10 ms·

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at tha

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at that for a while; in fact, that’s how airline flights are controlled these days during basically all of cruise flight (by autopilot). Takeoff and landing are the tricky parts. (I say this as someone who’s firmly on the skeptical side of the spectrum regarding the near-term prospects for fully autonomous vehicle control.)

HaloZero 6y ago
Isn't turbulence hard to predict? Could something cause an issue. I always assume pilot take over or at least monitor things more aggressively when the plane starts shaking a lot.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Turbulence doesn't mean loss of control. It's just rough air for a bit, and computers can manage through it. Modern passenger/cargo planes are designed to be naturally stable (positive static stability) in flight so that disturbances are dampened out. Bigger issues like bad weather and other traffic would likely be programmed well in advance rather than leave that to real-time decisions.
- panopticon 6y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that most pilot intervention for turbulence was for passenger comfort. If your cargo is secured properly, you should be able to fly through rougher stuff and navigate around the real bad weather that's easier to detect.
marcosdumay 6y ago
There are landing procedures where the pilot simply follows the machine instructions for a long while already. And it works perfectly well where it's available. Also, the take-off being easier, it's not conceivable that a machine couldn't do it. The reason there is no such machine today is exactly because it's easier, so pilots never need any help. Instead, the hard part isn't flying. it's all the things an airplane does while landed. It's taxing, interacting with other planes, interacting with other vehicles (there are a lot of them in an airport), parking, etc. If the airport is entirely built for automation, I imagine that will become much easier.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  That’s one thing that boggles my mind about airports: it seems like they’re all designed from the ground-up as if it’s the first airport ever built. Terminals too. I get that the biggest airports have grown organically, but I’m surprised a city building a new terminal or airport (Berlin anyone?) can’t order a standard proven design like they’re building a McDonald’s or Holiday Inn.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    Airports are built to fit the space they're allocated. And runways have to be sited accounting for approach patterns that can be many hundreds of miles. Given the variation in geography of the planet Earth there's zero one-size fits all construction that can be done. Airports are standardized to the degree they can be standardized. There are entire sections of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Design Handbook devoted to airport terminals and other large transportation spaces. But these spaces have to be designed to fit the place that they are constructed in.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Berlin is disaster and running joke on so many levels. If the city was competent about the project, they would have actually hired people who knew what they were doing. While new terminals and airports are not as standard as Holiday Inn, there are plenty of constraints in most cities [1], that do not allow a lot of room for radical change, and design usually come out not widely different. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QZ3eozyQfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QZ3eozyQfU
- kgermino 6y ago
  > Also, the take-off being easier, it's not conceivable that a machine couldn't do it. The reason there is no such machine today is exactly because it's easier, so pilots never need any help. I don't think it's just that take off is easier, but that it's also more dangerous than landing. If something happens during take-off and the computer needs help, it needs the pilot to step in quickly so you don't have time to do a computer -> person hand-off. I don't think it would affect this proposal (no passengers on board, and package-only airports can be located far away from things to hit) but worth noting.
nradov 6y ago
Handling mechanical failures and other in-flight emergencies are the tricky parts.
- hnarn 6y ago
  That depends on your definition of "tricky". If you mean something that requires human intelligence, I would say it's the complete opposite. More or less the first thing pilots start doing during an emergency is to follow lists, it's all very procedural and most failures have been predicted in advance, as well as what would need to be done to resolve them, or at least eliminate the immediate threat -- and if these procedures do not help, you are in a very bad place anyway. There are exceptions, of course.[1] I would say that the "tricky parts", as always, are very generally the situations that we did not predict and did not program for. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=099cHWSbAL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=099cHWSbAL8
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The tricky part is not decision making, but sensory awareness.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    There is one benefit of having people in the loop in that they come with a completely independent set of sensors for flying the aircraft. Look at the recent issues where the single sensor on the Boeing Maxs crash the aircraft. They're far from perfect for sure though(see the times people did the opposite and ignored the correct sensors causing a crash) but there's a definite benefit to having two completely different systems monitoring the data. It's unusual to see that level of safety differentiation, not only having multiple copies of a sensor to take measurements but multiple different designs and types of sensors measuring the same thing to avoid correlated failures.
    - outworlder 6y ago
      > the single sensor And this is the problem. We wouldn't have autonomous aircraft without sensor redundancies. Even pilots have multiple redundant instruments.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Takeoff and landing in rough conditions are tricky. Takeoff and landing when the weather is fine is already a solved problem. So is taxiing. https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-attol-autonomous-airliner/ https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-attol-autonomous-airlin...
- Guest19023892 6y ago
  What's the advantages of a human compared to a computer for landing in rough weather? I would think it's a fairly logical problem. Wind is rotating the plane left, need to move the stick right. Wind is pulling the plane up, need to slow down or push the stick forward, etc. Need to make adjustments past safe levels or can't keep the plane level enough means it's too rough and the landing needs to be aborted. In my mind, it seems like the thing that's perfect for a computer. It can instantly take into consideration hundreds of precise measurements, sensors, and history, and make corrections for the precise amounts. A human has a much slower reaction time and can't make adjustments with the same degree of precision. I feel like a computer could correct a quick gust of wind before a person even has time to move their hand. Compared to a self-driving car where you have all sorts of situations that require complex analysis, like trying to determine if that's a person lying on the highway or an empty garbage bag, this seems like it should be a walk in the park.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    I think one of the key things computers aren't as good as people are is communication. There is a lot of info that a human can convey with a short sentence that a computer would have no chance of doing. The ability for a human to effectively communicate with ground, tower and other aircraft in inclement weather is key.
    - loeg 6y ago
      Computer systems can obviously also communicate over radio, and almost certainly at a higher information density than a human operator.
  - 6y ago
projektfu 6y ago
Avoiding icing situations (i.e. thunderstorms) is also important, so route planning and revision is too.
loeg 6y ago
> To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Sure. But if it does happen, the self-driving airplane needs to have a landing plan that isn't "fall on a population center." It's not insurmountable, but does need to be baked in.
- xoa 6y ago
  >But if it does happen, the self-driving airplane needs to have a landing plan that isn't "FALL* on a population center."* Planes don't simply "fall" though, or more specifically it's not a limiting factor for autonomous flight because if they do Fall (due to total structural breakup) there is absolutely nothing a human pilot can do about it either. The more likely worst problem that is still within the realm of "anything can be done about it" is total engine failure (and with it the potential for failure of systems that depend upon engine power as well). Commercial jet aircraft tend to have glide ratios (how far they can go horizontally for each unit they drop vertically) of high single digits to low teens, though some go farther (the 747 for example is 17:1). So from 35000' say they'll typically be able to travel at least 60-110 miles (with some bonus for their initial velocity). The power problem has also needed to be considered long since due to all the fly-by-wire systems, though for an autonomous cargo aircraft this may be another area worth a second look since some weight savings from normal life support might be well spent on additional redundancy. As other posters have pointed out a fully autonomous aircraft just needs to aim for the most sparsely populated area of land or body of water. No need to worry about human life on the aircraft dramatically opens up potential ok ground areas. So a failure at cruising altitude that a piloted aircraft might survive anyway should leave a sizeable radius for an unpiloted aircraft to find a ditch point with low risk to human life. So ultimately while yeah sure, of course this should all be formalized, it shouldn't be a real blocker for this application.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    So your aircraft is stricken and finds the nearest local field (putting aside commercial desires to protect the cargo too). The aircraft data tells it the field is empty but actually it’s filled with cattle/machinery/a circus/state fair/Trump boat flotilla or otherwise.
SteveGerencser 6y ago
Garmin has already gained FAA approval for an emergency autoland system that integrates with most modern private aircraft. It is designed to be used in case of an emergency where the pilot has "stopped functioning". It finds the nearest appropriate airport, announces it's intentions to ATC and then flies to and lands at that airport. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

HaloZero 6y ago

Isn't turbulence hard to predict? Could something cause an issue. I always assume pilot take over or at least monitor things more aggressively when the plane starts shaking a lot.

manigandham 6y ago
Turbulence doesn't mean loss of control. It's just rough air for a bit, and computers can manage through it. Modern passenger/cargo planes are designed to be naturally stable (positive static stability) in flight so that disturbances are dampened out. Bigger issues like bad weather and other traffic would likely be programmed well in advance rather than leave that to real-time decisions.
panopticon 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that most pilot intervention for turbulence was for passenger comfort. If your cargo is secured properly, you should be able to fly through rougher stuff and navigate around the real bad weather that's easier to detect.

marcosdumay 6y ago

There are landing procedures where the pilot simply follows the machine instructions for a long while already. And it works perfectly well where it's available. Also, the take-off being easier, it's not conceivable that a machine couldn't do it. The reason there is no such machine today is exactly because it's easier, so pilots never need any help. Instead, the hard part isn't flying. it's all the things an airplane does while landed. It's taxing, interacting with other planes, interacting with other vehicles (there are a lot of them in an airport), parking, etc. If the airport is entirely built for automation, I imagine that will become much easier.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Scoundreller 6y ago
That’s one thing that boggles my mind about airports: it seems like they’re all designed from the ground-up as if it’s the first airport ever built. Terminals too. I get that the biggest airports have grown organically, but I’m surprised a city building a new terminal or airport (Berlin anyone?) can’t order a standard proven design like they’re building a McDonald’s or Holiday Inn.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  Airports are built to fit the space they're allocated. And runways have to be sited accounting for approach patterns that can be many hundreds of miles. Given the variation in geography of the planet Earth there's zero one-size fits all construction that can be done. Airports are standardized to the degree they can be standardized. There are entire sections of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Design Handbook devoted to airport terminals and other large transportation spaces. But these spaces have to be designed to fit the place that they are constructed in.
- manquer 6y ago
  Berlin is disaster and running joke on so many levels. If the city was competent about the project, they would have actually hired people who knew what they were doing. While new terminals and airports are not as standard as Holiday Inn, there are plenty of constraints in most cities [1], that do not allow a lot of room for radical change, and design usually come out not widely different. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QZ3eozyQfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QZ3eozyQfU
kgermino 6y ago
> Also, the take-off being easier, it's not conceivable that a machine couldn't do it. The reason there is no such machine today is exactly because it's easier, so pilots never need any help. I don't think it's just that take off is easier, but that it's also more dangerous than landing. If something happens during take-off and the computer needs help, it needs the pilot to step in quickly so you don't have time to do a computer -> person hand-off. I don't think it would affect this proposal (no passengers on board, and package-only airports can be located far away from things to hit) but worth noting.

nradov 6y ago

Handling mechanical failures and other in-flight emergencies are the tricky parts.

hnarn 6y ago
That depends on your definition of "tricky". If you mean something that requires human intelligence, I would say it's the complete opposite. More or less the first thing pilots start doing during an emergency is to follow lists, it's all very procedural and most failures have been predicted in advance, as well as what would need to be done to resolve them, or at least eliminate the immediate threat -- and if these procedures do not help, you are in a very bad place anyway. There are exceptions, of course.[1] I would say that the "tricky parts", as always, are very generally the situations that we did not predict and did not program for. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=099cHWSbAL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=099cHWSbAL8
- kube-system 6y ago
  The tricky part is not decision making, but sensory awareness.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  There is one benefit of having people in the loop in that they come with a completely independent set of sensors for flying the aircraft. Look at the recent issues where the single sensor on the Boeing Maxs crash the aircraft. They're far from perfect for sure though(see the times people did the opposite and ignored the correct sensors causing a crash) but there's a definite benefit to having two completely different systems monitoring the data. It's unusual to see that level of safety differentiation, not only having multiple copies of a sensor to take measurements but multiple different designs and types of sensors measuring the same thing to avoid correlated failures.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    > the single sensor And this is the problem. We wouldn't have autonomous aircraft without sensor redundancies. Even pilots have multiple redundant instruments.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Takeoff and landing in rough conditions are tricky. Takeoff and landing when the weather is fine is already a solved problem. So is taxiing. https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-attol-autonomous-airliner/ https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-attol-autonomous-airlin...

Guest19023892 6y ago
What's the advantages of a human compared to a computer for landing in rough weather? I would think it's a fairly logical problem. Wind is rotating the plane left, need to move the stick right. Wind is pulling the plane up, need to slow down or push the stick forward, etc. Need to make adjustments past safe levels or can't keep the plane level enough means it's too rough and the landing needs to be aborted. In my mind, it seems like the thing that's perfect for a computer. It can instantly take into consideration hundreds of precise measurements, sensors, and history, and make corrections for the precise amounts. A human has a much slower reaction time and can't make adjustments with the same degree of precision. I feel like a computer could correct a quick gust of wind before a person even has time to move their hand. Compared to a self-driving car where you have all sorts of situations that require complex analysis, like trying to determine if that's a person lying on the highway or an empty garbage bag, this seems like it should be a walk in the park.
- selectodude 6y ago
  I think one of the key things computers aren't as good as people are is communication. There is a lot of info that a human can convey with a short sentence that a computer would have no chance of doing. The ability for a human to effectively communicate with ground, tower and other aircraft in inclement weather is key.
  - loeg 6y ago
    Computer systems can obviously also communicate over radio, and almost certainly at a higher information density than a human operator.
- 6y ago

projektfu 6y ago

Avoiding icing situations (i.e. thunderstorms) is also important, so route planning and revision is too.

loeg 6y ago

> To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Sure. But if it does happen, the self-driving airplane needs to have a landing plan that isn't "fall on a population center." It's not insurmountable, but does need to be baked in.

xoa 6y ago
>But if it does happen, the self-driving airplane needs to have a landing plan that isn't "FALL* on a population center."* Planes don't simply "fall" though, or more specifically it's not a limiting factor for autonomous flight because if they do Fall (due to total structural breakup) there is absolutely nothing a human pilot can do about it either. The more likely worst problem that is still within the realm of "anything can be done about it" is total engine failure (and with it the potential for failure of systems that depend upon engine power as well). Commercial jet aircraft tend to have glide ratios (how far they can go horizontally for each unit they drop vertically) of high single digits to low teens, though some go farther (the 747 for example is 17:1). So from 35000' say they'll typically be able to travel at least 60-110 miles (with some bonus for their initial velocity). The power problem has also needed to be considered long since due to all the fly-by-wire systems, though for an autonomous cargo aircraft this may be another area worth a second look since some weight savings from normal life support might be well spent on additional redundancy. As other posters have pointed out a fully autonomous aircraft just needs to aim for the most sparsely populated area of land or body of water. No need to worry about human life on the aircraft dramatically opens up potential ok ground areas. So a failure at cruising altitude that a piloted aircraft might survive anyway should leave a sizeable radius for an unpiloted aircraft to find a ditch point with low risk to human life. So ultimately while yeah sure, of course this should all be formalized, it shouldn't be a real blocker for this application.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  So your aircraft is stricken and finds the nearest local field (putting aside commercial desires to protect the cargo too). The aircraft data tells it the field is empty but actually it’s filled with cattle/machinery/a circus/state fair/Trump boat flotilla or otherwise.

SteveGerencser 6y ago

Garmin has already gained FAA approval for an emergency autoland system that integrates with most modern private aircraft. It is designed to be used in case of an emergency where the pilot has "stopped functioning". It finds the nearest appropriate airport, announces it's intentions to ATC and then flies to and lands at that airport. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/