Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcrazy | Hacker News Reader

On the happy path, yes. Though I don’t think takeoff is automated yet.

Currently we rely very much on the problem solving abilities of human pilots to deal with troublesome situations. Autopilot will disengage in many scenarios.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure drones can already take off on their own. Taking off is a lot easier than landing, and planes have auto-landing tech already.

Takeoff at a commercial airport is a very challenging and potentially dangerous situation. There’s way more margin to abort a landing than a takeoff.

It's kind of funny how you can both be right.

OTOH takeoff and landing could in theory be operated by people on the ground, flying simulator style.

I still believe that having an actual pilot inside the plane that care for his own life is not a bad idea vs someone remote feeling a bit disconnected with the reality of a crash.

Remote piloting is how the military operates certain drones like the MQ-1 Predator. The mishap rate is very high relative to crewed aircraft due to network lag and sensor issues. The military is willing to accept some level of equipment loss in order to accomplish their mission but this would never be allowed for commercial airliners.

I am not sure why you were down voted. The original meaning of the word pilot is someone who comes aboard a ship for "the last mile" - getting in and out of the harbor and what you are talking about is kinda like that - a person associated with the airport rather than airplane to guide the planes in and out - perhaps using more reliable local communication technology vs what is used to control drones half way around the world.

I have no idea if that works but I thought you were making a good contribution to the conversation by proposing a potential solution to the exact problem everyone is talking about.

The pilot’s self-preservation instincts aren’t the most important reason to have them onboard. It’s that any loss of communication between the ground and the airplane at any point during either procedure would turn it into an uncontrolled cruise missile.

It's the failed takeoffs that lead more often to jets leaving the run way and crashing into buildings or trees.

Drones (both autonomous and remote piloted) have much higher mishap rates than crewed aircraft. Taking off is "easy" until something goes wrong, like a mechanical failure or runway incursion. It's impossible to anticipate and explicitly code for every possible failure mode, so developing autonomous flight control systems that would be safe enough for commercial passenger flights is extremely challenging.

Category IIIC ILS (full auto-land) does exist but requires special equipment for both the aircraft and airport. Human pilots have to actively monitor the system and take back control if anything goes wrong (which does happen).

Garmin also has the Autonomí auto-land system for certain general aviation aircraft which can attempt to land at the closest suitable airport. But this is only used for single pilot operation in case the pilot becomes incapacitated. It isn't suitable for regular flights.

Consider that drones may fail more because failure is an acceptable outcome for drones.

OK, I've considered that and determined it to be mostly wrong. While drone failure is an acceptable outcome, current technology still doesn't allow drones to be as safe as equivalent crewed aircraft across the full range of flight operations. Maybe in 50 years we'll get there.

Sure current tech does not allow us to safely automate flights. What I wanted to get at is that tech that doesn't need developing does not get built. Looking at drone failures does not tell us the max safety they would reach if we focused on that.

Obviously a droneliner would look very different from the jets that are common today.

Drones crash on takeoff all the time. Worth noting that drones are more than just quadcopters and serious drones are often winged aircraft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com