XWing: Autonomous cargo aircraft gains approval

schmookeeg

schmookeeg

En-Route
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
4,832
Location
Alameda, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Mike Brannigan
timesofsandiego.com

Air Force OKs Autonomous Cargo Flights Across California After Successful Test

The U.S. Air Force has authorized San Francisco-based Xwing to transport time-sensitive cargo across California on autonomous aircraft.
timesofsandiego.com timesofsandiego.com

Anyone know how they're dealing with radios? The fields quoted in the article are all towered.

I don't think a "2800 flight mile test" is all that rigorous to get this sort of approval. That's what, 15 hours in a C208?
 
schmookeeg said:
That word "autonomous" seems overworked then.
Click to expand...
It has been especially over the past 5-7 years. What once was "programmed" or "automatic" has been magically transformed to autonomous. Its become the new buzz word that gives old stuff new powers. Cough.

Several years ago when I was doing ad hoc work on some hybrid-engine projects this topic came up in discussion. One of the project leads explained that for a vehicle to be truly autonomous... the amount of time it would take to compute the data inputs for the vehicle to operate independently would be measured in days, weeks, months, or years and not seconds even for a simple flight. That's why he said they would stick to programming automatic features vs autonomous features. But "autonomous" sells. This 208 is nothing more than a Predator with no missiles and a big trunk.
 
One could probably even claim today's autopilots are an autonomous feature, and the pilot is just there for safety purposes. Its all in how you tell the story.
 
I have people on my team that aren't autonomous. Thinking about that for a second, they're all married.
 
How many people are required to staff this "autonomous" flight in order to replace a single pilot?
 
I don't particularly care if these things are flying around (The Air Force has been flying its Predators for years) but for a Caravan range aircraft, I don't see how there is a time savings by eliminating a pilot.

Unless their angle is that the loss of the aircraft and its cargo in a combat zone is unimportant compared to the loss of a pilot, it doesn't make practical sense unless I'm missing something.
 
Sac Arrow said:
it doesn't make practical sense unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
Its more related to streamlining the infrastructure and support of cargo ops, etc. And they do it with a civilian off-the-shelf platform. The premise is a couple remote pilots could theoretically launch a half-dozen Caravans filled with supplies to remote sites fulfilling the mission. Once unloaded and refuel, those same two pilots or two other pilots could recover all aircraft back to home base. Crewed military aircraft would require a lot more support, pilots, and money to make the same movement happen. About 10 or 12 years ago the Marines used uncrewed remote piloted KMAX helicopters to move supplies around along those same lines. It worked but didn't work and they moved on. My guess the Air Force wanted to give it a try too.
 
Bell206 said:
Its more related to streamlining the infrastructure and support of cargo ops, etc. And they do it with a civilian off-the-shelf platform. The premise is a couple remote pilots could theoretically launch a half-dozen Caravans filled with supplies to remote sites fulfilling the mission. Once unloaded and refuel, those same two pilots or two other pilots could recover all aircraft back to home base. Crewed military aircraft would require a lot more support, pilots, and money to make the same movement happen. About 10 or 12 years ago the Marines used uncrewed remote piloted KMAX helicopters to move supplies around along those same lines. It worked but didn't work and they moved on. My guess the Air Force wanted to give it a try too.
Click to expand...
So in other words a juggling operation, using two pilots to take off and land six aircraft in a staggered fashion?
 
Sac Arrow said:
So in other words a juggling operation, using two pilots to take off and land six aircraft in a staggered fashion?
Click to expand...
In general, yes. But I don't know how Xwing plans their ops. However, from past events on this topic the person is selling the premise their "2 pilots" will replace 6 people and so on and it usually works well in the initial phase. Then there is an in-flight issue and a 3rd remote pilot is needed. Or there is a mechanical and a mx crew needs to be rerouted. In the end they end up with same number of people as a crewed ops. Then the program is canceled. Maybe this new "autonomous" voodoo gris-gris will change things in Xwing's case. Who knows. Film at 11.
 
I think combat supply is exactly where it makes sense. I remember reading about the ground convoys in Vietnam, and the gun trucks that escorted them. Vehicles cobbled together by the soldiers in the field. The stories that "we'd never have to do that again". And then we did, a couple of times. Manned supply lines seem wasteful in their risk.

As far as civilian transportation goes? The simplest thing to automate would probably be trains, yet trains still have engineers. Someone DID try a fully autonomous people moving system, at WVU in Morgantown in the 1980's, and it was a complete financial failure.

Ok, I take that back. Every day I'm at work I ride in an elevator. Those have mostly been autonomous for 50 years. I think autonomous elevators are a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top