
Self-flying planes are now a marketing issue more than a technical one - jwilliams
https://jonathannen.com/captain-ai.html
======
treetoppin
I am only about 20 hrs into my flight training, so take what I say with a
grain of salt.

I still have yet to hear anyone offer up an explanation how AI will integrate
with our current air traffic control system and other aircraft. Right now if I
want to fly through certain kinds of airspace (basically any airspace around a
medium sized airport, civilian or military) I have to talk to air traffic
control, and they tell me what do to. As a pilot in command, I have final
authority to deviate from these clearances for safety reasons, mainly because
it is my ass on the line.

So if a drone flight is flying an instrument flight plan from point A to point
B, how does an air traffic controller command them? Part of the advantage of
verbal commands being given to aircraft over a common frequency is that other
pilots know what aircraft are doing around them. If a drone is being silently
told to avoid for traffic, that doesnt help me if I am the aircraft being
avoided. If a drone is told to hold but doesnt have enough fuel, or to divert
due to weather, can it recognize a command that would create a state of
emergency and over rule the air traffic controllers directions? Since air
traffic controllers have need to communicate with aircraft in their airspace,
how will these comms be authenticated so someone doesnt spoof ATC to make a
drone do something stupid?

I know NASA is working on these problems with the FAA, but I havent heard
anything yet. However, aviation isnt a "move fast and break things" area.
Regulations are written in blood, and I dont really want to be the guy who
gets sacrificed so that the FAA can retroactively fix an issue that someone
dismissed as "psychological".

~~~
ibn_ibid
>As a pilot in command, I have final authority to deviate from these
clearances for safety reasons, mainly because it is my ass on the line.

I think this is the most crucial aspect. Machines are excellent at executing
patterns and adhering to constraints. Improvisation, not so much. And really,
in emergency situations when things go awry and off script, it's that "clutch"
factor that makes all the difference.

~~~
diggernet
And that, in a nutshell, is my concern about fully autonomous cars, and the
enthusiasm some express for removing all manual control because "computers are
better than people".

~~~
manicdee
A computer will have notified ATC and all local traffic of intent, and
received acknowledgement of the distress call from all affected parties, while
the human is still half way through the first "Mayday, …"

One brand's autonomous pilot will only have to be taught about handling
unusual conditions once, while humans have to be trained from scratch each
iteration. 20 human pilots, about 22 iterations of the same training program.

Come up with a new failure scenario and a strategy for mitigating it? Train
the computer once. Train every human pilot independently. The lead time is
atrocious for getting software updates out to wetware, so good luck getting
every commercial human pilot to be familiar with a new procedure inside ten
years, by which time you have new humans to train because some of the old ones
died and taken all their training and experience with them.

------
raquo
I don't think commercial jets are an especially favourable target for complete
automation, compared to cars.

\- Slow iteration, each mistake that you could learn from potentially costs a
hundred lives

\- No graceful shutdown possible most of the time – if automation fails in a
car, you just stop or pull over, you probably won't die. A plane can't just
land itself if automation fails unless the comm link works

\- Comm link might not always work, it can be damaged from light mid air
collisions, bird strikes, drone strikes, other damage, improper maintenance,
possibly bad weather, hacking, jamming, over-saturation due to mass automation
failures etc.

To me it seems that it's easier to deal with road chaos than acquire an extra
couple 9s of uptime in this problem.

~~~
walterstucco
You don't remove pilots overnight, you can keep them on board for as long as
needed for safety reasons

Meanwhile flights have been almost completely automated for years already

~~~
raquo
No one has any doubt that the planes can fly themselves in 99% cases even with
todays technology, but bringing this up to a higher uptime while still being
fully automated will be very hard I think.

------
mannykannot
As commercial aircraft incidents are well-documented, it might be possible to
make some rough estimate of the change in accident rate if current airliner
control systems were used as the basis of full automation. Off the top of my
head, I would suggest relatively recent incidents that might well have ended
in fatal crashes without pilot intervention include the Qantas flight 32
engine disintegration and fire, Qantas QF72 uncommanded pitch-down incident,
and the British Airways flight 38 fuel icing non-fatal crash. On the other
hand, crashes that might have been avoided include those of Asiana flight 214
at San Francisco (power mismanagement on approach) and Coglan Air flight 3507
at Buffalo (mishandling of icing and the resulting stall.)

------
ruytlm
I'm going to have to disagree with the conclusion that 'self flying aircraft
may be well ahead' of self driving cars. I think automation of cars is a
necessary precursor to automation of air travel.

Many people have issues flying due the feeling of not being in control; I
expect we will first need the automation of cars to acclimatise people to the
concept of trusting in an AI driver/pilot, before automated flights will be
accepted.

Cargo flights strike me as the much clearer entry point for the technology.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Many people have issues flying due the feeling of not being in control_

If there's one consistent view Americans have expressed about flying, it's
that they'll choose the cheapest flight over almost anything else. Bring a
cheap self-flying route to market. People will get over their qualms.

> _Cargo flights strike me as the much clearer entry point for the technology_

Agree. That said, a helicopter seat from Manhattan to the Hamptons costs about
$700. If you cut that to $200 or 300 the demand would be massive, pilot or
not.

~~~
1_2__4
I don't think that's true, about low priced tickets. What you actually mean is
that once companies collude to create a situation where it's virtually
impossible to compare one flight to another, or one airline to another, by any
criteria other than cost then cost is what drives customer decisions.

I'm sick to death of this meme that Americans are only interested in low
prices. The fact is airlines were one of the first of many industries to use
fees, line by line cost breakdown, obscure deals and a baffling purchase
process to strand customers on an island of price comparison and nothing else.
See also: cell phones plans.

If you knew what you were getting and could hold airlines accountable when
they didn't deliver on what was purchased I promise you price would no longer
be the only factor. This is not a truism about Americans you've found, it's a
truism about distorted and manipulated markets lacking sufficient regulation.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _airlines were one of the first of many industries to use fees, line by line
> cost breakdown, obscure deals and a baffling purchase process to strand
> customers on an island of price comparison and nothing else_

I'm one of those Americans who doesn't buy the cheapest ticket. I buy
comfortable seats at convenient times with airlines I'm loyal to. Guess what I
see none of? Any of those things! My bags are free, my drinks are free, I get
to go to the front of the check-in line and, many times, security line. On
occasions where I've been charged a change fee, a quick phone call gets it
reversed. I board a 6:30AM flight tomorrow and am honestly looking forward to
a few hours of cool views, relaxing reading and maybe a touch of alcohol.

Airlines tried competing on pitch and leg room. Their behinds got handed to
them by travellers switching to budget airlines. If you want better service,
there are business class tickets available at prices cheaper than pre-
deregulation fares.

Note that this effect isn't constrained to Americans. European non-business
passengers' demand for air travel is also extremely elastic with respect to
price [1].

[1]
[http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/48303/140307.pd...](http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/48303/140307.pdf?sequence=1)

~~~
andrewjw
What domestic airlines do you fly most? Do you regularly fly business?

------
foota
Some quick math suggests to me that pilot pay is likely a small part of what
you're paying for with your ticket.

United Airlines employs 12712 pilots.
[[http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/legacy/united_ai...](http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/legacy/united_airlines)]

United has 143 million passengers. [[http://newsroom.united.com/corporate-
fact-sheet](http://newsroom.united.com/corporate-fact-sheet)]

If we say that United has a cost per pilot of $200,000 (likely high) then the
cost per pilot per passenger is $17.77

~~~
bhouston
12712 pilots * 200K average salary w/ overhead = $2.5B

That is not a small number.

$354 average domestic fair x 143M passengers = $50.6B in total fairs.

So $2.5B pilot cost is roughly 5% of their total costs. You can not lower gas
costs nor airport costs nor plane costs much, but if you could eliminate $2.5B
in salary, and add more flexibility, then yeah, I'd say there is massive
incentive if the marketing and safety issues can be overcome.

~~~
contingencies
Pilots also need (I would guess pretty frequent) (re-)training, hotels,
lounges, long term parking, time off, health insurance, etc. They're not just
$200K salary, they're probably more like $500K each/year in total cost once
you get to 747 level, though they may only see $200k in salary themselves.

------
jaclaz
Generally speaking, I would say that the difference in safety between a
commercial aircraft and a common car is essentially the quality of who is
driving.

The first is driven by a professional pilot, someone who belongs to an elite,
that has spent many long hours in studying and training, that has passed
several (I believe not at all easy) licensing tests, subject to continuous
checks (medical, drugs, alcohol, etc.) periodical exams and ability tests,
continuous update and that is never or almost never left alone in the cockpit,
with a colleague ready to intervene or to assist him/her if/when needed.

The second can be driven by anyone, including almost inexperienced kids,
elderly people, drivers under the effect of this or that drug, of alcohol,
having distractions (think about phones, pets or children in the car), the
licensing and medical tests are either extremely easy to pass or very rare,
like one every 5-10 years, etc.

Still, there are not as many car crashes as there could be (i.e., if you
prefer, even sub-standard car drivers can often drive good enough as to not
cause too many accidents).

We don't have right now the techology to fully replace a single average car
driver, and we plan to replace _two_ much higher standard aircraft pilots?

------
roceasta
Makes sense. Apart from the ground, it's harder to collide with other objects
in 3 dimensions than it is in 2 dimensions.

------
greenyoda
Before we get too excited about self-flying planes, watch the following video,
which is the NTSB's animation of US Airways 1549 landing in the Hudson River
after having both engines knocked out by geese:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S5hRRio-E8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S5hRRio-E8)

If this happened to a self-flying plane, would someone on the ground be able
to remotely take the controls in a matter of seconds and land it safely (or at
least avoid crashing it into a densely populated area)?

~~~
SeoxyS
This is a good example of why anecdotal evidence is a bad way to make
decisions (also - why the entire world is making the humongous mistakes of
ditching nuclear right now because of a couple examples of things going wrong;
despite nuclear having saved millions of lives vs. the few it has cost).

For every example like this, there are many more you can point to where NOT
having self-flying planes cost everybody on board their life. From hijackings
like 9/11, to rogue pilots like MH370 or the Germanwings crash, to simply
human error like the SFO Asiana crash, the SFO Air Canada almost-crash, or the
Tenerife collision, or the Air France Atlantic crash, or many many more…

------
King-Aaron
As long as they have an inflatable Otto in the pilots seat, I can't see it
being a problem.

------
tomerico
The most interesting change that self-flying planes could enable is making
small planes & helicopter transportation viable for everyone.

Assuming automation progresses to the point where safety is solved (i.e. at
least as safe as in a car), and that noise is also solved, you could imagine a
large quadcopter style drone that will pick you up and drop you off anywhere.
Once it converts to electricity, the cost of operation would be very low.

------
john_moscow
The reason why humans are needed in the cockpit is not about handling the
perfectly automatable day-to-day routine. It's about that one-in-a-million
case when several things go wrong at once in a way nobody thought of before
and a pilot's judgement call could save lives while an elaborately programmed
AI would get totally and completely stuck.

~~~
aianus
I don't want to pay $17 (high fake number from a poster above) for a one in a
million chance of saving my life. Might as well play the lottery at those
odds.

------
bhouston
I think cargo planes will be the first to be automated rather than passenger
jets. Less marketing problem.

------
omarforgotpwd
If I had to try and solve the marketing problem, I would try and focus on the
security angle. "This plane can't be hijacked by a terrorist", "this plane
would have stopped 9/11". Although, flying a plane remotely like a drone would
present a huge hacking risk and would be hard to trust in a major cyber war.
I'd prefer an entirely AI based solution with a remote piloting fallback.

~~~
drewmol
A remote pilot on call for emergencies? Interesting. I'm picturing a room full
of people who are on alert, as a service for near-instant, on-demand remote
vehicle control; avoid car/plane crashes, land planes, sort of navigating the
edge cases where human contol is still needed to bridge the gap

------
SeoxyS
Planes are already pretty much fully automated. Humans make mistakes far more
often than computers. Pretty much every airplane crash in the history was
caused by simple human error. The more we automate, the better.

As someone who also flies >150k miles a year, I'm happy about this.

------
vanattab
"Air traffic controllers can issue changes directly to the autopilot, usually
altitude adjustments."

Let's hope no one learns to hack that system.

------
aplummer
Interesting they see the pattern as going -> one pilot -> full automation. I
would prefer to go from 2 pilots to no pilots if it happened. I don't like a
single person being in complete control over the aircraft due to mental health
etc. That said, I like full automation even less.

------
sunstone
Beyond the marketing there's the issue of who to blame when things go bad.
These days the airline will always say "pilot error" is to blame. Once the
pilot is gone that excuse obviously won't fly.

~~~
dogma1138
That's a problem for the insurance companies not the airlines.

The reputation damage for the airline is more or less the same.

Also note that while pilot error is the conclusion of about 60% of all
aircraft accidents it's not the case for major airlines flying big passenger
jets.

That statistic is inflated quite a bit by smaller chartered flights since it
counts all accidents with 5 or more passengers onboard.

Also note that that statistic also shows that the majority of accidents happen
on taxing, landing or take off. You'll be surprised by how many taxing
accidents there are that cause fatalities which are deemed as pilot error
despite that no passenger have been killed but rather ground crew.

There are more taxi accidents than there are accidents at cruising altitude.

So yes pilot error is a big factor, it's smaller for hull loss accidents for
large commercial jets but it's still the case.

I should also note that a fatal accident can also still be pilot error despite
it having a different root cause like a bird strike or a mechanical problem if
the pilot did not perform correctly.

------
im3w1l
Market them as hijacker-proof.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Aircraft have more mechanical failures then hijacking attempts. The labor
savings are not significant enough to warrant autonomous passenger/cargo jets.

> In the meantime, it seems unlikely that we'll see mass unemployment of
> pilots. Mandatory retirement will see 42% of US pilots retire in the next
> ten years. If anything, this shortfall will push the automation case forward
> faster than ever.

This is a misnomer. There is no pilot shortage. Next time you fly a commuter
flight, ask your pilot how much they make (it's about $20k-50k/year). There
are an overwhelming number of available pilots in the training pipeline.

Just as with truck drivers, its not a labor cost problem. Its a corporate
disdain for cutting into profit margins.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/-smokey-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/-smokey-
and-the-bandit-charm-fades-as-truck-driver-hiring-lags)

"The annualized driver turnover rate at large truckload fleets was 74 percent
in the first quarter and the industry was short about 48,000 drivers at the
end of 2015. That shortage is expected to balloon to almost 175,000 by 2024,
according to the American Trucking Associations."

"Raising salaries is another option, but it would cut into profit margins. The
University of Pennsylvania’s Viscelli said companies would have to double
driver pay -- now about $41,000 -- to reduce turnover. About 30 percent of new
drivers quit in the first three months, according to Stay Metrics."

~~~
hourislate
My wife is an Airline executive and I just showed her your post, she had a
good laugh about your comment on labor and wages. Labor is the 2nd greatest
cost after fuel. There are a lot of pilots making well over 100k - 250k+ a
year. The problem is not cost. They can pass that along to the customer. It's
union contracts.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The top 25 legacy airline executives make, cumulatively, a bit under $90
million/year. The average annual wage per airline employee is about $60k/year.
The median pilot wage is ~$120k/year (the average is ~$80k/year).

EDIT: (crew is the lowest component of per hour flight time)

B757-200 FOC

Costs per block-hour of operations (avg. 186 seats):

CREW $ 489

FUEL $ 548

MAINTENANCE $ 590

OWNERSHIP $ 923

TOTAL FOC $ 2550 per block-hr

Ref:
[https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2017/Aviation%20Data%20an...](https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2017/Aviation%20Data%20and%20Analysis%20Seminar/PPT3%20-%20Airlines%20Operating%20costs%20and%20productivity.pdf)

~~~
hourislate
This information maybe accurate for Iran but I highly doubt it is accurate for
US Airlines.

------
mozumder
No, since drones have a crash rate that's multiple-times higher than manned
airplanes.

