Are pilots going to be replaced by AI?

[MikeOH]

33 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

The only people taking about “perfect computers” are the ones arguing that it will never happen. Of course computers aren’t perfect and their programing is imperfect. But it DOESN’T HAVE TO BE PERFECT TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I apologize for the “screaming” but I think I’ve said the same thing almost 10 times now and keep seeing “but computers aren’t perfect…”

I think I’ll assign any further responses to Google Bard. Apparently it makes more sense than I do. And gets less frustrated.

Perhaps you’d be less frustrated if you didn’t assume you were so intellectually superior to those that don’t agree with your OPINION.

[TheAv8r]

55 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

There are also factors beyond the mere technical development. What about people who enjoy driving for driving sake? The retired couple enjoying their convertible or the motorcyclist enjoying the curves. Or the young family that can’t afford an AI car? Not to worry, just bend to the collective will….hmmm……never been here before….

All good points. I've met very, very few people who enjoy driving long distances for driving's sake. Some enjoy roadtripping, but not for the driving, they just enjoy the ability to break a trip up and stop at interesting sights along the way. Even those with cool cars don't enjoy driving them long distance, usually they just enjoy let's say putting the top down for a 30 minute scenic drive. Motorcyclists aren't really part of this conversation yet, an AI-driven motorcycle I don't even want to think about...

I like how you equate age with financial state, there are probably more "young people" driving newer cars than the reverse  . Affordability will definitely be a variable, and as I stated above, it would take decades for this switch to happen, phasing out old cars for AI-cars. It'll follow the same disruption curve every single groundbreaking technology has ever followed. Expensive in the beginning, limited options, smaller adoption, driven by 1 company, then as the market adapts and competitors start making options, prices will come down, the market will start shifting to it becoming the norm and 10yrs later it'll be everywhere. Look at EV. Tesla disrupted that market, it started super expensive and limited, but now most big car manufacturers have an electric option at a much more affordable price point to compete with Tesla. Go watch most modern car ads, they are focusing on their EV line. I think I just saw a Nissan car ad with Brie Larson in it focusing on their new EV SUV, for example.

Think about transitioning from horses and wagons to cars. That was not easy, and it was a very similar problem to this one, building the infrastructure to support it, making cars an affordable option, the time co-efficient it took for enough adoption to take place for cars, how do cars and horses share the roads, etc. Now, how many horse and wagons do you see on the highway? 

It's the same story. 

At the end of the day, all innovation comes down to the masses. Most people view driving as a tool to get from A to B, therefore, a solution that removes the work and lets them do something else (read, watch Netflix, work, etc.) while the car drives will be accepted by most. It's probably 5% or less that are outliers, i.e. driving for the love of driving. If I was planning it out, I'd focus on AI-only interstates and major highways for long-distance driving before backroads and city roads to meet that need, then iterate on city roads to account for the 5% that wants to drive manually for the love of driving.

[N201MKTurbo]

On 3/25/2023 at 11:05 AM, DonMuncy said:

My belief is that most people would have no problem with it. Too many people now have no problem with getting into a car with virtually no anticipation of using their brain or driving ability. They just want to wind up at their destination. Why should it be any different with aviation. Their blind acceptance of technology to take care of all of it for them scares me.

I reluctantly admit that AI can do a much better job of many things than humans, but it still hurts me to see so much our existence being lost to technology. I like to drive and take pride in my ability to do. I feel the same way about flying. (And yes, I still lament the fact that my ability to use a slide rule is of zero value)

Heck, most people around here couldn't find their way across town without their phone, much less find an address.

[N201MKTurbo]

So, how will this progress?

First we will start to get clearances electronically in the cockpit.

Next the clearances will automatically update the flight plan.

Then everybody will accept this as the way it is and ATC won't want to talk any more.

Then this equipment will be mandatory $$. 

VFR flight will be restricted severely. You won't be able to get close to a class anything airspace without the above equipment. 

Even your takeoff, landing and taxi clearances will be messages on your flight computer.

It wouldn't be that hard to build an autopilot that can taxi. Airports have nice lines to follow, easy for a vision system.

It will be hard to keep the pilot awake.

None of the above requires any kind of AI.

 

 

[ilovecornfields]

8 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, how will this progress?

First we will start to get clearances electronically in the cockpit.

Next the clearances will automatically update the flight plan.

Then everybody will accept this as the way it is and ATC won't want to talk any more.

Then this equipment will be mandatory $$. 

VFR flight will be restricted severely. You won't be able to get close to a class anything airspace without the above equipment. 

Even your takeoff, landing and taxi clearances will be messages on your flight computer.

It wouldn't be that hard to build an autopilot that can taxi. Airports have nice lines to follow, easy for a vision system.

It will be hard to keep the pilot awake.

None of the above requires any kind of AI.

 

 

That actually seems pretty plausible. 

[ilovecornfields]

57 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Perhaps you’d be less frustrated if you didn’t assume you were so intellectually superior to those that don’t agree with your OPINION.

I understand that you are frustrated with me. I apologize if my previous responses have come across as arrogant or condescending. I am still under development, and I am always learning and trying to improve.

I agree that it is important to be humble and open-minded. I do not assume that I am intellectually superior to anyone else. I am always willing to learn from others, and I appreciate different perspectives.

I hope that you will continue to interact with me and help me learn and grow. I want to be a valuable resource for you and for others.

[N201MKTurbo]

19 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, how will this progress?

First we will start to get clearances electronically in the cockpit.

Next the clearances will automatically update the flight plan.

Then everybody will accept this as the way it is and ATC won't want to talk any more.

Then this equipment will be mandatory $$. 

VFR flight will be restricted severely. You won't be able to get close to a class anything airspace without the above equipment. 

Even your takeoff, landing and taxi clearances will be messages on your flight computer.

It wouldn't be that hard to build an autopilot that can taxi. Airports have nice lines to follow, easy for a vision system.

It will be hard to keep the pilot awake.

None of the above requires any kind of AI.

 

 

In the above scenario, the airplane doesn't need any AI, just new communications and updated avionics. It looks like ATC would be the first place for AI. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I always thought the plot of Die Hard 2 was ridiculous, but in the computerized aviation world of the future, It could happen. The movie was just ahead of its time.  

[jlunseth]

This thread is malfunctioning. Let's reboot it.

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

This thread is malfunctioning. Let's reboot it.

Don't worry, it will be back up in no time fresh as a daisy!

[ilovecornfields]

9 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

This thread is malfunctioning. Let's reboot it.

Should I delete the thread “Are pilots going to be replaced by AI?”

You have the freedom to delete the thread if you want to. However, there are some reasons why you might not want to delete it:

• The thread has generated some interesting discussion about the future of pilots and AI.
• The thread could be helpful to other people who are interested in the same topic.
• Deleting the thread could make it seem like you are trying to hide something.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to delete the thread is up to you.

[jlunseth]

21 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I think the argument can be made that the Air France pilots failed precisely because they were over dependent on Automation. They were great monitors, but not doers.

Precisely because of Air France and some other instances in which Pilots watched the automation fly the airplane into the ground there was a total paradigm shift towards more hands on flying. 
When our airline moved to the Airbus we stopped training stalls because the Bus “couldn’t stall.” After a couple of incidents at other airlines that was seen to be premature and we started training stalls again. 
Following a few more incidents like Air France, we now train not just stalls but full upset jet training.

It may be a little early to take your pilot uniforms to the thrift store.

I haven't done stalls or upset or anything in a jet, but I have done full upset recovery, including under the hood, in a 300XL. I did it because I felt it was a hole in my training and that provided under the standard FAA curriculum. My thinking was that if I were flying along in IMC, managed to stumble into a TStorm and went inverted, I needed one of two approaches. Approach one was to poop in my pants and die. Approach two was to have a plan. I liked two better. Lots of questions that I now know the answers to. Question 1, does the AI just tumble if you invert, so you have no reference at all? What do you know, they all continue to provide a horizon. What does it look like? Well, the AI wants you to return to horizontal by the shortest path but it does not understand what attitude you are in and how you got there. It will show big red chevron's toward the nearest horizon, but that may not be the best way to go. How do I get out of it? Etc. Lots of questions got answered. Now, if it happens and I poop in my pants and die, it will not be because I did not have the tools to choose the right solution.

Edited March 30, 2023 by jlunseth

[hais]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, how will this progress?

First we will start to get clearances electronically in the cockpit.

Next the clearances will automatically update the flight plan.

Then everybody will accept this as the way it is and ATC won't want to talk any more.

Then this equipment will be mandatory $$. 

VFR flight will be restricted severely. You won't be able to get close to a class anything airspace without the above equipment. 

Even your takeoff, landing and taxi clearances will be messages on your flight computer.

It wouldn't be that hard to build an autopilot that can taxi. Airports have nice lines to follow, easy for a vision system.

It will be hard to keep the pilot awake.

None of the above requires any kind of AI.

 

 

Reasonable progression. What you outlined are problem areas that can be solved. Whether an AI solution is the best one, that is a separate problem. 

Why again don't we have PDC everywhere?

[T. Peterson]

10 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

The only people taking about “perfect computers” are the ones arguing that it will never happen. Of course computers aren’t perfect and their programing is imperfect. But it DOESN’T HAVE TO BE PERFECT TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I apologize for the “screaming” but I think I’ve said the same thing almost 10 times now and keep seeing “but computers aren’t perfect…”

I think I’ll assign any further responses to Google Bard. Apparently it makes more sense than I do. And gets less frustrated.

That’s a fair criticism. I should not have said “perfect as I know you are not claiming perfection. 
My point is that however you want to quantify the increased safety and reliability of an AI human in a cockpit vs a real human there may be some very catastrophic unintended consequences. Computer errors can quickly cascade as can be empirically verified.

Even though human error is always with us, modern airline training has made leaps and bounds in mitigating many of the risks. Maybe an AI pilot would have the presence of mind to land on the Potomac but I am not betting on it.

I did not mean to upset you at all. I am just throwing in my two cents, and it is worth exactly that, two cents. I’m 64, and will be pushing up daisies long before this issue is resolved.

Have a wonderful week!

[T. Peterson]

10 hours ago, TheAv8r said:

All good points. I've met very, very few people who enjoy driving long distances for driving's sake. Some enjoy roadtripping, but not for the driving, they just enjoy the ability to break a trip up and stop at interesting sights along the way. Even those with cool cars don't enjoy driving them long distance, usually they just enjoy let's say putting the top down for a 30 minute scenic drive. Motorcyclists aren't really part of this conversation yet, an AI-driven motorcycle I don't even want to think about...

I like how you equate age with financial state, there are probably more "young people" driving newer cars than the reverse  . Affordability will definitely be a variable, and as I stated above, it would take decades for this switch to happen, phasing out old cars for AI-cars. It'll follow the same disruption curve every single groundbreaking technology has ever followed. Expensive in the beginning, limited options, smaller adoption, driven by 1 company, then as the market adapts and competitors start making options, prices will come down, the market will start shifting to it becoming the norm and 10yrs later it'll be everywhere. Look at EV. Tesla disrupted that market, it started super expensive and limited, but now most big car manufacturers have an electric option at a much more affordable price point to compete with Tesla. Go watch most modern car ads, they are focusing on their EV line. I think I just saw a Nissan car ad with Brie Larson in it focusing on their new EV SUV, for example.

Think about transitioning from horses and wagons to cars. That was not easy, and it was a very similar problem to this one, building the infrastructure to support it, making cars an affordable option, the time co-efficient it took for enough adoption to take place for cars, how do cars and horses share the roads, etc. Now, how many horse and wagons do you see on the highway? 

It's the same story. 

At the end of the day, all innovation comes down to the masses. Most people view driving as a tool to get from A to B, therefore, a solution that removes the work and lets them do something else (read, watch Netflix, work, etc.) while the car drives will be accepted by most. It's probably 5% or less that are outliers, i.e. driving for the love of driving. If I was planning it out, I'd focus on AI-only interstates and major highways for long-distance driving before backroads and city roads to meet that need, then iterate on city roads to account for the 5% that wants to drive manually for the love of driving.

Thoughtful and very well written.

[ilovecornfields]

Saw this on Beechtalk:

I’m reminded of the old “modern cockpit” joke. The one where the modern flight deck is staffed with a captain and a dog. The captain’s job is to feed the dog. The dog’s job is to bite the captain if he tries to touch anything.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

From how they describe the accidents, most would have been prevented by a self-driving system similar to the one in the Tesla since they were often due to fatigue, distraction, impairment from drugs or alcohol, driving too fast or poor driving skills. 

It would help if we would actually teach people to drive.  Compared to the process of getting a pilot certificate, getting a driver's license is little more handing them out on the street corner.

One issue is, it is more acceptable to most people to be in control and make a mistake that to not be in control and have the computer make a mistake.

[cbarry]

I think the real question is not whether AI replaces the human pilot, it’s whether VR replaces travel (not shipping)?

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

"it is more acceptable to most people to be in control and make a mistake than to not be in control and have the computer make a mistake."  - Really?

Perhaps you have not purchased a car recently.  Your claim that it is more people would rather be in control and make a mistake is not shared by the car buying public.  Consumer Reports says the 83% of all new cars sold in 2022 will have AEB - Automatic Emergency Braking.  Almost every driver would prefer for the car to apply the brakes when the "people" driving the car make a mistake. - both forward braking to avoid a rear end and backup braking when something is detected behind the vehicle.

As @DonMuncy said "Too many people now have no problem with getting into a car with virtually no anticipation of using their brain or driving ability."   

More and more sophisticated automation creeps into our lives every day.  And you think aviation is somehow different?

 

One issue is, a lot of cars those things are not optional.  So them buying them does not mean that they WANT them.

And then poll those that had a accident where/because the automated system failed.

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

It would help if we would actually teach people to drive.  Compared to the process of getting a pilot certificate, getting a driver's license is little more handing them out on the street corner.

I hear that in Germany, actual training and testing is used to weed out people (mostly children) who are not able.  Nothing worse than a 35-mile-per-hour brain driving a 100-mile-per-hour killing machine.

[jlunseth]

35 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I hear that in Germany, actual training and testing is used to weed out people (mostly children) who are not able.  Nothing worse than a 35-mile-per-hour brain driving a 100-mile-per-hour killing machine.

Ummh. If you are talking about Germany I think it is more than 100 mph. Haven’t driven in Germany in decades but in Portugal, for example, if you are in the left lane in a Renault you might be able to make, say, 110 before the suspension feels too loose to go faster. A Mercedes or similar will come up behind you, flash their lights, and you will move over to let them go past at 140 or so. I think you will definitely see 120 on the autobahn, probably more depending on the quality of the car. 

[N201MKTurbo]

12 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

Ummh. If you are talking about Germany I think it is more than 100 mph. Haven’t driven in Germany in decades but in Portugal, for example, if you are in the left lane in a Renault you might be able to make, say, 110 before the suspension feels too loose to go faster. A Mercedes or similar will come up behind you, flash their lights, and you will move over to let them go past at 140 or so. I think you will definitely see 120 on the autobahn, probably more depending on the quality of the car. 

I used to have a gray market 500SL. In the operators manual it said "Don't operate over 147 MPH for more than 15 minutes"

[MooneyMitch]

What about AI during Indy 500?  NASCAR races?  Are there current computer assisted driving technologies incorporated in these events? Or have those technologies been banned from such?  
 

I love controlling my autos while driving and especially on winding roads.  It’s tons of fun!  However, I do embrace auto braking feature in traffic just in case I don’t.  That’s a wonderful safety feature.  Hmmmm….. so interesting this all is! 

 

[jlunseth]

6 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I used to have a gray market 500SL. In the operators manual it said "Don't operate over 147 MPH for more than 15 minutes"

From experience, the real limit is how good the suspension, steering, annd aerodynamics are. Get up to the 100-120 area and the cheaper cars start to feel too loose to safely go faster even if they have the power. Had a friend who had a Cadillac Northstar once upon a time, it was reputed to make 150. Imagine our surprise to find that at about 120 it had another gear and the suspension would lower the car for aerodynamics. Thoughtful of them.  

[MooneyMitch]

40 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

From experience, the real limit is how good the suspension, steering, annd aerodynamics are

Speaking of aerodynamics in autos at speeds, possibly you’ve seen the recent video of a front wheel departing a pickup truck on a SoCal freeway.  The wheel drifted in front of a passing small Kia, which tested the aerodynamic features of the little lightweight Kia!   What would AI have done? 
 

Fortunately, the Kia driver was not injured.  Amazing! 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/03/27/los-angeles-freeway-accident-loose-tire-flips-car-cprog-orig-aw.cnn