4 ms·

Can someone explain to me why we still need pilots? Could we at least have pilots serve as a backup to a fully autonomous system?

dkasper 3y ago
Edge cases
smt88 3y ago
Pilots already serve as a backup to an autonomous system. They're also useful for takeoff and landing.
defrost 3y ago
Takeoffs, landings, and navigating dense air traffic in controlled spaces are all still "not smooth enough" for autonomous sytems if human life is valued. Yes, planes can take off and land on auto pilot - but real world conditions throw curve balls, ditto approaches and departures from high traffic airports. Even "boring" 10 hour point to point legs that might normally be fully autopilot can be a problem in case of mechanical failures or other unexpected events.
taspeotis 3y ago
You propose replacing pilots with … pilots?
tomschwiha 3y ago
IANAP. I think a lot people enjoy flying airplanes. I think most landings are manual. Thus pilots highly skilled to land safely also in difficult situations. And instruments can fail. What do you hope for with removing humans in the loop?
samtho 3y ago
This is such an “armchair expert” take on this. Planes are not fully autonomous. They will not be for a very long time due to the regulatory environment aviation is entrenched in.
- LM358 3y ago
  Frankly it seems more like an "SWE take" more than a regular armchair take.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    So it’s even more uninformed than a normal armchair take?
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  Jesus dude (and general HN culture) OP just asked a damn question, they are starting a conversation. They didn't make a point, they claimed ignorance by making it a question. Chillllll
IAmGraydon 3y ago
Even if unassisted takeoff and landing were possible, no airline is going to accept the risk of operating such a system.
pompino 3y ago
Because the people who own those planes, and people who regulate the airline industry don't want human casualties under their watch - a fairly reasonable concern. Status-quo is not something you typically argue for, its what you need to argue against. At which point you need to make a positive argument with data that can convince them otherwise.
barbazoo 3y ago
You’re ignoring the hard part that they don’t yet use 100% autopilot for.
wiml 3y ago
In addition to the other reasons - if someone is going to be qualified to fly the plane as backup, they need regular hours of practice. They could get that in a simulator perhaps, or flying practice flights, or ... by flying the actual plane.
stemlord 3y ago
There is no fucking way I'm stepping onto a commercial airliner without highly trained human beings at the helm. That is my SWE/"stemlord" take-- complex software systems, or at least the organizations that produce them, are generally not to be trusted with your life.
no_op 3y ago
This is likely achievable in theory now, at least between major airports with ILS-equipped runways, but fully automated systems couldn't handle present traffic coordination procedures. You'd need a series of new standards to replace human-oriented air traffic control with a scheme in which ground computers could directly interface with aircraft flight management systems. Developing something like this and rolling it out on a global basis, in such a safety-critical application, would likely take two or three decades. Not clear it's really worth the trouble, since you'd want backup pilots for unexpected situations anyway. What would probably make more sense is to just add a single-button auto-land feature, that sends an emergency destress call and configures and invokes existing automatic navigation, approach, and landing features to find the nearest appropriate airport and land. Given how rarely this would be used, there wouldn't be a need for the system to navigate complex traffic patterns, as ATC could just clear other aircraft out of the way. Something like this has recently become available for general aviation aircraft, but I haven't heard about anyone working on it for airliners yet.
tiagod 3y ago
You would end up in a world where no human pilots remain to land aircraft where the automation isn't ready to do so.

dkasper 3y ago

Edge cases

smt88 3y ago

Pilots already serve as a backup to an autonomous system. They're also useful for takeoff and landing.

defrost 3y ago

Takeoffs, landings, and navigating dense air traffic in controlled spaces are all still "not smooth enough" for autonomous sytems if human life is valued. Yes, planes can take off and land on auto pilot - but real world conditions throw curve balls, ditto approaches and departures from high traffic airports. Even "boring" 10 hour point to point legs that might normally be fully autopilot can be a problem in case of mechanical failures or other unexpected events.

taspeotis 3y ago

You propose replacing pilots with … pilots?

tomschwiha 3y ago

IANAP. I think a lot people enjoy flying airplanes. I think most landings are manual. Thus pilots highly skilled to land safely also in difficult situations. And instruments can fail. What do you hope for with removing humans in the loop?

samtho 3y ago

This is such an “armchair expert” take on this. Planes are not fully autonomous. They will not be for a very long time due to the regulatory environment aviation is entrenched in.

LM358 3y ago
Frankly it seems more like an "SWE take" more than a regular armchair take.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  So it’s even more uninformed than a normal armchair take?
fennecbutt 3y ago
Jesus dude (and general HN culture) OP just asked a damn question, they are starting a conversation. They didn't make a point, they claimed ignorance by making it a question. Chillllll

IAmGraydon 3y ago

Even if unassisted takeoff and landing were possible, no airline is going to accept the risk of operating such a system.

pompino 3y ago

Because the people who own those planes, and people who regulate the airline industry don't want human casualties under their watch - a fairly reasonable concern. Status-quo is not something you typically argue for, its what you need to argue against. At which point you need to make a positive argument with data that can convince them otherwise.

barbazoo 3y ago

You’re ignoring the hard part that they don’t yet use 100% autopilot for.

wiml 3y ago

In addition to the other reasons - if someone is going to be qualified to fly the plane as backup, they need regular hours of practice. They could get that in a simulator perhaps, or flying practice flights, or ... by flying the actual plane.

stemlord 3y ago

There is no fucking way I'm stepping onto a commercial airliner without highly trained human beings at the helm. That is my SWE/"stemlord" take-- complex software systems, or at least the organizations that produce them, are generally not to be trusted with your life.

no_op 3y ago

This is likely achievable in theory now, at least between major airports with ILS-equipped runways, but fully automated systems couldn't handle present traffic coordination procedures. You'd need a series of new standards to replace human-oriented air traffic control with a scheme in which ground computers could directly interface with aircraft flight management systems. Developing something like this and rolling it out on a global basis, in such a safety-critical application, would likely take two or three decades. Not clear it's really worth the trouble, since you'd want backup pilots for unexpected situations anyway. What would probably make more sense is to just add a single-button auto-land feature, that sends an emergency destress call and configures and invokes existing automatic navigation, approach, and landing features to find the nearest appropriate airport and land. Given how rarely this would be used, there wouldn't be a need for the system to navigate complex traffic patterns, as ATC could just clear other aircraft out of the way. Something like this has recently become available for general aviation aircraft, but I haven't heard about anyone working on it for airliners yet.

tiagod 3y ago

You would end up in a world where no human pilots remain to land aircraft where the automation isn't ready to do so.