Boeing studies pilotless airplane

[Rockie]

Yes you have said that numerous times, and been wrong every time. There is no requirement for artificial intelligence or self awareness within the system to be able to operate it safely.

Assuming you fly aircraft, would you consider your brain essential to the task?

There is zero research that shows that it would be beneficial.

I'll bet there's zero research showing a brain is beneficial in all kinds of occupations because some things are just self-evident.

[Posthumane]

Certain parts of a brain are certainly essential. Definitely not 100%. I don't need to be able to contemplate my eventual mortality, write poetry, feel a wide variety of emotions, do long term life planning, have desires of greater success, etc. to be able to fly. You have implied that a "complete" artificial intelligence who is self aware is required to fly an airplane. In reality, only the processing tasks required for the actual operation of the plane are required. When you get into fully autonomous flight those tasks become quite complicated, and the technology isn't there yet to do it in all cases. But semi-autonomous flight with certain restrictions, such as very specific route availability, is already happening and the envelope of what is being accomplished without human intervention is continually expanding.

The proof is in the pudding. There are flights operating on trans-continental missions with sometimes significant lapses in communication.

By the way, it was pretty self evident to many pilots in the early 20th century that flying was too fickle to make for reliable transportation. Engines failed all the time and couldn't be trusted.

[goldeneagle]

And now for a reality check, 175 year old railroad technology (apart from the monorails you see from time to time) still require at least one operator, even with the far advanced bullet train system.

The last time I rode in a train, there were hundreds of people on that train, and nobody was driving but a black box. Apparently you have never ridden the skytrain in the lower mainland, which has no drivers. Virtually all new commuter trains being built these days are driverless.

[Rockie]

Certain parts of a brain are certainly essential. Definitely not 100%. I don't need to be able to contemplate my eventual mortality,

Comtemplating your immediate mortality is a key ingredient in surviving this business.

The proof is in the pudding. There are flights operating on trans-continental missions with sometimes significant lapses in communication.

Try not communicating the next time you operate a trans-continental flight and see how that works for you.

Virtually all new commuter trains being built these days are driverless.

It would be a waste of time explaining the differences between a people mover on a dedicated track to an aircraft.

[Posthumane]

I see you're doing your usual routine of not actually addressing anything that was actually said, and deliberately pretending (I assume, for your benefit) to not understand the points made, so until you actually come up with some logical discussion points this is going nowhere. I'll leave you with a reference to my signature quote. You can rant all you want about how something can't be done, but those that are doing it are just going to laugh and continue to ignore you.

[Rockie]

I see you're doing your usual routine of not actually addressing anything that was actually said, and deliberately pretending (I assume, for your benefit) to not understand the points made, so until you actually come up with some logical discussion points this is going nowhere.

Contemplating your immediate mortality is addressing your point...you're just not getting it. Lining up all the supercomputers in the world can't do what we do, which is intuit, which comes from a whole bunch of things connected to your poetry, eventual mortality and your range of emotions. One of which is a healthy fear. When AI is invented that is self-aware enough to feel apprehension and actually care about the outcome of what it's doing then it may be possible once all the other problems get solved. Until then...nope. I'd rather a thinking well trained brain be in command of getting me there safely than a fancy Ipad.

I'm beginning to think you don't fly airplanes and are therefore unqualified to comment on what it takes to be safe and effective flying them. You're an engineer right?

[Posthumane]

A computer doesn't need fear. It needs a set of limitations beyond which it is not allowed to go, but it does not need to know why. You are the one not getting it. A computer does not need to be told the consequences of doing something it shouldn't do, because it won't go off and try it just for fun. Unless of course you make it self aware...

I don't have nearly the hours that you do in an airplane, but I haven't killed myself in one yet. But I don't spend my time in the cockpit contemplating death, I do what is required to bring the flight to a successful outcome. The fact that I have less experience flying airplanes than you does not make me unqualified to comment about what it takes to develop a working autonomous system. Your complete lack of engineering qualifications doesn't stop you from commenting about what you think they can't do.

And yes, I used to be an engineer.

[Rockie]

A computer doesn't need fear. It needs a set of limitations beyond which it is not allowed to go, but it does not need to know why.

A pilot needs fear. It sets its own limitations which are variable depending on the circumstances, and we do need to know why because sometimes we have to do things we're not supposed to do to keep things safe. Or at least as safe as possible.

The fact that I have less experience flying airplanes than you does not make me unqualified to comment about what it takes to develop a working autonomous system.

It makes you less qualified to comment on what it takes to fly airplanes.

And yes, I used to be an engineer.

Of course.

[Posthumane]

Well that's all good and well that a pilot needs fear, but we were talking about pilotless aircraft, were we not? Did you forget? Please enlighten me on the fear response required of a computer, whose limitations are set, and how flights have been accomplished without this supposed mandatory trait.

I don't really care if you think I'm qualified or not, facts stand for themselves regardless of who says them. If we have a discussion about how to fly an airplane, I'll defer to your expertise. But I thought this conversation was about the possibility of developing an autonomous system. Are all those people who are developing these systems also unqualified? Including all of the pilots on the development teams?

[C.W.E.]

And yes, I used to be an engineer.

Which requires the higher IQ and education, being an engineer or a pilot?

I will give my opinion now based on my own experience in aviation which was almost 50/50 working as a mechanic and working as a pilot flying.

Being an engineer is by far a more demanding occupation than flying them.

[Bacunayagua]

"Being an engineer is by far a more demanding occupation than flying them."

Oh boy! Another one that thinks being a mechanic is being an engineer.

[Rockie]

Please enlighten me on the fear response required of a computer, whose limitations are set, and how flights have been accomplished without this supposed mandatory trait.

You're still missing this. Computers don't know fear, computers don't know anything. They don't know for example that the thing they did yesterday will get them killed today. They don't know that the thing they are programmed to not do is the very thing they need to do. Can you see how this might apply to flying airplanes and why it requires an actual mind?

And yes, I used to be an engineer.

Which requires the higher IQ and education, being an engineer or a pilot?

I will give my opinion now based on my own experience in aviation which was almost 50/50 working as a mechanic and working as a pilot flying.

Being an engineer is by far a more demanding occupation than flying them.

Oh please ....

I'm not saying this is the case here, but being an engineer doesn't by itself make you smarter than a pilot, and in fact doesn't even guarantee that you're smart. My neighbor is an electrical engineer and is one of the dumbest idiots I've ever met. He's not the only engineer I know about lacking brains either. An old maintenance officer from my military days was studying fluid dynamics, but was completely inept at anything else including social interaction with another human. Again, not the only engineer I know about utterly lacking in human social skills. Being an engineer means you're good at math, there are no guarantees beyond that.

My comment about engineers vis-a-vis this thread is that engineers are notorious for thinking they have a mathematical or mechanical solution for everything. It's how I suspected Posthumane was.

[C.W.E.]

Oh boy! Another one that thinks being a mechanic is being an engineer.

You should work on your comprehension skills before you make such a sarcastic comment Bacunayagua .

I clearly stated I worked as a mechanic, I did not claim to be an engineer.

[Bacunayagua]

You should work on your syntax there, CWE.

You stated you worked as a mechanic, but implied "mechanic" equaled "engineer" with the way you structured your sentences.

[C.W.E.]

I am sorry my sentence structure was so poor you thought I meant I worked as an engineer Bacunayagua , I wrongly assumed that separating mechanic and pilot by using ( / ) would be taken to mean I worked as a mechanic not an engineer.

However for what ever it is worth from my experience both working as a mechanic and as a pilot it is my personal opinion that working as a mechanic required more knowledge and was more rewarding for me than flying them.

[Posthumane]

My comment about engineers vis-a-vis this thread is that engineers are notorious for thinking they have a mathematical or mechanical solution for everything. It's how I suspected Posthumane was.

Or maybe it was from the last time we had this discussion, where I told you that I'm an engineer. Same way I knew you flew for Air Canada and used to drive a Hornet. Being an engineer certainly doesn't guarantee that you're smart (or even that you're good at math). Neither does being a pilot. But you keep focusing on who is making the points, rather than the points themselves.

You're still missing this. Computers don't know fear, computers don't know anything. They don't know for example that the thing they did yesterday will get them killed today. They don't know that the thing they are programmed to not do is the very thing they need to do. Can you see how this might apply to flying airplanes and why it requires an actual mind?

So are you telling me that you re-invent the principles of your flight every time you fly? Doing the thing that you did yesterday (i.e. following the checklists, SOPs, aircraft limitations, checking the weather) will get you killed on a flight today? There are occasionally new situations that come up, but in reality they're pretty rare. I'm willing to bet that almost every situation that you've been in, somebody else has also been in before. Including the ones that weren't covered anywhere in the QRH, AOIs, SOPs, etc.

Computers "know" exactly what you "tell" them. If you know how to avoid storms and wake turbulence (because someone along the line taught you; you didn't come up with those things yourself) then a system designed for autonomous operations can "know" those things as well. There's a very complex decision tree associated with the multitude of decisions required on every flight, but that decision tree is finite.

Tell me, what do you think is easier for you. Flying IFR or catching a beer can tossed to you without warning while on a fishing trip? Which do you think is easier for a machine to learn?

[Boreas]

[confusedalot]

The above post pretty much sums up my attitude to the whole thing.

Sooo....if I understand the situation correctly, a pilotless airplane, which is technically feasable hands down (all you need to do is add a auto takeoff feature to current models, auto pre programming the route, some extra stuff about not flying into thunderstorms or other airplanes, but weather radar and tcas can handle that anyways, and yer done. Planes already land by themselves.) They will taxi out and taxi in via the equivalent of technology found in high end automobiles, knowing full well not to taxi across active runways, and all of that sort of stuff.

That is the simple, or shall I say, the simplistic version.

So, with a pilotless airplane, you can launch it into high traffic areas no problem, and it will follow ATC instruction to the letter, as long as ATC has some sort of communication or control with the pilotless airplane. The plane will have the capacity to deal with all means of route changes as long as something or someone inputs the changes. Or maybe the plane will figure it out by itself with no external input?

So, you still need something or someone, or ATC, or whatever computer program available, to keep planes from flying into each other. Seems to me that a human element is still required.

Unless....

A massive global ATC/single worldwide airline sort of arrangement that controls everything and everywhere should solve the problem. Right?

Every air operator and every atc operator are all going to come together to have a fully integrated air transport system that seamlessly performs like a clock.

I am anxious to see this movie.

[Posthumane]

I think that for the foreseeable future, there will be humans in the loop in air travel. The question is how far removed that human is from the operation of the craft itself, or to put it another way, how far up the decision ladder the human is. The most basic level is having a human physically manipulate all controls. The next one up might be having the human input specific functions into the aircraft so it does what the human wants. Next level up might be having the human plan the flight and input the route to the aircraft, and only monitor its performance to ensure it doesn't deviate. Next level might be specifying a destination and desired flight time, and allowing the flight plan to be generated automatically with just a quality control check by the human, and further removed monitoring of the flight, etc etc. I'm sure there are a number of possible iterations.

But as I said earlier, there isn't much drive to implement completely pilot-less airplanes in air transport since the perceived benefits are quite low. There's just no need, really.

[Rockie]

Confused

“Planes already land by themselves”

Did it inform you or did it just go ahead and do that on it’s own initiative? What role, if any, did you play while the aircraft landed itself?