Airbus' self-flying plane just completed taxi, take-off, and landing tests(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Airbus' self-flying plane just completed taxi, take-off, and landing tests
https://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-completes-autonomous-taxi-take-off-and-landing-tests-2020-7
318 comments
Link to Airbus's press release:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/06/ai...
More info here:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/autonomy-aerial-mobi...
Airbus has an "innovation" (R&D) department and they're looking into more ways to have computers do the routine parts of flight.
Airbus's materials (linked) do mention "self-piloting", but I can't imagine that they are thinking of the scale as BusinessInsider is when they write "self-flying". No one's proposing getting rid of pilots, having a computer fly a plane completely would be insanity.
Airbus has an "innovation" (R&D) department and they're looking into more ways to have computers do the routine parts of flight.
Airbus's materials (linked) do mention "self-piloting", but I can't imagine that they are thinking of the scale as BusinessInsider is when they write "self-flying". No one's proposing getting rid of pilots, having a computer fly a plane completely would be insanity.
Maybe one day we'll have pilots reserved for emergencies, but only on the ground like drone operators. Hotswapping between flights that need corrections as problems occur.
Obviously not going to happen tomorrow and needs more robust communications infrastructure over the deadzones of the planet but it's fun to imagine. I trust machines more than people, unless they're made by Boeing.
Obviously not going to happen tomorrow and needs more robust communications infrastructure over the deadzones of the planet but it's fun to imagine. I trust machines more than people, unless they're made by Boeing.
I wouldn’t trust a pilot to take over from the computer during a crisis if they’ve barely done any real flying in the past few years. Humans need practice to become and remain skilled. I’m worried about the effect of such systems on pilot skill.
Old pilot joke: "The airplanes of the future will have a pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The pilot's job is to feed the dog and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything."
I'm all for this for the shipping industry and completely unmanned, but I'm not about to fly on this myself.
I thought most of plane take off, flight, and landing were automated long ago... ?
[sorry, should have done more googling: https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/can-a-plane-land-automatica... seems to say auto-land is there (but used very little) and no auto-takeoff]
[sorry, should have done more googling: https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/can-a-plane-land-automatica... seems to say auto-land is there (but used very little) and no auto-takeoff]
Maybe FedEx, UPS, and DHL should start first?
Possibly they could go to single pilot operation on freighters?
Possibly they could go to single pilot operation on freighters?
I would not be surprised to see self-flying planes take off (pun intended) before self-driving cars.
Part of me wonders, in the future, how we'll view the attempts to automate pilots and drivers.
It feels like a natural step now in the technology but perhaps it'll be viewed like trying to make a robot ride a horse instead of looking to invent the car.
I wonder what the next order-of-magnitude leap for transport will be. Cheap, fast, safe. Hyperloop maybe?
Will we look back at holding on to air and road travel as a bit of a reckless endeavour?
It feels like a natural step now in the technology but perhaps it'll be viewed like trying to make a robot ride a horse instead of looking to invent the car.
I wonder what the next order-of-magnitude leap for transport will be. Cheap, fast, safe. Hyperloop maybe?
Will we look back at holding on to air and road travel as a bit of a reckless endeavour?
And when there's zero visibility?
ILS presumably - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
So would it not make sense to tie the two systems together in an intelligent way?
ILS presumably - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
So would it not make sense to tie the two systems together in an intelligent way?
Does anyone think that if we go to ground-control backup pilots, they'll be monitoring second-by-second as if they're actually flying, and able to save a situation like US 1549? Or even other less dramatic urgent situations? At that point, why not keep them in the plane?
If you go to ground control monitoring -- the only point of it being that pilots could monitor multiple flights -- you are saying that the pilots are there to fix longer term issues (like flight planning, diversions), etc. Things that don't happen on a few second's timescale.
That might be acceptable on freight/cargo where losing a plane now and then is a risk you can deal with. Not with passengers.
I don't think anyone is willing to go that far.
If you go to ground control monitoring -- the only point of it being that pilots could monitor multiple flights -- you are saying that the pilots are there to fix longer term issues (like flight planning, diversions), etc. Things that don't happen on a few second's timescale.
That might be acceptable on freight/cargo where losing a plane now and then is a risk you can deal with. Not with passengers.
I don't think anyone is willing to go that far.
Mildly terrifying when we know how software is done at massive corporations like Boeing and Airbus : /
How bad does it have to get before the automated systems refuse to deal and a human has to land the plane? An engine gone? Two engines gone? Multiple engines gone and a really stiff crosswind? How good is it at landing in a blizzard on an icy runway? I know it never happens. Planes never land on the Hudson River, either. There's obvious value in making the happy path as safe as possible, and I'm certain full automation is the way to do that, but what are the current limits of automation?
Whats the publicly available data on the crash rate of autonomous drones in the military, unrelated to targeted attacks. It is the best indication, noting that they fly in adverse weather and uncertain routes with possibly less visibility to fall-back systems, and on long-delay operators.
I would expect domestic autonomous flying to incur at least comparable rates of failure to the military for routine operations with root causes in weather, or systems problems, given the likely sharing of weather, and IT systems behind autonomous vehicles.
It would be interesting to see take off, cruise and landing distinctly to understand their risk profiles.
There is also the public perception problem: We tolerate a level of crashes in air transport, predicated on a belief the system is self-correcting. the 737 MAX was withdrawn from service. The lithium battery problem in the 787 was identified. The square windows in the Comet were identified as a root cause.
Will we tolerate a 0.0000001% effective crash risk rate, from autonomous vehicles with 400+ passengers?
I would expect domestic autonomous flying to incur at least comparable rates of failure to the military for routine operations with root causes in weather, or systems problems, given the likely sharing of weather, and IT systems behind autonomous vehicles.
It would be interesting to see take off, cruise and landing distinctly to understand their risk profiles.
There is also the public perception problem: We tolerate a level of crashes in air transport, predicated on a belief the system is self-correcting. the 737 MAX was withdrawn from service. The lithium battery problem in the 787 was identified. The square windows in the Comet were identified as a root cause.
Will we tolerate a 0.0000001% effective crash risk rate, from autonomous vehicles with 400+ passengers?
What's the error rate of pilots compared to computers?
If we, today, completely eliminated all human pilots for all flights on all aircraft and replaced them with the best automated systems available in one fell swoop would deaths increase or decrease?
I'm sure there would be incidents where "A simple software bug killed 200 people today".
I'm also sure that bug can be fixed, and there are also "dumb human error killed 200 people today".
I don't know if any amount of human skill, trained for an entire human lifetime, using the best pedagogical methods, with infinite resources devoted to training, can beat a computer in the long run.
Navy jets have auto-takeoff, tons of passenger planes have auto landing (which, apparently isn't as smooth as human landing), and planes spend most of their time on autopilot already. I think some military UAVs can do all or most of this stuff already. What are their accident rates compared to commercial airlines?
If we, today, completely eliminated all human pilots for all flights on all aircraft and replaced them with the best automated systems available in one fell swoop would deaths increase or decrease?
I'm sure there would be incidents where "A simple software bug killed 200 people today".
I'm also sure that bug can be fixed, and there are also "dumb human error killed 200 people today".
I don't know if any amount of human skill, trained for an entire human lifetime, using the best pedagogical methods, with infinite resources devoted to training, can beat a computer in the long run.
Navy jets have auto-takeoff, tons of passenger planes have auto landing (which, apparently isn't as smooth as human landing), and planes spend most of their time on autopilot already. I think some military UAVs can do all or most of this stuff already. What are their accident rates compared to commercial airlines?
This is just a deathly accident waiting to happen.
We don't have the technology to make airplanes or cars respond to truly unexpected conditions. We have instead a series of (very) sophisticated one-trick ponies, which isn't nearly the same thing than an intelligent system.
Whoever dubbed ML "AI" was a marketing genius.
We don't have the technology to make airplanes or cars respond to truly unexpected conditions. We have instead a series of (very) sophisticated one-trick ponies, which isn't nearly the same thing than an intelligent system.
Whoever dubbed ML "AI" was a marketing genius.
Dumb question but what is the benefit? I imagine pilots will still need to be there to take over during an emergency, so it won't save on pilot costs, right? And they can already lay back and relax during most of the flight so it won't really help with fatigue. Is the idea that autopilot can somehow take off with less risk than a human pilot? Can a human pilot take over sufficiently quickly if something goes wrong? Is pilot error during phases where such autopilot could've been running a source of accidents in practice?
The hard sell here will be convincing passengers it's safe enough. Not sure if I'd be willing to fly on a pilot-less flight even if the airline passed the cost savings onto me.
Just certified to fly without co-pilot would save money.
Maybe freighter drone at first. Might be easier to get certification to fly in drone mode between remote airfields at first.
A350 freighter seems to be under consideration. https://cargofacts.com/airbus-nears-launch-of-a350-freighter...
Maybe freighter drone at first. Might be easier to get certification to fly in drone mode between remote airfields at first.
A350 freighter seems to be under consideration. https://cargofacts.com/airbus-nears-launch-of-a350-freighter...
How many people will want to become pilots once flying (jets, fighters, etc.) is fully automated? Will it be difficult to find people to "take over" from the AI pilot in case of an emergency? I suppose you wouldn't need that many since it's unlikely there will be multiple emergencies concurrently.
I feel like this could backfire from a marketing perspective.
Imagine an airline integrating pilot-less flights, then a competitor starts using the slogan "We use real pilots, because we care more about your safety than increasing profits".
Imagine an airline integrating pilot-less flights, then a competitor starts using the slogan "We use real pilots, because we care more about your safety than increasing profits".
I wonder what this means in terms of security of the system? Planes are essentially missiles and allowing them to be accessible via a network could open the door to some pretty dangerous outcomes.
>"perform normally pilot-flown maneuvers entirely on its own"
It's the non-normal exception cases where pilot expertise is really critical
It's the non-normal exception cases where pilot expertise is really critical
But can it serve Tomato juice?
Would you get on a plane with no pilot?
What about the air-hostesses?
> The European manufacturer just completed flight testing for its Autonomous Taxi, Take-off, and Landing project in June after its flagship aircraft successfully navigated each phase of flight on its own as pilots simply watched.
Talk about training your replacement.
My little brother is starting pilots school soon, maybe I should talk him out of it.
Talk about training your replacement.
My little brother is starting pilots school soon, maybe I should talk him out of it.
Poor pilots sitting and watching inside the plane the moment they got obsolete. Cameras now, lidar and radar later for night and bad weather flights.
But then the airline prohibited to use the automated systems during take-off and landing, because the pilots don't get practise. But pilots need those practise if they should take over in emergency situations.
The same is true for automated driving. I always say, we will see automated railways and automated airplanes before we see automated cars.
PS: Because of some comments, Nuremberg had the first railways system to allow mixed traffic of automated and manual railways. Yeah, I know some of the guys doing the saftey certifcations for this.