4 ms·
This article attempts to conflate two very different levels of capability. On the one hand, the author discusses what they have achieved so far - a machine-vis
by mannykannot 5y ago
This article attempts to conflate two very different levels of capability.
On the one hand, the author discusses what they have achieved so far - a machine-vision based system that can fly reasonably competently in good visibility and low traffic density, comparable, they say, to aviation 80 years ago (actually, as I mentioned in another comment, aviation in 1941 had already advanced significantly beyond that.)
A little later, they write this;
There is no reason to believe computers will always be worse at that than you are. There is no reason the machine can’t reliably make the call to land in the Hudson when all engines are out and to do so in adversarial conditions safely.
True enough, as far as it goes, but there is also no reason to suppose that the technologies the author is discussing here will deliver that level of performance. The good judgement demonstrated by Sullenberger that day (and by many pilots in many other dire situations) depended on an extensive understanding of how the world works, and to reason about outcomes outside of the rules of the game, so to speak (for example, short-cutting the checklist in order to ensure the aircraft continued to have auxiliary power.) Current machine-vision systems, on the other hand, lack the ability to reason about how things ought or might be, and so can make utterly bizarre-seeming judgements about what they are "seeing."
Personally, I believe fully-automated aviation will become both feasible and acceptable, but with arguments like the one quoted above, this article is glossing over the challenges that remain.
- taneq 5y ago> The good judgement demonstrated by Sullenberger that day (and by many pilots in many other dire situations) depended on an extensive understanding of how the world works Tree bad, river pretty?
- fho 5y agoI am not exactly knowledgeable about airplane safety, but I feel like safety checklists are something that could be, and probably are, handled by a machine more efficiently? I would guess that there are probably enough things on there that are constantly monitored theses days so the plane could just give you a big green "all systems nominal" light? Maybe I am just naive :-)
- quest88 5y agoPilots still miss the light for "all systems not nominal", they only have so many brain cycles to interpret. One example that comes to mind is visual and audible alerts when you haven't put the landing gear down and the system thinks you're going to land (speed low, flaps extended, descending). Yet gear-up landings are still common in single-pilot general aviation aircraft.
- fho 5y agoI can see that you can easily miss that "gear up" light. I guess an alarm at that point might also not be too beneficial (you have to search for the cause of the generic (?) alarm). How about an "assistant" that calmly tells you "it seems like we are landing, but your gears are still up, wanna do something about that?". I guess acceptance for something like that will be low.
- mannykannot 5y agoI feel that there are definitely some areas where currently-available technology is not being fully exploited - things like calculating the weight and center-of-gravity position (would it measurably increase any sort of risk to put a load cell in each strut of the undercarriage?), checking the parking brake is off when accelerating above taxiing speed, and calling for an abort, before it is too late, if the acceleration on takeoff is insufficient. The inverse of your "all systems nominal" light exists, in many if not all commercial airplanes of any size, in the form of the master caution and master warning lights, but you also need to know what, specifically, is going wrong.
- bronco21016 5y agoThe new Airbus 220 and 350 do this. Items that the aircraft knows about are either checked off or left unchecked depending on their state. The system won’t let you mark the checklist completed until the items are in the correct position. Most checklists have external environment variables that need to be input by the pilot and thus the need for the pilots to still interact with the checklist.
- GrumpyNl 5y agoIs it AI or just a lot if then else?
- throwawaygh 5y agoWhat's a neural network made of?
- hef19898 5y agoWell, in good weather at ILS equipped airports automated landings are possible. Flight is done with autopilot more often than not. You have pilots for the situations the available automation doesn't work.