Automatic Takeoffs Are Coming For Passenger Jets (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0175093017
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/20/1739235/automatic-takeoffs-are-coming-for-passenger-jets
- Source link: https://www.cnn.com/travel/embraer-e2-enhanced-takeoff-system/index.html
> In late 1965, at what's now London Heathrow airport, a commercial flight coming from Paris made history by being the first to land automatically. The plane -- A Trident 1C operated by BEA, which would later become British Airways -- was equipped with a newly developed extension of the autopilot (a system to help guide the plane's path without manual control) known as "autoland." Today, automatic landing systems are installed on most commercial aircraft and improve the safety of landings in difficult weather or poor visibility.
>
> Now, nearly 60 years later, the world's third largest aircraft manufacturer, Brazil's Embraer, is [2]introducing a similar technology, but for takeoffs . Called "E2 Enhanced Take Off System," after the family of aircraft it's designed for, the technology would not only improve safety by reducing pilot workload, but it would also improve range and takeoff weight, allowing the planes that use it to travel farther, according to Embraer. "The system is better than the pilots," says Patrice London, principal performance engineer at Embraer, who has worked on the project for over a decade. "That's because it performs in the same way all the time. If you do 1,000 takeoffs, you will get 1,000 of exactly the same takeoff."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~LazarusQLong
[2] https://www.cnn.com/travel/embraer-e2-enhanced-takeoff-system/index.html
will they use the same test plan as BOEING MAX? (Score:2)
will they use the same test plan as BOEING MAX?
Re: (Score:2)
The Boeing MaxHAL
"Sorry Dave, but I cannot take you back to your Country. And your luggage is sitting snuggly next to Bin Laden. Would you like to hear a song about bicycles?...Too bad, I'm singing it anyhow..."
Re: (Score:1)
No, because it will never actually be implemented. There's no need for this. Takeoffs are easy and there's no reason to automate them. Airlines will not pay for it since its not needed or wanted. This is just Embraer trying desperately to remain relevant.
Automated takeoffs are useful ... (Score:1)
... as a stepping stone to fully-automated (747-sized drone) passenger service.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... as a stepping stone to fully-automated (747-sized drone) passenger service.
Cargo planes will be automated first.
The technology already exists. The barriers are mostly legal and political.
get exactly the same - if many things are the same (Score:5, Insightful)
> " If you do 1,000 takeoffs, you will get 1,000 of exactly the same takeoff."
If weather and atmospheric conditions are the same, if the plane is the same, if the the plane's configuration and loading is the same, if ...
Probably not (Score:3, Interesting)
>> " If you do 1,000 takeoffs, you will get 1,000 of exactly the same takeoff."
> If weather and atmospheric conditions are the same, if the plane is the same, if the the plane's configuration and loading is the same, if ...
I used to work with one of the engineers doing automatic plane landings.
He pointed out that they had to put some random variation into the system, because the system was so precise it would always land in the same spot - quickly wearing out that specific spot in the runway.
The software uses feedback control based on position. I don't think atmosphere and weather conditions, or loading and configuration make as much difference as you suggest.
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds urban-legendy.
Re: (Score:2)
> It sounds like a computer controlled airplane.
LOL. "But, computers, ..."
Where the computer controlled aircraft specifically touches down will vary upon when the ground crew last washed the aircraft. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like some of the creative variables used in "scientific math" that theoretical physicists use in their theories to explain the Universe ... in order to make all the various bits & bobs fit the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't think atmosphere and weather conditions, or loading and configuration make as much difference as you suggest.
They do, for example HIGH HOT HUMID will require more runway to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
That information is -already- programmed into the flight control computer by the pilots. Auto-pilot and auto-landing systems -already- account for these variables. Do you think they'd just -forget- about them when extending those exact same systems to support takeoffs as well? This isn't even remotely new technology. Pre-TFS, literally the beginning of the first line, auto-landing started in 1965. This shit has been around a very VERY long time, and some of the most battle-tested systems in engineering anyw
Re: (Score:2)
> That information is -already- programmed into the flight control computer by the pilots. Auto-pilot and auto-landing systems -already- account for these variables. Do you think they'd just -forget- about them when extending those exact same systems to support takeoffs as well? This isn't even remotely new technology. Pre-TFS, literally the beginning of the first line, auto-landing started in 1965. This shit has been around a very VERY long time, and some of the most battle-tested systems in engineering anywhere in the world with the strictest safety regulations.
And manual or computer controlled, the aircraft flies differently depending upon external conditions. For example HIGH HOT HUMID will require more runway to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
All of which (and more) you input into the flight management system right now so that it can tell you the appropriate thrust settings and important speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
> All of which (and more) you input into the flight management system right now so that it can tell you the appropriate thrust settings and important speeds.
Yes, automated or manual, the physics of flight is the same. For example High Hot Humid needs more runway to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Adaptive controls don't assume any of that. Pilots are behind many control systems already. It's no longer the Wright brothers' aircrafts where they moved their weight around and pulled ropes and levers to control the flight. In turbulent conditions, it's the onboard control systems that are doing the job. Same with many other rough weather conditions. Pilots give high level orders, sort of. That's why we had the Boeing Max crashes. Landing is yet another task for these control systems.
Re: (Score:2)
> Adaptive controls don't assume any of that. Pilots are behind many control systems already. It's no longer the Wright brothers' aircrafts where they moved their weight around and pulled ropes and levers to control the flight. In turbulent conditions, it's the onboard control systems that are doing the job. Same with many other rough weather conditions. Pilots give high level orders, sort of. That's why we had the Boeing Max crashes. Landing is yet another task for these control systems.
Whether the flight is manual, assisted, or fully automated. Conditions like HIGH HOT HUMID make the takeoffs different.
F/A-18's been doing it for a long time (Score:2)
> Now, nearly 60 years later, the world's third largest aircraft manufacturer, Brazil's Embraer, is introducing a similar technology, but for takeoffs.
US Navy F/A-18 Hornets have been doing automatic takeoffs for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair point, although a commercial airliner takeoff isn't so much like a pebble in a slingshot. The airliner, in it's long, un-tethered voyage down the runway, has to propel itself, and steer, and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
> Fair point, although a commercial airliner takeoff isn't so much like a pebble in a slingshot. The airliner, in it's long, un-tethered voyage down the runway, has to propel itself, and steer, and stuff.
My understanding is that steering is needed from about the point where the flight deck ends and the catapult is no longer involved. The auto takeoff establishes a stable flight for the pilot, then the pilots takes their hands off the safety handles and touches the controls.
Re: (Score:1)
So have Ford Pintos.
Re: (Score:2)
The Corvair perfected it first.
Re: (Score:2)
> So have Ford Pintos.
I'm not sure any cars launched from carriers ever established a stable flight, just an unpowered ballistic trajectory to the water.
Did I miss a JATO video? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Throwing a Hornet off a carrier the standard hands-free way isn't close to the same thing as all of the checks and variables involved in getting a jumbo jet airborne down a long runway.
Re: (Score:2)
> Throwing a Hornet off a carrier the standard hands-free way isn't close to the same thing as all of the checks and variables involved in getting a jumbo jet airborne down a long runway.
True, it's more difficult in the F/A-18. F/A-18 manual control during launch and early flight is considered too dangerous, unlike a jumbo jet takeoff on a long runway. The F/A-18 auto launch is like traction control in a car, beyond most human's performance. Auto takeoff in the airline is like cruise control, a convenience for something within human abilities.
now get an AI to buzz the tower! (Score:2)
now get an AI to buzz the tower!
Saw This One (Score:1)
Kirk: "Does M-5 know this is just a drill?"
Daystrom: "Of course."
Ask Sully (Score:1)
If AI had been around and overrode his decision to ditch in the Hudson, they could've fell short of a runway and likely killed everyone on board.
Re: (Score:2)
The Airbus he was flying already had a computer controlled fly-by-wire system with flight envelope protection built in - the Airbus A320 family has had that since the 1980s.
Sully praised the system during that flight, as it took away a lot of the hard work around angle of attacks etc and allowed the crew to concentrate on things like where to actually land.
Re: (Score:2)
> If AI had been around and overrode his decision to ditch in the Hudson, they could've fell short of a runway and likely killed everyone on board.
I think the point of AI would be to allow a pilot with less experience and skill than Sully to safely ditch in the water. The AI would know just as well as Sully that the aircraft could not reach the airport, but unlike the many pilots who fail in their return attempts and crash (obviously not many commercial airline pilots in that count).
Mode 4 Landings (Score:4, Interesting)
The plane I worked on in the Marine Corps had mode 4 landing capability (the ability to land itself, even when approaching a pitching aircraft carrier deck in rough weather). The story going around at the time was that the mode 4 was so good some error had to be introduced because the aircraft wheels and tail hook were hitting the exact same spot on the carrier deck every time. This caused the non-skid on the surface of the deck to be worn off in record time. This was back in the late 1980s. I wonder why it took so long to develop an automatic takeoff mode? The pilots of the plane told me they avoided mode 4 unless absolutely necessary for fear of losing, or eroding, their pilot skills. This would probably be a genuine concern today for pilots just sitting back and letting CPUs do their jobs as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military has already been through such equipment dependency concerns. More recently we have the optics vs iron sights for rifles.
I think we are at the point where the cost/benefit analysis say more soldiers will be saved due to greater accuracy with scopes than those lost due to unfamiliarity with iron sights.
At some point it will be the same with automated landings.
Re: (Score:2)
> I wonder why it took so long to develop an automatic takeoff mode?
The US Navy has a non-zero acceptable casualty rate. Commercial airliners have an acceptable rate of zero. :-)
About time. No more Northwestf 255 crashes... (Score:2)
Such systems should be good at avoiding incidents like the Northwest flight 255 crash at Detroit Metro airport:
1. Crew turns off breaker to silence annoying redundant audio voice alarms/warnings.
2. Forget to turn it back on before takeoff.
3. Get interrupted by a radio call from the tower during checklist and miss lowering the flaps and slats.
4. Plane is pretty much fully loaded and nearly fully fueled. With flaps and slats not in takeoff configuration it doesn't have enough lift to achieve flight by the e
For those who aren't control engineers... (Score:2)
..."exactly the same" is a bit of a lie
Everything about the environment can change. A good control system adapts well, and may in fact outperform human pilots, but it's never "exactly the same"
more passengers? they are packed in to much right (Score:2)
more passengers? they are packed in to much right now!
Re:more passengers? they are packed in to much rig (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry the new MCAS v2.0 not only takes off automatically (mostly... kinda... with luck). It also compresses the passenger compartment using LZ4 to save space!
Re: (Score:2)
Asymmetric numeral systems will be more profitable.
Re: (Score:1)
Bots need vacations also. My CyberTruck wants to visit Australia in order to run over kangaroos, making them pancakes, and serving them in iHop.