27
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago

Technology wise, aircraft are already 90+% automated - autopilot does basically the whole cruise phase, pilots are there to do the communication with ATC, manage the autopilot, and be hands on for taxi, takeoff and landing.

From a legal/policy perspective, the aviation industry is held to a much higher standard of reliability and safety than the automotive industry - the AI driven YOLO that companies like Waymo get away with. It's not just that autopilot systems have to always work, it's that they have to always behave in a predictable way.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 41 points 1 week ago

Pilot here.
There's already a huge amount of automation available for airplanes large and small. The current top of the line will allow the airplane to connect every phase of flight except for the takeoff, coming all the way down to landing on the runway. In your average airline flight, probably 80 to 95% of the flight is flown by computer. The pilots are managing the aircraft, talking to ATC, etc. So you could argue that that is already there.

If you mean the ability to conduct a trip without an operator, IE little girl jumps in the back of the car and says 'Tessie take me to school!' and the car drives her to school, that will absolutely happen in cars before airplanes. The simple reason is edge cases and emergencies. In a car, if something goes wrong, you simply pull over. Or, worst case scenario, just slow down and stop. It's not great but it's not terrible. If something goes wrong in an airplane, you need to keep operating the airplane for anywhere between 10 minutes and 4 hours including a landing. A lot of what pilots do in emergencies is figure out exactly how their airplane has been damaged and strategize around that. A lot of that is intuition, the rest is deduction based on understanding of how the airplane works. Since the computer can't see out the window or feel things like buffets and sound, a computer won't necessarily be as good at that. So the pilots aren't going anywhere.

[-] bruhbeans@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago

I think truck driving is probably the next thing. There's laws (at least in the US) about how long a driver can run without rest, long haul routes are generally not very crowded with traffic nor complicated. If you can get twice as many hours out of a robot than a human, you can recoup the investment pretty quickly. I could see a hub-and-spoke model where robots handle the long spots with humans taking the busier spokes.

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I'm surprised it's not already in place for rail freight. Pre-defined, well known routes, automatic right-of-way. You'd need some exception detection - spot things on the line or if any part of the train is behaving abnormally, but like cars you can "fail safe" - do an emergency stop if the computer or a remote operator decides that something has gone sufficiently wrong which you can't do in a plane

Not exactly easy to stop a train, but yeah.

Granted, that's also an issue with human conductors, though.

[-] gnu@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

It already is for some specific rail freight, iron ore haulage in Western Australia being one example. Rio Tinto has been running them in WA since 2019.

The Sydney Metro is also driverless, albeit a passenger only line rather than freight.

[-] jrs100000@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Im going to guess its a proportional cost issue. Drivers take up a much larger percentage of the cost of shipping a ton of cargo by truck that the cost a human engineer on a train.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

By tradition, the automobile industry is allowed to build machines that kill people.

The airplane industry isn't.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 1 week ago

less variables on a runway. its a very strictly controlled environment unlike most roads

[-] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Airplanes, though I suspect they will never be truly without someone to assist in case of emergency.

Cars have to contend with a number of random obstacles and unique challenges. Planes have defined runways and taxiways and, via autopilot and GPS, their flight paths are relatively easily defined and controlled.

The sky over one city is pretty much like any other. Main Street not so much.

[-] Thavron@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Am I crazy? There are already self-driving cars, aren't there?

[-] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Airplanes will never be pilotless, there will always be a human in the loop for redundancy. A failure in a self driving car could kill a few people at most, a failure in a pilotless plane could kill thousands.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

a human in the loop for redundancy.

No, but for taking the blame.

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
27 points (90.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36304 readers
865 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS