4 ms·

When 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

When 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 ago
It 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 ago
  An 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 ago
    Totally 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.
    - kayodelycaon 5y ago
      If you haven't seen it, Garmin has an emergency automatic landing system that's installed in a few planes already: https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland Limitations: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/ALuse/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/ALuse/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA
      - jcims 5y ago
        Very nice!!! Thanks for the links...that Piper is a sexy beast.
ur-whale 5y ago
> those regions are not marked out on the ground There isn't anything in the article that suggests that the system does not have sectional charts in a database... Once you know where you are in the world in VFR mode, it's a fairly simple affair (eg landmark detection) to register that positons on a sectional map, however invisible it may be in the real world. > that will not be achieved by reverting to purely visual methods Another extrapolation on your part: they never said "purely", did they? The visual part of the system is nowhere listed as being the "only" way for the plane to know where it is. It's very likely their system with gulp in whatever signal they can get their hands on (GPS, etc...) and integrate it into a final solution. The final system will be much more robust than either of the existing components use on an airplane to "know where you are".
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I should have known better than to just write "my first thought" without further qualification... While the author may not have written "purely visual", there is this quote, immediately preceding the claims quoted at the root of this thread: "At Daedalean, 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..." [my emphasis.] So, while the author does not use "purely", he states something equivalent to doing so. Furthermore, the entire tenor here is that they are not using any of the modern technologies that are currently central to commercial aviation (why he wishes to stress this fact is another issue altogether.) My point here is a bit more subtle that pointing out the obvious: that automating VFR flight will not cut it (with or without GPS and other aids, for that matter.) It is, rather, that there remains a huge gap between what they have achieved so far (or could be achieved just by integrating GPS and similar aids) and what will be required to achieve the level of performance blithely suggested in the comment about landing on the Hudson river. UPDATE: I made that last point in a different comment; what I was wondering here was why the author seems determined to point out that their current system does not use GPS etc. - perhaps because any of that would make it look less like AI?
  - triplelll 5y ago
    Paraphrasing the article: If you connect a GPS to your small or large aircraft's autopilot and you use it to fly from A to B without having a human pilot ready to take over at any point you are a) breaking the law and b) going to die sooner or later (well, we all do but you know what i mean). To make GPS a system that is aerospace-grade safe is not possible today. But everyone with a pair of eyes can legally and safely pull off the same feat. So to replicate that feature you have to somehow bring computer vision to the level of aerospace-grade reliabilty. I think that's what the author was going for here.

jcims 5y ago

It 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 ago
An 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 ago
  Totally 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.
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    If you haven't seen it, Garmin has an emergency automatic landing system that's installed in a few planes already: https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland Limitations: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/ALuse/ https://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/ALuse/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA
    - jcims 5y ago
      Very nice!!! Thanks for the links...that Piper is a sexy beast.

ur-whale 5y ago

> those regions are not marked out on the ground There isn't anything in the article that suggests that the system does not have sectional charts in a database... Once you know where you are in the world in VFR mode, it's a fairly simple affair (eg landmark detection) to register that positons on a sectional map, however invisible it may be in the real world. > that will not be achieved by reverting to purely visual methods Another extrapolation on your part: they never said "purely", did they? The visual part of the system is nowhere listed as being the "only" way for the plane to know where it is. It's very likely their system with gulp in whatever signal they can get their hands on (GPS, etc...) and integrate it into a final solution. The final system will be much more robust than either of the existing components use on an airplane to "know where you are".

mannykannot 5y ago
I should have known better than to just write "my first thought" without further qualification... While the author may not have written "purely visual", there is this quote, immediately preceding the claims quoted at the root of this thread: "At Daedalean, 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..." [my emphasis.] So, while the author does not use "purely", he states something equivalent to doing so. Furthermore, the entire tenor here is that they are not using any of the modern technologies that are currently central to commercial aviation (why he wishes to stress this fact is another issue altogether.) My point here is a bit more subtle that pointing out the obvious: that automating VFR flight will not cut it (with or without GPS and other aids, for that matter.) It is, rather, that there remains a huge gap between what they have achieved so far (or could be achieved just by integrating GPS and similar aids) and what will be required to achieve the level of performance blithely suggested in the comment about landing on the Hudson river. UPDATE: I made that last point in a different comment; what I was wondering here was why the author seems determined to point out that their current system does not use GPS etc. - perhaps because any of that would make it look less like AI?
- triplelll 5y ago
  Paraphrasing the article: If you connect a GPS to your small or large aircraft's autopilot and you use it to fly from A to B without having a human pilot ready to take over at any point you are a) breaking the law and b) going to die sooner or later (well, we all do but you know what i mean). To make GPS a system that is aerospace-grade safe is not possible today. But everyone with a pair of eyes can legally and safely pull off the same feat. So to replicate that feature you have to somehow bring computer vision to the level of aerospace-grade reliabilty. I think that's what the author was going for here.