Will Airbus “Project Dragonfly” spell the END for Pilots?!
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2023
- Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
-----------------------------------------------------
What is the Airbus Dragonfly project? Well, for me personally it is something that comes with a lot of contradicting feelings. On the one hand, it involves fascinating technology, that could create tools that would really help pilots maintain situational awareness and reduce our workload.
On the other hand… these same intriguing technologies could bring changes to the industry that NO pilot that I know wants to see.
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• Pilots concerned over ...
• #A350 XWB - New Touch ...
• Immersive Remote Colla...
• AIRBUS and NAVBLUE : R...
• 1980s Air Travel | Air...
• WNBC CH 4 Flight 587 C...
• AlbatrossOne: Revoluti...
• Synthetic Vision System
• Airbus Innovation Cent...
• Acubed Develops AI for...
• Enhanced Vision System...
• fello'fly: A flight de...
• Airbus UpNext #DragonF...
• Airbus UTM Announces U...
• Airbus A350-1000 Type ...
• Fello'fly transatlanti...
• ATTOL: Autonomous Taxi...
• What our future airspa...
• Wisk On-Demand Air Tax...
• DeckFinder in action a...
• A330 MRTT Automatic Ai...
• FCAS and Remote Carrie...
• Pilot Incapacitation
• Inside the Boeing 737 ...
• Driver Sense - Driver ...
• Examining The Pilot Sh...
• Airline wants to cut h...
• How do airlines price ...
www.easa.europa.eu/en/researc...
www.icao.int/Meetings/a41/Doc... - Věda a technologie
Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
Honestly thanks for the tip! :)
Talk about workloads on Jets both commercial and private.
it's the future... it'll kill a couple hundred people I'm sure but so has every thing else we've ever invented .... eventually we get it right so... I wouldn't fly on any of them for the first decade that's for sure.
I see the therapy as a hazard in that any information may not be confidential. Anything discussed with a psychologist or psychiatrist is confidential. In the internet we are the commodity and our data is traded, and sold everytime we do something on line including where we travel.
Seeing as they Vaxterminated most of the flight crew it makes sense to start replacing them with AI.
Sadly what you don't hear about is all the times pilots SAVE an aircraft, or take action that results in no one ever knowing anything was wrong. It's like many things, negative outcomes always draw the biggest attention.
Exactly
True, but on the flip side, most accedents are caused, at least partialy by pilots doing the "swiss cheese" and not following instruments to save the situation. BUT, personally it would be a big stretch for me to completely trust an all AI, or single pilot controlled 777, at least for the present time, anyway.
@@MentourNow MH370 Everyone, their mother and their DOG knows what THAT is! But if you mention British Air flight 009 or the Gimli Glider they just stare at you with a completely blank expression.
@@Southwest_923WR The vast majority of accidents are *caused* by pilot error. Pilots are causing crashes not saving the day, to the tune of 80%.
But of course the same focus on negative outcomes applies also to automation, not just to human action - indeed, even more so. For that reason, a fully automated landing system will have to be FAR safer than any manual system before it will be accepted. Humans expect humans to be fallible but are far more intolerant of automated design error. But in all forms of aviation pilot error is still far the major cause of accidents. IMO Airbus' philosophy of "it should be so easy to fly that a taxi driver could do it safely" is demonstrably safer than Boeing's "pilot always in command" philosophy, but acknowledging that is understandably very distasteful for any pilot - including Petter.
Decades ago, I read a science fiction story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
I'd love to read that story if you can remember the title or the author.
@@dragons_of_liberty I'm sorry but it was so long ago that I don't remember anything except the ending.
@@dragons_of_liberty My attempts to use AI to find the story:
User
Identify the title and author of a science fiction story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
I apologize, but based on the information provided, I am not aware of any specific science fiction story matching this exact plot description. It is possible that such a story may exist in a lesser-known publication or a more recent work beyond my knowledge cutoff date. Alternatively, it could be a fictional scenario described in an internet forum, blog post, or other online source.
If you have any other details or additional context about the story, I'll do my best to assist you further.
User
Identify the title and author of a story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
The story you are referring to is "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.
However, it is essential to note that "The Last Question" is not about an airplane crash; rather, it is a science fiction short story that spans billions of years and explores the theme of the nature of entropy and the universe's eventual fate. The story does not involve a pilot on a cabin radio, an airplane crash, or a control room. So, the specific scenario you described doesn't match the plot of "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.
User
Identify references to a story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion, but after conducting extensive research and searching through various sources, I could not find any references to a story with the exact scenario you described. It is possible that the specific plot you mentioned is not widely known or hasn't been published in a popular work of fiction.
If this scenario is from a lesser-known or unpublished story, it might not be easily accessible or well-documented. It's also possible that the details have been misremembered or mixed with elements from other stories.
If you have any other details or additional context about the story, I'll do my best to help you further.
My attempts to use AI to find the story:
User
Identify the title and author of a science fiction story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
I apologize, but based on the information provided, I am not aware of any specific science fiction story matching this exact plot description. It is possible that such a story may exist in a lesser-known publication or a more recent work beyond my knowledge cutoff date. Alternatively, it could be a fictional scenario described in an internet forum, blog post, or other online source.
If you have any other details or additional context about the story, I'll do my best to assist you further.
User
Identify the title and author of a story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
The story you are referring to is "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.
However, it is essential to note that "The Last Question" is not about an airplane crash; rather, it is a science fiction short story that spans billions of years and explores the theme of the nature of entropy and the universe's eventual fate. The story does not involve a pilot on a cabin radio, an airplane crash, or a control room. So, the specific scenario you described doesn't match the plot of "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov.
User
Identify references to a story where an airplane was about to crash killing everyone on board. The pilot was on the cabin radio explaining what happened and how the plane was doomed. At the end he told the passengers how sorry he was for what was about to happen to them, signed off then left the control room and went home.
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion, but after conducting extensive research and searching through various sources, I could not find any references to a story with the exact scenario you described. It is possible that the specific plot you mentioned is not widely known or hasn't been published in a popular work of fiction.
If this scenario is from a lesser-known or unpublished story, it might not be easily accessible or well-documented. It's also possible that the details have been misremembered or mixed with elements from other stories.
If you have any other details or additional context about the story, I'll do my best to help you further.
Nightfall by Isaac Asimov
I was hoping project dragonfly meant that Airbus is building a plane which can instantly stop, reverse, make 90 degree turns and hover in crazy ways like the actual dragonfly.
Like the "ornithopter" aircraft in the recent Dune movie! 😅
The big problem with single-pilot ops is creating the single-pilot. Right now, we take new pilots and make them first officers. In that role, they gain experience and eventually are able to upgrade to captain, where they now mentor and help train first officers. How do you build that experience for the single pilot if the aircraft only operates with one pilot?
The answer is obvious - single-pilot ops is a temporary step before the no-pilot ops is available. And TBH, unless it’s one’s profession, it may be not such a bad thing.
@@violentfox People like you are so excited to see humanity become obsolete... What possible advantage could be worth killing an entire profession? Ill put my life in the hands of a flawed human over a perfect robot any day.
Good point. A side event might be we intentionally increase dual seat simulations to add to cognitive learning session.
I wonder what all the navigators and flight engineers are doing.
A bunch of fighters in the military are single seat only, yet people fly them well. Sim & trainers go a long way.
As a programmer the idea to use voice recognition on ATC radio instead of just using a text based transmission system seems completely insane. That introduces so much needless complexity and sources for errors.
Exactly. ATC communication being voice over radio in 2023 is completely absurd. It should have been text-based for decades now...
@@SwordQuake2Literally something like the chat wheel in Apex Legends.
I mean have you heard the muddled mess that some ATC controllers speak? Sometimes when I'm on ground at my local airport (which I know intimately) I'm like "what???"
@@SwordQuake2 Keep in mind that those airports are not only serving big airliners full of computers but also smaller planes, general aviation, helicopters, etc. Those are not going to disappear any time soon and will not have this equipment even if you started to send stuff in text today and mandated the equipment to be fitted to all airliners. Heck, there are small general aviation planes that don't even have basic FM radios or transponders and are flying near airports where even airliners or bizjets fly - and it is legal!
What you really really *do not* want is a mixed environment of any sort - where some can hear all clearances because they have the equipment, and other hear only some of them. That leads to poor situational awareness and accidents - it is bad enough when the controllers don't speak English to all planes but speak a local language (e.g. French of German or Spanish) to the local pilots and English to the others. There has been more than one major accident caused by this already. E.g. the fatal collision in Paris CDG in May 2000.
BTW, some clearances can be requested and received in text already via ACARS or CPDLC (datalink). Typically stuff like departure clearances which are long and contain a lot of instructions. However, real time instructions are still issued by voice because the last thing you want for the crew to be doing while taxiing or about to enter runway is to be fumbling with their computer screen reading "text" from ATC instead of looking outside for potential hazards. Such as another plane crossing their way, errant baggage handler vehicle or even animals. That would be an accident waiting to happen.
It's crazy! All the developments in the industry and we still have pilots talking to ATC in their 2nd or 3rd language down crackling radios for such a critical system when the technology has been there for years to integrate a text/visual prompt into the cockpit... I would imagine it would also be a great help in synchronising this new AI technology with ATC commands, rather than messing around with voice recognition
Computer scientist here. Typical AI doesn't actually think. It's based on the training data, and the "reasoning" is usually opaque. When faced with a new situation, AI can get confused in stupid ways and do ridiculous things -- like flying straight into the ground! I vote for keeping pilots in the cockpit or at least keep a pilot monitoring remotely who can seize control if the robot flying gets into trouble.
Remember "Hal"!
As an aircraft mechanic, I love seeing the cutting edge tech going into aircraft, but it definitely increases the amount of systems that we as mechanics would have to learn as well as how they interact with other systems. There will always be a learning curve, but more safety, is never a bad thing. The only issue that I can see, is what we're seeing in vehicles with this type of technology on the roads. It is making less aware, more distracted drivers. We have adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring, lane departure assist, etc, etc, but it has made drives less and less involved with actually driving and paying attention to their surroundings.
Also don’t u think there’s another disadvantage because if there’s a single pilot. Then he could hijack the plane
Back in the 1970s, IBM had a presentation that included the quote, "A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision."
Who will take responsibility should an AI "pilot" make a decision that results in tragedy?
Same question for autonomous drivîng
The human pilot whether he exists or not.
The whole "one pilot in the flight deck assisted by AI" thing got me thinking about what will happen if a suicidal pilot decides to intentionally crash the plane, like with the Germanwings crash in 2015. Will the AI be able to recognize that?
AI is as good as the training data, which it is trained on. So if the data contains suicidal crashes, then the AI will recognize that.
I mean the AI should prevent a pilot trying to "land" the plane in dangerous terraine when the plane does not requier a emergency landing
The reality about a situation like that ever being implemented would have to assume that the AI itself would be entirely capable of communicating emergencies and dealing with any emergency situation completely on its own accord, and it would have to do all of this with near 100% accuracy without any input from the pilot. The autopilot would HAVE to be able to recognize and act appropriately and be proven to be capable of doing all of this faster and with greater awareness than any human pilot in the world. Considering we currently are barely scratching the surface of having automatic "driver aids" in road vehicles, let alone being close to having ANYTHING that could be described as "Full Self Driving," the expected time frame on developing any sort of functional AI that could satisfy the redundancy and capability requirements to have a fully autonomous passenger aircraft will likely take many decades, assuming it is even found to be financially or operationally feasible through the testing phases.
How will the AI prevent a suicidal pilot from simply turning everything off?
Then the other side is a malfunctioning AI that has to be overridden by the human pilot?
@@Cynshamthis is what i tell people when they ask about pilotless airliners. We aren't even close to fully self driving cars and that's in two dimensions.
Single jet fighter pilots crossing oceans sometimes endure trance like microsleeps, which are terrifying. At least with another pilot, you are monitoring each other & chatting etc to keep both pilots mentally stimulated.
They're often given amphetamines though also.
it is why we need ai autopilot system.
@@DreamFreeFPVThat’s against FAA regulations. You will lose your license for any consumption of illicit or even legal drugs. Stop spreading misinformation online.
happened to me on highways a of couple times. always lucky that I somehow stayed in my lane
It's not about falling asleep; it's about the Pilot waking up from a dream. In the dream, the plane is in a steep dive. .. The Pilot wakes up and pulls back on the yoke hard, while screaming his lungs out.[The plane stalls at high altitude and everybody dies.] .. Has this ever happened ❓
I woke up driving on the highway. I don't know how I got there.
This is what writers/doctors/etc have been saying about generative AI too, like chatbots. If it augments a professional, that's fantastic. If it's seen as a replacement, we're in big trouble.
When money is considered by the already wealthy, replacement of labour through automation is always the end goal
@@user-co8vc5nd7l until people can no longer consume what they're selling ...
@@user-co8vc5nd7l even the money goal doesn't make sense here. If almost every profession gets replaced with AI, there will be less and less people who have a job and are able to buy something. Robots don't get payed but they also don't buy anything. You're basically making your consumer market smaller. Who is going to buy what you sell if people don't have a job?
@@fraufuchs9555 I mean, to an extent, if everything is automated, we can all relax and not worry about anything. After all, we all work to get food and a roof over our head, everything else is simply a bonus.
@@OfficialRKan if you don't have a job you can't afford food and roof either.
Don’t forget the Hawker Siddeley Trident back in the sixties, which was able to complete a landing, flare and throttle back automatically in zero vis. I can’t remember if it was coupled to an ILS system, but it was the first, and it worked.
Wasn't the TriStar also famous for it's automation before Airbus?
The Trident (if I remember) was the first aircraft that had a (Smiths) triple autopilot that allowed it to autoland in Cat 3 weather. It wasn't approved in zero vis. but a minimum visibility with no decision height. The minimum visibility was so the crew could find their way off the runway and to the stand.
Yes it's called Autoland
Another factor: after an incident, if you only have a single pilot, you lose all the context you get from the cockpit voice recorder. There's nobody for them to talk to, so you have less information about the pilot's mental state and stress level (Unless the cameras and sensors can augment this by some means).
Video recording the cockpit and digitally saving that in some kind of black box has been technologically feasible for at least a decade now and would provide tons of info. Video plus audio in a 2-person cockpit would be better, but if there's only 1 pilot having video of them and their actions would still include a lot of context.
@@flinx better suited for the flight data recorder. There are actually some FDRs that record video, Mercury's "FAERITO" is one approved model I found when I went looking.
CRM suddenly would include commenting everything you do on the flight deck like talking to yourself. Either people will start to think you are nuts, or you will indeed be very soon. And I would not bet on every single pilot being able to keep up the comments if a situation really becomes stressful. I bet as soon as things get stressfull, that would be the first thing you forget about. Despite believing so, we are actually not that good at multitasking as we always think and under certain conditions, our body and brain start to prioritise.
"I detect you are stressed. I suggest you transfer control to me now... Stress level increase detected. Initiating pilot lock out."
@@justcommenting4981 "Look, Dave, I can see that are really upset about this. I honestly think that you ought to sit down calmingly, take a stress pill, and think things over..."
I don't know about the other viewers, but In believe that I am not alone in saying this: When bad stuff goes down, I was always to think: Wow! I am glad that experienced, human pilots would be on the sticks doing their best to keep me alive and safe.
These men and women doing a superb work, usually unnoticed,
to protect and support us.
Thank you, all.
PS : another great video, sir! Thank you.
"Experienced human pilots doing their best to keep me alive and safe" are the most fallible piece of machinery possible, though. Humans are very prone to the "illusion of control" - thinking they or other humans they trust have far more control over events than they actually do (it is a known cognitive bias that people in powerful or prestigious jobs are especially prone to).
Pilot error is responsible for 88% of all aircraft incidents.
Meanwhile tesla autopilots have a risk of bugging out, sending drivers and pedestrians straight to god if it encounters a situation it's not familiar with
I will never in my life trust a computer to drive or fly me safely anywhere
They may work 99% of the time, but you only need that 1-in-100 error cut your life short
The overhyping of AI is literally gonna put people's lives in danger. And i thought it stealing the works of artists was some of the worst things they made AI do
@@robainscough Where can we find this statistic? I've read that 53% are attributed also to pilot error, but not exclusively.
@@BlueSkyUp_EU NTSB.gov accident data, you can request download. I've seen several published numbers ranging from 53% to 88% and I think it varies based on date and how the actual error is determine (ATC vs. Pilot vs. Maintenance). What I found interesting many decades ago it was "maintenance" as the cause of 80% aircraft incidents and 20% pilot ... now it's reversed at 80% pilot and 20% maintenance.
on top of the safety concerns I'd hazard a guess that having a person to talk to takes off the edge of those long flights, so a single pilot cockpit would feel pretty lonely and isolating in those massive aircraft
Thank you so much for this video. You talked in great detail about this subject from so many points of view, many of which I didn't think of when reading the news in the first place.
I am particularly interested in what you said at the end of the video about the benefit that this system could provide for fuel consumption. We've already seen in history that airliners strive to update also older models even for "little" percentages of better fuel efficiency (this happened for example when winglets were developed).
The visual help in navigating the airplane during taxing can also be a profound improvement, helping (together with A-SMGCS) both TWR and the pilots with taxing even in lower visibility conditions.
I'm not a pilot, but I studied some of these things at university, and I'm super excited and curious about the future of technologies like this one
i want more mentour wisdom like the "pissing in your pants when it's cold" line. Don't think I've ever laughed so hard watching an aviation video!
I'll see what I can do!
@@MentourNow That quip was quite something, I may borrow it sometime! 🤣
I will try to do it in the winter just to verify this theory.
That happens to be kind of a german proverb, maybe same in swedish
I fly the 320, just as a bit of background and i literally CAN'T imagine doing eMCO. Imagine you're on a night-flight, 9 hours (which will be possible with the XLR), having to sit on the flight deck all alone, just monitoring the systems without anybody to talk to. Nobody, absolutely nobody, can tell me that fatigue isn't a factor in this scenario, even if it's only for like 2-3 hours. If this project ever comes to fruition, we'll hear a lot more about "pilots falling asleep on the flight deck", I assure you.
Oh yeah big time, my biggest concern is a remake of the Germanwings crash. 2 pilots are there for a number of reasons including suicide. I think the whole eMCO thing is ridiculous
You mean like truck drivers?
@@thomgizziz In a way, i guess. However truck drivers are actually doing something, driving a car. On the Flightdeck we sometimes do literally nothing, for hours, depending on the route.
Yeah I understand. To put things into perspective, I can’t fall asleep in class because I know there’s people around and I should be awake. When I’m alone doing schoolwork, I always fall asleep on my homework.
In Uk, truck dvrs are only allowed 4.5 hrs drive time and must pull over. I am intrigued which motorway services you plonk on, & do they serve AVGAS at the pumps! LOL!
*Students planning to become pilots in future*
Airbus : let me introduce you to the project dragon fly
I love your videos. As a former airline station manager in Nigeria, I have alway been fascinated with the beauty of flying. Keep it up and kudos once again
I think the ideal outcome would be all these systems to improve operational capability on a two pilot crew . Using them to switch to one pilot is a double edged sword, you add to the safety with the great technology and simultaneously take away safety by removing the second pilot . Interesting debate for sure. As someone working on their atpl I don't think it will have an immediate impact but only time will tell.
My thoughts exactly.
I would refuse to go on a single pilot aircraft just due to the potential psychological problems. We've seen at least one (and possibly several) commercial flights where a depressed pilot crashed the aircraft.
If the automation is powerful enough to overrule a human pilot if the human pilot tries to crash the aircraft, the automation is simultaneously too powerful in the event of a sensor or electronic failure. Imagine a clogged pitot tube causing the electronics to overrule the pilot.
No, there need to be two people on the flight deck at all times.
@@PsRohrbaugh In the end: Thats what people initially also said about the flight engineer .. but in the end, that position was eliminated.
@@TylerDurden-pk5kmPetter mentioned multiple times during the video that going from 3 to 2 is vastly different from 2 to 1. I agree.
@@PsRohrbaugh You wouldnt go from two to one - you would go from 2 humans to 1 human and one AI. Same redundancy level.
And radio operators and flight engineers aren't the only example - a more recent is the use of 2 engine jets for long range ocean crossings - aka ETOPS. In the end economics won and manufacturers made it work - highly reliable engines without a flight engineer.
"Let's figure out how to do more with the same, rather than the same with less". What a quote.
Another great video. As a retired pilot, I have the same mixed feeling as you. One of the bedrock reasons the safety record is so near perfect is the presence of at least two flight crew members, one flying and one checking. In fact when I began my career I was a flight engineer on the 727. Most of the time it was a boring, routine job but on two occasions I was able to correct navigational errors and twice may have saved our aircraft from a potential disaster. The first one was when we were taking off at maximum gross weight and at 50 feet or so after the "positive rate" call the Captain who was flying called for gear up while looking left for traffic. The FO reached for the flap handle. I saw this and shouted "wrong one!' which alerted the FO that he was about to retract the flaps by mistake. We all agreed in our debrief that if he had retracted the flaps the aircraft probably would have descended into the lights. My point is that even going from a 3 person cockpit to a 2 person cockpit reduced the margin for safety. Going to a 1 person or even worse an autonomous cockpit would come with deadly consequences. You can not tell me that an autonomous aircraft would have a positive outcome in Sully's or Al Haynes unfortunate circumstances. The minor cost reduction would be meaningless to loved ones of those who perished by having automated systems flying the aircraft into the ground.
This technology is awesome and it’s exciting to see where the industry is going. I think due to accidents such as Germanwings Flight 9525 we are still far from seeing single pilot flight decks.
Hey stop being a bloody European Gigolo.
Correct. The proper way is remote control only.
@@incremental_failure There can be serious lag with remote control and failures to connect.
@@LunaticTheCat Not when done properly. 100ms latency is very easily doable and that's plenty low for aircraft control. With duplicated technology, there's no issues connecting anywhere. If for example ground saw and could interfere with the Germanwings pilot's actions, they could've saved the plane. Right now even if they know, they can't do anything, that's pathetic.
You should make a video about the shortage of engineers... its much worse than the pilot shortage... especially when looking at how few young people choose a mechanical career...
Good point
can confirm, enrolment rates at technical universities in germany have started falling
@@oadka In Sweden its a complete catastrophy... very few young men and women are looking at a mechanical or technical career. Even sectors such as car repairs shops are finding it extremely difficult to find skilled labor, or even a person who will lay off his/her phone for more than 3 hours at a time...
Too many graduates, it’s the cause of all labour shortages.
As a train driver, I know all too well about the prospect of losing my job to automation. We've already got driverless Metro trains here and the local commuter trains are next in line. It doesn't seem like long range trains will be converted any time soon, but it seems inevitable that it will happen at some point.
Pretty much all new metro lines that don't need to interoperate with existing vehicles or track are going to be automated, it just doesn't make sense not to, the tech is mature enough and you can have things like platform screen doors as standard.
Best start learning a new skill.
Until the entire system is compromised which is waiting to happen. Not if but when.
Metro trains, you mean on the underground?
Planes don’t fly on fixed rails in the atmosphere. They through the atmosphere where there are many unknowns. It’s the same reason why automation of cars is practically impossible on a wide scale on roads wth many cars unless we are all willing to forego driving at all and let software take control of all cars so that all there is little chance of humans interfering.
Liked, subscribed and hit the bell. Excellent video (and channel). You explain it clearly and production was top notch. I hope betterhelp guides you to a way to manage your work-life balance but thanks so much from me for creating this video. I have an instructor upgrade coming up where we have to demonstrate broader awareness of and interest in, wider aviation. As a helicopter pilot, our tech lags about 30 years behind airlines, but the application of a dragonfly system on a helicopter trying to hover or land in a degraded visual environment like blowing dust, sand, sea spray or snow is very exciting. We either have to rely on augmentation to fly it for us, or visual cues to facilitate manual flying. It the machine could see and fly for us, it would be an absolute game-changer! Thanks again, blue skies and fly safe👍
Honestly we should've learned from MCAS and other accidents caused by over-reliance on autonomous flight system designed to "assist the pilot" whether it be to prevent stall or something else, that the path in this direction in completely wrong and misguided for computer to take control of the aircraft from both pilots even in time of emergency, such scenario should never happen at all. IF YOU STILL THINK THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S AIRBUS AND NOT BOEING, THEN REMEMBER ABOUT QANTAS FLIGHT 72.
I could not agree more! Also, consider what happens when automated systems receive poor or distorted data from sensors blocked with ice or wasp nests or tape from maintenance procedures. There are no good outcomes by relying upon automated flight control systems that are so easily fooled by their "senses".
They'll be fully controllable from the ground with the new technology. It's going to happen one day, like it or not!
@@gizmonicman9879 And you seriously think ground based system/pilots couldn't do exactly the same job?
@phuketexplorer That may be an acceptable concept once communication systems vastly improve. At present, GPS jamming is very very common overflying countries like Turkey, Iran, Iraq and some others which many times make you lose many onboard navigation systems or certain approach capabilities which may be required at certain airports.
There are also routine issues with the aircraft equipment communicating with ground equipment as well as ground equipment failures or errors in connections.
Furthermore, there are other issues such as complete GPS and radio blackouts included with a vast number of other effects above 80 North. These polar routes are common for replacements for trans atlantic routes.
Now the question is, could it be done in shorthaul in areas where these issues have a very low probability of occurring? Without doing much research on it, I feel it could be a possibility.
@@phuketexplorerohh how would u prevent situation of 737 max nd qf 32 and 4 b 787s being deviated from localizer last year in Hong Kong on approach ? If humans can trust computers this much then what is the need for ceos, software engineers , artist, doctors , graphic designer etc etc. Already Hollywood is replacing humans with ai .
There won't be humans travelling in a plane when such a day arrives bcz no one will have the money to do so .
The idea of implementing voice recognition for the plane to understand ATC is mind boggling to me. Why wouldn't they just get to the root of the problem and create a digital communication standard that sends information directly to the aircraft from ATC on a separate frequency from speech?
They’ll probably have that too, but being able to handle voice means it’s more compatible with more areas that may not implement the digital stuff, and more reliable for when the fancy digital stuff doesn’t work.
Or maybe exclude Arab or Chinese that don't understand English
This is just proof that technical innovation cheaper that trying to overcome decades of buerocracy
@@Sashazurthe fancy digital stuff is voice recognition, while sending telegrams is older than sending voices
EXACTLY
These upgrades are very exciting. I really hope there will always be two pilots present to use them.
1 bus driver, redundancy you're on the ground.
1 train driver, redundancy you're on the ground.
2 plane pilots, redundancy because you're in the air.
Could probably add exterior cameras to increase situational awareness for pilots
Can you ever see AI making a decision to land a jet in the Hudson river as the best option to save everyone onboard? That's where the human touch can never be beaten.
The plane should be able to be remotely operated when it signals an issue.
What do you think is special about that decision that would preclude an AI pilot from choosing and executing it?
It could, since that's a recorded incident. Since the BASE training for such AI would definitely entail it going thru ALL transport safety board investigations of all countries, since humanity first took to the air. And unlike you and me the AI will "remember" every detail of every accident and incident and every single findings regarding HOW the specific condition could've been remedied.
This is not ChatGPT they will be putting onto the flight deck, the technology is there to train an AI to be better than you at almost anything, the problem is the boomers sitting in halls of power being unable to ever understand what I just detailed above in the time that remains of their natural lifespan
@@kanadashyuugo873 You don't understand how AI works or what it does. You should stop talking about it and maybe go learn a bit more about it so you don't open your mouth and prove to everybody that you are incompetent at every turn.
Agreed, there are cases like that where only human judgement and discernment can result in the safest outcome. A computer would probably try to land at one of New York's major airports and fall short of the runway due to lack of altitude, killing people.
One of the engineers working on the original ILS system during WWII was Arthur C. Clarke. Of course he wrote a novel about its development "Glide Slope".
Called Glide Path in the UK. Published 1963
Awesome Trivia !!
I believe the first certified civil aircraft was the BEA trident in 1968.
As the machine is very capable of doing everything by itself, the move has to be a legal one: pass a Law that forbid machines to be all by themselves. Force the very presence of a human in the cockpit. Because Corporations WANT to get rid of these costly human employees (!)
📚
Of course there are very good (and numerous) examples of these in Science Fiction novels (a very huge quatity of authors have explore the possibilities and limitations of technologies)
We didn't know, now we know !
It was lovely to see your family - albeit so very briefly at 5:05 - I would like to see more of your family and what you get up to as a family! My next big one is 90 - on Jan 1st next and, having just lost both my brothers last September, I feel time is getting more and more precious. I do so enjoy your CZcamss and follow you closely - albeit from my Auto Giro Age! - U.K. Michael
Hawker Siddeley was the first commercial jet to make Autoland in 1968..then came VC10,even the smaller BAC1-11 and Concorde and 747 before L1011
The BAC 1-11 didn't have autoland. In the 1960's autoland required 3. (edited for accuracy).
@@davidbrinkman2768Ehm no ?
You can perfectly have an airplane with just two autopilots do an Autoland.
The 737 has only two autopilots and it can do autolandings.
The 3 autopilot is just an additional layer of safety.
If one autopilot or flight computer receives wrong data by having three you can figure out which one is (probably) the wrong one and still fly a safe approach. You can even continue the autolandings with one of the three autopilots failing since two of them are still fully operational.
So more redundancy.
But to be honest I don't know whether the BAC 1-11 was certified for autolandings.
But autolandings with just two autopilots is definitely allowed.
@@ax.f-1256 You are correct, my memory is wrong.
Yes for two pilots in the cockpit! There is no algorithm that can be better than team work of two pilots and their combined experience. I really don’t feel well when I think of only one pilot in the cockpit and the possibility of that one pilot to be incapacitated.
Within the next 20-30 years AI will take over, humans just can't compete with something that sees all, reacts to everything instantly, doesn't sleep, doesn't gets depressed, needs no salary and has no rights
@@StoneCooldsremember 737 max? that is what happen when human push aside for machine to get some cutting cost. AI is great but in the end AI is just another machine, with the nature of most airlines that love to neglect maintenance event with AI human pilots still needed in case the airplane computer break in the middle of flight and nothing more reasuring than having two pilots that know how to land the plane in the worst time
Not true .. there has been many cases where pilots where over whelmed with too many controls .. so disagree with this .. humans are not designed to do certain tasks .. let’s face it .. computers are far more accurate
Computers theoretically would be the perfect pilot. They can have all the knowledge and experience from potentially billions of flight hours, react instantly to situations, do multiple things at once. Just need to program it right.
@@StoneCoolds alright I gave 15 years to enjoy flying then
Is the shortage of pilots not self-induced by the airlines? Like the shortage of staff at airports? As far as I remember, they closed pilot schools and even canceled the training of pilots during the pandemic abruptly? That airlines are now trying to use AI to replace pilots is typical for their approach. Instead of boosting the training of pilots, they are trying to replace them by technology. I can only shake my head, including facepalm, when I hear something like this. Therefore, I completely agree to your point of view.
There’s no shortage of pilots at all levels I think, airlines and operators are all about cutting costs and risk
The 'pilot shortage' is the same as the 'HGV driver shortage', it's nonesense. There are plenty of pilots/drivers but a lot aren't in service anymore due to working conditions and other factors brought on to kerb salaries and improve investments/dividends
@@paulalexander8874 correct. People don't understand the challenges inherent in being a transportation employee, particularly one with as much training and responsibility as a pilot. It requires a lot of sacrifice in terms of time away from family, missing out on the holidays and week-ends most professional workers take for granted. People often ask why we expect high pay in terms of how "hard" it is to fly an aeroplane. But the other thing that is "hard" is tolerating the chaotic and lonely lifestyle. This will be made even worse with single-pilot operations. Pilots will demand MORE pay and benefits for this, not less. That is at least part of why cutting back on wages and working conditions will not benefit the airlines.
The shortage is both self-inflicted and also structural.
At least in the US, pilots may fly only a single type at a time. They can retrain to another type, but then are locked to that type.
Then we have seniority and the way crew "bid" on routes, which to some degree are linked to aircraft type. Compensation and quality of life are important to crew, and those vary by route. Briefly, certain routes are preferred because the schedule gets you back home regularly and larger planes pay better.
So more senior pilots have first choice on routes, even if that means getting requalified on a different type. Thus, an airline can't just pull some widebodies out of the closet, hire a few pilots to fly them, and go. The logistics are far more complex.
Edit: this isn't just pilots being prissy. A senior 777 pilot might have been offered a spot on 737s when routes were cut. That same pilot might be a fabulous 777 pilot next month, but they must still retrain and requal on the 777. So the airline has to bring in a replacement 737 pilot then have our 777 hero off the roster to retrain.
They keep lowering the pay/benefits and the future continues to look more and more bleak, why would most wanna invest in that
I laughed out load foe your peeing in your pants analogy. Hilarious. Also, thank you for having SAFETY as #1.
Extremely excellent video. Well done with good subtitles in right positions, amazing. Congratulations.
Autoland I always thought was introduced to commercial aviation by the Trident back in the 60s and not the Tristar. First autoland in 64 and first with passengers aboard, according to Wikipedia, "was achieved on flight BE 343 on 10 June 1965, with a Trident 1 G-ARPR, from Paris to Heathrow"
Exactly what I thought....not the Tristar, but the Trident.... 😍
You beat me to it!
On January 9, 1969, an Air Inter Caravelle III from Lyon landed cat III C in full fog at Orly, without the intervention of the pilots and with fifty passengers on board... The Caravelle became the first airliner in the world capable of to make all-weather approaches.
The Lockheed L-1011 was the first widebody to receive FAA certification for CAT IIIc autolanding, which approved the TriStar for completely blind landings performed by the aircraft's autopilot in zero-visibility weather. Its direct lift control system maintained the aircraft on the glideslope while holding a more constant pitch angle. The autoland capability was used as a safety feature in the plane's marketing campaigns
Biggest problem to the one pilot in the cockpit idea is the suicide issue, what happens if the pilot alone on the flight deck decides to end it all. This has happened unfortunately a few times in the past, and is why the rules currently state a flight attendant must go into the cockpit if one pilot needs to leave it in some areas
There's a small percentage of crushes caused by suicidal pilots. The biggest problem is what happens when automation fails and one pilot is not enough to save the plane from crushing. Ex trim issues causing autopilot to disconnect - manual trimming needed (requires a lot of physical force), but the pilot also needs to handle the yoke. In such circumstance, is hard for 2 pilot to handle. For one it would be impossible.
Amazing info and delivery. THANK YOU ...(from one of your earliest 'nervous fliers)...Meanwhile; all of your content since then (on Both of your channels) has had a great positive therapeutic effect on me thank you again :-)
Glad you are running this fascinating channel, will help once pilots are out of jobs.
If there aren't two well trained people in the front with actual skin in the game, I'm not interested in flying on it. Great topic Petter. 👍
Totally agree
You actually want someone who is always totally calm and emotionless in control. IOW I'd want the T-800/T-1000 flying the plane over humans.
With respect . . . I understand the first airliner with a workable auto-land system was the British Hawker Siddeley Trident first flown in the 1960's . . . Not the later American Lockheed Tristar. . . . Both of them were great aeroplanes ! . . . Love your channel here. 🙂
My friend thank you I’m hooked…. The depth you go into is a Wow.💯💯
Appreciate the change to low-key, subtle background music. The narration and visual information are the most important elements without competing repetitive drone music.
As a former airline employee (Ground staff with TAA, Air Niugini, Ansett) I fully agree with everything you said!
I'm thinking of the Germanwings incident.
Two pilots backed by good technology is a good combination, but a single pilot is asking for trouble.
Also, how would an AI react when presented with a Miracle on the Hudson scenario which nobody had ever had before?
The Germanwings scenario is far less of a problem, I would argue, than the 9-11 scenario. Meeting one's demise at the hands of a suicidal pilot is just random bad luck. Ideological extremists, on the other hand, can be actively recruited and cultivated. And, as we know, when as used as a weapon a jet-liner is capable of killing far more people than just those onboard.
@@dcmark65 I was thinking of that afterward, and this also must be thought of as well.
Your point is also valid, and must be raised as a major concern.
I believe the Ai would've been able to calculate the precise actions needed to divert to LaGuardia Airport in a matter of milliseconds. Taking out the human decision making factor can be a good thing in some scenarios.
One thing I think AI would struggle with is British Airways Flight 009, where volcanic ash caused the failure of all 4 engines. It required the pilots on board to completely disregard the SOP of the checklists and attempt a shortened start of the engines which ended up saving their lives. I highly doubt AI would disregard SOP like the captains did and would continuously attempt to start up the engines over and over again. Furthermore, no radio contact could be made with the aircraft due to the volcanic ash disrupting the radio signals, This would rule out any attempt for a pilot to remotely control the aircraft. While situations like these are incredibly rare there is still a slight percentage chance they may occur. And I think that's why truly autonomous AI-flown planes will never take to the skies.
@@Celestenshi The SOP was modified due to that incident and as such AI would be well aware of all historical incidents and how to identify and deal with them. AI can process all sensor input in a matter of milliseconds and come up with a course of action and pending the results of that course of action will again process that information and continue to figure the best possible strategy. Most pilot errors are due to miss reading or not reading critical instrument values and understanding what those value mean ... especially when human pilots shutdown the wrong engine (which is sadly common).
Some USA commuter planes operate on automated single pilot operations.
The question in GA aviation is development of instrument systems , flat screen instrument arrays coulds make any aircraft still operate with traditional instruments fitted in GA.The development of vehicle electronic instrument arrays with control units; thin as ipads driven by redundant electron coritrol units. This could save on production costs,installation and weight/fuel. The G5 is one step in the right direction but its a long journey.
This is the big point - a single pilot flying an ATR72 on shorthaul raises far easier issues than a transoceanic flight in a 380. My guess is that Airbus' project is looking more at the former than the latter.
Airbus and Boeing are constantly innovating and developing new technologies. These technologies can have many benefits, such as improving safety, reducing pilot workload, and saving costs. Therefore, they should be implemented, as long as they are accompanied by adequate training and regulation. However, removing one pilot from the cockpit is a dangerous and shortsighted idea that will increase the risk of accidents and damage the reputation and sustainability of the aviation industry. It will also have negative impacts on the global economy and society. Pilots can benefit from increase in the Minima hours thanks to the new tech and their focus should be on that, while they should strongly object to stay single handed in an airline aircraft.
Germanwing case showed us how necessary that we need 2 pilots in the cockpit, so that might be the greatest barrier to go down to 1 pilot
I've watched so much of this channel, I think I'm ready to fly my first plane without ever going to pilot school
This is a very subtle slide into a very dangerous attitude: people are a problem, a menace. We have noticed this shift during covid. From containing a virus, we shifted to containing, restricting people.
it only showed how important it is to get more automation and avoid the option for such control inputs
Part of the plane's AI will be dealing with a suicidal pilot (probably by handing all control over to a remote operator). You can't lock a computer out of the cockpit and they'll make sure no-one can turn the computer off.
I personally would never set foot on a plane unless it was driven by human pilots, even if the driving only means monitoring what an AI is doing. The pilots are my "hostages" in the cockpit: If the plane goes down, the pilots go down with me; this is a very a reassuring guarantee from a passenger's point of view. The pilots have exactly the same very basic interest as me: To get on the ground alive and in one piece. Cheers from Denmark!
I have news for you… pilots already don’t fly the aircraft for the majority of the time you are in the air. While they are the ones to plug in data into autopilot systems they ultimately let the plane fly itself from the inputs of the pilots.
@@Project2457official And this is exactly how it should be. Because if the autopilot for some reason breaks down, there are still two professionals on board, who have learned how to fly the plane. Pilots have become more of a fail safe these days, but ultimately they can still fly the plane if the automation fucks up. I can't fly a plane, so I rely on them, not on the automation; they are my guarantees, my "hostages", which explains the great respect most of us have for pilots.
I have already used mass transportation without humans directly controlling, just like the thing in Frankfurt airport that moves you across terminals. But sure, there will be some generational gap. Some people never wanted to be photographed, get x-rayed or vaccinated... AI taking you to places will become mundane, maybe you won't do it, but others will. Why won't we all just ride horses again?
@@freeculturea train on the ground is vastly different than an aircraft 7 miles in the air.
This is why some people ( including me .. ) would like the CEO or CFO of aircraft companies to be part of the certification process on board their new planes to make us feel confident the plane we will fly is safe and ready for regular service ...
I wonder how an autonomous system would deal with an engine explosion such as the one that occurred to Qantas flight 32 near Singapore in 2010. Those pilots did an amazing job safely landing that aircraft and a lot of people owe them their lives.
What happens when, in the event of war, GPS is suddenly switched off - or substantially degraded.
There's a logic to having 3 'pilots' - someone in the cockpit, someone remote, and a cockpit computer. Then 1 errant 'pilot' could be over-ridden by the other 2, and 2 failed 'pilots' saved by the 3rd. But I think actually achieving something like this safely & reliably is still a way in the future...
Thats how the Trident autoland worked. 3 autoland computers on board, each developed by seperate companies, each talking to the other 2. If one failed or errored the other 2 would take over. If two failed the pilot took over. Cannot understand why so many flights get diverted cos of bad visibility these days when Trident was landing in thick fog at Heathrow. It was said that the autoland was leading to runway damage at Heathrow due to landings on the same spot all the time & that some variation had to be buily in to prevent this.
The remote pilot could be spoofed
I used to be a slightly nervous flyer, even tho I now love planes and enjoy the sensation of flying. It was learning about the safety aspects and redundancies from your channel, Petter, that helped me really enjoy my flights to work and back. They became the highlight of my day and part of that was knowing that there were 2 pilots up there, to double check all decisions and usually stop each other from making a mistake. If there was only 1 pilot in the flight deck, I don't think I'd feel as comfortable and I wonder if Airbus have actually considered that aspect. Would their current customers continue to use their aircraft if they knew their second pilot was actually a computer?
Yes, customer acceptance is probably more important than acceptance by the regulators. It will only take one single "dragonfly" incident with the impending media critisim and bingo... you've lost the economic (and safety) gains expected.
Yeah i will never in my life trust a computer to keep me safe in any vehicle. Nothing less than an AI with actual sentience and human intelligence would make me even consider getting a vehicle with it at the controls
And thats if its even possible to develop programs like that
The software determined that it would be unsafe for you to land this plane, we have disabled your joystick
Open the podbay doors HAL.
I thought that the WAAS system made it possible for aircraft to take off and land under computer control, but a quick look says not quite, so the optical system is still essential.
I spent a lot of time thinking through the design of a 3 seat amphibian ultralight hybride, and to make the cockpit function work better for people with less interest in being a specialist pilot I devised the notion of a flight status indicator (sequencer) which was essentially a washing machine style flight knob in the center of the console. This knob went from cold and dark, rotating clockwise, through the entire flight sequence to eventually finishing with cold and dark on the other side, and included ground ops in the middle at the bottom. Radiating from the knob were function indicator lights to verify that each function was performed in the correct phase of the flight sequence. Pressing any of the indicators around the flight sequencer brings up the appropriate actions on the other primary flight displays. And where you say the Dragonfly manages communications which can largely be done by text the flight sequencer indicates that these have occurred and can be interrogated without the clutter of everything else going on. It didn’t have to be a physical knob it could also have been a soft solution on a dedicated display.
Absolutely agree with you! You explain perfectly that instead of removing one pilot in the cockpit, let's use this technology to improve what we already have and reduce emissions! No way is going to happen one pilot operation! Too dangerous!
I can’t imagine what my old man would think if he were in a modern cockpit. He flew Hueys, Cobras, B-52, T37/38, B727, B757, DC9, and A320. He said the A320 made everything else he flew seem like a dinosaur but that was in the 90’s.
Dang that’s impressive, was he in the Army and the Airforce?
Nobody cares
@@paymya6130 Whats wrong with you bud? Rough relation with your parents or why the hate? Get a grip, hating is doing u no good.
don't care what your old man would think. likely he would have supported Jan 6 anyway.
@@gmarte12 is this satire?
There are some things technology will never replace and I don't know too many people that would get on a plane with 1 pilot.
All that amazing research and skillful video production, yet I will remember exactly one thing from this video.
This video is a work of Art! Nuanced and sensible arguments on the future of automation ! Another great one Petter!
Thank you!
I think that "Pissing in your pants" comparison needs appreciation as well!
@@baumkuchen6543 Truly!
I find it odd to have Better Help as a sponsor. My friend is an upcoming pilot and went through a mild depression. He was too scared of losing his certificate to seek any kind of professional help (even online). He was hassled and almost kicked out of flight school for taking ADHD medicine as a teenager. This is a real problem as the FAA will ground a pilot for seeking help and I think it's the opposite of what should be happening. I worry about my friend's mental health and the FAA is hindering his recovery.
And... betterhelp is known to have such relaxed moderation that ANYONE can pose as a counsellor. This has lead to countless incidents where people have been purposefully misled or lied to, or even threatened.
Same stigma exists in the military regarding mental health. I just had a soldier confide in me this month that they’d had a pistol in their hand a few years ago, and only their spouse knew until they told me. They’re afraid to loose their security clearance and army career, with good reason. The worst part is the soldiers who are to afraid of real consequences, so never ask for help, and end up committing suicide. That’s the part that really infuriates me about the current system.
You're friend is hindering his own recovery. Putting his job above his mental health.
@@randal_gibbons exactly, and he shouldn't have to. He's young and his dream is to be a pilot. If he threw that away or had it taken from him, it would probably be even more crushing than the depression he's going through now.
I wish you could get help but it would literally destroy his life if his license was taken away.
@@keithlehman8095 I understand exactly what you're saying and you're absolutely right. Systems of management need to change to allow people to seek help without losing their job or prestige at work. how much longer will it be before we start treating mental illness just like any other illness, without stigma?
Europe has been experimenting with a truck-based system similar to Fellow-Fly, and it's informal name is "convoying". In convoys, every truck needs special equipment, particularly intra-truck communication throughout the convoy, a billing system to credit the lead truck, and more.
I'd be really keen to see an analysis of the crashes over the past 20 years to see which could have been prevented by improved AI / reduced reliance on humans (e.g. crashes related to poor communication, fatigue), vs which incidents would have likely been made worse (e.g. US1549).
But no study can/will be done to show how many incidents ended up being a non-event because one of two human pilots recognized and rectified a problem with the automation that AI likely wouldn't have seen or been able to fix.
So it's a situation where right now we can only see where AI might help, not where it might go wrong.
I would bet that if you surveyed all airline pilots and asked them how many times they've had to intervene because the autopilot was doing something weird/ wrong, the flying public would be terrified by the responses and this whole pilotless cockpit thing would go away.
No one will do that because they will see that the majority have been due to pilot error and could've been prevented by a smarter plane.
This is almost nothing to do with safety and totally about cost-savings by the airlines. This is why pilots are deeeeeeeeeeeeeeply suspicious of the whole thing.
@@SwordQuake2 You have clearly only got a dangerously-shallow understanding of systems-failures.
@@EvoraGT430 yeah, sure, suspicious because of safety. More like because of them becoming obsolete.
Even in non critical computer systems we always have someone else check our work and approve it before it is merged. The "principle of 4 eyes" is common and important to make sure we avoid mistakes.
It is so much risk the aviation industry would take on reducing the pilots to one. Redundant systems are added to aircraft to make sure everything works, yet apparently the pilots are OK to reduce to one.
It is done in space. 3 computers to compute the same task, in case there is a bit error due to space radiation so they do voting.
Amazing and very exciting! Not so much for the one pilot situation, but for the other benefits. I can't wait to see this in action!
A dilemma is preventing a situation like EgyptAir 990, Germanwings 9525, or what some people believe happened to MH317. To boot how such systems could be hijacked/hacked by passengers or people on the ground.
we should have an integrated system of GPS and comunication via internet like skylink with airplanes and cameras hided in the cockpits that you cant switch off. So its possible to see whats going on the plane.
Security is important but guess what, many secure systems have worked for decades. How most systems are compromised is usually because dumb users who give out their credentials, phishing and other methods.
Excellent as always although I must correct one thing. The first automatic landing in commercial service (with passengers) was by a Trident 1C in 1965. I started flying on the Trident in 1971 and in my first year I was a pilot in 12 automatic landings in conditions where we would likely have diverted otherwise. The Tristar didn't enter commercial operation until 1972.
The savings in reducing the number of pilots on the flight deck are, as you say, not huge. It is the shortage of pilots that will drive the reduction. As you point out, routine passenger CAT operation with a single pilot will require that an aircraft be capable of safely completing a flight with no pilot in the event of a pilot incapacitition. If aircraft have this ability, why have a pilot at all? The savings are then much greater, avoiding training, checking and management costs among others.
I know a lot of people will say that they will not fly on an aircraft with no pilot, but many will change their mind if the flight is a bit cheaper. And if there is no piloted flight to your destinmation what then?
Thanks for the correction!
Also: High speed internet connectivity will be available on any place on earth in the near future through satellite constellations like Starlink - so remote control of an airplane in case of very rare and unusual emergencies would be possible. There could even be pilots that are especially selected and trained for such situations that would handle them more proficiently than the average pilot who will only very rarely or possibly never experience such rare, servere problems.
@@TylerDurden-pk5km Most of the emergencies that some sort of ai powered autopilot wouldn't be able to resolve by itself would be over and everyone would be dead before anyone would be able to connect to the plane. And anything remote is inherently unsafe.
I know that the first autoland was performed by a BEA Trident 1 at LHR back in the summer of 1965 - at least that's what we were told, as I was on board with my parents. Petter, many thanks for yet another fascinating and thought provoking vid!
On January 9, 1969, an Air Inter Caravelle III from Lyon landed in full fog at Orly, without the intervention of the pilots and with fifty passengers on board... The Caravelle became the first airliner in the world capable of to make all-weather approaches.
I like this presentation, it looks at both sides of the argument. Also, pilots are really the ones who should be providing all the pros and cons of new technology. They understand the industry better than anyone.
You need to make a decision though if you'd rather have a human pilot.
Self-driving/self-flying technology will evolve to the point all freight/passenger transport becomes automated, with human drivers/pilots relegated to a backup role at most, for those increasingly rare cases in which the autonomous systems fail.
Another awesome video, Petter. I still believe it’ll be quite awhile before you’re retired by computers. Public trust in autonomy is gonna take a looooooooong time, between MAX crashes and self driving cars killing people.
Self driving cars are already on the road today in limited numbers. Only takes a couple rides before it becomes normal and boring to people.
@@someguy8944 I am unaware of any fully autonomous cars on the road. Can you name a few?
@@thetowndrunk988 There are a few companies operating autonomous cars without safety drivers today:
🔵 Argo AI
🔵 Waymo
🔵 Cruise
For more information, you may read the Business Insider article entitled, "There are now fully driverless cars with no human behind the wheel for safety on the roads of Miami and Austin."
@@thetowndrunk988 Waymo and Cruise. Waymo is in Chandler Arizona, San Francisco and LA I think. Cruise is in SF, These are still early stage deployments but you can absolutely take a trip in one of them. Lots of youtube videos also of people recording their rides.
How do we know Petter is real....?How would you know? Am I real posting this?😄
Fascinating video and very informative. As a passenger that flies at least twice a month, i echo your thoughts in that saving fuel, CO2 etc is where the technology should be used. In addition, like cars these days, having accident avoidance also makes sense. I have solace knowing that two very qualified and practiced individuals are sitting upfront. If Dragonfly can increase visual awareness by object recognition, that can help the pilot do a safer job, then great
How much CO2 do you think there is in the air??? What do you think is the major source of CO2? Do you know how much CO2 has been in the air in the past and how it affected the weather? Do you understand that there is such a thing as too little CO2 and that it almost happened?
No? Just say the words you have been told to say so you feel like you are a good boy?... SMH
Flying won't be available for the normal people we'll be locked down in 15 miniute cities (prisons) tracked by micro chips and unable to travel freely at all.
Thank you for that great explanation!!
Certainly has broadened mind!!
Would there ever be an opportunity to have a remote co-pilot? So a co-pilot can be ‘in the cockpit’ remotely in something like a sim, which would assist with the critical take-off and landing, and would perhaps do 25-30 take-offs and landings, and then leave the flight to the single pilot?
I heard about the Dragonfly K9 project. The crew consists of one pilot and one dog. The dog's job is to keep the pilot from touching the controls. The pilot's job is to feed the dog.
no such thing as the end of pilots. No passengers will get on airplanes without pilots and governments will never allow that.
It just won't happen overnight, that's all. Military and cargo flights will be the first to implement this before it gets to passenger flights. And with the pace of AI advancements, we don't know how capable it will be 15-20 years from now.
i would because I know its the pilots that cause the more accidents.
Keep deluding yourself.
The Dragon capsule makes it to orbit without help from a human pilot. People already ride in driverless cars.
Nice explaination looks amazing for the future of aircraft
Something people don't understand is it's not about the tech. It's about the passengers/public willingness to fly on an automated aircraft.
Secondly, as a WB long haul pilot I can say with certainty that having more than one pilot is needed. From a fatigue standpoint alone. Even after taking a break in the bunk, and coming up for my "turn" at the controls, many times I am still exhausted and need to do what is called "controlled rest" where one pilot takes over all duties for 45m-1hr while the other pilot (me) takes a short nap.
Single pilot ops/fully automated planes will never be a thing within our lifetime.
I would love to fly on a plane that took off, navigated to its destination, and landed, all by itself.
But I'd be much happier if there were a couple of pilots sitting in the cockpit reading their kindles - just in case!
You likely have. 737 autopilot controls have been takeoff and landing rated for decades. Pilots have just taxiied those aircraft.
99 perc of landings nd 100 perc takeoff in 737 are done manually by pilots . Also weather deviation is done by pilots .
Love your videos. I learned to fly in the 80s. Taught by my mother, who is now in her 80s and she watches some of your videos.
It’s fascinating seeing how much has changed in the last 30+ years, and what might change in the next 30.
That is awesome, thank you!
@@MentourNow single pilot cockpits ,, sheesh what if the remaining pilot is the problem? what happens then?
Another Brilliant episode. Single pilot operation can never be safe except for the small very short haul flights in simple aeroplanes, Captain John,
That fellofly concept could be interesting if you manage to link up planes on different but similar routes. For example you have one plane flying from London to Newark and one from Paris to JFK, New York. Both planes could link up for cruising over the atlantic, but won't interfere during departure or approach, because they use different airports
I like the formation flying idea. The Red Arrows fly internationally in a commercial airspace slot as I’m aware. Why not two airliners in formation? Or three or four?
As someone who wants to become a pilot, this is unnerving...
Don't worry bro the current jets still have life in them and it would take time for certification. We can still fly
I wouldn’t be nervous. Not yet anyway
Yeah I agree with him. This would takes a few decades to finalise I think. But you never know...
Same for alot young programmers reading about AI I bet 🙌🏻
As someone who is a pilot- I’ve not flown on an ac without one or multiple defects in the past month. Automation only works as long as you can keep your fleet in the air with engineering support, spare parts and good weather. As soon as there is any stress on the system, it relies on the pilots to play back up. Besides that I’m not sure how AI will deal with a medical emergency en route, angry delayed passengers or missing ground staff…
What I have never understood about all that new technology in aviation is why things like AI that are super-complicated and mostly hype get so much attention but simple improvements like e.g. installing some cameras so the pilots can actually see the state of the most important parts of their own aircraft when something goes wrong, are never added even at a time when every other CZcamsr GA pilot attached half a dozen cameras to their plane on their own. Or battery power for emergencies so pilots don't lose half their instruments.
That’s a great question
Aircrafts are already very very safe today ... trying to eliminate further risks, you always have to weigh how much new risk you introduce. Example: Yes, you could install more and better batteries - but these can also be a new fire risk (see Boeing 787).
First time commenting on this channel. In all honestly, I always think about Germanwings 9525 and other pilot suicides when I hear any talk of single pilot cockpits. For me, that's another reason to go with the upgrades and features you mentioned. Good amount less risk with and a lot more positives.
But Germanwings 9525 was a 2 pilot airplane and as you can see, it was still possible to bring it down, because there are always situations in a flight where only 1 flying pilot will be in the cockpit. And even if not, a strong male pilot could always knock out a female co-pilot and still does what he wants with a plane.
Your account is 17 years old and this is your first time commenting? Damn
@@TriStar14, that's not wrong. But do we want to make it easier?
@Astra2, fixed it.
@@HelenRoose oh ok lol
Consider the Qantas Airbus A380 that had a sever damage engine explosion out of Singapore. Shrapnel tore into the wing and fuselage rendering the computers ineffective, including the computer checklist which became useless. If it had not been for extra check crew on board to help dig into the paper manuals for the information to HAND fly the aircraft to critically fine tolerances along with pilots with hand flying muscle memory, this could have been a disaster. Pilots are there to save the aircraft when automation fails or is damaged.
About favorite airplane. As a passenger I found Airbus(es) more comfortable. I like as well the disruptive tech approach, from the first FlyByWire to this last project. Still I am a fan of Tex Johnson and I think he wouldn’t like the side stick. “It does not sell airplanes” 😅
By all means, let's get computers to do our work for us. Especially the most critical safety operations. Because, as everyone knows, computers never malfunction without warning.
Lots of safety critical operations are handled by computers. Not having a single point of failure is an engineering problem. I don't think there has ever been a case of the autopilot malfunctioning. All incidents have either been physical damage/bad sensor data confusing the autopilot (and pilots!) or pilots losing situational awareness and making mistakes.
@@someguy8944a lot of those safety things involve looking at a number, and flicking a switch accordingly, or warn the user of errors
And yeah, autopilot failures are rarely a huge issue, cause all it does, is make sure the plane stays on course during flight. The more difficult things like landing, takeoff, handling turbulence, is largely done by the pilot
We cant expect an AI to know how to for example make an emegency landing. Oh just use GPS right? But what if that *supposedly* empty spot on thr GPS, is occupied by someone? Maybe there's a festival on an open field, or even a new road or building is there, that the GPS hasn't updated for. How will the AI know what to do there?
At that point, its just safer, cheaper and more comfortable to just have a trained human pilot in control. Why spend all those billions on research and convincing people it'll work, when at the end of the day, the already tried and tested human pilots are still better?
This AI overhype is getting out of control. Companies are gambling with innocent lives to sell unproven technology
You can't compare your PC to functional safety engineered systems, they're totally different. My favorite factoid is low alpha mould which is the black plastic surrounding chips. It is specifically made to have very low radioactivity to reduce the chance of bit flips. It's about 10 times less radioactive than the soles of your shoes.
unlike the 100% reliability of humans?
@@someguy8944 That's the point. The "physical damage / bad sensor data" won't disappear with the introduction of AI. And flawed as they are, humans are much better of dealing with it than AI. As soon as there is such issue, AI becomes powerless and deadly for everyone onboard of that plane.
thanks for the video... a question regarding safety that I've been curious for a while, if something goes wrong, as we used to see in movies, there's a "manual" to go through the procedures, like eng failing... is there availability to have a LLM (large language model) with all specs and bits from the airplane model to help remove stress and quickly find solutions?
Given that car satnavs have been around for years, with the systems constantly updated and improved, yet my satnav tried to take me down a 2 foot wide footpath, the thought of not having a pilot available to override a similar situation in an aircraft is horrifying.
I mean the sky isn't exactly known for having lots of 2 foot wide footpaths.
@@richardmillhousenixon Maybe not, but if it thinks the gap between two mountains is big enough when it isn't, particularly on some of the Himalayan & Papua-ng flightpaths. Or imagine the old Hong Kong airport flying between skyscrapers.
@@DavidGirling Non consumer, i.e. "military" grade GPS is accurate to within centimeters. You aren't flying in between mountains unless there is at least 2,000 feet on each side of you. Usually at least a mile. Otherwise it's 1000 on top.
@@richardmillhousenixon You obviously haven't watched any of the cockpit videos of landings at some of the hairier Himalayan and Papua-ng strips, even 200ft either side would be considered luxury.
I personally believe that the last pilot to spend his/her entire career flying has already been born.
You do a good service with your program! I enjoy all of your content.
I’m finishing up my 53rd year in aviation after military, airline, helicopter and corporate and still enjoy every flight. I still like to keep up with things even though I won’t get to fly much of the new stuff. Thanks for your hard work!
Man this is fucked up, I hope I still got time to become a pilot
Ai is taking away jobs in every field . With gpt 4 coding has become like English language, it greatly reduces the no of programmers required in any company by 60-70 perc easily. Artist are replaced by Dall e software .
Neuralink is using robots to perform human surgeries.
When u give brain to computer why need humans for anything then. World will be doomed soon
Not in certain parts of the world
Now I’m at my 20th year being a pilot. Despite tech can do it, I don’t believe we’re gonna be pushed out of commands (despite airbus best efforts). A good CRM and a very good pilot cannot be replaced. There is no computer able to decide unknown and new scenarios, that every pilot that flew more than 1000h could testify. Ok, 1000 AP hours doesn’t count that much, but having controls is a good mark to have seen something around.
I work in the industry and I can tell you that no. Going from two to one is probably gonna happen, and then I guess the last pilon won't need to be there for most of the fight. But there will always be a pilot on the plane and that isn't changing in the next 50y
Great video Petter. The British Lancaster Bomber from WW2 was a single pilot aircraft probably to crew as many bombers possible with a limited amount of pilots.
Don't forget the Navigator, Engineer, Radio operator, Bomb Aimer i.e. lots of skills and workload capacity.
@@lonpfrb yes but no pilot & copilot. Only the pilot. Obviously not talking about the other positions.
They always had 2 trained pilots on board just not 2 flyable positions in the cockpit
@@imthestighonest3437
Yeah I think one of the other guys was trained enough to bring the aircraft back. Pilots got shot often enough by flack
I greatly enjoy all your videos which are very comprehensible and made with a lot of dedication and passion, personally I fully agree with you on the 2 pilots in the cockpit. Even with the most sophisticated technology it would in any case feel a lot safer with 2 professionals overseeing the flight.
Maybe in the future we will find 2 droids with AI in the cockpit....hope not! Thank you for your great work
Then you're just ignorant. Most sophisticated technology would be far safer. So you prefer higher chances of death just because there are humans in the cockpit.
I don't really watch this channel for its humor but that pissing in your pants when it's cold analogy was absolutely brilliant..thank you for that nugget.