5 ms·
> When I see the average driver competence on the roads, I don't see most of those people successfully commuting in a flying anything over the course of their l
by tntn 8y ago
> When I see the average driver competence on the roads, I don't see most of those people successfully commuting in a flying anything over the course of their lifetime.
Ah! But AI, you see! They'll fly themselves!
- hamilyon2 8y agoFully automated flying is much different from fully automated driving and arguably easier to pull off. Barrier is lower, so we will probably see it implemented in near future.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoIt’s already been implemented for a few years now. Planes can even easily take off and land on their own now.
- nradov 8y agoAutomated landing systems are only in very limited use, and require active monitoring by qualified human pilots who can immediately take over if something goes wrong. In general autopilots don't cope well with mechanical failures.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoThey can land by themselves, but the safety envelope demanded by the FAA and industry just means that they don’t. The ability is there if needed in a pinch.
- nradov 8y agoSure they can land by themselves as long as nothing important breaks on the airplane during the landing sequence. If something does break then the pilot may have to intervene at a moment's notice. The pilots aren't just kicking back, they're actively flying the aircraft even though they aren't directly manipulating the control surfaces and throttles. That's why aircraft carrying paying civilian passengers will continue to need a rated pilot onboard for many years to come.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoYes. And if they aren’t monitoring locally they are monitoring remotely. But the level of automation right now in aircraft is dangerous: enough that the pilot’s job is really boring, not enough that the pilot isn’t occasionally needed. We all know how that works out in practice.
- sokoloff 8y agoThe aircraft case is a good bit different than the car case IME. In cruise, there's not much to do in an aircraft and minimal oversight by the pilot is easily accomplished. Then, during the arrival (and during the departure), the workload is quite a bit higher, meaning the job is anything but boring and it's easy for the pilot to remain engaged.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoTake off and landing aren’t really that much of a commercial flight, especially for long hauls. And even these aspects are automated more and more these days, it isn’t weird that the pilots are supervising an automated landing...for safety reasons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland).
- sokoloff 8y agoThe pilot workload and involvement is high during the entire departure process and arrival process, not just the takeoff and landing. Call it surface to 30K feet and letting down out of 30K feet to the surface. Traffic, crossing restrictions, speed restrictions, frequency changes, aircraft power and configuration changes, etc. In cruise in RVSM airspace (where the use of autopilot is mandated anyway), there's not much to hit and everything is nice and orderly and the workload lowest. Full autoland usage is a minority of landings, even in equipped aircraft.
- nradov 8y agoRemote monitoring is insufficient for passenger carrying flights due to communications latency and reliability problems. It might be tolerable for cargo flights though where risk tolerance is higher. The excellent safety record of scheduled commercial flights contradicts your claim that the current level of automation is dangerous. We have proof that it works well in practice.