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

161–170 of 182 posts

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

#161

Post by ehnto »

meheleventyone wrote: post #157
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, high end dual frequency GPS receivers like you'd surely put in a plane will typically have sub-meter precision.

Depending on the environment? GPS is still susceptible to signal reflection and LoS blocking.

This is in regards to an emergency response system, so an attacker would have to wait for an emergency to attack and well, you may as well just see how it pans out naturally rather than risk jail time to try and coerce an accident that might already be happening.

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

#162

Post by manquer »

lmm wrote: post #160
outworlder wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most accidents happen near airports. Most airports are in populated areas Are they? I'd argue that they generally aren't... except that, over time, cities may grow until they are right next to the airport again. And then new airports get constructed - usually far away. > terms of freight Only for certain classes of freight. You distribution center needs ready access to transportation, it doesn't have to be next to…

> I'd argue that they generally aren't... except that, over time, cities may grow until they are right next to the airport again. And then new airports get constructed - usually far away. That sounds backwards. Airports get built as close as possible to the cities they serve. For newer airports that ends up being some distance away because they need to avoid existing homes. > You distribution center needs ready acces…

Newer airports almost as a rule get built far way not only to avoid homes . Homes get built near airport, then airport gets sued anyway. It is more that it very difficult and very very expensive to get the size of land a large airport needs close to the city. It is also the politics of everyone wanting a piece of development.

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

#163

Post by manquer »

Scoundreller wrote: post #69
marcosdumay wrote: post #39

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…

That’s one thing that boggles my mind about airports: it seems like they’re all designed from the ground-up as if it’s the first airport ever built. Terminals too. I get that the biggest airports have grown organically, but I’m surprised a city building a new terminal or airport (Berlin anyone?) can’t order a standard proven design like they’re building a McDonald’s or Holiday Inn.

Berlin is disaster and running joke on so many levels.

If the city was competent about the project, they would have actually hired people who knew what they were doing. While new terminals and airports are not as standard as Holiday Inn, there are plenty of constraints in most cities [1], that do not allow a lot of room for radical change, and design usually come out not widely different.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QZ3eozyQfU

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

#164

Post by manquer »

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…

This is just as true for Human pilots as well, there are plenty of judgement calls and scenarios average pilots also will fail .

Are the autonomous systems better than our best, most experienced pilots? not yet. They are however likely already better than the average pilot. Updating the autonomous software to factor in new scenario is easier than grounding pilots and getting them retrained on the simulator

The expense and availability of type certification and simulators is one of the reasons the 737 MAX was designed to handle like the older model, although it was fundamentally different. After the fixes, if the FAA require separate type rating it will be very expensive and slow process for all airlines.

The autonomous systems will behave consistently under a given scenario, human responses and errors may vary. Fixing the former is easier than quality checking the later.

Planes already fly a lot on their own, they also crash on their own already too, due to software bugs or faulty sensors, 737 MAX is software bug from a faulty sensor reading on the autonomous system after all. It is a blurry line between what we have and a fully autonomous system. The risks are already there, might as well embrace it and test the software lot more rigorously than depend on the human to intervene and override as we do now.

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

#165

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#166

Post by michaelt »

manquer wrote: post #162
lmm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue that they generally aren't... except that, over time, cities may grow until they are right next to the airport again. And then new airports get constructed - usually far away. That sounds backwards. Airports get built as close as possible to the cities they serve. For newer airports that ends up being some distance away because they need to avoid existing homes. > You distribution center needs ready acces…

Newer airports almost as a rule get built far way not only to avoid homes . Homes get built near airport, then airport gets sued anyway. It is more that it very difficult and very very expensive to get the size of land a large airport needs close to the city. It is also the politics of everyone wanting a piece of development.

Airports get built "close" in the sense that most international airports are named after a city, and the distance to that city is generally minutes rather than hours of travel.

Airports get built "far away" in the sense that, between land prices and noise abatement, airports are generally on the very outskirts of a city at the time they are built and the city's central train station will be much closer to the city centre.

But apart from military bases on remote islands, no airports are so remote that "don't worry where you ditch the plane if there's a problem, there's nothing near the airport" would be an option :)

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

#167

Post by usrusr »

bfuclusion wrote: post #140
ghayes wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying by instruments, I wonder how high the risk truly is. One of the bigger concerns might be an instrument failure, like the failure of the airspeed sensors on Air France 447.

Very very high. What fuels a thunderstorm is large amounts of air rising, and falling very rapidly. When the aircraft encounters those air movements it can very quickly exceed the structural limits of the aircraft.

Some more detail: flying in rising or sinking air isn't a problem in itself, as long as you can tolerate the change in altitude. But flying from one into the other, fast, is a sure way to exceed structural load levels.

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

#168

Post by meheleventyone »

ehnto wrote: post #161
meheleventyone wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the environment? GPS is still susceptible to signal reflection and LoS blocking.

This is in regards to an emergency response system, so an attacker would have to wait for an emergency to attack and well, you may as well just see how it pans out naturally rather than risk jail time to try and coerce an accident that might already be happening.

It’s not (just) about attack though. If you have your emergency in a place where the surrounds cause GPS to be inaccurate you cannot rely on GPS. Ergo since you cannot plan where to have an emergency relying on GPS is not sufficient.

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

#169

Post by usrusr »

meheleventyone wrote: post #157
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, high end dual frequency GPS receivers like you'd surely put in a plane will typically have sub-meter precision.

Depending on the environment? GPS is still susceptible to signal reflection and LoS blocking.

Sure, depending on the environment. But when an aircraft is in one of those environments where reflections and line of sight to satellites are an issue, GPS accuracy is the least of your concerns.

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

#170

Post by sokoloff »

ghayes wrote: post #133
jzwinck wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't exactly fly through a thunderstorm. You can't, but can a UAV? I'm curious how much more tolerant of bad weather a plane can be if there are no people inside. Are storms often strong enough to knock a plane out of the sky?

Flying by instruments, I wonder how high the risk truly is. One of the bigger concerns might be an instrument failure, like the failure of the airspeed sensors on Air France 447.

There were many failures in the cockpit of AF447. Almost all of them were aft of the instruments.
Post reply on HN