[HN Gopher] Air Force OKs autonomous cargo flights across Califo...
___________________________________________________________________
Air Force OKs autonomous cargo flights across California after
successful test
Author : gardenfelder
Score : 90 points
Date : 2024-02-15 16:54 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (timesofsandiego.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (timesofsandiego.com)
| gardenfelder wrote:
| >The U.S. Air Force has authorized San Francisco-based Xwing to
| transport time-sensitive cargo across California on autonomous
| aircraft.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Planes are already fully automatic. Not just in cruise control,
| but some planes have extra functionality you can pay for to
| automate takeoff and landing. I'm not sure if they are safer than
| a human pilot landing in all conditions but I imagine it won't be
| long until they are basically equivocal in abilities. Whether or
| not the role of the pilot continues to exist probably depends
| more on unions and regulations than if the technology is
| sufficient, like many jobs in a similar obsolete-yet-perpetuated
| state today.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Planes are already fully automatic.
|
| But when sensors fail they relinquish control to the pilot.
| Adding additional sensors could reduce the need for human
| backup - I wonder if this company added extra redundancy.
| Kye wrote:
| I saw a video from one of those "air traffic review" type
| channels just the other day where a plane was low on fuel and
| had a malfunctioning ILS and no way to reach somewhere where
| they could land visually without fudging the rules a little.
| They landed, but it was dicey.
|
| edit: found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkzVMZFWduc
| throwup238 wrote:
| Diamond Aircraft autoland is meant to work in emergencies
| like when the pilot becomes incapacitated and the passengers
| need to initiate it to get to an airport safely.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Correct, but that's with a perfectly functioning aircraft.
|
| The problems come when you have engines out, landing gear
| issues, or malfunctioning equipment.
|
| Look at the recent Waymo accidents. Two Waymo vehicles ran
| into a vehicle being towed backwards. An edge case that a
| human could have easily avoided, but software couldn't.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Look at the recent Waymo accidents. Two Waymo vehicles
| ran into a vehicle being towed backwards. An edge case
| that a human could have easily avoided, but software
| couldn't.
|
| The complexity of flying an airplane autonomously is way
| lower than for a car.
|
| The biggest reduction comes from there being (almost) no
| morons in airspace. Planes are expensive, pilot school is
| expensive, so the chance of encountering someone doing
| something they're not supposed to do is way lower - in a
| car, you have to deal with anything from random little
| children jumping onto the streets over drunk/tired/phone-
| using drivers to construction sites.
|
| Then there is the requirement of planes to carry ADS-B
| transmitters in many airspace classes, so planes
| precisely know where they are and where everyone else is.
| And distance between planes is also way larger, which
| makes avoidance easier.
|
| Basically, as long as the aircraft itself is working
| fine, everything from takeoff to landing can be done
| autonomously - and appropriate systems have been
| developed and used for decades, the first CAT 3 autoland
| capable aircraft arrived in the late 60s [1]. The only
| two unsolved challenges are taxiing and in-flight
| equipment failure... the former can be solved by having a
| tug pick up a plane on the runway, it's only the failure
| cases that are a real headache because, at least for now,
| that requires having highly trained pilots on board.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
| snuxoll wrote:
| Autoland is regularly used in CATIIIa/b ILS approaches when
| weather does not allow for the pilots to transition between
| instruments and visual flight (otherwise a requirement for
| the last phase of the approach and the actual touchdown).
| barelyauser wrote:
| Does reliability increases or decreases when more components
| are added?
| throwanem wrote:
| This is not a rare misconception. Patrick "Ask the Pilot" Smith
| answers it: https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-
| myths/
| bombcar wrote:
| He's correct, insofar as he's describing commercial aviation
| as it is now.
|
| But drones fly, and this is a drone.
| throwanem wrote:
| Commercial aircraft are what the grandparent commenter was
| talking about. Commercial aircraft aren't drones, nor
| should they be.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Commercial airliners*, there are already tons of drones
| working as commercial aircraft.
| deepsun wrote:
| Except talking to ATC. Communications are formally structured
| in 98% of cases, but in the rest 2% they are very free-form /
| subjective / implying. If you fly a lot, those 2% happen all
| the time.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Couldn't we create specialized airports that are only for
| autonomous cargo planes. Then the UAVs can just speak to each
| other and the automated ATC in a formal protocol? Not a pilot
| here so I might be missing the nuances.
| toast0 wrote:
| You're still going to have shared airspace away from the
| airports. Control is looser away from 'congested areas', of
| course. But UAV cargo that can only fly outside of
| congested areas is maybe not very useful.
| euroderf wrote:
| But then you could have autonomous trucks that take the
| cargo to the edge of the conurbation.
|
| "SkyNet: We do logistics!"
| deepsun wrote:
| Sure. The first N years you'd want to have an operator
| (pilot) onboard to handle edge cases. But... if you already
| have an operator, you can fly to any existing airport, and
| analyze the unplanned autopilot disengagements. Thus, you
| can start right now, no need to build new airports.
| bluGill wrote:
| When I first flew as a kid I could tell if the pilot trained in
| the Air Force or Navy. Navy pilots always touched down right on
| the numbers and often stopped so fast they needed to apply
| throttle to get to the first turn off - which is the right way
| to fly if you are landing on a carrier. By contrast air force
| pilots touched down farther down the runway and coasted to the
| last turn off - which uses less fuel when you have a long
| desert runway. Takeoffs Navy pilots would spool the engines up
| while turning onto the runway and releasing the brakes, while
| air force pilots would get on the runway and start moving
| before applying throttle (for take offs there wasn't nearly as
| much difference as the above makes it seem like).
|
| These days you cannot tell though. All pilots fly the same -
| I'm sure they use less fuel which is a big deal to the
| airlines. I'm guessing they are all using the computer to do
| the flying. which isn't to say they are using auto land, just
| there are other things in control ensuring they don't do the
| fuel wasting things anymore.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| You knew that as a kid?
| bluGill wrote:
| Once someone points it out it wasn't hard to figure out.
| There is a big difference in how the Navy and Air force
| train pilots, relating to their very different missions.
| The Navy needs pilots that can land on a carrier at sea,
| and so their training even when on land is designed to get
| you ready for that. The air force doesn't have to do that,
| and so they have no reason to teach those skills. Both
| programs produce highly skilled pilots that can safely fly
| airplanes, but they have noticeable differences in details.
|
| The US Air force is the worlds largest air force. The US
| Navy is second largest. While it is possible to learn to
| fly in ways other than joining one of the above two
| (Marines, Army, Coast guard, or private schools), they
| together train much less pilots and so odds are I never had
| one. I wouldn't have been able to tell these others from an
| air force pilot most likely.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I can't remember what my pilot friends told me but I'm
| pretty sure different US airlines prefer to hire pilots
| trained by different branches. I think Delta has mostly
| Navy trained pilots and United is more Army/Airforce? Or
| the other way around, I don't remember the details.
| dmoy wrote:
| I could believe that. I knew way more about planes,
| aircraft carriers, etc when I was a kid than I do now (I
| forgot most of it, and I'm also virtually certain I didn't
| know this specific fact anyway).
|
| I also used to have like a detailed chronological knowledge
| of the general troop movements and major battles of the
| civil war, and now I can barely remember that Gettysburg
| was after both Bull Runs, and that the first battle was
| just some Union dudes holed up in a fort getting shelled
| for days somewhere in the south off the coast. I can't
| remember what state even, lol.
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| How did you learn about these things as a kid?
| euroderf wrote:
| Assuming pre-internet, probably a public library.
| dmoy wrote:
| Yea this is it
|
| Reading books
| bluGill wrote:
| How did you not? Maybe you learned different things, but
| every kid I know goes really deep into some weird
| esoteric topic. Dinosaurs are common.
| xeromal wrote:
| Nerds have existed for all of human history
| dekhn wrote:
| I definitely remember the first time I noticed a truly
| different landing in a commercial plane. I can only describe
| it as "coming in hot": we approached at a higher speed,
| descended faster, and the reverse thrusters were very active.
| We stopped _really_ quickly. It definitely felt like the
| pilot was applying some specialized training, which was
| confirmed by the pilot who was standing at the doorway to the
| flight deck when we passed by.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Difference between USAF and USN landing techniques:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KLAOPg6AxFM
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| I would bet that the culture started back in WWII when the
| navy started to use converted passenger ships on Lake
| Michigan to do carrier certification. They were only about
| 2/3 as long as a real carrier, so you better follow the
| landing signal officer's instructions perfectly.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDR8znA1kxw
| karmicthreat wrote:
| I'm sure the technology will work fine when everything is
| perfect. But much like autonomous cars, when things are
| imperfect they will probably start to fall apart.
| akira2501 wrote:
| The automation relies on ground equipment that isn't guaranteed
| to be operational and airports aren't required to consider it
| critical equipment. They can still operate as an airport even
| if some of these systems are disabled.
|
| The plane isn't magic, you need to beam specific radio signals
| at it, from the ground, so it knows what to do.
| panzagl wrote:
| Oddly enough the hardest part of this would be when it's on the
| ground 'driving'.
|
| Though I also wonder how it takes ATC direction.
| throwanem wrote:
| I suspect it stays in Class E between fields equipped to
| receive it.
| xnx wrote:
| Accommodations for human pilots account for a small percentage of
| the mass and volume of a cargo plane, but I wonder how
| differently cargo planes might be designed if they went full
| drone.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| They would probably centrally locate the autopilot and
| eliminate a lot of wiring for sensors and controls that have to
| be routed forward to where a pilot normally sits. You could
| then put a really big cargo door on the front and on the back
| and load while you unload.
| euroderf wrote:
| So it would look like a big Scandinavian ferry.
| tqi wrote:
| Are military drones not flying autonomously for at least part of
| the time already? I wonder how much incremental value there is
| for end to end autonomous vs remote operated flights where a
| human is involved just for tricky parts.
| kiba wrote:
| If you need to supply the numerous islands in the pacific
| ocean, you're probably going to run into the issue of pilot
| manpower.
|
| Better to use drones, which even if it fails 10-20% of the time
| is better than not failing to supply troops on the ground at
| all.
| ghaff wrote:
| As I recall, there's at least been research done on how many
| drones a pilot can safely control so I assume the answer is
| yes.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Are these actually autonomous (no pilot at all) or just very
| large drones?
|
| https://www.xwing.com _" Our system changes the role and location
| of the pilot. The aircraft is fully self-sufficient with the
| pilot remotely supervising from a ground control station."_
|
| So, there's a pilot somewhere, but it's not clear if the pilot is
| flying remotely or just there for "backup".
| 0x457 wrote:
| It's clear tho. Remote pilot is for backup.
| euroderf wrote:
| Probably even if there were only a 0.01% chance of
| interventionable mission failure, a remote backup pilot would
| still be cost-effective.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Particularly considering that pilot salaries are going to
| massively plummet when one superviser can oversee dozens of
| planes, simultaneously [perhaps].
| jessriedel wrote:
| I think the distinction between remote piloting vs. fully
| autonomous is a continuum rather than discrete. It's clearly
| remote piloting if the remote operator has a joystick and all
| other flight controls that are controlling the aircraft
| directly in real time. It's clearly fully autonomous if the
| remote operator issues an instruction that says "take-off from
| SFO and land at SEA". But there are intermediate cases like the
| remote operator only issuing way points, or the remote operator
| having access to some flight controls but not others and only
| using them in certain situations.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| I want to say that "remoteness" versus "autonomy" are
| actually two separate axes, since even local pilots can in
| principle defer many flight instructions to an autonomous
| system. That said, I'm not sure the "remote but non-
| autonomous" quadrant actually makes sense here.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _I think the distinction between remote piloting vs. fully
| autonomous is a continuum rather than discrete._
|
| Absolutely, I just didn't see much detail on where on the
| continuum this project sits.
|
| I did find a video that appears to have the pilot just
| monitoring, but not flying, the plane. A little but worrying,
| given a similar size/type of plane just crashed by my house
| (commuter airline at Dulles Airport). If there was no pilot
| actively flying it (remote or not), would it have been able
| to safely ditch on the highway? Or would it have crashed into
| a row of homes instead?
| PerilousD wrote:
| The article said 2800 miles of testing? Was that a misprint - a
| single one-way trip from San Francisco to NY is about that
| distance? Does the FCC or the Air Force get final say in this
| maybe a little more testing? I AM aware there are drones so maybe
| a lot of that technology transfers over BUT then there should be
| a lot more than 2800 miles of flight time data applied no?
| lm28469 wrote:
| > a single one-way trip from San Francisco to NY is about that
| distance?
|
| You can't go from SF to NY while staying in California airspace
| afaik. That being said the distance doesn't matter much, I'd be
| more interested in take-offs/landings
| primax wrote:
| Especially any rapid unscheduled landings
| nradov wrote:
| The Air Force gets the final say on their own operations
| because they aren't legally subject to FAA rules (the FCC only
| comes into the picture for spectrum use by data links). But
| they operate under a Memorandum of Understanding and closely
| consult with each other to minimize risks. Military uncrewed
| aircraft are typically restricted to specially designated
| airspace because they can't safely mix with regular civilian
| traffic (no ability to talk directly with controllers, no "see
| and avoid" for VHR traffic).
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| I thought government agencies can get spectrum permissions
| from NTIA rather than FCC?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I think the NTIA owns some bands, the FCC others. If the
| USAF wants to use an FCC regulated band, they talk to the
| FCC. For instance, a base radio/tv station that broadcasts
| on a standard frequency.
|
| But I could be wrong.
| paxys wrote:
| Distance is anyways irrelevant to the conversation. A
| commercial airplane can fly itself on a fixed path while at
| cruising altitude basically forever. It's the takeoff, landing
| and unexpected situations that you have to worry about.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| And clearly with cargo planes, the acceptance of the risk of
| a crash from an unexpected situation (over an unpopulated
| area) is a lot higher than if people were on board.
| sargun wrote:
| Heh, perhaps we'll end up with inverted-ETOPS, where
| autonomous airplanes need certifications to spend more than
| 15, 30, 60 minutes over populated areas (or not water).
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Obviously multiple trips. The aircraft in question doesn't have
| that much range.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The article said 2800 miles of testing? Was that a misprint -
| a single one-way trip from San Francisco to NY is about that
| distance?
|
| The 2800 miles was multiple flights within California between
| Jan. 22 and Feb. 4.
|
| This article has more detail:
|
| https://www.flyingmag.com/xwing-awarded-military-airworthine...
| csours wrote:
| Autonomous aircraft require a more stringent MEL - the list of
| aircraft systems that must be working before you take off, and a
| more stringent reading of NOTAMS - the list of problems in the
| air and at the airport that the pilots need to be aware of.
|
| A more stringent MEL means tougher maintenance requirements,
| which means more mechanic hours per flight hour (in aggregate, on
| average).
|
| As far as I know, it's difficult to get a computer to read all
| the NOTAMS in an automated way that will consistently produce a
| useable plan with no missed problems. It would need to have no
| false positives and no false negatives. What am I allowed, What
| am I forbidden.
|
| Of course people have the same problem, but they have problem
| solving skills and can decide what weight to give any issue that
| crops up.
|
| There are also a lot of assumptions about what a pilot can work
| around that will have to be understood.
| lxgr wrote:
| > As far as I know, it's difficult to get a computer to read
| all the NOTAMS in an automated way that will consistently
| produce a useable plan with no missed problems.
|
| To be fair, it's extremely difficult for humans too, and
| incidents have happened due to this in the past:
|
| https://fixingnotams.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Field-Gu...
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > A more stringent MEL means tougher maintenance requirements,
| which means more mechanic hours per flight hour (in aggregate,
| on average).
|
| Probably true, but I wonder if it just becomes easier to
| hire/train mechanics than it is to do the same with pilots,
| especially as flight hour requirements ramp up.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| The sweet spot for autonomy might be very long fights, where
| you're replacing multiple pilots. Even replacing all but one
| on a long haul flight might be a huge boon
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's difficult to get a computer to read all the NOTAMS in
| an automated way that will consistently produce a useable plan
| with no missed problems_
|
| One human can review reports remotely for dozens of planes
| compared to an in-the-cockpit pilot.
| ethagknight wrote:
| Cessna Caravans are basically free as far as military aircraft,
| and for missions like fetching food or fuel, you can take some
| risks. I am no pilot but the stringent MELs and deciphering
| NOTAM risk can be relaxed or better controlled as these
| autonomous cargo systems get real world reps in. Also, simply
| holding up 100 or so fully loaded caravans, waiting for a break
| in the weather to dispatch, seems easy to envision! 5 remote
| pilots overseeing a few takeoffs at a time vs 100 pilots idling
| to begin their round trip journey
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Inexpensive they may be, but a hazard to other aircraft or
| bystanders we don't need. All safety standards must be
| adhered to.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _and for missions like fetching food or fuel, you can take
| some risks_
|
| When flying through congested California airspace?
|
| A Cessna Caravan just crashed at my local airpot. If there
| wasn't a pilot on board flying, would it have been able to
| successfully ditch on an empty stretch of road with no
| injuries (and barely any damage to the plane)? Would a remote
| pilot have been able to do the same? An AI pilot? I have my
| doubts about the latter.
| lazide wrote:
| Also, failures will be per-pilot, relatively rare, and blame
| can be assigned to the specific pilots that 'fail'.
|
| Automated systems can 'fail' systemically and completely across
| the board, which changes the risk profile.
|
| I.e. Pilots won't all crash loop at the same time if the wrong
| kind of character happens to be in a NOTAM. Probably.
| balderdash wrote:
| I mean I get the fully autonomous flight is interesting and
| should be pursued, buts laughable that this is billed as a cost
| savings. Of course flying a $2-3 million aircraft is going to be
| cheaper than flying a $100 million one, pilot cost is negligible
| in that equation
| jdminhbg wrote:
| The two aren't independent, though. When you have to pay
| hundreds of thousands of dollars for humans to operate an
| airplane, you might as well get the most out of the fixed cost
| of the airplane to begin with. If you don't have to do that,
| you can build cheaper smaller airplanes to fly cargo on routes
| that wouldn't be economical at human operation scale.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _laughable that this is billed as a cost savings_
|
| You can mass produce an autonomous fleet without consideration
| for a training pipeline. (You can also lose a lot of life-
| support systems, and engineer the plane to be more disposable
| in combat.)
| balderdash wrote:
| Definitely true - but what is that in the context of a ~$100m
| c-130? 1-3%, not nothing, but you probably gain more with
| engine upgrade programs, adding blended winglets etc.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what is that in the context of a ~$100m c-130? 1-3%_
|
| For the C-130, I'd guess 10%+ on operating costs based
| mostly on increased utilisation.
|
| For a new vehicle, support and redundancy alone should
| yield 10%+. Doubling or tripling production, based simply
| on better amortisation of development costs, zero learning
| curve assumed, another 20%+. Then add on reduced operating
| costs due to lack of pilot training and pay as well as
| higher utilisation.
| euroderf wrote:
| In the long run the cost of unmanned vehicles will approach
| zero (plus cost of energy inputs), so let's hop on that cost
| reduction curve.
| balderdash wrote:
| Again - this makes sense when you are talking about a ~$50/k
| a year driver driving a $50k car, a lot less when you are
| talking about $400k of pilot salaries when you are spending
| ~$12m a year operating a ~$100m c-130
| euroderf wrote:
| Altho in the military it's not just about the salaries.
| There's also a lot of resources devoted to training, plus
| considerations of manpool/manning.
| wavewrangler wrote:
| Was this supposed to be one of many tests, the final test, or THE
| test? I'll read it again, but the way the writer has it framed
| makes it appear as if the Air Force conducted a 2800 mile flight-
| test and said, "Alright, we've seen enough," and called it good.
|
| [quote] "The use of Xwing's autonomous aircraft eliminated the
| need to fly a larger aircraft such as a C-130 to deliver critical
| cargo to the warfighter on short notice," said Maxime Gariel,
| president, chief technical officer and co-founder of Xwing.
| [/quote]
|
| Did it though? All jokes aside, since when was California an
| active war zone? (I tried to frame this better---under siege, in
| a fire-fight, etc. but kept coming up short)
|
| This would be too far a stretch to assume the average skimmer to
| connect, but as a side-thought, perhaps we should look at it as
| this marking the beginning of the experiment, rather than the
| end.
|
| I think the idea is cool and if it can be extended to private
| applications such as medical and critical, all while lowering
| costs and increasing access to the general public, that'd be
| great.
|
| But reading this left me with more questions than answers
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Yes, I am left believing this is the first test and not the
| announcement of a contract for ongoing services.
|
| It's potentially very economical, in that there is a shortage
| of pilots. Reducing flight hours required for low tonnage short
| haul flights is potentially going to save your experienced
| pilots for more critical missions
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Did it though?
|
| Yes, that's what they were doing during the test.
|
| > All jokes aside, since when was California an active war
| zone?
|
| Warfighters aren't always based in active war zones. For
| example, the last round of U.S. strikes against targets in the
| Middle East involved non-stop bomber flights from the US.
| iambateman wrote:
| I've never thought - though it's obvious now - that if a drone is
| capable of flying remotely in the middle east, it's just as
| capable of flying remotely in the US.
|
| Legitimate qualms about drone strikes aside, it seems like a big
| step forward to not have to send a crew with a plane for cargo
| transportation. Hopefully this can be the case for private cargo
| transport, in time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-15 23:02 UTC)