3 ms·

Instead of rewiring planes to fly themselves, why not give them android pilots?

7 points by edward 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago
Because robots are still slow and clunky? Building robots that work fast and well usually requires that we build an environment around them. This is why a dishwasher works well but an android washing your dishes would make a huge mess. Also since most aircraft are already FBW when you have a pilot - controls - computer - flight controls loop already it's considerably cheaper and easier to just plug one computer into another. You also don't need to rewire anything if an aircraft is capable of instrument only flight and is fly by wire all you need is effectively an iPad and a USB cable.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  While many aircraft are described as fly-by-wire that does not mean that there is a software interface you can use. Older FBW aircraft are composed of many independent computers using poorly documented interfaces -- it was never anticipated that someone would later want to add a 3rd party autopilot. The point of the robot pilot is that the only documented interface is the physical one in the cockpit.
helthanatos 10y ago
Tons of reasons... Instead of searching on Google, call your friend and let them search (Google) it for you!
angry_octet 10y ago
Controlling the throttle and stick is pretty straight forward with bolt-on actuators. However, the force fed back has to be measured too. Commercial force feedback control systems for simulators cost ~USD20k per axis for a low backlash electric system with much less max force than a pilot can exert. Mounting this in on a robot arm with enough force to e.g. do a 10G turn sounds very pricey. There are many other controls in a cockpit that are not so straight forward to control. These frequently involve fine motor skills (like moving a trackball mouse to move a cursor). In larger commercial aircraft there are many many switches which are a full arms length reach away, or require standing (pre takeoff checks). A robot with the capability to do this is starting to sound pretty expensive vs a bunch of strap-on solenoids and actuators. Of course in an Airbus you could just plug in to the system bus. So really what we are talking about is having a non-human and non-manufacturer supervisory autopilot program. That isn't going to happen for passenger carrying aircraft until we have a much better way of writing programs to handle unexpected situations.
anotheryou 10y ago
Got paywalled, but everything would be more complicated, with the only benefit of making the conversion reversible. Just take the simplest button: - if you rewire: rip out the button, extend the two of the 3-4 cables (common earth, button, status led) to a micro controller, screw it down somewhere. - if you build a robot: take your micro controller, send a wire to an actuator to press the button, build a fixture so the actuator always hits the button and does not slip, get extra power for the actuator (your micro controller is too weak on its own) and something to trigger it, build in a photo sensor to check on the LED, cover all windows in the cockpit so lighting conditions remain stable, build logic that could detect a broken LED or a stuck Button, make all these moving parts resistant to wear and don't forget maintenance. reading the other comments: they don't even want the strap-on solution, pfew? edit after reading the article: They want to build robot arms. The advantage would be, that they need sophisticated robot arms, but just 2 of them and one hardware fits all, the rest is software. For bulk conversions this might be actually cheaper.

7 points by edward 10y ago

Because robots are still slow and clunky? Building robots that work fast and well usually requires that we build an environment around them. This is why a dishwasher works well but an android washing your dishes would make a huge mess. Also since most aircraft are already FBW when you have a pilot - controls - computer - flight controls loop already it's considerably cheaper and easier to just plug one computer into another. You also don't need to rewire anything if an aircraft is capable of instrument only flight and is fly by wire all you need is effectively an iPad and a USB cable.

angry_octet 10y ago
While many aircraft are described as fly-by-wire that does not mean that there is a software interface you can use. Older FBW aircraft are composed of many independent computers using poorly documented interfaces -- it was never anticipated that someone would later want to add a 3rd party autopilot. The point of the robot pilot is that the only documented interface is the physical one in the cockpit.

helthanatos 10y ago

Tons of reasons... Instead of searching on Google, call your friend and let them search (Google) it for you!

angry_octet 10y ago

Controlling the throttle and stick is pretty straight forward with bolt-on actuators. However, the force fed back has to be measured too. Commercial force feedback control systems for simulators cost ~USD20k per axis for a low backlash electric system with much less max force than a pilot can exert. Mounting this in on a robot arm with enough force to e.g. do a 10G turn sounds very pricey. There are many other controls in a cockpit that are not so straight forward to control. These frequently involve fine motor skills (like moving a trackball mouse to move a cursor). In larger commercial aircraft there are many many switches which are a full arms length reach away, or require standing (pre takeoff checks). A robot with the capability to do this is starting to sound pretty expensive vs a bunch of strap-on solenoids and actuators. Of course in an Airbus you could just plug in to the system bus. So really what we are talking about is having a non-human and non-manufacturer supervisory autopilot program. That isn't going to happen for passenger carrying aircraft until we have a much better way of writing programs to handle unexpected situations.

anotheryou 10y ago

Got paywalled, but everything would be more complicated, with the only benefit of making the conversion reversible. Just take the simplest button: - if you rewire: rip out the button, extend the two of the 3-4 cables (common earth, button, status led) to a micro controller, screw it down somewhere. - if you build a robot: take your micro controller, send a wire to an actuator to press the button, build a fixture so the actuator always hits the button and does not slip, get extra power for the actuator (your micro controller is too weak on its own) and something to trigger it, build in a photo sensor to check on the LED, cover all windows in the cockpit so lighting conditions remain stable, build logic that could detect a broken LED or a stuck Button, make all these moving parts resistant to wear and don't forget maintenance. reading the other comments: they don't even want the strap-on solution, pfew? edit after reading the article: They want to build robot arms. The advantage would be, that they need sophisticated robot arms, but just 2 of them and one hardware fits all, the rest is software. For bulk conversions this might be actually cheaper.