View Single Post
Old 09-23-2019, 08:32 AM
  #8  
rickair7777
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,190
Default

Originally Posted by Name User View Post
This is how it starts...

https://www.rotorandwing.com/2019/03...-program-year/

And some of this gets us easily down to single pilot:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...plane-licence/

And some of this to finish it off:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/your...-vehicles.html

Automating our jobs is the low hanging fruit of autonomous vehicles. Think of the money saved. The money made by software and hardware engineering firms is immense and the flexibility offered to airlines ever more so. No more worries about duty days, timing out, etc. Entire departments are wiped out...etc.

We make good money now. Save it. We're looking at a five year timeline to single pilot/reduced augmented IMO and maybe even autonomous flown/remotely piloted after another five.
From a technical, economic, and political perspective it can't be a minute less than 50 years...

Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot View Post
Decades of CRM research and safety gone? It’s two pilots or zero pilots. It’ll never be single pilot imo
This is true, and many folks don't get the implication of that....

The development costs for single pilot are pretty much the same as no pilot. But you're only saving the cost of the FO (and not even all of that if you have backup pilots on the ground) since there's no conceivable scenario where you go directly from two pilots to no pilots.

The hard part is not the automation per se, although there is significant technical uncertainty in the "last mile", ie getting all the way to 10(-9).

The hard part is the economics of developing and implementing, plus the certification hurdles. Google "Deterministic AI" to learn more about the later.

1. Nobody knows how to implement a true generalized AI. And if you did, there are serious doubts among the top minds as to whether you really should.
2. Non-deterministic systems which attempt to model that cannot be certified for complex safety-critical applications (you never know exactly what it will really do in a given scenario, and the response could change from day to day).
3. Deterministic AI is just software. If it's programmed wrong (by a human or another AI) it's just like MCAS.

Equally hard is making the business case to spend the development money in the face of uncertainty in areas of technical, regulatory, and public acceptance. No manager who starts writing checks for this will ever see a dime of short or mid-term gain, the timeline is too long. Technical movement in that direction will happen, but for other reasons. Automation of weapon systems for example, but all military planning and research revolves around teaming between manned and unmanned systems. There's no technical potential for totally autonomous weapon systems (aka terminator), too risky.

It will really need to happen with cars first. Cars are not easier than airplanes, they can always pull over to the side of the road if something goes wrong. Although a car's "taxi environment" is less predictable a plane will still need to be able to avoid errant ground vehicles, illegal aliens, and crazy folks running across the airport surface. Less common than for automobiles but liability cannot just be wished away. No company can afford to sell or employ something which cannot be insured, nor can a regulator certify it.

An autonomous airline will actually have to be demonstrably BETTER than manned airliners, in order to justify the cost and sway regulators and the public.

Also you'd need to completely re-engineer ground handling and ATC systems $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Who's going to pay for that? The fed? Why, to eliminate 100,000 good paying union jobs? That's not how the world really works.

Last edited by rickair7777; 09-23-2019 at 08:46 AM.
rickair7777 is offline