Roger, that sentence set off my B.S. meter also. What Reliable Robotics is really saying: “We’re going to pay ourselves millions of dollars and write a bunch of ‘feel good’ ‘hyperbole’ white papers.” ?
Reliable Robotics will probably use ChatCPT to write the white papers besides. I just want to see how robots are going to change fuel nozzles, filters, oil, inspections and any other routine maintenance.
Unfortunately it won’t just be a Tesla, it’s occupant, and a fire truck on the line. Image the carnage of a C-17 loaded with munitions going down in a major metro area due to a “software glitch”.
Only guess is that forced “diversity hiring” means not enough qualified pilots, even for cargo duty.
And what happens if the GPS satellites get goofy? Without land based navigation aids as a backup, things might get a bit compromised, especially in IMC, when any type of onboard
cameras, even if infared rated are available. Unless they have some sort of super accurate inertial sensors that can navigate without any external input, this system doesn’t seem to be capable of flying…literally and figuratively.
I suspect the C17 does have good accurate inertial sensors, along with a terrain-mapping radar system in the nose. Maybe not like the F-111 for nap-of-the-earth attack runs, but good enough for transport duty.
If we ARE going to explore automated flight, the military seems like a good place to start. It’s already a high risk environment, and they have experience with experimental operations. Most of our air navigation procedures (starting with NDB approaches, and even IFR flying itself) came out of military missions.
Lemme see if I have this right … the FAA is gonna run remote towers with cameras to potentially land airplanes without pilots. Imagine the Sully flight w/o Sully aboard. Have these people gone mad? I’ll say it again … what’s wrong with using flying sergeants if pilots are so hard to find. The USAF already has trained around 100 of them for the drones …
Pilotsd are dumbasses but I won’t get in an airplane or stand underneath or near one that has no pilots. The only bigger dumbasses are the engineers, management and sales types trying to convince the public that pilotless aircraft are agood idea.
Count me out. There is too much at stake to leave the flying to “Hal”.
As is typical for “endeavors” of this sort, the statements issued by the vendor are phrased in MarketingSpeak. Sorry, but for clarification, readers will need more. I really, really hope the USAF wants more as well.
When Air Force 1 and government executive aircraft are being flown autonomously for a few years, with no incidents, I may consider it for myself!
No terrain mapping that is considered a navigation source.
Standard Laser Ring IRUs, good to get over the airport or runway, but not to landing precision.
Yep. These aircraft return from the “combat zone” to bases in Germany, Italy, and Spain before they head back again. Will these host countries (and others under the flight path) even allow these flights to take place? And how will these countries react when the first one crashes? I’d leave the pilot’s seats in for now.
I remember many years ago, I think it was Boeing that showed a mockup of a 737 with the cockpit in the BACK of the plane. Obviously, that didn’t “fly”. Anything that is flying autonomously will be able to be compromised electronically. There’s nothing better than actual eyes when it comes to situational awareness. Not saying humans are perfect, but catching something out of the corner of your eye or other things sensors won’t/can’t pick up. The one comment about the Tesla crashing into the firetruck is very relevant. What happens when an self driving truck has an accident? I drove a rig for several years. Trust me, unless you are running on I-90 across the top of the western US, I doubt it will be feasible. I can see the lawyers lining up already. No thanks to a large or even smaller autonomous aircraft.
What is probably on the horizon are single pilot ops with a ground “support pilot” watching over multiple flights. Why? Money.
“The Air Force has awarded a contract to Silicon Valley firm Reliable Robotics” Here we go again. It will be nonstop… Got to laugh about this one! There’s nothing more ridiculous than this idea of “safety” applied to a complex system of a “flying BOMB”. Oh, yea! it’s the greedy money thing…
…And over just what population does the military propose to fly this thing?…
This is just a BAD IDEA. DOH
What’s the old joke about the single-pilot airliner requiring a dog in the cockpit?
Since we already have proven systems that handle fully autonomous flight to zero-zero landing at a properly equipped airport, presumably that’s the type of endpoints being discussed. Doubtful there’s much consideration yet being given to dispatching an uncrewed C-17 to some unequipped dirt strip somewhere.
That being the case feasibility rests much more on social-political considerations than on hardware, so initially approaching it within the military context makes sense.
“Anything that is flying autonomously will be able to be compromised electronically.”
EVERYTHING you wanted to know about autonomous flight can be summed up by that one sentence: and it bears repeating! Good job!!
Who the heck is running MY USAF ?
Really? That’s your only guess? Got any documentation to back up your claim? Didn’t think so…
Hey, if do use AI to write their marketing, then they are just being consistent.
Besides, I for one welcome the wisdom of our new robot overlords, so they have no need to put me in a gulag. ??