4 ms·

> I come from an aviation background where the approximate equivalents for mixed city is VFR, and long haul standardized is IFR. Your subsequent paragraph is e

> I come from an aviation background where the approximate equivalents for mixed city is VFR, and long haul standardized is IFR. Your subsequent paragraph is extremely interesting because you talk about how IFR is "easier to automate" – but, a layman's understanding of IFR vs VFR is "VFR is easy for humans, IFR kills bad pilots", so that first sentence threw me for a loop: "mixed city" is insanely hard over long haul trucking, why is it VFR?!

cmurf 5y ago
s/IFR is easier to automate/IFR should be easier automate/ and that's mainly because the theory is that positive separation is neither the pilot nor autopilot's problem. And also the stricter standards constrain the environment. Separation is primarily the responsibility of pilots under VFR. In fact even on an IFR flight plan, in visual conditions, pilots are expected to maintain separation, hence the reporting of entering instrument meteorological conditions. It is the very thing humans are good at, visual analysis, that autonomous systems aren't good at. But if the need for visual analysis is taken off the table, that should make automation of IFR+IMC easier compared to VFR. The analog for pedestrians might be radio communications. Try getting an autonomous system to understand non-standard jargon, which happens all the time among native English speaking pilots. Of course we should just have standardized communication without voice, thereby reducing ambiguity, but how to do deal with legacy? Again in aviation this would be easier to just say, no more voice radio communications - work for this is already in progress for some time. But get rid of pedestrians? How? And there's some historical point for comparison, when pedestrians had an absolute right to cross the road, with horse driven carriages and before the automobile. Once the automobile arrived, so did ticketing for jaywalking.

cmurf 5y ago

s/IFR is easier to automate/IFR should be easier automate/ and that's mainly because the theory is that positive separation is neither the pilot nor autopilot's problem. And also the stricter standards constrain the environment. Separation is primarily the responsibility of pilots under VFR. In fact even on an IFR flight plan, in visual conditions, pilots are expected to maintain separation, hence the reporting of entering instrument meteorological conditions. It is the very thing humans are good at, visual analysis, that autonomous systems aren't good at. But if the need for visual analysis is taken off the table, that should make automation of IFR+IMC easier compared to VFR. The analog for pedestrians might be radio communications. Try getting an autonomous system to understand non-standard jargon, which happens all the time among native English speaking pilots. Of course we should just have standardized communication without voice, thereby reducing ambiguity, but how to do deal with legacy? Again in aviation this would be easier to just say, no more voice radio communications - work for this is already in progress for some time. But get rid of pedestrians? How? And there's some historical point for comparison, when pedestrians had an absolute right to cross the road, with horse driven carriages and before the automobile. Once the automobile arrived, so did ticketing for jaywalking.