Live data from Hacker News

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

commercialappeal.com

121–130 of 182 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s say you have one virtual pilot for 10 planes. They won’t all be landing at the same time. So that pilot could guide each one down successively during inclement weather. I bet that would be way more fun than the bunches of sitting around that I imagine is currently part of the job.

[pilot here] There's a lot more to managing planes in bad weather than landing them: you can't exactly fly through a thunderstorm. Furthermore, sometimes go/no-go decisions have to be made a long way out. If it looks like there might be lots of thunderstorms near your destination, it's sometimes prudent to divert immediately rather than risk being near an airport with weather too bad to land AND low fuel. A great exa…

On the ground operator can also make those calls? Really, it's like fleet-specific air traffic controller + rc pilot.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pilots have to learn the schematics of electrical wiring behind the dashboards. They are expected to do problem-solving in case of malfunction, and this happens really often. The first time asymetric thrust was used to pilot a plane (ailerons and elevators didn’t work), it was done without being in the books. I wonder how this can work with computers, given they have very fee sensors compared to humans (« Do you smel…

> Do you smell smoke coming from the vents?

This is not the most common way to detect a fire in an aircraft (unless GA). The most common way is "FIRE" being indicated in the annunciator panel.

> Pilots have to learn the schematics of electrical wiring behind the dashboards.

No they are definitely do not. They will only know the wiring if they are also mechanics.

They need to know which fuses control what, but that's a much higher level.

> They are expected to do problem-solving in case of malfunction

Also no. The first thing to be done is triggering the memory items. Those are memorized. Zero thought here. Pilots have to (and generally will) fall back to what they have been instructed to do.

Next there's the checklists. They will execute the checklists line item by line item. No thinking happens here either, nor it is supposed to.

If all those fail... usually you'll read the resolution in some NTSB report.

> The first time asymetric thrust was used to pilot a plane (ailerons and elevators didn’t work), it was done without being in the books

Not sure if that was the first time, maybe first time in an _airliner_. Also in that particular incident, they had an experience commander, first officer and an instructor for that specific model of aircraft working together (the instructor was handling the thrust levers).

That was also a very extraordinary incident.

> flight crew performance was highly commendable and greatly exceeded reasonable expectations

> I wonder how this can work with computers

During the Columbia incident, the computers didn't know the wing was melting. But they detected a deviation from the flight path, which they tried to correct with control surfaces. When that failed, they added RCS thrusters too. The 'wing melting condition' wasn't programmed, but still they managed to use all available resources.

For more on how we could allow craft to 'intelligently' respond to failures, take a look at the Remote Agent, from NASA's DS-1 mission.

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

#123
post #88
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on your definition of "tricky". If you mean something that requires human intelligence, I would say it's the complete opposite. More or less the first thing pilots start doing during an emergency is to follow lists, it's all very procedural and most failures have been predicted in advance, as well as what would need to be done to resolve them, or at least eliminate the immediate threat -- and if these pr…

There is one benefit of having people in the loop in that they come with a completely independent set of sensors for flying the aircraft. Look at the recent issues where the single sensor on the Boeing Maxs crash the aircraft. They're far from perfect for sure though(see the times people did the opposite and ignored the correct sensors causing a crash) but there's a definite benefit to having two completely different…

> the single sensor

And this is the problem. We wouldn't have autonomous aircraft without sensor redundancies. Even pilots have multiple redundant instruments.

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

#124
post #92

Autonomous flight is a great example of the 80/20 rule. We've basically had "self flying" airplanes for decades, but to get them to 100% autonomous we need to spend all of the extra engineering effort into covering the remaining edge-cases + landing.

this statement belies a lack of understanding of just how long autoland has existed. Guess which decade autoland was invented... and what decade commercial service flights began making fully autonomous landings... (you're probably wrong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland#Civil_aviation It is not, on the whole, that difficult a problem to actually land an aircraft autonomously. Now that planes can autonomously fl…

> It is not, on the whole, that difficult a problem to actually land an aircraft autonomously.

Sure, if you have ILS and it's operational.

Large aircraft will not rely on GPS.

It's a far more difficult problem to integrate such aircraft among the existing traffic. You are underestimating the effort of autonomous flight gate to gate.

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

#125

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...

What I haven't seen is any mention of what happens to all the pilots out there. Between COVID and now this, it seems like the path of a great middle/upper middle class job that's lasted for decades is doomed. For UPS/Fedex, I would also guess that the salary of the pilot is effectively a rounding error on all of the total costs of transporting objects around the world.

What are your thoughts on this?

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

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best case scenario is to have an autonomous system that only steps in when the human pilot is doing something wrong. Then the pilots stay well-trained, while getting the benefits of autopilot. You could then manually give autopilot control for short periods in times when it is too dangerous for human pilots, ex. windy dark landings.

This has sort of been tried before for some time with occasional disastrous results. When the pilot was trying to do one thing to save the aircraft and the autonomous system was trying to do another, crashes have resulted. It's likely that either one would have been ok on their own, but the combination can be bad. I know the rebuttal to this is "override the pilot" but it's really not so simple. Sometimes the pilot h…

I believe this is speculated to have happened with an Airbus doing a low pass or touch-and-go at an airshow. The aircraft seemed to believe it was landing, the captain was requesting TOGA thrust.

Airbus auto throttle is a nice idea when it works (once you understand it), but there's certainly something uncanny about the idea of not having direct control of the primary and secondary flight controls.

If I was coming in with one engine out, the last thing I'd want is the aircraft trying to out-think me and tell me what's right, or decide I'm at risk of stalling (2 feet above the runway), and apply power (which with only one engine available would risk skewing the landing).

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[pilot here] There's a lot more to managing planes in bad weather than landing them: you can't exactly fly through a thunderstorm. Furthermore, sometimes go/no-go decisions have to be made a long way out. If it looks like there might be lots of thunderstorms near your destination, it's sometimes prudent to divert immediately rather than risk being near an airport with weather too bad to land AND low fuel. A great exa…

On the ground operator can also make those calls? Really, it's like fleet-specific air traffic controller + rc pilot.

Yeah, definitely. And thinking about it more I'm sure there are some air traffic controllers that manage 10+ airplanes fine (although they aren't as involved as the pilots, so a remote operator would have a higher workload).

I bet a fleet of commercial autonomous aircraft operation out of private facilities would also have a lot more common procedures (all their airspeeds, climb/descent rates, etc would all be the same), so it might even be easier.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: Would a human pilot be skilled and lucky enough to pull this off a second time?

IMO, the critical thing the human crew did in US1549 was the decision to take the Hudson; once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision. (Then the presence/absence of boat traffic comes down to luck.)

> once they decided that, most crews could pull off the execution of that decision

That's not correct. Ditching is very hard. Mess up your angle or sink rate or roll even slightly and you'll be in pieces. Same if the water doesn't cooperate.

One interesting thing is that it happened with an Airbus. The flight computers actually modified Sully's inputs on pitch by about 2 degrees, which ensured a softer splashdown than what Sully was commanding.

But that was a very subtle adjustment. Sully was an experienced pilot, with Glider training too.

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

#129

Very cool! I wonder what the real economic benefit of removing a pilot from an airplane is, and what the dominant factors are? Assuming that a human pilot is better in some emergency scenarios, and might be able to save you from catastrophic loss: these events are exceedingly rare nowadays, and the savings from liability and scheduling constraints must be massive without a human in the pilot seat.

CEO of Xwing, the other company developing technology in this space here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDhkwHkBKWo Feeder aircraft suffer from poor pilot / aircraft utilization. Once you go with remote operators you can increase operator utilization significantly. A computer can also fly the aircraft much more efficiently than a human can allowing for significant fuel savings. Other benefits include lifting of cre…

Great answer, thank you very much :)

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the ground operator can also make those calls? Really, it's like fleet-specific air traffic controller + rc pilot.

Yeah, definitely. And thinking about it more I'm sure there are some air traffic controllers that manage 10+ airplanes fine (although they aren't as involved as the pilots, so a remote operator would have a higher workload). I bet a fleet of commercial autonomous aircraft operation out of private facilities would also have a lot more common procedures (all their airspeeds, climb/descent rates, etc would all be the sa…

Also maybe they could pool resources? Like pilots in an area where everything is fine leave their planes on full auto and go take over another plane from another pilot?

Edit: Or maybe, expect the planes to be fully auto, then have a bank of pilots available to take over any plane that is having troubles.

Post reply on HN