5 ms·

Don’t have a ref but heard that it’s been safe for quite a while but they keep the pilots around due to consumer fear rather than actual improved performance.

by efavdb 1y ago

Don’t have a ref but heard that it’s been safe for quite a while but they keep the pilots around due to consumer fear rather than actual improved performance. Curious if anyone can confirm.

rkomorn 1y ago
No. Airliners can't even take off on their own yet, and are only allowed to auto-land with zero visibility at a few dozen airports when the pilots, plane, and runway are all current/recently checked. Look up the Airbus ATTOL project's first automated takeoff a few years ago. Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  An airplane will take off when it is properly configured and it hits a certain speed. It's simple aerodynamics/physics. Pilots are there to react to failures and unexpected events.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Sure. It'll also land if you don't care about anyone surviving.
  - 3ple_alpha 1y ago
    There's a bit more to it since you do need to do last bit of configuration (pull up the nose) just as you hit the target speed. But yeah, automatic take-off is quite a bit easier than automatic rejection of take-off.
    - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
      Even manually pulling up the nose once you reach Vr isn't necessary if you just trim for a little extra nose-up. It'll eventually get off the ground with just enough speed.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        There's no lack of online arguments about whether or not Vr is "real" or should exist. I just followed what my CFI and Cessna's manual for the C172 said (which iirc was giving input to rotate at 55kts).
  - glitchc 1y ago
    And the air is within acceptable temperature and pressure ranges. I assume configuration takes weight into account as well.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      And you don't need rudder input or any aileron input because of crosswind, and other bits that falls into "technically correct but not particularly relevant" territory. It's fun to see/feel planes do stuff "on their own" (eg making them oscillate, or level on their own, or feeling ground effect, or even your own wake on steep turns) but it's not something you'd want to rely on (maybe with the exception of ground effect on short field takeoffs, but I digress).
    - rwyinuse 1y ago
      Yeah temperature, wind, altitude, weight, runway slope all matter, and then there needs to be enough spare space for the aircraft to successfully take off even with engine failure in the worst possible moment. Then there's the question of fuel consumption too. Takeoff power isn't typically configured to get the aircraft off the ground as fast as possible, but to minimize fuel consumption, while still leaving enough margin in case of engine failure. It wouldn't be that hard to fully automate a flight from gate to gate when everything works perfectly. But the various failure modes, human error like airport vehicles entering active runway, all that requires human backup. Self-driving car can just stop to the side of the road and turn on emergency lights if its engine fails, with a plane things get much more complicated.
      - nradov 1y ago
        One of the hardest parts is just getting radio comms right. ICAO phraseology is supposedly standardized but when anything unusual happens then things get messy, especially if there are multiple aircraft involved. Cars can drive around without needing to talk to other cars or controllers.
- johnisom2001 1y ago
  > Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC. Check out the Cirrus Autoland feature in their aircraft. They are all small personal aircraft, but the tech is pretty cool. Will talk to ATC and fully auto-land for you in the event of an emergency where the pilot is incapacitated.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I'm aware of it, though I've never flown a Cirrus. But AFAIK, it announces what it's doing. It's not communicating.
  - kotaKat 1y ago
    "Talking to ATC" is a bit of a huge ask. The system basically just hops on 121.5 (and maybe the nearest/local unicom/tower frequency) and start an automated callout with its intentions that it will be doing. It operates on the assumption that all other airspace users will hear the radio calls and stay clear of the emergency aircraft.
csours 1y ago
If you can design the product and environment to fit automation, then automation can be quick and effective. The less you can change about the product and environment, then automation run slower and less effectively. Air liner operations could be automated, but the minimum equipment list would be more stringent, the destination airport would not be able to take any equipment out of service for maintenance, visibility minimums would increase, takeoff and landing operations would require more slack time. Besides all of that, the owner of the airplane would still want to have some crew on board. In short, it's not worth it yet. === There is also the paradox of automation: Automation generally makes the hard parts harder and the easy parts easier.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  The current goal of autonomy for airliners is single-pilot operation more than full autonomy. It's very cool stuff, technology wise, with potentially significant redesigns of cockpits, etc. But the main thing is the plane basically needs to be able to operate just about entirely autonomously (especially during critical flight phases) in case the pilot is incapacitated. In theory, once SPO is solved, autonomy is almost solved.
  - nradov 1y ago
    I'm skeptical that SPO will be allowed for commercial airliners in our lifetimes. Pilot workloads are fairly low during most routine flights. But when an emergency occurs then the workload suddenly gets extremely high, to the extent that even two pilots are sometimes overwhelmed. This isn't a problem that current automation technology can solve. There are an infinite number of possible emergency scenarios and engineers can't possibly code for and test every one. Cargo flights over oceans and (mostly) unpopulated areas might be a valid use case for SPO. Cargo pilots have always been considered somewhat expendable.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      I'm maybe less skeptical than you but still not super positive. At the very least, I'd say it's at least two clean-sheet designs away (which I'd guesstimate at 30 years). I'm a bit partial to it because I did a brief stint in the Airbus realm. Autonomy for airliners is an interesting set of challenges.

by efavdb 1y ago

Don’t have a ref but heard that it’s been safe for quite a while but they keep the pilots around due to consumer fear rather than actual improved performance. Curious if anyone can confirm.

rkomorn 1y ago

No. Airliners can't even take off on their own yet, and are only allowed to auto-land with zero visibility at a few dozen airports when the pilots, plane, and runway are all current/recently checked. Look up the Airbus ATTOL project's first automated takeoff a few years ago. Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC.

SoftTalker 1y ago
An airplane will take off when it is properly configured and it hits a certain speed. It's simple aerodynamics/physics. Pilots are there to react to failures and unexpected events.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Sure. It'll also land if you don't care about anyone surviving.
- 3ple_alpha 1y ago
  There's a bit more to it since you do need to do last bit of configuration (pull up the nose) just as you hit the target speed. But yeah, automatic take-off is quite a bit easier than automatic rejection of take-off.
  - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
    Even manually pulling up the nose once you reach Vr isn't necessary if you just trim for a little extra nose-up. It'll eventually get off the ground with just enough speed.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      There's no lack of online arguments about whether or not Vr is "real" or should exist. I just followed what my CFI and Cessna's manual for the C172 said (which iirc was giving input to rotate at 55kts).
- glitchc 1y ago
  And the air is within acceptable temperature and pressure ranges. I assume configuration takes weight into account as well.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    And you don't need rudder input or any aileron input because of crosswind, and other bits that falls into "technically correct but not particularly relevant" territory. It's fun to see/feel planes do stuff "on their own" (eg making them oscillate, or level on their own, or feeling ground effect, or even your own wake on steep turns) but it's not something you'd want to rely on (maybe with the exception of ground effect on short field takeoffs, but I digress).
  - rwyinuse 1y ago
    Yeah temperature, wind, altitude, weight, runway slope all matter, and then there needs to be enough spare space for the aircraft to successfully take off even with engine failure in the worst possible moment. Then there's the question of fuel consumption too. Takeoff power isn't typically configured to get the aircraft off the ground as fast as possible, but to minimize fuel consumption, while still leaving enough margin in case of engine failure. It wouldn't be that hard to fully automate a flight from gate to gate when everything works perfectly. But the various failure modes, human error like airport vehicles entering active runway, all that requires human backup. Self-driving car can just stop to the side of the road and turn on emergency lights if its engine fails, with a plane things get much more complicated.
    - nradov 1y ago
      One of the hardest parts is just getting radio comms right. ICAO phraseology is supposedly standardized but when anything unusual happens then things get messy, especially if there are multiple aircraft involved. Cars can drive around without needing to talk to other cars or controllers.
johnisom2001 1y ago
> Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC. Check out the Cirrus Autoland feature in their aircraft. They are all small personal aircraft, but the tech is pretty cool. Will talk to ATC and fully auto-land for you in the event of an emergency where the pilot is incapacitated.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I'm aware of it, though I've never flown a Cirrus. But AFAIK, it announces what it's doing. It's not communicating.
- kotaKat 1y ago
  "Talking to ATC" is a bit of a huge ask. The system basically just hops on 121.5 (and maybe the nearest/local unicom/tower frequency) and start an automated callout with its intentions that it will be doing. It operates on the assumption that all other airspace users will hear the radio calls and stay clear of the emergency aircraft.

csours 1y ago

If you can design the product and environment to fit automation, then automation can be quick and effective. The less you can change about the product and environment, then automation run slower and less effectively. Air liner operations could be automated, but the minimum equipment list would be more stringent, the destination airport would not be able to take any equipment out of service for maintenance, visibility minimums would increase, takeoff and landing operations would require more slack time. Besides all of that, the owner of the airplane would still want to have some crew on board. In short, it's not worth it yet. === There is also the paradox of automation: Automation generally makes the hard parts harder and the easy parts easier.

rkomorn 1y ago
The current goal of autonomy for airliners is single-pilot operation more than full autonomy. It's very cool stuff, technology wise, with potentially significant redesigns of cockpits, etc. But the main thing is the plane basically needs to be able to operate just about entirely autonomously (especially during critical flight phases) in case the pilot is incapacitated. In theory, once SPO is solved, autonomy is almost solved.
- nradov 1y ago
  I'm skeptical that SPO will be allowed for commercial airliners in our lifetimes. Pilot workloads are fairly low during most routine flights. But when an emergency occurs then the workload suddenly gets extremely high, to the extent that even two pilots are sometimes overwhelmed. This isn't a problem that current automation technology can solve. There are an infinite number of possible emergency scenarios and engineers can't possibly code for and test every one. Cargo flights over oceans and (mostly) unpopulated areas might be a valid use case for SPO. Cargo pilots have always been considered somewhat expendable.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I'm maybe less skeptical than you but still not super positive. At the very least, I'd say it's at least two clean-sheet designs away (which I'd guesstimate at 30 years). I'm a bit partial to it because I did a brief stint in the Airbus realm. Autonomy for airliners is an interesting set of challenges.