3 ms·
Autonomous 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
by csours 3y ago
Autonomous 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.
- ethagknight 3y agoCessna Caravans are basically free as far as military aircraft, and for missions like fetching food or fuel, you can take some risks. I am no pilot but the stringent MELs and deciphering NOTAM risk can be relaxed or better controlled as these autonomous cargo systems get real world reps in. Also, simply holding up 100 or so fully loaded caravans, waiting for a break in the weather to dispatch, seems easy to envision! 5 remote pilots overseeing a few takeoffs at a time vs 100 pilots idling to begin their round trip journey
- engineer_22 3y agoInexpensive they may be, but a hazard to other aircraft or bystanders we don't need. All safety standards must be adhered to.
- alistairSH 3y agoand for missions like fetching food or fuel, you can take some risks When flying through congested California airspace? A Cessna Caravan just crashed at my local airpot. If there wasn't a pilot on board flying, would it have been able to successfully ditch on an empty stretch of road with no injuries (and barely any damage to the plane)? Would a remote pilot have been able to do the same? An AI pilot? I have my doubts about the latter.
- lazide 3y agoAlso, failures will be per-pilot, relatively rare, and blame can be assigned to the specific pilots that ‘fail’. Automated systems can ‘fail’ systemically and completely across the board, which changes the risk profile. I.e. Pilots won’t all crash loop at the same time if the wrong kind of character happens to be in a NOTAM. Probably.