3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.