5 ms·
> we have built a system that uses nothing but visual input, just like the human pilot in that almost-uninstrumented aircraft from 80 years ago, to see where
by the-dude 5y ago
> we have built a system that uses nothing but visual input, just like the human pilot in that almost-uninstrumented aircraft from 80 years ago, to
see where you are without GPS or radio or inertial navigation
see where you can fly without ADS-B or RADAR or ATC
see where you can land without ILS or PAPI
Isn't this the 'Tesla' approach?
- cjrp 5y agoSeems like a weird selling point "we're as good as the pilots from 80 years ago!"
- triplelll 5y agoTeslas don't land or fly. In what sense do you mean?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throw0101a 5y agoIn the sense of (possibly) overselling what the system is capable of doing.
- DoingIsLearning 5y agoI think it was meant in the sense that it has (mostly) a single source of information. A big part of safety critical systems is having redundancy and often voting systems, or sensor fusion. So having a single source of information means that you can potentially go down with a single-fault condition. (e.g. If your vision system is in the visible spectrum, things like sun glare, snow, bird poops on your lense/windshield, one of your cameras fails and you lose stereo vision etc)
- hoseja 5y agoTrying to achieve self-driving with only optical cameras.
- mannykannot 5y agoWhen I read that second claim, "see where you can fly without ADS-B or RADAR or ATC", my first thought was "Really? this system is reading sectional charts?" as there are quite a few places where you cannot fly without some of the technologies they are doing without, and those regions are not marked out on the ground. The choice to focus on purely visual systems seems an odd one, given that aviation did not really get going until it advanced beyond that stage. Even by 80 years ago, instrument flying with radio navigation in conditions that did not permit visual flying was a routine practice, and this, together with the increasing number of aircraft in the sky, necessitated the development of air traffic control. While one can very plausibly argue that we are approaching the point where ATC as we know it could be largely dismantled (not, by the way, through the use of AI), that will not be achieved by reverting to purely visual methods, which can only function safely in fair weather with good visibility, and also only where the traffic density and speed are low.
- jcims 5y agoIt kind of sounds like they are targeting general aviation, where VFR still has a pretty strong presence. If they can create a bolt on autopilot that can also take off and land that might be marketable.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoAn autopilot that fails as soon as you end up in a low-visibility situation sounds like a really, really bad idea, especially with pilots who don't know how to fly by instruments. We have better technology than that now.
- jcims 5y agoTotally agree, we know what happens when pilots lose visual reference and don't trust their instruments. I think I'm biasing my opinion on finding it impossible to believe they won't incorporate basic things like an IMU (or three) into the product so that simple flight coordination is impossible when there is a loss of vision data. Strictly speaking that wouldn't be vision only though, so who knows.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- numpad0 5y agoI believe Tesla’s problems basically stem from irresponsible decisions made on dubious technical basis. They’re not always architecturally wrong.