5 ms·

Planes 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 no

Planes 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Diamond 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 ago
    Correct, 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
  - snuxoll 3y ago
    Autoland is regularly used in CATIIIa/b ILS approaches when weather does not allow for the pilots to transition between instruments and visual flight (otherwise a requirement for the last phase of the approach and the actual touchdown).
- barelyauser 3y ago
  Does reliability increases or decreases when more components are added?
throwanem 3y ago
This is not a rare misconception. Patrick "Ask the Pilot" Smith answers it: https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/
- bombcar 3y ago
  He's correct, insofar as he's describing commercial aviation as it is now. But drones fly, and this is a drone.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    Commercial aircraft are what the grandparent commenter was talking about. Commercial aircraft aren't drones, nor should they be.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      Commercial airliners*, there are already tons of drones working as commercial aircraft.
deepsun 3y ago
Except talking to ATC. Communications are formally structured in 98% of cases, but in the rest 2% they are very free-form / subjective / implying. If you fly a lot, those 2% happen all the time.
- hangonhn 3y ago
  Couldn't we create specialized airports that are only for autonomous cargo planes. Then the UAVs can just speak to each other and the automated ATC in a formal protocol? Not a pilot here so I might be missing the nuances.
  - toast0 3y ago
    You're still going to have shared airspace away from the airports. Control is looser away from 'congested areas', of course. But UAV cargo that can only fly outside of congested areas is maybe not very useful.
    - euroderf 3y ago
      But then you could have autonomous trucks that take the cargo to the edge of the conurbation. "SkyNet: We do logistics!"
  - deepsun 3y ago
    Sure. The first N years you'd want to have an operator (pilot) onboard to handle edge cases. But... if you already have an operator, you can fly to any existing airport, and analyze the unplanned autopilot disengagements. Thus, you can start right now, no need to build new airports.
bluGill 3y ago
When I first flew as a kid I could tell if the pilot trained in the Air Force or Navy. Navy pilots always touched down right on the numbers and often stopped so fast they needed to apply throttle to get to the first turn off - which is the right way to fly if you are landing on a carrier. By contrast air force pilots touched down farther down the runway and coasted to the last turn off - which uses less fuel when you have a long desert runway. Takeoffs Navy pilots would spool the engines up while turning onto the runway and releasing the brakes, while air force pilots would get on the runway and start moving before applying throttle (for take offs there wasn't nearly as much difference as the above makes it seem like). These days you cannot tell though. All pilots fly the same - I'm sure they use less fuel which is a big deal to the airlines. I'm guessing they are all using the computer to do the flying. which isn't to say they are using auto land, just there are other things in control ensuring they don't do the fuel wasting things anymore.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  You knew that as a kid?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Once someone points it out it wasn't hard to figure out. There is a big difference in how the Navy and Air force train pilots, relating to their very different missions. The Navy needs pilots that can land on a carrier at sea, and so their training even when on land is designed to get you ready for that. The air force doesn't have to do that, and so they have no reason to teach those skills. Both programs produce highly skilled pilots that can safely fly airplanes, but they have noticeable differences in details. The US Air force is the worlds largest air force. The US Navy is second largest. While it is possible to learn to fly in ways other than joining one of the above two (Marines, Army, Coast guard, or private schools), they together train much less pilots and so odds are I never had one. I wouldn't have been able to tell these others from an air force pilot most likely.
    - CSMastermind 3y ago
karmicthreat 3y ago
I'm sure the technology will work fine when everything is perfect. But much like autonomous cars, when things are imperfect they will probably start to fall apart.
akira2501 3y ago
The automation relies on ground equipment that isn't guaranteed to be operational and airports aren't required to consider it critical equipment. They can still operate as an airport even if some of these systems are disabled. The plane isn't magic, you need to beam specific radio signals at it, from the ground, so it knows what to do.
bluescrn 3y ago
Fully automatic is OK when you've got human pilots on board as a failsafe. Take out the humans and add remote piloting and they'll be flying bombs just waiting for hackers to take control of them.

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 ago
I 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 ago
Diamond 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 ago
  Correct, 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
- snuxoll 3y ago
  Autoland is regularly used in CATIIIa/b ILS approaches when weather does not allow for the pilots to transition between instruments and visual flight (otherwise a requirement for the last phase of the approach and the actual touchdown).
barelyauser 3y ago
Does reliability increases or decreases when more components are added?

throwanem 3y ago

This is not a rare misconception. Patrick "Ask the Pilot" Smith answers it: https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

bombcar 3y ago
He's correct, insofar as he's describing commercial aviation as it is now. But drones fly, and this is a drone.
- throwanem 3y ago
  Commercial aircraft are what the grandparent commenter was talking about. Commercial aircraft aren't drones, nor should they be.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    Commercial airliners*, there are already tons of drones working as commercial aircraft.

deepsun 3y ago

Except talking to ATC. Communications are formally structured in 98% of cases, but in the rest 2% they are very free-form / subjective / implying. If you fly a lot, those 2% happen all the time.

hangonhn 3y ago
Couldn't we create specialized airports that are only for autonomous cargo planes. Then the UAVs can just speak to each other and the automated ATC in a formal protocol? Not a pilot here so I might be missing the nuances.
- toast0 3y ago
  You're still going to have shared airspace away from the airports. Control is looser away from 'congested areas', of course. But UAV cargo that can only fly outside of congested areas is maybe not very useful.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    But then you could have autonomous trucks that take the cargo to the edge of the conurbation. "SkyNet: We do logistics!"
- deepsun 3y ago
  Sure. The first N years you'd want to have an operator (pilot) onboard to handle edge cases. But... if you already have an operator, you can fly to any existing airport, and analyze the unplanned autopilot disengagements. Thus, you can start right now, no need to build new airports.

bluGill 3y ago

When I first flew as a kid I could tell if the pilot trained in the Air Force or Navy. Navy pilots always touched down right on the numbers and often stopped so fast they needed to apply throttle to get to the first turn off - which is the right way to fly if you are landing on a carrier. By contrast air force pilots touched down farther down the runway and coasted to the last turn off - which uses less fuel when you have a long desert runway. Takeoffs Navy pilots would spool the engines up while turning onto the runway and releasing the brakes, while air force pilots would get on the runway and start moving before applying throttle (for take offs there wasn't nearly as much difference as the above makes it seem like). These days you cannot tell though. All pilots fly the same - I'm sure they use less fuel which is a big deal to the airlines. I'm guessing they are all using the computer to do the flying. which isn't to say they are using auto land, just there are other things in control ensuring they don't do the fuel wasting things anymore.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
You knew that as a kid?
- bluGill 3y ago
  Once someone points it out it wasn't hard to figure out. There is a big difference in how the Navy and Air force train pilots, relating to their very different missions. The Navy needs pilots that can land on a carrier at sea, and so their training even when on land is designed to get you ready for that. The air force doesn't have to do that, and so they have no reason to teach those skills. Both programs produce highly skilled pilots that can safely fly airplanes, but they have noticeable differences in details. The US Air force is the worlds largest air force. The US Navy is second largest. While it is possible to learn to fly in ways other than joining one of the above two (Marines, Army, Coast guard, or private schools), they together train much less pilots and so odds are I never had one. I wouldn't have been able to tell these others from an air force pilot most likely.
  - CSMastermind 3y ago

karmicthreat 3y ago

I'm sure the technology will work fine when everything is perfect. But much like autonomous cars, when things are imperfect they will probably start to fall apart.

akira2501 3y ago

The automation relies on ground equipment that isn't guaranteed to be operational and airports aren't required to consider it critical equipment. They can still operate as an airport even if some of these systems are disabled. The plane isn't magic, you need to beam specific radio signals at it, from the ground, so it knows what to do.

bluescrn 3y ago

Fully automatic is OK when you've got human pilots on board as a failsafe. Take out the humans and add remote piloting and they'll be flying bombs just waiting for hackers to take control of them.