For the younger guys
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,093
For the younger guys
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
Last edited by Name User; 09-23-2019 at 06:20 AM.
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
#3
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
#5
The public is not going to get into a pilot-less aircraft for decades...if ever. We can thank Sully for this
If a computer were the PIC? Turn to nearest and glide...until short final ended up being apartments and the 1s and 0s literally crash IVO TEB.
If a computer were the PIC? Turn to nearest and glide...until short final ended up being apartments and the 1s and 0s literally crash IVO TEB.
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,611
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
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.
It will be ironic if AMTs, rampers, gate agents and FAs continue to have jobs and we do not...
#8
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.
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.
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.
#9
From a technical, economic, and political perspective it can't be a minute less than 50 years...
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.
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.
#10
I've been saying that autonomous cars are further away than some of the visionaries promised, and that reality has arrived.
The "last mile" of reliable autonomy is exponentially harder... VERY exponentially.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1W81AE
Actually I think you might first see autonomy is eVOTL/UAM... the operating environment is less complex than for surface vehicles, weather avoidance is just a go/no-go decision before you leave, and unlike an airliner you can just pull over and stop almost anywhere (unless you take a waterfowl through your eFan but that's another issue). The eVOTL folks wanted a reduced safety standard of 10(-8), but the Europeans are holding them to 10(-9) so that will drive the development process regardless of what the FAA does. Unlikely they'll design US-only eVOTLs to a lower standard than Europe... that would be hard to explain to a jury hearing a lawsuit.
The "last mile" of reliable autonomy is exponentially harder... VERY exponentially.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1W81AE
Actually I think you might first see autonomy is eVOTL/UAM... the operating environment is less complex than for surface vehicles, weather avoidance is just a go/no-go decision before you leave, and unlike an airliner you can just pull over and stop almost anywhere (unless you take a waterfowl through your eFan but that's another issue). The eVOTL folks wanted a reduced safety standard of 10(-8), but the Europeans are holding them to 10(-9) so that will drive the development process regardless of what the FAA does. Unlikely they'll design US-only eVOTLs to a lower standard than Europe... that would be hard to explain to a jury hearing a lawsuit.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post