Can automated systems deal with unique events?
designers and programmers are human
Designers and programmers make all the same types of errors that pilots do. The big difference is that pilots own lives are at stake. Design and programming problems can never be fully overcome, so onboard pilots will always remain essential for pax ops.IMHO.
SEABREEZE.
SEABREEZE.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea breeze
Do you have any evidence that that is true whatsoever? Even a tiny bit of evidence to support it?
Follow that thought to it's logical conclusion.
Humans designed the wings too.....
If humans make errors, and we all agree they do, why is it an advantage to have humans onboard when we accept they are going to make more errors.
One of the good things about an automated aircraft is that at least the same error won't keep occurring. They wil all have perfect recall of previous mistakes and what didn't work..
Having your own life at stake makes you care more. Caring more does not make you better at doing your job.
Having your life at stake can lead to fear and stress.
Up to a point stress is good....
Do you have any evidence that that is true whatsoever? Even a tiny bit of evidence to support it?
Follow that thought to it's logical conclusion.
Humans designed the wings too.....
If humans make errors, and we all agree they do, why is it an advantage to have humans onboard when we accept they are going to make more errors.
One of the good things about an automated aircraft is that at least the same error won't keep occurring. They wil all have perfect recall of previous mistakes and what didn't work..
Having your own life at stake makes you care more. Caring more does not make you better at doing your job.
Having your life at stake can lead to fear and stress.
Up to a point stress is good....
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Upsate NY
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are cheaper than billions ?
Assuming 50,000 pilots flying for flag carriers at $200,000 per year, the annual pay for airline pilots is 10 billion a year.
At current crew pay rates, 30 billion dollars of R&D is reasonable investment to remove pilots from the cockpit.
As far as the cost of hardware it's a wash - removal of TSO displays etc., cover the cost and weight of the extra computers. The communications bandwidth and security issues are being addressed outside the aviation community and on the way via new SATCOM networks.
The question is how, when and where - people are running the numbers and drafting schedules today.
Timelines being developed suggest - 12+- 5 years for airfreight add 10+-5 more for PAX.
At current crew pay rates, 30 billion dollars of R&D is reasonable investment to remove pilots from the cockpit.
As far as the cost of hardware it's a wash - removal of TSO displays etc., cover the cost and weight of the extra computers. The communications bandwidth and security issues are being addressed outside the aviation community and on the way via new SATCOM networks.
The question is how, when and where - people are running the numbers and drafting schedules today.
Timelines being developed suggest - 12+- 5 years for airfreight add 10+-5 more for PAX.
Last edited by harpf; 31st Oct 2015 at 07:53.
Airbus view on Automation
Airbus would seem to have the greatest amount of experience in this area and they don't seem to think automation is all dependable. Hence Airbuses being relatively quick to announce "you have control" and change to one of the other "Laws" if "Hal" doesn't like the data.
KB
KB
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is so similar to those in other media about self driving cars.
There's so much talk about the "programming" of the computer systems, but it's not programming that's the problem.
The real problem is that artificial intelligence isn't actually about programming, deep down. Given that no-one agrees how to define intelligence, or conciousness, it's difficult to see how a truly artificially intelligent aircraft can be envisaged at present.
And if real AI CAN be built, it opens a whole new can of worms anyway.
There's so much talk about the "programming" of the computer systems, but it's not programming that's the problem.
The real problem is that artificial intelligence isn't actually about programming, deep down. Given that no-one agrees how to define intelligence, or conciousness, it's difficult to see how a truly artificially intelligent aircraft can be envisaged at present.
And if real AI CAN be built, it opens a whole new can of worms anyway.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot and instructor myself I would say yes, pilots can be replaced by good technology.
For any abnormal event, we train pilots to follow procedures. Some abnormal events have defined procedures, others you need to make it up as you go - but based on a structured process of elimination. No doubt a machine would do a great job if programmed properly.
Anyone who say's it's not possible lacks imagination!
For any abnormal event, we train pilots to follow procedures. Some abnormal events have defined procedures, others you need to make it up as you go - but based on a structured process of elimination. No doubt a machine would do a great job if programmed properly.
Anyone who say's it's not possible lacks imagination!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Upsate NY
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remotely piloted with autonomous operation as an emergency condition vs HAL acting a
Keep in mind that current designs being looked at are remotely piloted with autonomous operation as an emergency condition vs HAL acting as PIC.
The first step is to automate the QRM, the second task is data link system with a probability of lost link < 1x10-6. The chance of having lost link and an event that cannot be solved by the QRM should be on the order of < 1x10-12.
when the data link goes down the aircraft executes the lost com procedure as defined in the AIM and does a CAT III landing per the AFM / AIM as well.
The first step is to automate the QRM, the second task is data link system with a probability of lost link < 1x10-6. The chance of having lost link and an event that cannot be solved by the QRM should be on the order of < 1x10-12.
when the data link goes down the aircraft executes the lost com procedure as defined in the AIM and does a CAT III landing per the AFM / AIM as well.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus would seem to have the greatest amount of experience in this area and they don't seem to think automation is all dependable. Hence Airbuses being relatively quick to announce "you have control" and change to one of the other "Laws" if "Hal" doesn't like the data.
KB
KB
The "current" airbus types are all 80s tech.
They were not designed to be autonomous, so they are not autonomous.
Honda makes lawnmowers that you push.
Because they are for pushing, they don't make them capable of autonomy.
Honda is capable of making an autonomous lawnmower.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is so similar to those in other media about self driving cars.
There's so much talk about the "programming" of the computer systems, but it's not programming that's the problem.
The real problem is that artificial intelligence isn't actually about programming, deep down. Given that no-one agrees how to define intelligence, or conciousness, it's difficult to see how a truly artificially intelligent aircraft can be envisaged at present.
And if real AI CAN be built, it opens a whole new can of worms anyway.
There's so much talk about the "programming" of the computer systems, but it's not programming that's the problem.
The real problem is that artificial intelligence isn't actually about programming, deep down. Given that no-one agrees how to define intelligence, or conciousness, it's difficult to see how a truly artificially intelligent aircraft can be envisaged at present.
And if real AI CAN be built, it opens a whole new can of worms anyway.
Neural networks etc yes.
The last thing anyone wants is an AI. It might get bored. Or angry.
You are correct though that it is very much like the chat about self driving cars.
In both cases there are legions saying it cannot and will not ever be done, and in both cases people are going ahead and doing it anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East in the hills
Age: 61
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst automation can vastly improve safety in any form of transportation. In an unsterile environ such as roads most current railways and passenger carrying flight, this is never going to be fulfilled by current technologies. The human eye and mind are simply far to complex to replace.
However it is a positive thing if for instance algorithms can be run as currently do to maintain safe limits of flight to avoid stalls or damaging the AC or in case of railways, remaining within track speeds and braking zones for signals and reacting if the driver fails to respond in time.
This protection is now being applied to many family cars such as the VW radar and adaptive cruise system providing collision warning and intervention at low speed to avoid pedestrian and vehicle impacts by applying the brakes.
Where the mk1 eyeball and most human brains , especially trained ones excel is spotting subtle warnings of impending danger which a machine can never do
Example final approach and taxying AC or ground vehicle spotted encroaching The PIC can then decide if the danger is a threat to the AC and go around
Many other scenarios such as Hudson river where having an experienced PIC prevented a disaster and no current technology would have pulled that off autonomously not to mention communicating with the tower
Recent railway example , one of many on the railways where a driver noticed something amiss from noticing dangerous flood waters near a bridge to livestock on the trackside or dangerous load on another passing train
On this occasion driver had muddy water hit his windscreen passing through Old St tunnel north London and he immediately contacted control . All trains stopped and inspection train sent in at low speed to find massive piling drill bit from building site above penetrated roof and now blocking tracks. Had that been the driverless DLR, the consequences are all to easy to realise.
If you still need a skilled human to take over, then make their workload easier and more pleasant but never remove completely from the equation
I for one would never wish to fly on a pilotless airline
However it is a positive thing if for instance algorithms can be run as currently do to maintain safe limits of flight to avoid stalls or damaging the AC or in case of railways, remaining within track speeds and braking zones for signals and reacting if the driver fails to respond in time.
This protection is now being applied to many family cars such as the VW radar and adaptive cruise system providing collision warning and intervention at low speed to avoid pedestrian and vehicle impacts by applying the brakes.
Where the mk1 eyeball and most human brains , especially trained ones excel is spotting subtle warnings of impending danger which a machine can never do
Example final approach and taxying AC or ground vehicle spotted encroaching The PIC can then decide if the danger is a threat to the AC and go around
Many other scenarios such as Hudson river where having an experienced PIC prevented a disaster and no current technology would have pulled that off autonomously not to mention communicating with the tower
Recent railway example , one of many on the railways where a driver noticed something amiss from noticing dangerous flood waters near a bridge to livestock on the trackside or dangerous load on another passing train
On this occasion driver had muddy water hit his windscreen passing through Old St tunnel north London and he immediately contacted control . All trains stopped and inspection train sent in at low speed to find massive piling drill bit from building site above penetrated roof and now blocking tracks. Had that been the driverless DLR, the consequences are all to easy to realise.
If you still need a skilled human to take over, then make their workload easier and more pleasant but never remove completely from the equation
I for one would never wish to fly on a pilotless airline
Last edited by staplefordheli; 31st Oct 2015 at 13:12. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst automation can vastly improve safety in any form of transportation. In an unsterile environ such as roads most current railways and passenger carrying flight, this is never going to be fulfilled by current technologies. The human eye and mind are simply far to complex to replace.
If you had bothered, you would have found a host of fully autonomous railways worldwide for decades.
You would also have very quickly found the large number of autonomous cars currently on our roads or in trials from serious manufacturers. These have invested billions in the technology, and they are companies that don't mess around. If they think they can do it, then unless you are astonishingly knowledgable in the field, you're a brave man to bet against them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol3g7i64RAI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ng-driver.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxZC0lgOlc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdSR...ature=youtu.be
http://www.cnet.com/news/mercedes-be...f-driving-car/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elo...ess-2015-07-31
Various serious players in the military aviation scene are working very hard to field autonomous military aircraft. The challenges of military aircraft are an order of magnitude higher than passenger carrying flight.
BAe are however flying a trial passenger aircraft.
The human eye is amazing, but is not in the same ballpark as the wealth of sensors available to a computer. EO/IR radar LIDAR etc etc. They can see in IMC.
More importantly, it will actually be looking every moment of the flight, rather than reading the paper like a human pilot. If Airliner manufacturers intended or relied on the pilot to be looking out, then the would put them in a cockpit with decent vis like a fighter.
Last edited by Tourist; 31st Oct 2015 at 15:51.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a philosophical note:
All computers are built of circuitry that can perform a discrete set of operations, which can be reduced to the NAND (logical not-and) operation. Rigourous mathematical analysis shows that systems built from arbitrary numbers of such parts can compute a set of mathematical functions. So in a sense, all computers using a sufficiently rich 'language' (containing if-then and a loop instruction) are equally powerful in terms of what can be computed in finite time. Hilbert, a century ago, along these lines formulated a mathematical challenge to proof that a simple formalizable system / 'computer language', arithmetic, is free of internal contradictions.
Kurt Godel came with an answer to Hilbert's problem that surprised everyone: he gave a proof that for every formal system (such as a decription of the reality of aviation, formulated in computer languages) there are theorems that are true but that are not algoritmically provable within the formal system. This means that there always exist correct conclusions about how to fly a plane that AI cannot draw.
An interesting point is that for us humans, using 'insight', it is possible to 'see' that these theorems are true. Godel's theorem puts a fundamental limit on what AI can do, even in a world where software is perfect.
To get a flavour of Godels theorem:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/ic...les/boolos.pdf .
All computers are built of circuitry that can perform a discrete set of operations, which can be reduced to the NAND (logical not-and) operation. Rigourous mathematical analysis shows that systems built from arbitrary numbers of such parts can compute a set of mathematical functions. So in a sense, all computers using a sufficiently rich 'language' (containing if-then and a loop instruction) are equally powerful in terms of what can be computed in finite time. Hilbert, a century ago, along these lines formulated a mathematical challenge to proof that a simple formalizable system / 'computer language', arithmetic, is free of internal contradictions.
Kurt Godel came with an answer to Hilbert's problem that surprised everyone: he gave a proof that for every formal system (such as a decription of the reality of aviation, formulated in computer languages) there are theorems that are true but that are not algoritmically provable within the formal system. This means that there always exist correct conclusions about how to fly a plane that AI cannot draw.
An interesting point is that for us humans, using 'insight', it is possible to 'see' that these theorems are true. Godel's theorem puts a fundamental limit on what AI can do, even in a world where software is perfect.
To get a flavour of Godels theorem:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/ic...les/boolos.pdf .
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuntpilot
1. Nobody is trying to make an AI fly a plane.
2. Do you honestly believe that in 1000yrs there will not be a computer smarter than us, because that is the only conclusion to be drawn from your statement about fundamental limits?
3. Is your point of view in any way influenced by belief in some brand of sky fairy perhaps?
1. Nobody is trying to make an AI fly a plane.
2. Do you honestly believe that in 1000yrs there will not be a computer smarter than us, because that is the only conclusion to be drawn from your statement about fundamental limits?
3. Is your point of view in any way influenced by belief in some brand of sky fairy perhaps?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An automated aircraft can constantly compare what it is doing with what it should be doing. From that it would know what control it has and can tune its responses in line with its measured errors. Learning as a Kalman Filter learns. None of which is AI. The skies that an automated aircraft uses are much more regulated than the roads an automated car would have to use. The aircraft can have sensors added that vastly out perform the human senses, these already exist in other forms.
The question is not can a fully automated aircraft be made ... IMHO it can be implemented using current technologies. The question is what would we gain by doing it? I suspect very little in the civilian world. However optimising human-automation interaction could yield massive benefits.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Computers are great for certain activities e.g robotic car building = NC machines. They can reproduce perfection 24/7, in a perfect world. No unforeseen circumstances. If they encounter one they shut down and alert the nearest supervisor.
Humans have a flexibility 2nd to none; also to make mistakes, but the clever ones then correct them. Some mistakes may be caused by an unexpected event and they try a solution, feedback loop and then use ingenuity to try another possible solution; feedback loop again.
In comparing computers to humans I always look at sports men, of which I was one, and compare their reactions. I played squash and reckon I could beat a computer: I watch a cricket fielder chase the ball, slide, grab it, turn and in one motion without standing up throw the ball directly onto or over the stumps with pinpoint accuracy with a cross wind. The speed of the human brain to compute all those angles & forces, while twisting & turning, IMHO is astonishing. When a computer + machine can do that reliably maybe I'll think again.
Humans have a flexibility 2nd to none; also to make mistakes, but the clever ones then correct them. Some mistakes may be caused by an unexpected event and they try a solution, feedback loop and then use ingenuity to try another possible solution; feedback loop again.
In comparing computers to humans I always look at sports men, of which I was one, and compare their reactions. I played squash and reckon I could beat a computer: I watch a cricket fielder chase the ball, slide, grab it, turn and in one motion without standing up throw the ball directly onto or over the stumps with pinpoint accuracy with a cross wind. The speed of the human brain to compute all those angles & forces, while twisting & turning, IMHO is astonishing. When a computer + machine can do that reliably maybe I'll think again.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Blighty & Germania.
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly!
It is possible to develop an adaptive semi intelligent flight control program capable of dealing with unique events, such as an uncontained engine failure or structural failure. BUT and that is a big but, the cost of developing such a high tech certifiable program would be biblical and it would also take many years.
There are only about half a dozen companies in the US or EU capable of writing, testing and developing the type of programs that are capable of thinking for themselves in terms of dealing with non standard emergency situations for which no checklist can be written in advance. All of those high tech companies are very busy working for various defence or automotive sector customers, doing such things are developing driverless cars or intelligent fire and forget missile systems.
Most airlines can't even afford to fit a certified 3 channel auto land system, so it is rather unlikely that they would be interested in paying the hundred billion plus to develop either an integral system OR an android that sits in the pilots seat. I kind of suspect that it is more likely that a android pilot adapted from a military or car industry unit is more likely than a built in unit.
There are only about half a dozen companies in the US or EU capable of writing, testing and developing the type of programs that are capable of thinking for themselves in terms of dealing with non standard emergency situations for which no checklist can be written in advance. All of those high tech companies are very busy working for various defence or automotive sector customers, doing such things are developing driverless cars or intelligent fire and forget missile systems.
Most airlines can't even afford to fit a certified 3 channel auto land system, so it is rather unlikely that they would be interested in paying the hundred billion plus to develop either an integral system OR an android that sits in the pilots seat. I kind of suspect that it is more likely that a android pilot adapted from a military or car industry unit is more likely than a built in unit.
"priority now should be the elimination of human pilots from the system via automation"
For the salaries on offer these days, great idea. Can't happen soon enough.
On a more serious note, is the artificial intelligence refined enough to accommodate that level of automation and how soon could it be incorporated into today's technology?
As an aside, I don't think I'd be that comfortable getting onto anything, especially something leaving the ground, that doesn't have a human behind the wheel (other than the train at Disney World). The though is still unnerving to me and I can't imagine the average afraid-to-fly-in-the-first-place passenger would either.
Willie
For the salaries on offer these days, great idea. Can't happen soon enough.
On a more serious note, is the artificial intelligence refined enough to accommodate that level of automation and how soon could it be incorporated into today's technology?
As an aside, I don't think I'd be that comfortable getting onto anything, especially something leaving the ground, that doesn't have a human behind the wheel (other than the train at Disney World). The though is still unnerving to me and I can't imagine the average afraid-to-fly-in-the-first-place passenger would either.
Willie
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5
That is an interesting comparison, however the sports field is where a human is in his or her optimum environment.
In an aircraft the human body is most definitely out of our ideal environment. Our sensory organs are ill suited. Our balance organs have no way to give us situational awareness, in fact they give us false information which we must learn to supress and instead monitor instruments that require conscious thought rather than subconscious action like on a sports field.
If we were birds you would have a more valid point, however even they have the same problem as a human when it comes to damage.
We learn using muscle memory and by practise. A change in our fitness level or mobility takes us a long time to adapt to. By contrast, computers have almost instantaneous feedback loops and adapt very quickly as showm by the NASA neural net trials for control adaption after damage.
The simple fact is that computers are faster at computing angles etc.
This is obvious when you consider the type of fully autonomous aircraft that has been flying very successfully for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBF-0OxpW6Q
Fancy controlling those angles by hand?
That is an interesting comparison, however the sports field is where a human is in his or her optimum environment.
In an aircraft the human body is most definitely out of our ideal environment. Our sensory organs are ill suited. Our balance organs have no way to give us situational awareness, in fact they give us false information which we must learn to supress and instead monitor instruments that require conscious thought rather than subconscious action like on a sports field.
If we were birds you would have a more valid point, however even they have the same problem as a human when it comes to damage.
We learn using muscle memory and by practise. A change in our fitness level or mobility takes us a long time to adapt to. By contrast, computers have almost instantaneous feedback loops and adapt very quickly as showm by the NASA neural net trials for control adaption after damage.
The simple fact is that computers are faster at computing angles etc.
This is obvious when you consider the type of fully autonomous aircraft that has been flying very successfully for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBF-0OxpW6Q
Fancy controlling those angles by hand?