Grumble

Actually the Pred/Reaper is in no way related, and none of them are "self driving." The network architecture is highly complicated and expensive. Suggest you educate yourself on how everything actually works, especially if you have SIPR access.

U.S. moves drone fleet from Camp Lemonnier to ease Djibouti?s safety concerns - Washington Post

20 years and billions in development gets you this kind of reliability, from what is comparatively a model airplane with a snow mobile engine, not a 767 hauling freight as some would suggest.

Cubdriver

That would be disturbing if true but casual surfing provides credible enough sources on record saying drones have about the same reliability as other developmental manned military aircraft did in their day.

(Raining drones? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs)

These recent high-profile crashes of U.S. drones raise questions about the reliability of the crucial unmanned aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, have about the same mishap rate as the F-16 manned fighter jet did at a comparable stage of development, according to retired Lt. Gen David Deptula, who ran the Air Force drone program until he left the service in 2010. An Air Force chart obtained by CNN confirms Deptula's assessment, showing as flight time increases, mishap rates for drones drop, just like they do for the piloted F-16 and F-22 fighter jets. When looking at the total number of flight hours, the mishap rates for "Predators (MQ-1s) are a bit higher," said Deptula. "Reapers (MQ-9s) and Global Hawks (RQ-4) are a bit lower."

No aircraft can, not a good question the way it is posed. Autonomous aircraft will be able to land in any winds human aircraft can for landing and TO. Ice detection is not a difficult problem.

Or can a human? Another vaguely-defined question. If computer #1 fails you get instant transfer to computer #2 just like when the human PF fails to act and the PNF takes over in human crews.

As much as any human flight crew can. Computer #1 craps out and #2 takes over and flies to the limit of its abilities.

No, and some oversight will probably always be in place by experts humans for this reason. We are not close to true artificial intelligence and humans will remain the best decision makers. However, looking at the crash history there are many examples of accidents that were made worse by human intervention and management, so assuming a human will fare better is not always true. It's the routine flight events including stock flight emergencies that can be replaced by computers and those that fail to fall into standard grouping will definitely faze the computer because they do not really think. The task is to make this scenario so rare that it is allowable. For example, one in 40 million hours, or something like that.

Probably not because I assume extraordinary decision making skill went into Sully's decision. However, if it was a logical thought process, and I assume it was, computers are supremely logical and usually fast enough to compute this sort of thing. The question is, does the source code provide for enough contingencies.

When I was a teenager I loved chess. My parents bought me a fairly expensive toy computer to play which knew a lot of strategies and tactics. It was very fast and it beat me without mercy for months until I learned all the standard tricks and chess plays, and it was daunting. I clearly recall one point when I started winning against it though, and it was because I could simply look ahead farther than the computer could looking for possible combinations. I had begun thinking like a chess player and had more computing power of my own. So if you want to make a good criticism of computers, it's that they really do not think, they compute, and they have limited power. The task is to reduce the amount of thinking they need to do to some absurdly small and accordingly safe level. There are no guarantees and no absolutes.

This one is a moving target kind of question. Like existing computers, drone computers will require regular updates to their security code in order to be safe. The question is cost, is keeping them safe worth the cost of the R&D required to find new threats and counter them. But as with any security issue, you cannot have 100% security, you can only hope to stay a bit ahead of the threat. We do this with humans too, before we use a human pilot we make sure they pass an FBI check to get the job, and they must go through scanners and so on each time they fly. The system is good but not perfect. All it has to be is slightly better than the threat it is designed to prevent.

USMCFLYR

And yet all the drones do is takeoff and land, under some fairly strict limitations, fly to a designated point in space and they may hold there for hours and hours on end employing sensors and gathering intelligence.
They don't maneuver aggressively in either air-to-ground or air-to-air engagements, they don't fly formation in multi-plane environments (possibly in IMC conditions), they don't fly low levels at 500 kts at 100-200' pulling G's.
I just don't see a fair comparison here in mishap rates when not operating in the same environment; but I do see why they would try and push those rates to further an existing agenda.

Grumble

Shack. We're talking about a model airplane, with the speed/performance of a C-172, and an engine from the homebuilt market (which has been outstanding in that field), and they can't reliably take off, orbit, and land again. I know the reasons, I've worked with them, and I know the technical hurdles. I'm not slamming the community at all, but for all these reasons this is why you probably won't see 121 UAV ops, at least not on a global scale.

Amazon delivering your new adult toys via pocket drone? You're just a few rednecks, a box of shells and a case of beer short of that being a losing venture.

tonyp

The amazon this is just a stunt....not really practical at all.

tonyp

Yeah from a practical standpoint we have a ways to go before this become a reality. I like the way you worded the question, theoretically we are ready but practically....not so much.

Redeyz

I'm glad atleast one person appreciates the question.

Part of the reason I proposed the question the way I did was,

When I think of the complexity of 2 pilots trying to handle a V1 cut in the simulator, how there can be several iterations of the outcome. I know of an MD11 engine that came apart, but only partially. This partial engine that departed the pylon around FL180 created a ginormous asymmetrical rotation that the crew reported that they believed the airplane would break apart in flight.

The more difficult part of this engine failure was that the part of the engine that departed the aircraft also took with it part of the leading edge slats, with the associated hydro leak. Point being, the aircrafts' computer (EICAS on 75/76) that assists pilots managing the emergency did not know which emergency to handle first (engine failure, hydro leak, or broken wing). The pilots that were not getting much guidance from the computer engineer and hadn't seen this emergency in the sim (the engineers hadn't anticipated this emergency) had to clean their shorts and then insert themselves into the checklist they felt was the most appropriate at the time and methodically work the checklists they could, all the while returning to departure airport. (There was a jumpseater that was rated on the a/c and assisted with checklist execution).

Point being, it's an enormous ask of engineers to design complex multi-engine aircraft to safely handle engine failures, multi emergency situations like this, or the miracle on the Hudson.

Also, how would ATC handle the return to departure airport and comm/control, and integrate the emergency aircraft back to the departure airfield or new landing airport. How would the integration (speed, altitude, vectoring) be accomplished? My brother is an ATC controller and our current system is woefully underfunded by the Fed govt. With the USA's lack of govt funds, to upgrade the ATC system to comm/control drones (crippled or not) from piloted aircraft or a system made up entirely of drones, seems impossible with our Congress and budgetary woes.

CrimsonEclipse

could a computer safely deal with all forms of hazardous weather?

As well or better than a human

could a computer still fly after a major system malfunction?

As well or better than a human
(see self healing systems)

could a computer safely deal with all forms of hazardous weather after a major system malfunction?

As well or better than a human
(see above)

could a computer make a sound aeronautical decision based on information that does not conform to it's programming?

likely

could a computer pull off the "miracle on the hudson"?

It would have glided back to the airport. (it had plenty of altitude)

could a computer be hacked by an evil-doer?

DUR, no. computerz r the perfects!
I'd NEvar run somethin special with it, like a nukular powar plant!

Cubdriver

Redeye, your example of engine out scenarios brings up the fact that most of the existing winged UAVs we see in present military applications are single engine aircraft. Obviously there is a limit to the weight such a machine can carry, but up to that point the single engine design solves many problems attending asymmetrical engine failure. Automated controls can be devised to steer a drone with any number of powerplants missing, but cascading failure scenerios may prove to be a limiting factor in drone capacity. One thing that often fazes a computer is the scenario where several options are all about equal in value. That is one thing a human excels at, ie. bringing personal experience to bear in complex situations where several options appear to be equal.

Redeyz

Drones now have six American ?test ranges? in which to fly | Ars Technica


The above article that awards drone testing at several sites throughout the US.

Who knows what the future has in store.