
US Navy remotely lands F/A-18 Super Hornet on carrier deck - el_duderino
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-remotely-lands-fa-18-super-hornet-on-carrie-447225/
======
bkohlmann
This is interesting. I’ve been out of the cockpit for about 5 years, but we
had what we called “mode 1” approaches back then where the carrier would lock
onto our f-18. We could land without touching the controls. At the end of my
time, they actually incentivized us to fly these approaches more frequently to
develop unmanned systems more quickly. (Incentive was giving a perfect grade
for a landing...usually Mode Ones were a “no count” in the grading rubric.)

I guess the difference here is that an actual person (the LSO) is controlling
the jet vice the computer?

~~~
moftz
I'm not really sure what the benefit of having a remote operator landing the
plane vs having a computer do it. I guess the remote pilot can be the third
tier in who can land the plane (in-seat pilot, computer, ship remote pilot)
and for UAVs (UAV pilot, computer, ship remote pilot). Is the automated
landing system that crappy that they want to add in a remote operator? If they
can already land a plane automatically, the the next step they should focus on
is an automated air traffic control, landing and launching any planes within
the 5 mile radius (assuming that doesn't already exist). Imagine a smaller
carrier like a LHD totally devoted to UAVs that launch and land without anyone
on the tarmac.

~~~
icegreentea2
I think the idea is that UAV operators/pilots might not even attempt landings.
There's a future where assume control of UAVs as they approach station, and
release as they return to base.

In that scheme, they were probably expecting the UAVs to land automatically on
the carrier, with something like ATARI being the backup.

This way they can leave their operators focusing on mission tasks instead of
recovery.

~~~
goldenkey
Seems like a small gain for a small chance of the loss of a $100 million
asset. Wouldn't it be good to give pilots practice landing in adverse
conditions just in case this "autoland" fails similarly to how Tesla and
Uber's autopilot screws up fatally when the road lines are a bit faded?

On the other hand, landing probably is an easier task than driving given the
small amount of ways it can go right versus wrong.

~~~
JackFr
That's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots.

How much of the hardware is devoted to keeping the pilot alive? Once you
remove that, the hardware might be a whole lot simpler and cheaper.

~~~
kirse
_That 's why they really need to eliminate on board pilots._

There's always going to be a need for humans in the loop. In any sort of major
wartime scenario countries will be shooting, disabling, and jamming any form
of comms and guidance they know about.

~~~
goldenkey
What about autonomous drones that fallback to using stars and the moon
positions for navigation if comms/guidance are jammed? I know this wouldn't
work during sunny daytime hours but it's an interesting technique isn't it?

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I know this wouldn 't work during sunny daytime hours_

It would; you just need to filter out the sun. Apparently this is already a
thing:
[http://www.trexenterprises.com/Pages/Products%20and%20Servic...](http://www.trexenterprises.com/Pages/Products%20and%20Services/Sensors/opticalgps.html).

~~~
goldenkey
Wow, I was not aware that we could do such a feat with small(ish) equipment.
Thanks for the link.

------
tfha
If you can remotely control something, so can your enemy.

~~~
jimrandomh
Not true. Cryptography does work.

~~~
stouset
Cryptography works, but the implementations are frequently flawed.

Plus, things like this introduce systemic risk where an adversary can take
over multiple aircraft simultaneously, or at least render them all inert
midair.

~~~
monkeynotes
If remote controlled aircraft are a problem then basically anything on a
network is a problem. Pretty sure nuclear power stations, missile silos,
satellites, dams, darn near everything has a remote controlling and monitoring
element these days. You could just shut down a whole country.

~~~
tfha
We are going to have a very sorry series of tragedies if that doesn't change.
Remote monitoring is fine, remote control is not. At least, not for things
like nuclear power, weapons systems, vehicles that can drive very fast, etc

~~~
erkkie
Remote control of assets is not going to go away, we will need to adapt as an
industry to produce secure systems.

~~~
stouset
Secure remote control requires secure systems, which in turn requires secure
humans, and we will never solve this last requirement.

The way around this is by preventing systemic attacks. Analogous is how paper
voting—while vulnerable to things like vote stuffing—isn't susceptible to the
systemic problems that electronic voting typically is.

~~~
erkkie
I'd say secure systems need to be based on the assumption of insecure humans.
Nothing is absolute in security but we definitely should start the analysis
expecting people to behave incorrectly and insecurely. This is not a new
problem:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance)

------
smoyer
It's an interesting choice of wording when they say the LSO can "take over" \-
I hope the encryption is strong enough that LulzSec doesn't also "take over" a
military aircraft.

~~~
goldenkey
Wouldn't existing drones be using similar, albeit lower powered
communications?

~~~
smoyer
Yes ... and Iran has already claimed to have taken over one of the (at the
time) most technologically advanced U.S. drones -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident).

~~~
dingo_bat
Iran has claimed a lot of things, but I have serious problems believing them
when they got their nuclear facility hacked. My office network has more
security than that.

------
lallysingh
ATARI system? Is this post a few days old?

~~~
neverminder
Aircraft Terminal Approach Remote Inceptor. An unfortunate choice of an
acronym, yes, just like KGB (Knowledge Generation Bureau) -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Generation_Bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Generation_Bureau)

~~~
burnte
Or, as I suspect, an intentional acronym.

------
desireco42
Just wait till Iranians or someone like that hacks into this, like they
already did to one US drone.

~~~
dmix
It's not autonomous like a drone, it's controlled by human(s) on the aircraft
carrier with a pilot in the cockpit. It's also being billed as a "backup
system" for safety (to correct course) and for emergencies.

~~~
desireco42
It still opens it to hacking, as much as people don't want to hear it.
Essentially you have system for remote operation and if it can be hacked, then
it can be used to direct the plane.

------
jordache
hmm is that such a feat? landing on a carrier compared to landing on land? The
variables involved should be pretty predictable and can be modeled
accurately...

~~~
philip1209
It's a moving runway

~~~
flr03
The track is narrow and short, with potential movements in 3 dimensions.

~~~
JackFr
6 dimensions

~~~
dingo_bat
3 space dimensions and one time dimension still doesn't add up to 6.

~~~
JackFr
3 spatial (up/down, right/left, back/front) + 3 rotational (pitch, yaw, roll)

