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

71–80 of 182 posts

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

#71

Post by selectodude »

Guest19023892 wrote: post #67
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takeoff and landing in rough conditions are tricky. Takeoff and landing when the weather is fine is already a solved problem. So is taxiing. https://newatlas.com/aircraft/airbus-attol-autonomous-airlin...

What's the advantages of a human compared to a computer for landing in rough weather? I would think it's a fairly logical problem. Wind is rotating the plane left, need to move the stick right. Wind is pulling the plane up, need to slow down or push the stick forward, etc. Need to make adjustments past safe levels or can't keep the plane level enough means it's too rough and the landing needs to be aborted. In my min…

I think one of the key things computers aren't as good as people are is communication. There is a lot of info that a human can convey with a short sentence that a computer would have no chance of doing. The ability for a human to effectively communicate with ground, tower and other aircraft in inclement weather is key.

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

#73

Post by JoblessWonder »

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.

The issue is finding land that is effective for the transition points. You need these private airports to have easy access to highways/existing cargo/delivery infrastructure.

It is usually cheaper to just build your fulfillment center next to an existing airport which already meets these requirements.

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

#74

Post by kgermino »

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…

> 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.

I don't think it's just that take off is easier, but that it's also more dangerous than landing. If something happens during take-off and the computer needs help, it needs the pilot to step in quickly so you don't have time to do a computer -> person hand-off.

I don't think it would affect this proposal (no passengers on board, and package-only airports can be located far away from things to hit) but worth noting.

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

#75

Post by walrus01 »

LastMuel wrote: post #41
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...

the fort worth alliance airport in texas is a much better, larger example of this.

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

#76

Post by marcosdumay »

tintor wrote: post #56
marcosdumay wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transportatio…

Why do you believe that water transportation would be harder to automate than air transportation?

There is more "noise" to deal with on the water than on the air. For a start, there is the entire ocean floor, that is relevant on many places where ships usually go into, and isn't as simple to map as a runway.

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

#77

Post by loeg »

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.

> Edge cases shouldn’t result in loss of life, so getting through regulations and insuring should be much easier than other situations.

I would hope there is some regulatory concern about flights over populated areas. Yes, there are a number of ways this concern might be addressed, but like everything else, I expect the FAA to be really anal about it.

I also hope they are concerned about potential remote hijacking. It is probably desirable that these things can be overridden by a human operator, rather than solely relying on the flight computer. But that opens the possibility to attackers as well.

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

#78

Post by loeg »

selectodude wrote: post #71
Guest19023892 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the advantages of a human compared to a computer for landing in rough weather? I would think it's a fairly logical problem. Wind is rotating the plane left, need to move the stick right. Wind is pulling the plane up, need to slow down or push the stick forward, etc. Need to make adjustments past safe levels or can't keep the plane level enough means it's too rough and the landing needs to be aborted. In my min…

I think one of the key things computers aren't as good as people are is communication. There is a lot of info that a human can convey with a short sentence that a computer would have no chance of doing. The ability for a human to effectively communicate with ground, tower and other aircraft in inclement weather is key.

Computer systems can obviously also communicate over radio, and almost certainly at a higher information density than a human operator.

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

#79

Post by loeg »

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…

> To be fair, maintaining straight and level flight— i.e., not falling out of the sky— is the easiest part of flying an airplane.

Sure. But if it does happen, the self-driving airplane needs to have a landing plan that isn't "fall on a population center." It's not insurmountable, but does need to be baked in.

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

#80

Post by sgtnoodle »

bobbriody wrote: post #51

We're hiring! https://reliable.co/careers/ We built avionics, software, mechanisms and a comm system that enables automated operation of the plane from a remote command station. The remote operator has a GUI where they can command the aircraft. This article goes into a bit more detail about how it works: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/with-tesla-and-space...

I know a lot of the Reliable Robotics team from past projects, and they're an especially talented group of people. I would be working there now if I wasn't committed to my current project.
Post reply on HN