CNBC video: "The Future of Flying Is Here: Pilotless Planes"

[Peter Anderson]

These guys test out of one of my local airports. I talked to one of the engineers in the hanger a few years back when they were just getting going. Bottom line is no flight has gone up without a pilot and the computer doesn’t do the comms either. Unless there is predetermined routes with zero other air traffic, I just don’t see this happening. You might be able to program planes to act perfectly, but you can’t program other planes, ATC people, and humans to do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Palmpilot]

Perfection in technology is a myth. Why? Because it's developed, built, and maintained by humans.

 

[A1Topgun]

the computer doesn’t do the comms either.

Have you ever called tech support? After you get through the voice prompt hell you get a computer voice. Or, try the "chat" function sometime to see how the computer interacts with you. Talking to ARTCC is just a matter of time. And how do you know when ARTCC computer is not be giving you flight clearances?

 

[Bob Noel]

I vote for 0.000000000001 or better. It has to be better than a human.

well, iirc, that's two orders of magnitude lower than the acceptable limit for an airliner (Part 25) - probability of catastrophic failure less than 10-9 per flight hour- and four (six?) orders of magnitude lower than the acceptable limit for a Part 23 airplane - probability of catastrophic failure less than 10-7 per flight hour (or is it 10-5?).

any fault is going to amplified by the number of aircraft. The Max fault crashed two airplanes, which is two more than acceptable.

yup - the number of aircraft is a factor. The qualitative requirement is that a failure causing a catastrophic loss is not expected to occur within the life of the fleet.

But you keep talking about zero failures as the only acceptable number. You realize that it is physically impossible to have zero failures with hardware, don't you? And the sad reality is that no software system has zero implementation defects.

 

[Peter Anderson]

Have you ever called tech support? After you get through the voice prompt hell you get a computer voice. Or, try the "chat" function sometime to see how the computer interacts with you. Talking to ARTCC is just a matter of time. And how do you know when ARTCC computer is not be giving you flight clearances?

Clearances are much different than actual instructions. And how often can the computer prompts actually help you? I always have to get to a human to get my problem fixed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[cowman]

I've said it many times - the standard is not that they can get it right. The standard is that they must not get it wrong.

As someone who grew up in the software engineering world, I will never get on a plane without trained pilots. There are simply too many things that can go wrong.

Yeah it’s only going to be as good as the scenarios the programmers and testers could think of.

 

[A1Topgun]

I always have to get to a human to get my problem fixed.

Exactly!

 

[bflynn]

But you keep talking about zero failures as the only acceptable number.

Because the alternate is that we have failures in a function that where a failure puts lives at risk. But I'm a realist, so if they can get it down to 1 in a billion fault in the software code, then I'll say they've done a good job.

In part my stance is because I know software engineering and the people don't appreciate what they're trying to do. Until they get very, very serious about their quality and a safety culture, they will constantly be at risk of building something that is going to kill people.

 

[Wagondriver]

We already have pilotless airplanes, like the cirrus that slammed into the metro liner at KAPA this last week!

 

[nauga]

Because the alternate is that we have failures in a function that where a failure puts lives at risk.

There is a system with this critical fault in every cockpit of every part 23 and 25 certificated airplane flying today. It's non-deterministic too.

Nauga,
the meat servo

 

[Bob Noel]

Because the alternate is that we have failures in a function that where a failure puts lives at risk. But I'm a realist, so if they can get it down to 1 in a billion fault in the software code, then I'll say they've done a good job.

In part my stance is because I know software engineering and the people don't appreciate what they're trying to do. Until they get very, very serious about their quality and a safety culture, they will constantly be at risk of building something that is going to kill people.

In part my stance is because I worked with DO-178B (which is an indication of how long ago I was doing that) and multiple contractors. So, yeah, I have some understanding of the spectrum of contractor understanding of "safety critical software" and the seriousness with which organizations approach safety (or try to blow it off).

 

[Bob Noel]

There is a system with this critical fault in every cockpit of every part 23 and 25 certificated airplane flying today. It's non-deterministic too.

Nauga,
the meat servo

organic?