Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

commercialappeal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#41

Post by LastMuel »

whiddershins wrote: post #15

If FedEx and Amazon set up private airports dedicated to these machines, only put cargo in them, and make their flight routes distinct from other aircraft, I imagine this could be up and running faster than people think. Edge cases shouldn’t result in loss of life, so getting through regulations and insuring should be much easier than other situations.

Interestingly enough, there are airports that are dedicated to shippers.

For example, there's Wilmington Air Park in Wilmington, OH: https://www.wilmingtonairpark.com/

Apparently, Amazon started flying through there in September of 2019: https://airportimprovement.com/article/wilmington-air-park-w...

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#42

Post by jaywalk »

whiddershins wrote: post #15

If FedEx and Amazon set up private airports dedicated to these machines, only put cargo in them, and make their flight routes distinct from other aircraft, I imagine this could be up and running faster than people think. Edge cases shouldn’t result in loss of life, so getting through regulations and insuring should be much easier than other situations.

I don't think distinct flight routes would be necessary or even preferable. They'd have to integrate these planes into the national airspace system, and at that point you're using the routes (airways) that everyone else uses.

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#43

Post by [deleted] »

marcosdumay wrote: post #39
oliveshell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at that for a while; in fact, that’s how airline flights are controlled these days during basically all of cruise flight (by autopilot). Takeoff and landing are the tricky parts. (I say this as someone who’s firmly on the skeptical side of the spectrum regarding the…

There are landing procedures where the pilot simply follows the machine instructions for a long while already. And it works perfectly well where it's available. Also, the take-off being easier, it's not conceivable that a machine couldn't do it. The reason there is no such machine today is exactly because it's easier, so pilots never need any help. Instead, the hard part isn't flying. it's all the things an airplane…

[deleted]

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#44

Post by tpurves »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #5

Frankly the tech for autonomous aviation has been around for a while now. I expect even strong crosswind landings will soon be better handled by a computer than a pilot. But then here’s the problem... Autonomous systems are great when things are going well, but at the end of the day they fare very poorly in edge cases sometimes with catastrophic results. When you’re driving a car you usually follow traffic rules and…

Tech for automating ATC has been available for decades. The biggest resistance has come from the major US airlines, and associated regulatory capture. Automating ATC would significantly increase efficiency and landing slots. Increasing landing slots at major US airlines would create more competition for the majors. Monopolizing landing slots helps majors suppress competition on key routes and hubs. Wonder if these dynamics are moot now however post covid...

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#45

Post by manigandham »

HaloZero wrote: post #35
oliveshell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at that for a while; in fact, that’s how airline flights are controlled these days during basically all of cruise flight (by autopilot). Takeoff and landing are the tricky parts. (I say this as someone who’s firmly on the skeptical side of the spectrum regarding the…

Isn't turbulence hard to predict? Could something cause an issue. I always assume pilot take over or at least monitor things more aggressively when the plane starts shaking a lot.

Turbulence doesn't mean loss of control. It's just rough air for a bit, and computers can manage through it. Modern passenger/cargo planes are designed to be naturally stable (positive static stability) in flight so that disturbances are dampened out.

Bigger issues like bad weather and other traffic would likely be programmed well in advance rather than leave that to real-time decisions.

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#46

Post by marcosdumay »

dmix wrote: post #6

Who do people think will have their jobs replaced first, cargo pilots or truck drivers? One big factor is it often comes down to which worker group has a stronger union and likewise entrenched political interests at local levels, as we've seen in technological progress elsewhere. Second to that is probably the safety regulatory process. 'AI' or computer automation has also been used heavily in airplanes for a long ti…

The "cost of the pilot" / "cost of the operation" metric gives us this order: urban transportation, inter-city ground transportation, air transportation, water transportation.

The difficulty of automating it metric gives us this order: air transportation, water transportation, inter-city ground transportation, urban transportation.

So I'm personally expecting a mix: air transportation, inter-city ground transportation, water transportation, urban transportation.

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#47

Post by foxdev »

liability wrote: post #12
alfalfasprout wrote: post #5

Frankly the tech for autonomous aviation has been around for a while now. I expect even strong crosswind landings will soon be better handled by a computer than a pilot. But then here’s the problem... Autonomous systems are great when things are going well, but at the end of the day they fare very poorly in edge cases sometimes with catastrophic results. When you’re driving a car you usually follow traffic rules and…

Along these lines, would an autopilot ever think of landing in the Hudson? (Particularly if it hadn't been done before?)

Pilots train for water landings. Why wouldn't an automated system get the same training?

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#48

Post by nradov »

oliveshell wrote: post #31
emteycz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that aircraft falls on someone or someone's property.

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at that for a while; in fact, that’s how airline flights are controlled these days during basically all of cruise flight (by autopilot). Takeoff and landing are the tricky parts. (I say this as someone who’s firmly on the skeptical side of the spectrum regarding the…

Handling mechanical failures and other in-flight emergencies are the tricky parts.

Re: FedEx feeder plane takes flight without pilot in test for Reliable Robotics

#50

Post by panopticon »

HaloZero wrote: post #35
oliveshell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane. Computers have been good at that for a while; in fact, that’s how airline flights are controlled these days during basically all of cruise flight (by autopilot). Takeoff and landing are the tricky parts. (I say this as someone who’s firmly on the skeptical side of the spectrum regarding the…

Isn't turbulence hard to predict? Could something cause an issue. I always assume pilot take over or at least monitor things more aggressively when the plane starts shaking a lot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that most pilot intervention for turbulence was for passenger comfort. If your cargo is secured properly, you should be able to fly through rougher stuff and navigate around the real bad weather that's easier to detect.
Post reply on HN