level, of course, is we do all the driving or all the flying by ourselves. My car has hardly any automation. I think it has an anti-lock braking system, and it has electronic stability program, and it has cruise control, but a dumb cruise control, not an adaptive. So, basically I have to drive by myself. Most small airplanes are also hand flown all the time. Then there's partial automation in which the car does some things automatically, such as lane changes or adaptive cruise control, things like that.  Can, for example, drive on the highway for extended periods of times, but not in the city. So that's partial automation, and then there's the full automation. I guess some drones, some quadcopters can do fully autonomous flights, pre-programmed flights. Airplanes can fly a lot of a trip automatically autonomously, but they are not really autonomous systems. The pilots always have to tell it, quite specifically in some cases, what to do. And of course for cars, that's the ultimate dream, I guess. There's a driverless car that holds by a front door, stops by a front door, you get in, tell it where to go, and it will deliver you to another front door, completely without supervision and without intervention. So, there are some differences in automation between airplanes and cars. The environment in which they operate is very different. For airplanes, the environment is very highly regulated. The airspace is very highly regulated. You can fly in some parts of the airspace, in some countries, you can fly almost freely. In other parts you can only fly with clearance from air traffic control. So, somehow the sound has changed, I don't know, is it better or worse? It's better, good, thank you. Whereas for cars, the environment is almost uncontrolled. You can just get in your car and drive anywhere with few exceptions. If you like and have the car for it, you can even go off-road. Maintenance and operation for airplanes is also very highly regulated. For cars, it is quite different from country to country. In some countries where it is hardly regulated at all. Who can drive a car or who can repair it? In other countries it is more highly regulated. In Germany, every car is still go to a technical check-up every two years. That is mandated by the government. And as far as training and education goes, the difference is similar again. It is very highly regulated for airplanes. And somewhat regulated for cars. But once you have your driving license in most countries you never need to take an exam again. And you can drive until you drop dead or whatever. And another thing is the automation in aircraft doesn't need to be super reliable. Because there are always pilots there. And it regularly does things wrong, drops out or arrives at the wrong altitude or bust the altitude, flies higher than intended. Things like that just stops for any reason. Airplanes also never take off by themselves. The take-off of an airplane is always done by the pilot. On the other hand for cars, the requirements and reliability are extremely high. If we are talking about higher levels of automation where the car basically drives itself. And the driver is no longer necessary. But airplanes aren't there and it doesn't seem like they are going towards full autonomy anytime soon. So, I asked that on the Chaos Communication Congress a year and a half ago. Are there any pilots here today? Private pilot, commercial pilot, ATP, I was asking. Single engine instrument, that's good. So, when flying an airplane, there are usually three levels on which you can fly it. If you have an automated airplane with autopilot, you can fly manually, just moving the yoke or the stick. And you have this simple autopilot, you just tell it to go in a certain direction or hold a certain altitude and it will do that. And there is the so-called managed mode where you can pre-program an entire flight with waypoints and altitude restrictions and it will do that. Then there are various automated subsystems, but it's the same in a car basically. And some systems may come on automatically. The engine control is usually done by a digital computer these days in airplanes as it is in cars. Another big difference is that a lot of the automation in airplanes depends very highly on external infrastructure. That is true to some extent for cars if they use GPS for navigation. But for airplanes there is a lot of terrestrial infrastructure that is required, not only the airports but radio beacons and instrument landing systems and things like that. So an autopilot doesn't really have any more information than the pilot. It doesn't decide anything, the pilot really tells the autopilot what to do and then the autopilot basically moves the control surfaces and flies the airplane. And the autopilot also can never relieve the pilot of his responsibility. In an airplane there is always exactly one pilot in command and he bears ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight. And he needs to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of all on board. And I don't see that commercial airliners are going to fly with less than two pilots any time soon. I think some airlines would like to do it but I don't think it's going to happen soon. There are some small commercial jets which can fly with a single pilot, even commercially with passengers. But over a certain size and unless they have a special certification there always have to be two pilots. Of course there are a lot of advantages of automation. Automation can often react much quicker. In many cases it does have more inputs, especially in cars. It will have infrared vision and radar and LiDAR and ultrasonic sensors. In airplanes they usually don't have a lot more sensors. There's a weather radar but that is usually not used for flight control or for the autopilot but is only interpreted by the pilot. And of course the autopilot can do monotonous tasks such as just keeping the altitude and the course in cruise flight, which usually goes on for several hours without really anything to do. The autopilot cannot be distracted by most things. So I show you a brief video of some of the more impressive things or one of the more impressive things that an autopilot does. And that is, let's see if I can get that full screen. I hope there will be some sound. No the sound is important. It's not coming out of this one. Is that really the best way to do it? It should work the other thing but it didn't. I try it this way. It's not super important but it's quite interesting to hear. Because you can hear the altitude callouts from the flight warning computer. And that's the view out of the front window. Did you notice the screen was only gray but the video was actually running. And it counted down the altitude 50, 30, 20 feet above ground. And you could hear a touchdown before you could actually see the runway. And that's Autoland and that is something that human pilots can't do and are not allowed to do. Okay, I hope it's working now. So that's something.  And you have to trust that the computer is going to do it right. One thing that can happen is if automated systems are too reliable that the pilots or the drivers, as it may be, will come to rely on the automation. Imagine a car that doesn't fail on average for 100.000 km. So you can drive several years and will never see a failure. And you come to believe that the automation is perfect. Until then one day it does have a failure and drops out and doesn't do what it's supposed to be. It doesn't turn or whatever. And so it may actually be the case that quite unreliable automation is at the moment a lot safer than very reliable automation until we can get to extremely high reliability. So I don't know when that is going to happen. But this is perhaps one thing that has kept aviation so very safe paradoxically that the automation isn't foolproof. All pilots know that at any time the autopilot can drop out, can be turned off and he has to hand fly the aircraft. In the automatic landing in low visibility that I just showed, the autopilot can drop out at any point. There is dual redundancy, which means if one autopilot drops out he can still land. But if something else fails, if the instrument landing system, the ground beacon that guides the airplane down fails then the only thing the pilot is allowed to do is initiate a go around and take off again and not land. A human is not allowed to land in those conditions. That may change with modern artificial vision systems. Some business jets already have infrared vision systems that are superimposed on the windscreen and they may use that as a backup system if the autopilot fails, but not as a primary system for landing. So, it's never easy to get automation exactly right. And there are some cases in which mostly the automation did something that the pilot didn't expect and was surprised by it or the pilot, the human pilot made a small error or there was a small technical system that didn't work as expected or as designed and in some cases with catastrophic consequences. Some of the design decisions that have to be taken when designing automation and cockpit systems is what needs to be done if things go wrong. And the first level is, is there a redundant subsystem that can't take over. Airliners always have two autopilots, sometimes they have three independent computers. Fly-by-wire airliners have several, Airbus typically has seven flight control computers, a single one of which is sufficient to get the airplane safely back on the ground. So, with less comfort than if all of seven work, but it'll suffice to land. And the next fallback level is of course to hand back control to the human. In airplanes that happens frequently, so pilots know how to do it and know what to do and are frequently retrained, at least every six months. I just read that that Qantas does a check up of the pilot seven times a year. So, they are very thorough in that. Another decision is if things go wrong and if many things go wrong, which sometimes happens in aircraft and probably in cars too, the engineers when designing the system need to make the decision together with human interface experts and psychologists and all kinds of other people, which information to show to the pilot at what time. It may be that there are 30 or 40 error messages waiting in the queue and during landing you don't want to show all of them to the pilot, only the ones that he needs to know at that point. And that is a very tough decision to take when designing such a system, what to display at which point. And some things are important to know, some things less so. And I have a few stories about accidents that were caused by problems with the automatic thrust system. And they are very different systems. Boeing and most of the rest of the world have thrust levers that move with the automatic thrust control. So the computer decides to reduce thrust and you can see the thrust levers moving back a bit. And Airbus in its fly-by-wire aircraft uses static thrust levers, which are not back driven. So the pilot sets them to a certain position, which means automatic thrust control and then the computer regulates the thrust and controls the thrust, but the thrust levers stay in the same position. So seems like a dumb idea, but we're not exactly sure. There have been accidents with both systems in which the system was involved. And here's one, here's another video. In this one the sound isn't important, so I try to get it full screen. So that is in Sao Paulo, Congonias Airport. This is a normal landing, probably also in Airbus A320. And you notice it's slowing down, it's going pretty slow. And this one is the accident aircraft. And you immediately notice that it hasn't slowed down as it should. Let's again the normal one, in the background the one. I think it takes about 13 seconds or so to move through the picture. And this is the accident aircraft. It takes about 3 seconds. And it didn't slow down and it exited the end of the runway, still going 100 knots. It's about 185 km per hour. Shot over a big road, a 6 lane road and crashed into a building next to a fuel station. And burned and 200 people died. And what happened? This is an excerpt from the digital flight data recorder from the accident flight. And you can see these two lines are the left and the right thrust lever. And you can see that the pilot pulled one back. This is idle. And if you pull it further back, that's reverse thrust. And he pulled one back and put it into reverse thrust and let the other one sit in forward thrust. In normal forward thrust, the position where it is, the entire flight. It has never been found out exactly why he did this. It may have to do something with a procedure that you had to use if one of the thrust reverses was broken and disabled. Which was the case on this flight. He was deactivated. And the procedure was to pull both thrust levers to idle and select reverse only on the good reverser and not on the other one. What he actually did is maybe he remembered that or used reverse thrust only on the good engine. And he forgot to pull the other thrust lever back entirely. So it had still significant forward thrust on one engine and reverse thrust on the other engine. And when not both thrust levers are in idle or in reverse, then various other automatic systems such as the ground spoilers, which destroy lift and help break down, help break the aircraft at higher speeds, slow down the aircraft. And the automatic wheel brakes don't work. And it took the pilots 11 seconds to figure out that they weren't braking at all. Neither aerodynamically nor with the wheel brakes. And that was far too late. If they had realized that immediately and used full manual braking on the wheel brakes, they might have probably just stopped on the runway. But this was a little thing that the pilot did and the aircraft didn't really tell him what was going on. He noticed he didn't have any ground spoilers extending, but other than that, they were completely left in the dark about what was going on. So this is really basically what I already told you just in German. And this had perhaps something to do with the static thrust levers, because just before touchdown the computers reduced thrust to idle automatically. But the thrust levers stay in the forward position. And then on the Airbus there's a call out that says retard, retard, which means pull the thrust levers back, because we're not using forward thrust anymore anyway. So maybe in a system with moving thrust levers, this wouldn't have happened. But there are other cases. Here's another accident. It wasn't quite as catastrophic. It was only nine dead. And in this case there was also a small technical malfunction on the aircraft. One of the radar altimeters stopped working. And that radar altimeter is coupled to the automatic thrust control for landing, which means if it senses that the aircraft is lower than 27 feet above the ground, it reduces thrust to idle. And the malfunction in this case meant that the signal was reflected directly from the transmitter to the receiver. And so it indicated minus 8 feet. So the computer said, oh, we're below 27 feet, so reduce thrust to idle, while they were in fact still 200 feet high. So the pilots noticed, pushed the thrust levers forward again, but that doesn't disable the automatic thrust control. So the computers retarded the thrust levers again. This time unnoticed by the pilots. The speed decayed, they went into a stall, lost control and crashed just a few hundred meters short of the runway. And in this particular case, why you can't say which of the system is actually a lot better or worse, this particular scenario wouldn't have happened with the Airbus-Style thrust levers. They would have just shoved them forward and if you push them forward of the normal auto thrust position, you are in full manual thrust control. So it's really hard to say which system, if any, is better, they are just different. And here's another one also to do with thrust control and in that case the automatic thrust was disabled and didn't turn itself back on, although the crew thought it would. So, again, as in Amsterdam speed decayed, they went into a full stall and crashed. One of the tragic side notes on this one is that one of the three people who were killed may actually have survived being ejected from the aircraft but was then run over by a rescue vehicle. It is clear that she was run over by the rescue vehicle but it's not quite quite clear if she was dead already or was killed by that additional accident. There was so much foam already covering everything so the driver didn't see her. So what happened in these cases, in two cases the aircraft had small technical defects. The one in San Francisco, was in San Francisco, was Angelus, not sure. So, the aircraft in that case was perfectly okay and there were even four or five people in the cockpit because some of the pilots were being checked out. But they didn't realize that the auto-throttle didn't work as they thought it would and maybe there's not enough training in some airlines, maybe there's poor crew resource management because one of the check pilots actually told the captain, the pilot in command, that the airspeed was lower than it should be but there was no reaction and when he finally pushed the thrust levers forward again to go around five seconds before the crash it was too late to make a significant difference. I have a small side note here about pilots who did the wrong thing even when something major went technically wrong with the airplane. You probably all remember Captain Sullenberger who ditched his Airbus A320 on the Hudson River after Canada Gees disabled both his engines. He completely lost thrust immediately after takeoff. Simulations later found that he might have been able to return to a solid runway but equally likely or maybe some different probability he would have crashed into a residential area and so ditching on the Hudson River and saving everyone in the end turned out to be the right choice. And there's another one who's also rescued by by good airmanship by the pilot Bridger Airways Flight 38 lost thrust on both engine on short final approach and by excellent energy management with what he had left retracting flaps one step he managed to land on the airport but not on the runway, stopped just short of the runway, landed, landed, crash landed on the grass and in this case too everyone survived, few people with injuries but despite several tons of fuel spilling on the airport there was no fire. If it had ignited it would have looked very different but in this case everyone survived as well. Briefly talked about that it's a hard decision for the engineers and designers what to show to the pilots and the extreme case was Qantas Flight 32. Who remembers that? Yeah of course pilots will remember that. An Airbus A380 from Qantas suffered what is called an uncontained engine failure and if you read the report it's actually very interesting to see the language there. One of the big compressor discs or turbine discs can't remember which, it's a big solid piece of metal to which the compressor or fan blades are attached and some of them are as heavy as maybe 50 kg so it's a really big piece of metal and it says that the turbine disc was liberated so it actually at very high speed broke apart and three big chunks of it exited the engine and they're basically like artillery projectiles so really they would go into the fuselage and exit the other side without noticeably slowing down and it was very lucky that the cabin wasn't hit so no one was hurt in this case but the Airbus aircraft are very highly computerized like any modern airliner and for at least 50 minutes one crew member was going through all the error messages about failed systems and some pilot wrote that 21 of the 22 major systems had malfunctions on this aircraft so hardly anything was working as it should one engine couldn't be controlled anymore there were few leaks electric control lines were severed, hydraulic lines were severed they basically lost half of all control surfaces so it was still just flyable but in the end by going through all the error messages the crew had a very good picture of what was still working what the aircraft was still capable of and so they managed to calculate the required landing distance and found that by manually recalculating the two conservative estimate of the computers the required runway that they could land with 100 meters to spare so that's what they did they had to approach very fast because a lot of the high lift devices were still working but in the end they brought it down in one piece or what was left of it so we're still a long way away from that with cars and it's also not very useful in a car to tell the driver what particular aspect of which particular specific subsystem has failed because normal drivers aren't engineers and they wouldn't understand it anyway so is a very good engineering background to understand what the aircraft is doing but even so, aircraft have automation only in a very limited way it can do some things very well, it can land in no visibility it can cruise along comfortably and very smoothly change altitude and things like that but there always has to be a human monitoring the system ready to take over whenever necessary and it also can be disabled at any point but unlike cars in an airplane, there's usually a few seconds time if the computer says, oh I'm turning off the autopilot the airplane isn't going to do anything if it's in cruise flight so it's just going to continue flying and there's a bit of time there was always more than one pilot in airliners and as I said, they have a better education a better training than car drivers but also the aircraft as such the aerodynamic thing that flies needs to continue flying and a car in most situations you'll be able to stop by the side of the road and take a good look at what has gone wrong but the airplane at least has to go on to the next suitable airport so, who has seen this before? is anyone into car automation? so, the automobile industry has defined five or rather six levels of automation up until a few years ago almost all cars were at level zero so, the dumb systems that we have like simple cruise control, ABS things like that, they don't really count but then we have some simple automation systems like adaptive cruise control, lane change assist things like that, self parking cars because in most of these systems the driver still has to operate the accelerator on the brake and the car will only turn the steering wheel so that's a one-dimensional assistance function or automated function and all the cars that today say they can drive autonomously and that are sold to customers are at level two no more than that today there are some level four cars in testing there's no level five car in testing yet in my estimate it's going to take a long time until we see level five there's some level four in testing and most of it is level two and as such the Tesla autopilot is actually aptly named because it operates on a level comparable to an aircraft autopilot in a very specific domain it can do some things autonomously but if it has to do something else entirely it hands control back to the driver and that's what you saw on my title page if you enable the autopilot on a Tesla it shows this little blue box that says hold steering wheel in fact the Tesla autopilot will remain engaged if you remove your hands from the steering wheel for several minutes it will go on driving if you don't touch the steering wheel but if you do it for too long eventually it will say you didn't heed my advice to touch the steering wheel so I will now disable the autopilot for the rest of the trip so yeah there's some level four in testing but how safe are current cars with automated driving features we really can't tell maybe a very small number of accidents and some manufacturers claim that they have driven n million kilometers I think Waymo or Google by any other name said that they have now driven four million kilometers autonomously without driver intervention or so they say or they have to report every driver intervention but in fact they don't report every driver intervention because they think that they don't need to report driver intervention if their simulations show that the automatic system would have been able to cope but the driver disabled it so they say they don't need to report that because they could have done it with the automatic system and if you compare the statistics with manually driven cars, human driven cars it's also a bit biased because practically all automatic cars are new or at most a few years old so it's also may have something to do with the state of repair and how careful drivers are with a new toy so and most of the miles or kilometers driven with the automatic systems enabled will have been on highways and overland much less in the city and cities much much more challenging so and it's going to be a long time until cars can completely autonomously drive through through city traffic if you've ever driven in Rome that's apparently extremely challenging so how safe are they going to be in the future well we really don't know either obviously the next levels will be three and four as I said there are some level four cars in testing level four means in a very specifically defined environment for example on a highway the car can drive autonomously and the driver is not required to supervise the automatic system and in level four it also means there is an automated fallback system which at least can bring the car into what is called a minimum risk state which almost always will be driving to the side of the road and stopping so if the car knows that it's coming to the exit to the intersection at which the defined environment in which it is supposed to operate will end it will alert the driver saying for you to take over in 10 seconds or in 15 seconds or whatever and in level three the driver must take over then that is part of the of the derived requirements so to speak for the driver so it's one assumption on level three that the driver will be ready to take over after a request for intervention they use lots of strangely defined terms in the SAE document and the capabilities of the normal automated systems for level three and level four are basically the same but level three works on the assumption that the driver is ready to take over after a brief warning time and level four has no such requirement and says level four if my professional routine that will allow me to put the car in the minimum risk state which may be just stopping by the side of the road or something like that so most people I have talked to in the automotive industry say that level three is unachievable in practice we will not do level three we will do level four because it can't really work on that assumption it will be very hard to prove that the driver will always be ready to take over because while the car is driving level three under full automatic automatic control the driver is allowed to do something else can watch a movie or play cards with his passenger or whatever but needs to be able to take over after some time and the other thing is that how long before the actual required takeover does the car have to tell the driver in 15 Sekunden und wenn du auf 150 km auf der Highway 15 Sekunden coverst viel Distanz so, der Car muss die Ability haben zu schauen in die Zukunft und zu schauen um eine Bende so, das ist all wirklich, der Konsens sieht zu sein, dass level three nicht funktioniert in der Praxis also, das ist einfach was ich gesagt habe so, was ich gesagt habe von Science-Fiction-Movies das Auto, das kein Driver hat es vielleicht nicht hat ein Steering-Wheel oder so es ist nur ein Kabel wenn du es aufstimmst und du willst gehen und der level five wirklich stipuliert, dass es muss so sein überall unter any road conditions unter any weather conditions ist dass es muss nicht sein, dass du das komplette Trip unter conditions, in denen ein humaner Driver auch nicht driver kann oder wenn es wirklich nicht eine Information gibt über its Surroundings z.B. in der Blizzard etwas wie das das ist die Exception für das aber other than that drier weather, rain storm, fog all conditions we don't really see that achievable in the near future maybe someday so how safe two cars need to be and this is from an actual industry standard the tolerable risk is the risk that based on current societal values will be accepted in a given in a given condition so it's very very vague and it's going to be a huge problem if we're going to develop self-driving or autonomous cars that we're going to sell all over the world because this actually depends a lot on the society on which you're going to sell them so there may be societies which accept much lower standards of safety as long as they are better than current human driver performance or in some countries there may have to be a lot better than human drivers before we're going to accept them but it's going to be hard to measure current societal values and one other thing is that traditionally for safety critical systems we have been doing formal requirements and a formal design specification formal verification if possible such as the flight control system fly by wire control system on airliners or even more so on fast jets because fast fighter jets are aerodynamically unstable and if the flight control fails it will literally rip the wings off within 200 milliseconds or something like that so that has to work at all times there's no way around that for airliners it's not quite as critical they'll fly stably for maybe half a minute or so before it starts decaying they'll continue to fly more or less and for self-driving cars we don't even really know what the requirements are and the environment in which they are going to to operate is so complex they're the only chance that all manufacturers see is deep learning by any other name artificial intelligence, whatever you may call it CNNs, whatever and you can't objectively verify that the code and all the parameters actually fulfill the requirements and well, we don't have requirements anyway so there are probably some border conditions which we have to fulfill for safe operation but proving that a neural network will actually fulfill those is an unsolved problem Tesla already said in the latest software version not a single line of code will have been written by human there's just the basic machine learning structure and everything that the car is going to do is done by machine learning it's quite likely that automated cars will be a lot safer than human drivers on average quite a bit actually if it's done right by accident caused by automated driving systems that a human would not have done that could have been prevented by a human and that's going to be one of the big obstacles to acceptance I think even if we're going to save 10 hypothetical unspecified people somewhere won't be a big consolation if a relative of me is being killed by a self-driving car and I have no idea to predict how how the societal values will evolve around this so it's really hard to tell maybe just a little bit better will already be accepted by the society in general and I think the press is going to play a big role in that in the acceptance or not for that but we'll see how it works out it's going to be an exciting future thank you very much for questions are there any can't hear you are there any questions in English I a little bit miss the beginning I guess you are pilot or in this direction I don't know how many of you heard in Japan there will be there will be automated taxi service can you know this you know air taxis air taxis maybe so my question is in Japan they are crazy for the technology in which level from these six these taxi services is that just on the rail or is it on a special if it's on a rail that the auto the automotive levels apply but something that's running on a rail driverless is probably going to be level four you know the taxi service what the Japan use in 2020 there will be Olympic Games and they want to use maximum automated cars but they are going to run on a rail I don't know that system so no more questions yes what about emergency cars for example police or firefighters is there maybe a driver assistance system or automatic driving for the emergency drive or something like that planned in the future not that I know of okay yeah go ahead okay if there is no defined way to predict the behavior of a program are there any ideas how you could reliably verify the performance of a self learning network that's the big question right so one idea is that there's a wrapper around it limits certain parameters to probably safe bounds but how exactly that is going to work is still not quite clear and it's also very hard to do that because if you can make a verifiable program safe then you're probably going to restrict the deep learning algorithms too far and they can't really work to the full potential so the short answer is no we don't know how to do that beyond extremely long testing and living with the occasional crash yeah oh yes thank you for the presentation what is your take on when something happens in a plane or today a car crashes there is some legal liability so usually somebody goes to jail when an autonomous vehicle crashes or kills somebody these days it's kind of like nobody's fault maybe the company pays some reparations but that's about it pretty much there is nowhere near the amount of actual human liability involved in autonomous driving today do you see this changing yeah I could have talked about that for another hour I guess normally the first liability is to the driver okay so we don't have a driver then it's probably the manufacturer who is liable but I don't know that anything like that has happened yet or has gone to the courts yet so we don't really know um it will there will probably be something like not exactly a certification but you need to prove to the legislator that the car that you're bringing to market is somehow not going to harm people and that's part of European legislation so the first the first one liable how that plays out in practice in the courts I don't know hello I'm sorry I missed maybe the first five or ten minutes please tell me you mentioned IEC 6508 so on the other hand there's ISO 26262 the automotive standard for cars like up to three and a half tons the difference between the two standards is like the ISO 22 the automotive standard in the space of developing a vehicle so are you somehow familiar with what's going on how they want to specify this whole let's call it automation paradox that currently just pushing to the market because they want to outsource anything so they want to be very specific with their OEMs so I think like they're trying to create facts before they had actually a standard for this right yeah it's going to be very interesting if you're familiar with the 26262 so can't tell you anything but I'm sure they're meeting and trying to to incorporate that into the standard but if I know anything about standardization meetings it's going to take a long time so any more questions okay then well thank you very much for listening


They were not pure academic, they had interesting experience, I mean I remember for instance one of four teachers, she was a journalist before becoming a teacher and when she started to give experience she could give experience about all sorts of cooperation that she was interacting with during her work as a journalist. Really knowledgeable on their subjects and really enjoy what they're teaching, which I mean makes a difference, you can tell if someone doesn't enjoy coming in and teaching. Teaching comes down to individuals and so if you have inspirational teacher, which I had two particular people stand out in my mind, the tutors, the class, the tutorial leaders also, a few of them were really good and to me that really made the difference. I think the professors that were there were particularly helpful and really gave their personal time and really friendly people to help me understand the academic area better and I had a fantastic dissertation tutor who was really interesting, we met one on one several times to get my dissertation sorted. Even if it's not something that you're doing or you're studying, if you want to know something about you just go and ask them and they give you a really good background, they give you really good guidance. When we spoke on the panel in Geneva, it was the first time that the UNOG, the United Nation Library in Geneva, was having students as a panelist and I was so panicked. So I went to Dan and so our supervisor and I told him, I'm not sure, I really don't feel confident. It was like of course you can do it. It certainly has helped me mainly because it gave me access to a network of incredible people, both my peers at CISD and professors and assistants at SOAS who I'm still in touch with and who've opened up my world professionally and personally so that's a great thing. CISD really shows that they're invested in us and it's nice to know that your school and your program are invested in you.