3 ms·

Even for airplanes and trains, we still have pilots and humans behind the controller with 100% attention.

minhazm 6y ago
We don't have fully automated planes because they're already safe enough and the economics aren't there. The probability of crashing with a plane is extremely low, even factoring in the higher risk of takeoffs and landings. The entire process is coordinated with Air Traffic Control. Since planes are so safe already and pilots are relatively inexpensive, there's no strong financial incentive to fully automate planes.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Planes are also substantially regulated. I mean if there was a Vehicular Traffic Control on every intersection the same way there's Air Traffic Control we probably wouldn't have any accidents now, negating the main purported benefit of self driving to begin with.
- meteor333 6y ago
  Disagree on the economics. Pilots cost significant money and since the airline industry runs on low margins this can be a huge plus. But the main reason we won't see planes without pilots is political and related to trust. I think for the same reasons we are less likely to see truly driverless cars.
giobox 6y ago
There's plenty of examples of driverless trains throughout the world. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...
- meteor333 6y ago
  Fair enough. Thanks for correcting me. But i stand corrected. Guided tracks is hardly a good comparison for this.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
> we still have pilots and humans behind the controller with 100% attention. That really isn't true. Pilots, in particular, have huge challenges in keeping attention up between take off and landing. Likewise for trains, it turns out if you don't require humans to do anything but watch...it is much harder than if they were actually doing the flying/driving themselves. The airforce is moving to unpiloted drones, though there is someone at a center to intervene as needed. It is only a matter of time before they decide that cargo can be moved in this way (think: fedex).

We don't have fully automated planes because they're already safe enough and the economics aren't there. The probability of crashing with a plane is extremely low, even factoring in the higher risk of takeoffs and landings. The entire process is coordinated with Air Traffic Control. Since planes are so safe already and pilots are relatively inexpensive, there's no strong financial incentive to fully automate planes.

endisneigh 6y ago
Planes are also substantially regulated. I mean if there was a Vehicular Traffic Control on every intersection the same way there's Air Traffic Control we probably wouldn't have any accidents now, negating the main purported benefit of self driving to begin with.
meteor333 6y ago
Disagree on the economics. Pilots cost significant money and since the airline industry runs on low margins this can be a huge plus. But the main reason we won't see planes without pilots is political and related to trust. I think for the same reasons we are less likely to see truly driverless cars.

giobox 6y ago

There's plenty of examples of driverless trains throughout the world. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...

meteor333 6y ago
Fair enough. Thanks for correcting me. But i stand corrected. Guided tracks is hardly a good comparison for this.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

> we still have pilots and humans behind the controller with 100% attention. That really isn't true. Pilots, in particular, have huge challenges in keeping attention up between take off and landing. Likewise for trains, it turns out if you don't require humans to do anything but watch...it is much harder than if they were actually doing the flying/driving themselves. The airforce is moving to unpiloted drones, though there is someone at a center to intervene as needed. It is only a matter of time before they decide that cargo can be moved in this way (think: fedex).