Can automated systems deal with unique events?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are now about a thousand different way to feed info to an autonomous system, and unlike humans, they don't get swamped by inputs.
The more inputs you have, the less likely a spurious one will cause confusion.
Oh look. Even cheap toy drones can see now.....
MIT drone knows how to swerve to avoid crashes - BBC News
The more inputs you have, the less likely a spurious one will cause confusion.
Oh look. Even cheap toy drones can see now.....
MIT drone knows how to swerve to avoid crashes - BBC News
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
_Phoenix
turbulence = noised input for inertial. Good luck with that:
turbulence = noised input for inertial. Good luck with that:
As for the old pitot debate. The requirement is not to measure airspeed, but the air's ability to support the lift you want to generate and interlinked the amount of drag that that will result in. Give or take, a pitot static system does this directly. I can't think of any other method that will, so we would then have to measure some other property or properties and carry out a translation. That's why pitots are still with us. Yes they ice, but then they de-ice pretty quickly too, so you are left having to maintain stable flight for a relatively short time until you get them back. It appears to be the case that misleading airspeed is the dangerous condition. Take away airspeed and pilots adapt using other fall back parameters. But present airspeeds that contradict other indications and rapidly SA is lost as pilots try to establish what they need to use to "steer" safely, meanwhile the machine already has a large set of reliable inputs it can use to maintain safe flight.
So back to my original point.
Give the correct information to the pilots to let them decide what to do, then let the machine get on with the doing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
automatic cars will 'always' see the hazard and avoid it to a much higher standard than humans. However, they will frequently surprise the human who thinks he could have bent the rule and gotten in and then is surprised the automatic car didn't move out of the way.
I wonder. The sensors can only 'see' so far in front. If I'm on a twisty road with good visibility I'm looking across the corners to see what's coming, and even what's ahead of me in my one and adjusting speed accordingly to avoid having to brake at last minute. The same is true at higher speeds on the motorway. I'm looking way ahead to anticipate a problem, be a necessary lane change, a speed up or slow down to avoid entering a risk zone; and I'm looking in 360 degrees to anticipate action/threats approaching from behind or even to the side; and that threat can be detected many cars in front or the rear.
It might be possible for transponder equipped cars to talk to each other and tell each other what they are doing, but what about what they are going to do? And that will require 100% compatible equipment fitted.
Regarding just the motorway system; it is thought that automatic car control with equal speed and no lane changes, with short spacing, will increase capacity and avoid jams. A steady flow of piston in a cylinder type traffic flow. It might work, but only when there is a 100% compliance. That might then become a requirement to use such roads. It'd be quicker to get from MAN to LON with the car on a high speed train than on the road, perhaps.
I wonder. The sensors can only 'see' so far in front. If I'm on a twisty road with good visibility I'm looking across the corners to see what's coming, and even what's ahead of me in my one and adjusting speed accordingly to avoid having to brake at last minute. The same is true at higher speeds on the motorway. I'm looking way ahead to anticipate a problem, be a necessary lane change, a speed up or slow down to avoid entering a risk zone; and I'm looking in 360 degrees to anticipate action/threats approaching from behind or even to the side; and that threat can be detected many cars in front or the rear.
It might be possible for transponder equipped cars to talk to each other and tell each other what they are doing, but what about what they are going to do? And that will require 100% compatible equipment fitted.
Regarding just the motorway system; it is thought that automatic car control with equal speed and no lane changes, with short spacing, will increase capacity and avoid jams. A steady flow of piston in a cylinder type traffic flow. It might work, but only when there is a 100% compliance. That might then become a requirement to use such roads. It'd be quicker to get from MAN to LON with the car on a high speed train than on the road, perhaps.
My understanding is that image processing and recognition is the big Achilles heel for high power computer systemsat the moment.
Developing say a FBW architecture, even the learning/damage compensating kind is easier as the inputs and outputs are both very easily specified and provided. However, the ability to use visual/IR imaging and then to make sense of that picture and act appropriately is very challenging at the moment.
Self-driving cars manage because road signs and cars are simple, predictable shapes and easy for an image recognition program to "learn" - an autonomous or optionally crewed aircraft out there will not have at luxury, but be able to visually interpret anything the world can throw at it.
This is one task the human brain is bloody brilliant at compared to computers. The oft-quoted example is some,body throwing a tennis ball at you - a human has seen, recognised and caught it before a modern computer has identified it and the way the brain recognises objects is still somewhat of a mystery so we don't really know how we can train computers to do it efficiently.
Autonomous flights between Heathrow and Frankfurt? Maybe. Autonomous flights into any Greek island of your choice with nothing but a ****e VOR or a visual? That is the real challenge for automated air transport - to match the flexibility of the current system without massive infrastructure expenditure.
Developing say a FBW architecture, even the learning/damage compensating kind is easier as the inputs and outputs are both very easily specified and provided. However, the ability to use visual/IR imaging and then to make sense of that picture and act appropriately is very challenging at the moment.
Self-driving cars manage because road signs and cars are simple, predictable shapes and easy for an image recognition program to "learn" - an autonomous or optionally crewed aircraft out there will not have at luxury, but be able to visually interpret anything the world can throw at it.
This is one task the human brain is bloody brilliant at compared to computers. The oft-quoted example is some,body throwing a tennis ball at you - a human has seen, recognised and caught it before a modern computer has identified it and the way the brain recognises objects is still somewhat of a mystery so we don't really know how we can train computers to do it efficiently.
Autonomous flights between Heathrow and Frankfurt? Maybe. Autonomous flights into any Greek island of your choice with nothing but a ****e VOR or a visual? That is the real challenge for automated air transport - to match the flexibility of the current system without massive infrastructure expenditure.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jwscud
I sometimes wonder why I bother.
Did you actually watch the video I just posted?
It clearly shows a toy drone interpreting the world so as not to hit things.
This is not supercomputer stuff, this is toy drone level tech.
Re the catching a ball.
Watch the TED talk I posted earlier. It shows both catching and using a racquet to bounce back a ball(considerably harder than merely catching) plus doing it in autonomous teams.
RAT 5
You say that the sensors "can only see so far in front"
This is true of human eyes.
A computer could combine EO/IR radar UV LIDAR etc giving clear view in fog etc. Vastly superior to the human eye.
Modern military aircraft do not go hunting using eyes. Their range is too limited. Google EO DAS F35 for what a true all round view is.
I sometimes wonder why I bother.
Did you actually watch the video I just posted?
It clearly shows a toy drone interpreting the world so as not to hit things.
This is not supercomputer stuff, this is toy drone level tech.
Re the catching a ball.
Watch the TED talk I posted earlier. It shows both catching and using a racquet to bounce back a ball(considerably harder than merely catching) plus doing it in autonomous teams.
RAT 5
You say that the sensors "can only see so far in front"
This is true of human eyes.
A computer could combine EO/IR radar UV LIDAR etc giving clear view in fog etc. Vastly superior to the human eye.
Modern military aircraft do not go hunting using eyes. Their range is too limited. Google EO DAS F35 for what a true all round view is.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jwscud
My understanding is that image processing and recognition is the big Achilles heel for high power computer systemsat the moment.
I've seen a stereo camera system that can interpret a lot of information in real time. With some relatively simple high contrast markings it can give orientation, speed and distance/height above runway etc.
Infra-structure costs would not be that great IMHO. A combination of Rad Nav for identification, then DGPS plus "visual" can deal with most of it.
But, for me, there isn't a lot of advantage unless we're talking about cargo aircraft. Better place our efforts elsewhere.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Image processing
I don't think the main challenge is processor power these days, although that is an issue. The really hard part - still very much in the research area - is making sense of the image. These days, smart phones and cameras can detect faces, for example. But, there's a lot more you want these devices to be able to do - to match human image analysis and even go beyond. I expect rapid progress to continue in this area, but it gets into hard AI.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad that the discussion has separated between flying & operating; and concluded, I think, that computers, now, are great at repetitive actions and humans are better at reasoning. Predicting the future is always difficult and AI may catch up with us.
What I perceive is that a computer is great at deciding on an action based on certain parameters; it then has a feedback loop to decide if that action is successful and will adjust its response until it achieves the required success. An experienced human can go through a lot of 'what if I do this, then that will happen, but if I do the other then something else will happen ...' type of thinking and decide on the best 1st course of action from various options. Then the human feedback loop will start. i.e. there can be quite a lot of reasoning before the first action based on an expected best & successful outcome. Plan B, C, D will always be in the background. I wonder if AI will ever be trusted fully by politicians in foreign policy decisions, or by generals in deciding war & battle strategy. I'm not sure of the human v computer chess score at the moment. There will be those who have a deeper knowledge than I of what is already in use or contemplated: it doesn't always mean it's the best method. It's very easy to let things run away from us.
What I perceive is that a computer is great at deciding on an action based on certain parameters; it then has a feedback loop to decide if that action is successful and will adjust its response until it achieves the required success. An experienced human can go through a lot of 'what if I do this, then that will happen, but if I do the other then something else will happen ...' type of thinking and decide on the best 1st course of action from various options. Then the human feedback loop will start. i.e. there can be quite a lot of reasoning before the first action based on an expected best & successful outcome. Plan B, C, D will always be in the background. I wonder if AI will ever be trusted fully by politicians in foreign policy decisions, or by generals in deciding war & battle strategy. I'm not sure of the human v computer chess score at the moment. There will be those who have a deeper knowledge than I of what is already in use or contemplated: it doesn't always mean it's the best method. It's very easy to let things run away from us.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find the sport is now how much of a head start does the computer need to give the grand masters to have an interesting game. A straight up grand master v machine match is like watching Arsenal v a strong club team. Arsenal could loose on the day, but not very likely, but if you take three of Arsenal's players off the pitch it could be quite an exciting and even match
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A+B=C series
I admit that I'm a bit subjective regarding Bombardier brand, however I strongly believe in their approach and vision of the integration human-machine. The new design of fly by wire platform and enhanged cockpit take the best of A&B experiences and technology and go beyond, bringing the best technology available and fenomenal design. The flight deck offers best situational awarness and enhanged pilot sensing, directly through HUD (extrasensorial of machine) i.e. night vision, advanced landing guidance, syntetic 3D vision of runway and relief, GPWS, windshear. The fly by wire is robust and reliable with only two laws: normal and direct.
More interesting details in videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0qQrMaLYw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OghtdzFXFoo
More interesting details in videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0qQrMaLYw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OghtdzFXFoo
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who cares
This is my first post here, after several years. Its long unfortunately.
I am a GA pilot, not commercial. I work in IT as a programmer.
I think the thrust of most of the comments in this thread are misguided.
The question of dealing with unique events, while interesting, is not important.
The real question is will computer pilots increase safety and the answer is almost certainly yes.
Lets look at pros and cons of computer pilots. Read this list and think about fatal accidents over the last 20 years.
Pros:
- they dont get tired
- they dont have wives,children, husbands, pets, medical conditions, financial worries,
which leads to:
- they dont have anxieties
- they are not religious, they do not believe in an afterlife, in fact they do not believe in anything
- they never go the to bathroom, or need to eat
- they do not go to sleep
- they do net get distracted by trivia
- they never forget a checklist item
- they do not suffer from getthereitis
- they dont worry about losing their jobs
- they do not lie
- can can handle 10, 20 30 ... inputs at once without getting confused
- they do maths really well and never make a mistakes in unit conversions
- they never panic
- they never need checks, and additional development can be done offline
- upgrades can be done to entire fleets at once, or over any period deemed sensible
- they double in capacity every 2-3 years
- they are cheap and light
- incremental cost of deployment is zero so scaling is easy
- they dont have sex, or get distracted by pretty/handsome pilots or cabin crew
- they never worry about daughters getting pregnet, or sons becoming drug addicts
- they do not have heart attacks, fainting spells, hangovers ....
- they never forget to feather props, turn off/on fuel pumps....
- they dont need oxygen or heat
- they can compute optimum settings in no time.
- they do not suffer from confirmation bias
- they never get ATC instructions wrong (protocol required but trivial)
This list is endless..
Cons:
- they dont handle strange/unforeseen situations well
- they are not afraid to die
- a flaw in one is a flaw in all
Now for humans:
Pros:
- they can handle strange/unforeseen situations well, but most dont
Cons:
- see list of computer pros and negate them all
In any sensible analysis, the computer wins once it can do the job.
And that is if not today, then real soon.
As for me, I would feel much safer on a pilotless aircraft just like I feel comfortable on a driverless train.
Oh, and despite the fact I love driving my car and would hate to not be able to do that,
I am pretty sure a driverless care much safer than I am. Its annoying, but its true.
Sure, some accidents will occur they maybe could have been prevented by a human pilot.
Who cares, as long as more accidents are prevented because there are no human pilits.
Its about percentages. Get used to it.
I am a GA pilot, not commercial. I work in IT as a programmer.
I think the thrust of most of the comments in this thread are misguided.
The question of dealing with unique events, while interesting, is not important.
The real question is will computer pilots increase safety and the answer is almost certainly yes.
Lets look at pros and cons of computer pilots. Read this list and think about fatal accidents over the last 20 years.
Pros:
- they dont get tired
- they dont have wives,children, husbands, pets, medical conditions, financial worries,
which leads to:
- they dont have anxieties
- they are not religious, they do not believe in an afterlife, in fact they do not believe in anything
- they never go the to bathroom, or need to eat
- they do not go to sleep
- they do net get distracted by trivia
- they never forget a checklist item
- they do not suffer from getthereitis
- they dont worry about losing their jobs
- they do not lie
- can can handle 10, 20 30 ... inputs at once without getting confused
- they do maths really well and never make a mistakes in unit conversions
- they never panic
- they never need checks, and additional development can be done offline
- upgrades can be done to entire fleets at once, or over any period deemed sensible
- they double in capacity every 2-3 years
- they are cheap and light
- incremental cost of deployment is zero so scaling is easy
- they dont have sex, or get distracted by pretty/handsome pilots or cabin crew
- they never worry about daughters getting pregnet, or sons becoming drug addicts
- they do not have heart attacks, fainting spells, hangovers ....
- they never forget to feather props, turn off/on fuel pumps....
- they dont need oxygen or heat
- they can compute optimum settings in no time.
- they do not suffer from confirmation bias
- they never get ATC instructions wrong (protocol required but trivial)
This list is endless..
Cons:
- they dont handle strange/unforeseen situations well
- they are not afraid to die
- a flaw in one is a flaw in all
Now for humans:
Pros:
- they can handle strange/unforeseen situations well, but most dont
Cons:
- see list of computer pros and negate them all
In any sensible analysis, the computer wins once it can do the job.
And that is if not today, then real soon.
As for me, I would feel much safer on a pilotless aircraft just like I feel comfortable on a driverless train.
Oh, and despite the fact I love driving my car and would hate to not be able to do that,
I am pretty sure a driverless care much safer than I am. Its annoying, but its true.
Sure, some accidents will occur they maybe could have been prevented by a human pilot.
Who cares, as long as more accidents are prevented because there are no human pilits.
Its about percentages. Get used to it.
Metadalek, that is a brilliant post!
Summed up perfectly too, with the bit about percentages.
I feel that we are seeing the last generation of pilots commencing their flying lessons today who will actually finish their careers flying large aircraft.
Humans may fly turboprop aircraft to regional destinations and in the third world for a generation or two beyond that because the costs of smaller aircraft total automation will probably remain unaffordable for longer.
Also, when a turboprop augers in somewhere in Africa and kills 50 people the legal fallout is not likely to concentrate minds as much as the first A380 crash to be caused by pilot error will.
Summed up perfectly too, with the bit about percentages.
I feel that we are seeing the last generation of pilots commencing their flying lessons today who will actually finish their careers flying large aircraft.
Humans may fly turboprop aircraft to regional destinations and in the third world for a generation or two beyond that because the costs of smaller aircraft total automation will probably remain unaffordable for longer.
Also, when a turboprop augers in somewhere in Africa and kills 50 people the legal fallout is not likely to concentrate minds as much as the first A380 crash to be caused by pilot error will.
The question of dealing with unique events, while interesting, is not important.
The real question is will computer pilots increase safety and the answer is almost certainly yes.
The real question is will computer pilots increase safety and the answer is almost certainly yes.
Whilst computers may do a whole bunch of things better than humans the middle of the Atlantic or the Indian Ocean at F370 in the middle of the night is not the time to find out some bizarre problem with the autonomous machine that no one thought of. Presently if that happens the human can always hand fly to the alternate. QANTAS has had at least 3 incidents which were 'never supposed to happen' that I can recall off the top of my head.
If you look at the accident rate of Western Airlines you will find the accident rate is ludicrously low and the fatality rate is even lower.
The questions are:
1. Can autonomous aircraft beat that fatality rate?
2. Can they do it cheaper than pilots do now?
Single pilot airliner ops in the future are probably going to happen.
Full blown autonomous airliners are probably going to be deemed to much of a risk and I would suggest that regulator and/or insurance companies will probably make it difficult. Regulation is something that the tech industry is not particularly used to dealing with or does very well.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we agree
I think you are missing the point in that if we go to autonomous aircraft all that happens is that the safety risk shifts from one risk to another.
Can autonomous aircraft beat that fatality rate?
Can they do it cheaper than pilots do now?
If you look at the accident rate of Western Airlines you will find the accident rate is ludicrously low and the fatality rate is even lower.
As for regulation, the people making the rules are not idiots, and its a mistake to think they are. They will change regulations as soon as they are convinced it produces the outcomes they desire.
As for the public, people adapt amazing quickly. There will always be some who resist, but I suspect most people simply do not care. I certainly don't.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single pilot airliner ops in the future are probably going to happen.
Let's consider future FTL's. A/C can now fly for 16+ hours. What of the future? Imagine a single pilot on board an automatic a/c crossing the world's oceans. Launch, enter oceanic airspace, engage autonomous automatics according to transit clearance and then go to sleep in a cockpit bunk. 5-6 hours later wake up and carry on. Using current split duty rules you could be on duty for an outrageous period. It would not be surprising, reflecting on past performance of XAA's & EASA, that FTL's are adjusted to match a/c performance and extended even more. With automatic a/c and cockpit bunks, hugely lengthy duty periods on ultra long-haul flights with single pilots might well be approved. What horrors.
Let's consider future FTL's. A/C can now fly for 16+ hours. What of the future? Imagine a single pilot on board an automatic a/c crossing the world's oceans. Launch, enter oceanic airspace, engage autonomous automatics according to transit clearance and then go to sleep in a cockpit bunk. 5-6 hours later wake up and carry on. Using current split duty rules you could be on duty for an outrageous period. It would not be surprising, reflecting on past performance of XAA's & EASA, that FTL's are adjusted to match a/c performance and extended even more. With automatic a/c and cockpit bunks, hugely lengthy duty periods on ultra long-haul flights with single pilots might well be approved. What horrors.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if all you were doing was sleeping when you fancied it or reading a book/ watching a movie would that be awful? Assuming the aircraft was on automatics, which I don't think anybody on here disagrees is entirely possible at least in the case of normal ops without emergencies, there would be no requirement to be involved with the aircraft in any way unless there was a problem.
Easy 20 hours "work"
Easy 20 hours "work"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full blown autonomous airliners are probably going to be deemed to much of a risk and I would suggest that regulator and/or insurance companies will probably make it difficult. Regulation is something that the tech industry is not particularly used to dealing with or does very well.
This evidence will be gathered from autonomous military freight (already happening) and eventually civvy freight.