7 ms·
Air Force OKs autonomous cargo flights across California after successful test
- xnx 3y agoAccommodations for human pilots account for a small percentage of the mass and volume of a cargo plane, but I wonder how differently cargo planes might be designed if they went full drone.
- throwway120385 3y agoThey would probably centrally locate the autopilot and eliminate a lot of wiring for sensors and controls that have to be routed forward to where a pilot normally sits. You could then put a really big cargo door on the front and on the back and load while you unload.
- gardenfelder 3y ago>The U.S. Air Force has authorized San Francisco-based Xwing to transport time-sensitive cargo across California on autonomous aircraft.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoPlanes are already fully automatic. Not just in cruise control, but some planes have extra functionality you can pay for to automate takeoff and landing. I’m not sure if they are safer than a human pilot landing in all conditions but I imagine it won’t be long until they are basically equivocal in abilities. Whether or not the role of the pilot continues to exist probably depends more on unions and regulations than if the technology is sufficient, like many jobs in a similar obsolete-yet-perpetuated state today.
- phkahler 3y ago>> Planes are already fully automatic. But when sensors fail they relinquish control to the pilot. Adding additional sensors could reduce the need for human backup - I wonder if this company added extra redundancy.
- Kye 3y agoI saw a video from one of those "air traffic review" type channels just the other day where a plane was low on fuel and had a malfunctioning ILS and no way to reach somewhere where they could land visually without fudging the rules a little. They landed, but it was dicey. edit: found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkzVMZFWduc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkzVMZFWduc
- throwup238 3y agoDiamond Aircraft autoland is meant to work in emergencies like when the pilot becomes incapacitated and the passengers need to initiate it to get to an airport safely.
- SkyPuncher 3y agoCorrect, but that’s with a perfectly functioning aircraft. The problems come when you have engines out, landing gear issues, or malfunctioning equipment. Look at the recent Waymo accidents. Two Waymo vehicles ran into a vehicle being towed backwards. An edge case that a human could have easily avoided, but software couldn’t.
- mschuster91 3y ago> Look at the recent Waymo accidents. Two Waymo vehicles ran into a vehicle being towed backwards. An edge case that a human could have easily avoided, but software couldn’t. The complexity of flying an airplane autonomously is way lower than for a car. The biggest reduction comes from there being (almost) no morons in airspace. Planes are expensive, pilot school is expensive, so the chance of encountering someone doing something they're not supposed to do is way lower - in a car, you have to deal with anything from random little children jumping onto the streets over drunk/tired/phone-using drivers to construction sites. Then there is the requirement of planes to carry ADS-B transmitters in many airspace classes, so planes precisely know where they are and where everyone else is. And distance between planes is also way larger, which makes avoidance easier. Basically, as long as the aircraft itself is working fine, everything from takeoff to landing can be done autonomously - and appropriate systems have been developed and used for decades, the first CAT 3 autoland capable aircraft arrived in the late 60s [1]. The only two unsolved challenges are taxiing and in-flight equipment failure... the former can be solved by having a tug pick up a plane on the runway, it's only the failure cases that are a real headache because, at least for now, that requires having highly trained pilots on board. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
- panzagl 3y agoOddly enough the hardest part of this would be when it's on the ground 'driving'. Though I also wonder how it takes ATC direction.
- throwanem 3y agoI suspect it stays in Class E between fields equipped to receive it.
- tqi 3y agoAre military drones not flying autonomously for at least part of the time already? I wonder how much incremental value there is for end to end autonomous vs remote operated flights where a human is involved just for tricky parts.
- kiba 3y agoIf you need to supply the numerous islands in the pacific ocean, you're probably going to run into the issue of pilot manpower. Better to use drones, which even if it fails 10-20% of the time is better than not failing to supply troops on the ground at all.
- ghaff 3y agoAs I recall, there's at least been research done on how many drones a pilot can safely control so I assume the answer is yes.
- alistairSH 3y agoAre these actually autonomous (no pilot at all) or just very large drones? https://www.xwing.com https://www.xwing.com "Our system changes the role and location of the pilot. The aircraft is fully self-sufficient with the pilot remotely supervising from a ground control station." So, there's a pilot somewhere, but it's not clear if the pilot is flying remotely or just there for "backup".
- 0x457 3y agoIt's clear tho. Remote pilot is for backup.
- euroderf 3y agoProbably even if there were only a 0.01% chance of interventionable mission failure, a remote backup pilot would still be cost-effective.
- ProllyInfamous 3y agoParticularly considering that pilot salaries are going to massively plummet when one superviser can oversee dozens of planes, simultaneously [perhaps].
- justinclift 3y agoThat'd get interesting if more than one plane has an emergency at the same time.
- ProllyInfamous 3y agoSomewhere there's an airline's actuary calculating the risk, for the sake of shareholder profit. Perhaps a better idea would be to have two pilots, together, monitoring dozens.
- whatever1 3y agoYep no costs for hotels, travel for pilots etc. Plus you can hire dirt cheap pilots from eastern europe
- PerilousD 3y agoThe article said 2800 miles of testing? Was that a misprint - a single one-way trip from San Francisco to NY is about that distance? Does the FCC or the Air Force get final say in this maybe a little more testing? I AM aware there are drones so maybe a lot of that technology transfers over BUT then there should be a lot more than 2800 miles of flight time data applied no?
- lm28469 3y ago> a single one-way trip from San Francisco to NY is about that distance? You can't go from SF to NY while staying in California airspace afaik. That being said the distance doesn't matter much, I'd be more interested in take-offs/landings
- primax 3y agoEspecially any rapid unscheduled landings
- nradov 3y agoThe Air Force gets the final say on their own operations because they aren't legally subject to FAA rules (the FCC only comes into the picture for spectrum use by data links). But they operate under a Memorandum of Understanding and closely consult with each other to minimize risks. Military uncrewed aircraft are typically restricted to specially designated airspace because they can't safely mix with regular civilian traffic (no ability to talk directly with controllers, no "see and avoid" for VHR traffic).
- morpheuskafka 3y agoI thought government agencies can get spectrum permissions from NTIA rather than FCC?
- HWR_14 3y agoI think the NTIA owns some bands, the FCC others. If the USAF wants to use an FCC regulated band, they talk to the FCC. For instance, a base radio/tv station that broadcasts on a standard frequency. But I could be wrong.
- csours 3y agoAutonomous aircraft require a more stringent MEL - the list of aircraft systems that must be working before you take off, and a more stringent reading of NOTAMS - the list of problems in the air and at the airport that the pilots need to be aware of. A more stringent MEL means tougher maintenance requirements, which means more mechanic hours per flight hour (in aggregate, on average). As far as I know, it's difficult to get a computer to read all the NOTAMS in an automated way that will consistently produce a useable plan with no missed problems. It would need to have no false positives and no false negatives. What am I allowed, What am I forbidden. Of course people have the same problem, but they have problem solving skills and can decide what weight to give any issue that crops up. There are also a lot of assumptions about what a pilot can work around that will have to be understood.
- lxgr 3y ago> As far as I know, it's difficult to get a computer to read all the NOTAMS in an automated way that will consistently produce a useable plan with no missed problems. To be fair, it's extremely difficult for humans too, and incidents have happened due to this in the past: https://fixingnotams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Field-Guide-to-Notams-OpsGroup.pdf https://fixingnotams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Field-Gu...
- jdminhbg 3y ago> A more stringent MEL means tougher maintenance requirements, which means more mechanic hours per flight hour (in aggregate, on average). Probably true, but I wonder if it just becomes easier to hire/train mechanics than it is to do the same with pilots, especially as flight hour requirements ramp up.
- jvanderbot 3y agoThe sweet spot for autonomy might be very long fights, where you're replacing multiple pilots. Even replacing all but one on a long haul flight might be a huge boon
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> it's difficult to get a computer to read all the NOTAMS in an automated way that will consistently produce a useable plan with no missed problems One human can review reports remotely for dozens of planes compared to an in-the-cockpit pilot.
- balderdash 3y agoI mean I get the fully autonomous flight is interesting and should be pursued, buts laughable that this is billed as a cost savings. Of course flying a $2-3 million aircraft is going to be cheaper than flying a $100 million one, pilot cost is negligible in that equation
- jdminhbg 3y agoThe two aren't independent, though. When you have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for humans to operate an airplane, you might as well get the most out of the fixed cost of the airplane to begin with. If you don't have to do that, you can build cheaper smaller airplanes to fly cargo on routes that wouldn't be economical at human operation scale.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> laughable that this is billed as a cost savings You can mass produce an autonomous fleet without consideration for a training pipeline. (You can also lose a lot of life-support systems, and engineer the plane to be more disposable in combat.)
- balderdash 3y agoDefinitely true - but what is that in the context of a ~$100m c-130? 1-3%, not nothing, but you probably gain more with engine upgrade programs, adding blended winglets etc.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> what is that in the context of a ~$100m c-130? 1-3% For the C-130, I’d guess 10%+ on operating costs based mostly on increased utilisation. For a new vehicle, support and redundancy alone should yield 10%+. Doubling or tripling production, based simply on better amortisation of development costs, zero learning curve assumed, another 20%+. Then add on reduced operating costs due to lack of pilot training and pay as well as higher utilisation.
- euroderf 3y ago
- wavewrangler 3y agoWas this supposed to be one of many tests, the final test, or THE test? I’ll read it again, but the way the writer has it framed makes it appear as if the Air Force conducted a 2800 mile flight-test and said, “Alright, we’ve seen enough,” and called it good. [quote] “The use of Xwing’s autonomous aircraft eliminated the need to fly a larger aircraft such as a C-130 to deliver critical cargo to the warfighter on short notice,” said Maxime Gariel, president, chief technical officer and co-founder of Xwing. [/quote] Did it though? All jokes aside, since when was California an active war zone? (I tried to frame this better—-under siege, in a fire-fight, etc. but kept coming up short) This would be too far a stretch to assume the average skimmer to connect, but as a side-thought, perhaps we should look at it as this marking the beginning of the experiment, rather than the end. I think the idea is cool and if it can be extended to private applications such as medical and critical, all while lowering costs and increasing access to the general public, that’d be great. But reading this left me with more questions than answers
- engineer_22 3y agoYes, I am left believing this is the first test and not the announcement of a contract for ongoing services. It's potentially very economical, in that there is a shortage of pilots. Reducing flight hours required for low tonnage short haul flights is potentially going to save your experienced pilots for more critical missions
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Did it though? Yes, that's what they were doing during the test. > All jokes aside, since when was California an active war zone? Warfighters aren't always based in active war zones. For example, the last round of U.S. strikes against targets in the Middle East involved non-stop bomber flights from the US.
- iambateman 3y agoI've never thought – though it's obvious now – that if a drone is capable of flying remotely in the middle east, it's just as capable of flying remotely in the US. Legitimate qualms about drone strikes aside, it seems like a big step forward to not have to send a crew with a plane for cargo transportation. Hopefully this can be the case for private cargo transport, in time.