6 ms·

An interesting thought experiment is speculate as to when the state of the art in automated flight control and supervision (AFC&S) advances to the point at whic

An interesting thought experiment is speculate as to when the state of the art in automated flight control and supervision (AFC&S) advances to the point at which human intervention in the flight process causes more harm than good. I'm guessing it will be about the same time that human surgeons are significantly less effective than fully automated systems. 30 years? 50 years? It's probably already reached the case that for the non-corner case scenario (cross winds, flight emergency, exceptions) - that a fully automated system probably meets the performance of a human pilot, and the human pilot's major contribution is the ability to exercise executive judgement in the event of exception cases.

alex_doom 13y ago
Well from this post earlier today about a drone landing itself on a aircraft carrier, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6023979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6023979. I would say that automated flight will come sooner than later.
- Piskvorrr 13y ago
  Commercial aviation has been using autoland for decades; automatic control in favorable conditions is rarely the problem, it's the edge conditions (a.k.a. "oh shit moments") where humans still outperform the automation.
rhizome 13y ago
I think it depends on when the projected arrival of Automatic Acronym Generation (AAG), which of course relies on the Syntax Reduction and Simplification Protocol (S-RASP), on which there has been little progress of late.
dredmorbius 13y ago
It'll be interesting to see which runs out: hands-on pilot skills, or cheap petroleum to fuel commercial aviation. Given the pretty resounding lack of positive news from biofuel replacement projects (where is that MASBI report that's due out this year). Ah, here we go: http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf US commercial and military aviation consumes 20 billion gallons of jet fuel annually. Best biofuel generation from crop seeds (canola) runs 80-120 gallons/acre/year. Let's call it 100 gallons even. Replacing that fuel would require 200 million acres of land. The US has 409 acres of arable land. Would you prefer to eat as much as you are now, and stick to ground (or airship) transport, or go on a 50% calorie reduction but retain the ability to fly at speeds over 130 MPH?
- Create 13y ago
  Captain Dave Ryter earned so little when he was a co-pilot for a major airline that he lived in a gang area of Los Angeles, commuted for hours to work and made less money than a bus driver. Many are forced to fly half way around the country before they even begin work. Others sleep in trailers at the back of Los Angeles airport, in airline lounges across the country or even on the floors of their own planes. Some co-pilots, who typically take home about $20,000 (£12,500) a year, hold down second jobs to make ends meet. A commodity is any good or service ("products" of "activities") produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even although they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods. The obvious lesson: A profitable company, whether UPS, FedEx or Southwest, can pay its workers more.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    "Captain Dave Ryter earned so little..." Source for that quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/pilot-exhausting-hours-wages http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/pilot-exhausting...
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    Are flight-crew salaries such a major component of costs that they really need to do that...?
- ars 13y ago
  > or cheap petroleum to fuel commercial aviation. Cheap petroleum will never run out. If the price goes up a new energy source will be used, nuclear probably. If necessary we can use nuclear power to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuel directly from air. And even easier from wood or coal+water. So don't sit around waiting for the petroleum to run out - it's won't, not even after centuries.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    That's very wishful-thinking of you. Got any references / citations? Nuclear-powered aircraft aren't particularly viable. As I've noted above, _solar_ powered airships are: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7Xwo https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7Xwo https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7... For the Graf Zeppelin, at 776' x 100' (7209 meter^2), and with 20% efficient solar PV (higher efficiencies are possible), 1.4 mW (1.8 million HP) of power are available. The original Graf sported 5 V12 diesel engines of 550 HP max (450 HP cruise) power. Solar would be able to deliver over 1 _million_ horsepower (unless I'm goofing my math badly here). Enough that reducing the cell coverage and including batteries or combustible fuel for backup would be viable. http://www.airships.net/lz127-graf-zeppelin/size-speed http://www.airships.net/lz127-graf-zeppelin/size-speed

alex_doom 13y ago

Well from this post earlier today about a drone landing itself on a aircraft carrier, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6023979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6023979. I would say that automated flight will come sooner than later.

Piskvorrr 13y ago
Commercial aviation has been using autoland for decades; automatic control in favorable conditions is rarely the problem, it's the edge conditions (a.k.a. "oh shit moments") where humans still outperform the automation.

rhizome 13y ago

I think it depends on when the projected arrival of Automatic Acronym Generation (AAG), which of course relies on the Syntax Reduction and Simplification Protocol (S-RASP), on which there has been little progress of late.

dredmorbius 13y ago

It'll be interesting to see which runs out: hands-on pilot skills, or cheap petroleum to fuel commercial aviation. Given the pretty resounding lack of positive news from biofuel replacement projects (where is that MASBI report that's due out this year). Ah, here we go: http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf US commercial and military aviation consumes 20 billion gallons of jet fuel annually. Best biofuel generation from crop seeds (canola) runs 80-120 gallons/acre/year. Let's call it 100 gallons even. Replacing that fuel would require 200 million acres of land. The US has 409 acres of arable land. Would you prefer to eat as much as you are now, and stick to ground (or airship) transport, or go on a 50% calorie reduction but retain the ability to fly at speeds over 130 MPH?

Create 13y ago
Captain Dave Ryter earned so little when he was a co-pilot for a major airline that he lived in a gang area of Los Angeles, commuted for hours to work and made less money than a bus driver. Many are forced to fly half way around the country before they even begin work. Others sleep in trailers at the back of Los Angeles airport, in airline lounges across the country or even on the floors of their own planes. Some co-pilots, who typically take home about $20,000 (£12,500) a year, hold down second jobs to make ends meet. A commodity is any good or service ("products" of "activities") produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even although they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods. The obvious lesson: A profitable company, whether UPS, FedEx or Southwest, can pay its workers more.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  "Captain Dave Ryter earned so little..." Source for that quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/pilot-exhausting-hours-wages http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/pilot-exhausting...
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  Are flight-crew salaries such a major component of costs that they really need to do that...?
ars 13y ago
> or cheap petroleum to fuel commercial aviation. Cheap petroleum will never run out. If the price goes up a new energy source will be used, nuclear probably. If necessary we can use nuclear power to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuel directly from air. And even easier from wood or coal+water. So don't sit around waiting for the petroleum to run out - it's won't, not even after centuries.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  That's very wishful-thinking of you. Got any references / citations? Nuclear-powered aircraft aren't particularly viable. As I've noted above, _solar_ powered airships are: https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7Xwo https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7... https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7Xwo https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/aMioevA7... For the Graf Zeppelin, at 776' x 100' (7209 meter^2), and with 20% efficient solar PV (higher efficiencies are possible), 1.4 mW (1.8 million HP) of power are available. The original Graf sported 5 V12 diesel engines of 550 HP max (450 HP cruise) power. Solar would be able to deliver over 1 _million_ horsepower (unless I'm goofing my math badly here). Enough that reducing the cell coverage and including batteries or combustible fuel for backup would be viable. http://www.airships.net/lz127-graf-zeppelin/size-speed http://www.airships.net/lz127-graf-zeppelin/size-speed