Live data from Hacker News

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

commercialappeal.com

81–90 of 182 posts

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

#81

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?)

Taking a step back, do we want autopilots flying over a dense population center like NYC?

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

#82
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 That describes humans as well.

Depending on the circumstances, a robotic system might offer a better response than the humans: it does not have emotions. If anything, robotic systems might be more predictable.

Automated cars have decidedly NOT been predictable in their failure modes

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

#83
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Human pilots are trained in how to ditch, but the decision to ditch in that scenario was, as far as I'm aware, an instance of creative problem solving.

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

#84
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…

Garmin has already gained FAA approval for an emergency autoland system that integrates with most modern private aircraft. It is designed to be used in case of an emergency where the pilot has "stopped functioning". It finds the nearest appropriate airport, announces it's intentions to ATC and then flies to and lands at that airport.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

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

#85

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.

If the system is designed right, they could be even safer than piloted planes in the case of an emergency. Currently, if a pilot is flying and, say, the engines stop and can't be restarted, they're going to be thinking about trying to survive and get to a place where they can land or at least ditch the plane survivably.

An autonomous system doesn't have to do that - if it decides that the situation is unrecoverable, it can spend its remaining time in the air finding and navigating to the most sparsely populated point of impact within its range. Something like "Engines out and won't restart? Find the nearest/largest body of water and ditch into it".

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

#86

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.

If the system is designed right, they could be even safer than piloted planes in the case of an emergency. Currently, if a pilot is flying and, say, the engines stop and can't be restarted, they're going to be thinking about trying to survive and get to a place where they can land or at least ditch the plane survivably. An autonomous system doesn't have to do that - if it decides that the situation is unrecoverable,…

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/

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

#87

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.

It exists:

"Airbus demonstrates first fully automatic vision-based take-off"

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/01/ai...

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

#88
post #53
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 systems monitoring the data. It's unusual to see that level of safety differentiation, not only having multiple copies of a sensor to take measurements but multiple different designs and types of sensors measuring the same thing to avoid correlated failures.

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

#89

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 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 appreciation of how much complex decision making goes into operating in and around inclement weather. Fuel constraints, airport constraints in terms of equipment, weather, and traffic, unreliable forecasting, etc. Theres a lot that goes into it and each aircraft begins making decisions that involve several people, including the on-board pilots.

It seems like you can have one operator for 5-10 aircraft but then suddenly the weather rolls through and every single one of those aircraft needs individual attention and planning. Did you save much by still having an operator/craft? Or do you need more stringent weather requirements to operate these aircraft? Or do you try to have the best of both worlds and eventually the autonomous systems just crash themselves in non-populous areas absent other guidance.

If these systems are largely grounded every time there’s inclement weather I can’t imagine the people who advertise “the world, on time” are going to be too keen on operating them at scale. Dispatch-ability is a major factor in these types of operations.

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

#90

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.

Airports are built to fit the space they're allocated. And runways have to be sited accounting for approach patterns that can be many hundreds of miles. Given the variation in geography of the planet Earth there's zero one-size fits all construction that can be done.

Airports are standardized to the degree they can be standardized. There are entire sections of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Design Handbook devoted to airport terminals and other large transportation spaces. But these spaces have to be designed to fit the place that they are constructed in.

Post reply on HN