Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Developing the Ultimate Auto-Pilot Software
coondoggie (973519) writes "Call it the ultimate auto-pilot — an automated system that can help take care of all phases of aircraft flight-even perhaps helping pilots overcome system failures in-flight. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will in May detail a new program called Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System (ALIAS) that would build upon what the agency called the considerable advances that have been made in aircraft automation systems over the past 50 years, as well as the advances made in remotely piloted aircraft automation, to help reduce pilot workload, augment mission performance and improve aircraft safety."
Thats what was flying Flight 370 !!
The vast majority of heavy aircraft losses are due to pilots. They are by far the weakest link in the chain. Whether they do something extremely stupid such as hold back the stick in a stall (Air France) or malicious (Malasian Air) the result is the same. Perfectly good aircraft destroyed.
So engineering them out of the cockpit is the next step. Computers have been able to fly entire flights for decades. Expert systems already out perform people at diagnostics. The pilot is just a redundant point of failure.
If you know any pilots put this to them and watch the response ;)
Why would they use an auto-pilot for an airplane? Shouldn't they use a plane-pilot for planes?
rewriting history since 2109
Having said that, many recent aircraft failures have been caused by the crew and I think fully automatic airliners should be looked at. Or at least keep a hostie around to blow the thing up.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Could this tech finally solve the "everyone would need a pilots license" problem of consumer level flying cars? Maybe cars could be developed that rely on the person inside the to drive on roads but as soon as liftoff is initiated an auto-pilot like this one DARPA is making could take over completely removing the human factor from the flying hunk of metal.
Not saying it's imminent but perhaps this is a step in the direction of ubiquitous personal flying vehicles that could solve a lot of transportation problems and get people/things to places "as the crow flies" instead of "as the wolf runs". It would just be an automated crow instead of a human one.
I've long thought that it would be good if cargo ships were automated and/or remote controlled. Piloting cargo ships ought to be relatively easy compared to remote piloting drones in combat.
- Crew is valued higher than cargo, so piracy relies a lot on kidnapping crews for ransom. No crew, no crew ransom. That would change the bargaining balance.
- Also, if crews can't manually override the automatic/remote control, then they have no control over the ships course. That would make piracy even more difficult.
- Crews could stay home with their families.
- The system might evolve into having specialist crews that can be brought in to handle difficult situations.
Docking and leaving might require the presence of crews on ships, but crews could be shuttled between their ships and the docks.
Firstly, it is DARPA... so we are not just talking about civilian applications (although that will surely follow) but we are talking about the wide scale military and civilian application of technologies that various military and aeronautical platforms (think Space Shuttle) have possessed for years.
Secondly, it is DARPA... so we are talking about spending billions of tax payers money to duplicate civilian efforts in the hope that the military industrial complex can trickle down these benefits to civilian applications faster and more efficiently than the commercial efforts can.
Finally, because it is DARPA... we are all hoping that this is not the start of yet another road that leads to yet another F-22 or F-35 project that will cost the tax payer hundreds of billions and fall far short of what was promised.
So... yes, this announcement is different in many ways
How about "Crew Replacing Aviation Systems Handler"?
Or the internet? Oh, wait - Al Gore invented that.
I think that's what they call it when there is no evidence of a mechanical failure and cannot prove that there was an error on the part of the flight crew. The assumption is generally pilot error of some kind. (assumption)
if they stopped putting so much time into their acronyms.
Funny that you should mention both Boeing and Airbus, as the two companies have almost opposing views on flight automation.
Boeing feels like the pilot should be in full control of the plane, with the autopilot just there to make the job easier.
Airbus, on the other hand, treats the pilot as if they were only a legal requirement, and designs it's planes to completely fly themselves, to the point where the autopilot will actually try to override the human pilot if it thinks the pilot's actions are dangerous.
Try a barrel roll in a Boeing, and the plane will happily attempt a barrel roll (even if it rips the plane apart). But try the same thing in an Airbus and the autopilot will start fighting back
While this is sort of true (you can turn off flight laws in a Airbus), it's not a bad thing. We don't know which approach is better - or if indeed either approach is always better or worse. It's a large scale experiment.
And since both Airbus and Boeing aircraft rarely plummet to the ground, a rather successful one. Yes, there can and should be improvements but the jury is out.
The turn of events that caused AirFrance 447 might well have been interrupted with a Boeing autopilot system. Conversely, the idiot junior pilot that crashed the 777 in San Francisco would probably have been unable to shut the engines down completely before actually landing.
Murphy's law. Remember it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Coincidence? I don't think so.
The better automation gets, the more pilots are trained to accept the automation despite their subjective feelings about flying the aircraft - especially when the automated action disagrees with their understanding of the situation. The automation is extensively tested and proven if used correctly, but even that is becoming more difficult as automated systems become increasingly complex. Simply run a Google search on "Controlled Flight Into Terrain" (CFIT) for numerous examples of both 1) pilots ignoring automation because they believe it is wrong, and 2) pilots incorrectly managing their automated systems.
System Crash.
There's got to be a better way to measure airspeed nowadays. Not necessarily cheaper, but better. Something with less failure modes?
The most promising method of creating advanced, military aircraft is getting human out of the craft completely. Human life requires, bulky, heavy, complex, life support considerations and limits the G forces that the craft can accept. Without people more weapons, more fuel, and more risk can be carried into battle without fer of human life being lost. We are at a tipping point at which any plane that has a pilot on board will fail to win in a conflict with an automated aircraft.
Will this system protect from the pilot pressing "gear-up" while the aircraft is still on the runway, and the plane collapses onto the tarmac, or is this tale merely apocryphal?
The problem is with your scenario is that major plane failure disasters happen so infrequently. Where do you find a room full of 'seasoned' disaster recovery pilots to sit around 24/7 waiting for that to happen. And who pays for it?
They can afford to put them on every plane in the air right now. Paying to have two crews on standby for all the flights in progress won't be a problem. Plus, you'll need people to manage just routine route changes/etc while planes are in flight anyway (not that this would require full manual control or crisis response).