SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the extraordinary-hacker-opportunity-here dept.
John Markoff writes in the NYT that in the aftermath of the co-pilot crashing a Germanwings plane into a mountain, aviation experts are beginning to wonder if human pilots are really necessary aboard commercial planes. Advances in sensor technology, computing and artificial intelligence are making human pilots less necessary than ever in the cockpit and government agencies are already experimenting with replacing the co-pilot, perhaps even both pilots on cargo planes, with robots or remote operators. What the Germanwings crash “has done has elevated the question of should there or not be ways to externally control commercial aircraft,” says Mary Cummings. NASA is exploring a related possibility: moving the co-pilot out of the cockpit on commercial flights, and instead using a single remote operator to serve as co-pilot for multiple aircraft. In this scenario, a ground controller might operate as a dispatcher managing a dozen or more flights simultaneously. It would be possible for the ground controller to “beam” into individual planes when needed and to land a plane remotely in the event that the pilot became incapacitated — or worse. “Could we have a single-pilot aircraft with the ability to remotely control the aircraft from the ground that is safer than today’s systems?" asks Cummings. "The answer is yes.”
Automating that job may save money. But will passengers ever set foot on plane piloted by robots, or humans thousands of miles from the cockpit? In written testimony submitted to the Senate last month, the Air Line Pilots Association warned, “It is vitally important that the pressure to capitalize on the technology not lead to an incomplete safety analysis of the aircraft and operations.” The association defended the unique skills of a human pilot: “A pilot on board an aircraft can see, feel, smell or hear many indications of an impending problem (PDF) and begin to formulate a course of action before even sophisticated sensors and indicators provide positive indications of trouble.” Not all of the scientists and engineers believe that increasingly sophisticated planes will always be safer planes. "Technology can have costs of its own,” says Amy Pritchett. “If you put more technology in the cockpit, you have more technology that can fail.”
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:41PM
Robots don't get depressed and crash into the Alps. Yet.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by mendax on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:51PM
No doubt the first robotic piloting system will be named Marvin.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Informative) by subs on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:55PM
But robots do tend to have their AoA probes lock in place, which by a two-in-three tie breaker vote, can force an uncommanded dive straight into said mountain. It has happened [aviation-safety.net]. In fact, it seems to happen quite regularly [wikipedia.org]. In each case, it was the human pilots who intervened and prevented a disaster. Now imagine if there were no pilots on board and the passengers and cabin crew were to find themselves in a "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" type of scenario. I guarantee you that would be the last time a fully autonomous flight would have been permitted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:05AM
Worse, imagine if the one human remote supervising pilot managing 12 or 20 planes decides he's pissed at airline X, and decides to over-ride several planes at once?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sigma on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:32AM
Oh man, I'd pay for that job.
Imagine being able to line up 20+ big passenger jets for a low level nose to tail flyover of your next backyard barbecue.
High five!
(Score: 4, Informative) by subs on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:47AM
Oh man, I'd pay for that job.
Sadly, that already exists. Look up pay for job [airlinepilotforums.com]. Oh yeah, some airlines are even bigger scumbags than you can imagine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:07PM
Just hope that the remote pilot isn't ex-Blue Angel.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by subs on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:44AM
Oh sure, this whole article is a knee-jerk reaction, so typical of people who are scared. "Oh noes! Something went wrong in our process. Let's change everything about it."
What these people don't realize is that there's always going to be a human in the loop somewhere. And if that person decides to rogue, you're done either way
(Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:41PM
I think AI pilots can be very good. However, a pilot over-ride is necessary, and it must be a local hard over-ride.
Why?
Asshat hackers remotely taking over a plane. I am certain that will be the biggest danger.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:51PM
Personally, I won't consider it a good idea until they can run the thing with NO network connection. Tower control for takeoff and landing, but only for permission, and perhaps sensor feedback.
N.B.: Actual control is resident within the plane. It has NO dependence on a remote control. And it has NO capability for accepting orders from a remote site...except "Don't land here now.". Suggestions it can accept (or reject). It's not like HTML1, because it's not stateless, but it doesn't allow things like javascript, where the control comes from outside. There will always be saboteurs and hackers of one stripe or another.
And this is without regard to whether the automation is total or partial. If you stick a pilot in the loop (probable) then the rest of the system remains as I have described. If you remove the pilot from the loop, and have the whole thing done by AI, the same applies. At some point the AI will be the better choice, but not if it's situated remotely.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.