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

141–150 of 182 posts

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

#141

Post by zaphirplane »

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 find it strange that autonomous car driving innovations are done by specialized companies and not the dominant car makers. The same for aircraft. At least the technology news bubble makes it seem so, it’s like they are waiting for someone to eat their lunch, hello Walkman and camera

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

#142

Post by CPLX »

jzwinck wrote: post #131
juliansimioni wrote: post #119

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…

> 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?

> Are storms often strong enough to knock a plane out of the sky?

And then some. The forces in a run of the mill thunderstorm could rip the wings off a plane in seconds.

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

#143

Post by marcosdumay »

kgermino wrote: post #74
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…

> 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 d…

> 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.

The same happens at landing, but the airplane is moving faster.

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

#144

Post by azinman2 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #137
azinman2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The plane still has a human overseer if I understand correctly. It seems that the pilot just gets to work from home like the rest of is.

Then what’s the advantage? I’m assuming said person isn’t 1:1 the whole time, but scaled to a number of concurrent planes, no?

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

#145

Post by azinman2 »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #132
azinman2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it's unfair to ask a technology startup to answer a public policy question. Economic forces will drive automation of these sorts of tasks one way or another, which will shift income away from labour and towards capital. It's up to governments to ensure the winners compensate the losers. In the long term, this may be an UBI, but for now it should take the form of retraining and economic adjustment packages (si…

We all are responsible for our actions on the world. The government doesn’t set policy that says pilots should be automated, and I wouldn’t necessarily assume this is inevitable at all. Government can only be reactionary, and these things are happening without a larger societal conversation that says yes we want this. So I do believe this is a fair question to ask. It would be unethical to not consider ones actions.

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

#146

Post by zamadatix »

azinman2 wrote: post #145
scoopertrooper wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unfair to ask a technology startup to answer a public policy question. Economic forces will drive automation of these sorts of tasks one way or another, which will shift income away from labour and towards capital. It's up to governments to ensure the winners compensate the losers. In the long term, this may be an UBI, but for now it should take the form of retraining and economic adjustment packages (si…

We all are responsible for our actions on the world. The government doesn’t set policy that says pilots should be automated, and I wouldn’t necessarily assume this is inevitable at all. Government can only be reactionary, and these things are happening without a larger societal conversation that says yes we want this. So I do believe this is a fair question to ask. It would be unethical to not consider ones actions.

One must also consider the ethics of wasting human life and skill on something that can be efficiently automated while other tasks lie undone.

Either way I agree with the parent comment, this is a public policy question about how to make sure people are able to maintain lucrative lives (education policy, monetary policy, social policy) not a question for the business making an existing task more efficient and expecting them to answer what society wants to do with the freed time.

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

#147

Post by btgeekboy »

homero wrote: post #91
btgeekboy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is at least one autonomous system on the market today that can do just that - find the nearest airport and land. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

That's pretty incredible for those small planes that I doubt have all the sensors jets do

You'd be surprised. Typically, you'll find that jetliners are older and therefore have an older tech stack, but also that they're redundant. Multiple pitot tubes, for example. On newer GA planes, there may be less redundant sensors, but the technology running them can be more modern and more powerful. The tools on the jet get the job done with two pilots and are there to make money, while the GA airplane is going to be piloted single pilot, and more likely for pleasure.

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

#148

Post by bronco21016 »

whiddershins wrote: post #102
bronco21016 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The private airport idea is interesting. From a pilots perspective, one of the major roadblocks to these systems being widely integrated into the current infrastructure is managing traffic. If they’re largely operated separately from manned traffic that eliminates nearly all of those difficult problems. The comment about edge cases causes me to think about weather. I don’t think many non-pilots have a good appreciati…

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.

The sitting around can be boring but there’s little that’s more fun than turning off the autopilot and hand flying an Expressway Visual 31 at La Guardia in gusty winds with traffic departing runway 4.

Do it at a workstation in a desk chair with none of the “stress” of the situation and I’m going to find another career. The combination of skills needed and the threat of life and limb just make stuff like that exciting in a visceral way that would never be possible with an RC plane.

As to your argument, yes the load would have to be balanced across flights at various stages. You’d be surprised how many planes are all in a very similar boat though when they’re all converging on a hub in SE USA and a summer thunderstorm comes booming through. Spend an evening watching MEM on FlightAware and LiveATC as FedEx does their thing. What seems like the whole fleet comes marching in through a very narrow window of time.

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

#149

Post by m4rtink »

rlpb wrote: post #138
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?

> Are storms often strong enough to knock a plane out of the sky? Simply put: yes. Not just any thunderstorm. All thunderstorms. All aircraft avoid thunderstorms. It's not a case of discomfort for humans inside it; it's about the risk to aircraft themselves. Thunderstorms contain severe updrafts and downdrafts and huge windshear between them. Aircraft cannot outclimb the downdrafts so cannot maintain altitude inside…

A friend of mine who is a glider pilot once compared thunderstorm to a steamroller.

If you get hit by the leading edge your plane will get smashed into the ground. If you somehow get to the back part, your plane might end up in the stratosphere, which might be just as fatal due to very low temperature and lack of oxygen.

He mentioned some early gliding pioneers who were insane and lucky enough managed to "ride" a thunderstorm and achieve record breaking flight distance - and somehow not getting killed in the process.

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

#150

Post by MattGaiser »

azinman2 wrote: post #144
MattGaiser wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plane still has a human overseer if I understand correctly. It seems that the pilot just gets to work from home like the rest of is.

Then what’s the advantage? I’m assuming said person isn’t 1:1 the whole time, but scaled to a number of concurrent planes, no?

Greater scheduling efficiency and cost control.

You don’t need to deal with making sure pilots are all at the right airports. You don’t need to provide them lunch. You don’t need a bunk for them. Pilots are limited in hours of piloting time and sleep requirements, but they can be instantly transferred between planes instead of walking.

Post reply on HN