52
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

One accident and nobody is going to board a pilotless plane.

The possible economical win is much bigger on the car side so I think cars, trucks and busses will be first.

It's not a tech problem but a regulatory, political and eventually a human problem IMO.

driver-less cars because they already exist

they are called trolleys

#trolleysrule

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 59 points 3 days 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.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Wait what. I have done all the shit of flying a plane, memorized the checklists on the damn Cessna we were using and all that, and because my eyes suck too much I never really pursued it. I never landed a plane myself. Now I wouldn't have to unless someone spilled a coffee? Fuck this timeline.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Lol Just because the automation exists doesn't mean it's always used. In big planes, the system is called cat III autoland and it only works at some airports. It also produces a notoriously rough landing. In little planes, it's an emergency assistance feature that gives you a 'emergency land' button in the cockpit. Not something that you use everyday. And also not something most little planes have, it's part of a top of the line autopilot system. Given that everything for airplanes costs way too much due to ridiculous certification requirements that do more to keep safety tech out of people's budgets then to improve safety, not many little planes have it. To take a basic Cessna type airplane and add the system can cost as much as a car.

You can still get a private pilot license if you have 20/40 vision or your eyes can be corrected to 20/40 with glasses or whatever. Even without that, if you can drive you can fly a light sport aircraft. That's a different category that has more limitations. But those limitations are rapidly going away, FAA is working on something called MOSAIC which will expand the definition of light sport to cover an awful lot of single engine airplanes. And with that you only need a driver's license.

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 62 points 3 days 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.

[-] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Airplanes. You can account for natural phenomenon but you can't account for the guy who decided to randomly swerve to the left cause they felt like it

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 2 days ago

For vehicles carrying humans, driverless cars.

We have the technology for both, but I feel like the greater destructive edge cases for flying will keep it from being deployed.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

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

The airplane industry isn't.

[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 14 points 3 days ago
[-] bfg9k@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

This is such a perfect reply lol

[-] const_void@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Yep. The size of new vehicles these days proves this.

[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

Both kinda already exist.

Easier to control for variables with airplanes. It seems like a simpler (still hells difficult, but simpler) problem to solve, so them first I'd guess

[-] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago

Trains are already there, so I'm thinking airplanes next because they also have pretty fixed routes

[-] bruhbeans@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 days 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 7 points 3 days 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

[-] gnu@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days 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 3 points 3 days 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.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher 3 points 3 days ago

Not exactly easy to stop a train, but yeah.

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

[-] Thavron@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

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

[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

No, there really aren't yet. Driverless taxis and delivery vehicles are all "monitored" remotely by people who effectively drive them when they get into situations the automation can't handle. Individual self-driving cars all come with a lot of warnings (which many drivers ignore) that they require an active and aware driver for similar reasons.

And Tesla, who have been lying about their self-driving capabilities from day one, continue to run people down and smash into other vehicles on a regular basis.

The systems are good enough to handle 99% of the driving situations they encounter. That remaining 1% is still a long way from being solved. And "pretty good" is not acceptable when failures kill people.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

They not working in all cases is a qualifier you are adding yourself though. There are definitely existing self-driving cars. There are no self-driving cars that can handle all situations, but being perfect or finished is not a prerequisite for something existing.

[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I understand your point, but I disagree. There are currently no cars that are considered fully self-driving as defined by the people who created them. Except for the ones that are really just remotely driven, they all come with warnings that a human the driver must be at the controls and paying attention.

Current self-driving cars are like a printer that works most of the time, but requires a human to read everything it produces and to occasionally write in a few things that it missed or got wrong.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Current self-driving cars

So you agree they exist. You are just saying they are not good. Just like the printer that only works sometimes is still a printer that exists, it's just bad at being one.

But we are just arguing semantics.

[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

It is mostly semantics. I answered the way I did primarily because I was responding to "There are already self-driving cars, aren’t there?". That seemed to be asking about functionality, not naming conventions.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Driverless cars because we already have them. I used to take one to work all the time.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

We also have unmanned aircraft.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

"Unmanned" doesn't mean "driverless".

Pretty sure RC cars existed before RC airplanes.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 3 days ago

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

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I would think airplanes - the accident rate per mile is far lower so there's much less opportunity for failures, and airplane maintenance and use are much better regulated, making it easier to eliminate the autopilot as the cause if something does go wrong. For a long time after airlines start using full auto they will probably still have pilots in the cockpit for quite a while even if they don't do anything.

[-] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The reason plane accidents are less common is because the worst licensed pilot is more competent than the average licensed driver by a wide margin

[-] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days 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.

[-] BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network 3 points 3 days ago

Driver less cars, because cars in the US have less safety regulation and laws applying to them, so the US is likely to continue trying to make them a working technology. Planes already have alot of automation, but law requires a human pilot with alot of training.

[-] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days 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 2 points 3 days ago

a human in the loop for redundancy.

No, but for taking the blame.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

A waymo coming to a neighborhood near you

[-] LouNeko@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Come to think of it we already had driverless vehicles, they were called horses. A trained horse could probably get you back home safely even if you hapoen pass out on it. But it still wasn't common practice to take a nap on a horse back.

[-] GoosLife@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

My grandma always told of a legendary man in my hometown, who would always take his horse to the local bar in the 1950s. When he got too drunk and fell asleep, the other patrons would carry him outside and sling him sideways over the horse, which would then trot off in to the night, supposedly delivering him safely at home.

I know that's not very scientific evidence, but I always took it to be true. Maybe someone can concur.

[-] shasta@lemm.ee -1 points 3 days ago

Why assume either is inevitable?

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Because both already exist?

[-] shasta@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago

Then the OP makes no sense. So obviously, not interpreting it that way

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
52 points (93.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36254 readers
1178 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