4 ms·

One word: compliance. FAA has lot of restrictions to allow a planes to fly with pilot in it. Imagine convincing them that without pilot.

noir_lord 6y ago
Honestly that is as it should be. Does that kind of regulation inhibit progress in some domains, sure - is the cost of the loss of that progress worth it against the likely outcome of de-regulating it absolutely. Safety regulations are written in blood and when organisations like the FCC, FDA etc fall down on the job people die. I want my cyberpunk aircar as much as the next geek but not at the price of having them fall out the sky because some programmer made an error at the end of a 70hr work week to make a deadline for shipping.
- Jabbles 6y ago
  This seems very absolutist. If we assume the technology exists to make this safe, there are a number of factors that would make this obviously less risky: 4 people per aircraft reduce the number of lives at risk from any particular issue. That doesn't mean the FAA can be 100x as cavalier as they are with an A380, but it does mean the worst possible likely outcome is not as bad. Short flights - easily predictable weather patterns. Elimination of pilot error - obviously replaced with computer error, but still. And as I said elsewhere, the ability to test to destruction.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  As grim as it may seem, our air safety is built on deaths of thousands of people died in airplane crashes. some may call it cost of progress.
Jabbles 6y ago
I'm sure it would be a decade-long task. But I'm not sure it's monumentally harder than either the process for piloted aircraft, or the task of automating the aircraft in the first place. And you can much more easily demonstrate the limits of an automated aircraft. Simulated bird-strikes, thunderstorms, power-outages, emergency landing in fields, blinding by laser-pointers, stray bullets or whatever scenario the FAA throws at you can be done without the risk to the (non-existent) human pilots, just the cost to VCs. Whether that argument would work on them is a different matter, but I find it quite convincing.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  It is not just about regulations for the sake of accidents only, It is matter of national security as well.
protomyth 6y ago
In limited situations that is happening now: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ Autoland has achieved FAA certification. It’s now available on select G3000® flight deck-equipped aircraft. And it’s coming to more soon.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  With a pilot behind it. Driver/Pilot less is not approved anywhere in US
  - protomyth 6y ago
    That is the emergency 'the pilot is dead' system. It's for a passenger to hit a button when the pilot is incapacitated.
AtlasBarfed 6y ago
You know that passenger planes basically can land with autopilot now?
- praveen9920 6y ago
  No they cannot. Not in all situations.
Jabbles 6y ago
Well this was good timing: https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-taxi-take-off-and-landing-tests-2020-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-...

noir_lord 6y ago

Honestly that is as it should be. Does that kind of regulation inhibit progress in some domains, sure - is the cost of the loss of that progress worth it against the likely outcome of de-regulating it absolutely. Safety regulations are written in blood and when organisations like the FCC, FDA etc fall down on the job people die. I want my cyberpunk aircar as much as the next geek but not at the price of having them fall out the sky because some programmer made an error at the end of a 70hr work week to make a deadline for shipping.

Jabbles 6y ago
This seems very absolutist. If we assume the technology exists to make this safe, there are a number of factors that would make this obviously less risky: 4 people per aircraft reduce the number of lives at risk from any particular issue. That doesn't mean the FAA can be 100x as cavalier as they are with an A380, but it does mean the worst possible likely outcome is not as bad. Short flights - easily predictable weather patterns. Elimination of pilot error - obviously replaced with computer error, but still. And as I said elsewhere, the ability to test to destruction.
praveen9920 6y ago
As grim as it may seem, our air safety is built on deaths of thousands of people died in airplane crashes. some may call it cost of progress.

Jabbles 6y ago

I'm sure it would be a decade-long task. But I'm not sure it's monumentally harder than either the process for piloted aircraft, or the task of automating the aircraft in the first place. And you can much more easily demonstrate the limits of an automated aircraft. Simulated bird-strikes, thunderstorms, power-outages, emergency landing in fields, blinding by laser-pointers, stray bullets or whatever scenario the FAA throws at you can be done without the risk to the (non-existent) human pilots, just the cost to VCs. Whether that argument would work on them is a different matter, but I find it quite convincing.

praveen9920 6y ago
It is not just about regulations for the sake of accidents only, It is matter of national security as well.

protomyth 6y ago

In limited situations that is happening now: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ Autoland has achieved FAA certification. It’s now available on select G3000® flight deck-equipped aircraft. And it’s coming to more soon.

praveen9920 6y ago
With a pilot behind it. Driver/Pilot less is not approved anywhere in US
- protomyth 6y ago
  That is the emergency 'the pilot is dead' system. It's for a passenger to hit a button when the pilot is incapacitated.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago

You know that passenger planes basically can land with autopilot now?

praveen9920 6y ago
No they cannot. Not in all situations.

Jabbles 6y ago

Well this was good timing: https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-taxi-take-off-and-landing-tests-2020-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-...