I thought of this question too late BUT ... Isnt that angle of attack for takeoff too steep for passenger comfort? I don't think the US FAA will allow that here. Because I'm sure if airlines could take off that steep they would right? What'a you think?
I don't think a steep takeoff really impinges much on passenger physical comfort. Motion sickness usually manifests due to rapid changes in vertical acceleration, (up/down movements) which is not a factor in a takeoff. .Mentally they may be concerned if they are nervous Nellies.
@@richardwillson101 Apparently not every Airport had the Equipment. I was travelling through Denver (can't recall the Date) and United invited a bunch of Employees for the then not so obvious Test Landing. I mean who tests with live animals? :)
In one sense, automated take off and landing makes sense. Let the computers do it all. Trouble is, a lack of hands on experience will so degrade a pilot's skill set that when things go tits up, as they inevitably do, the pilot will be about as useful as a chocolate coffee mug. Automation has serious downsides in that respect. Great when everything works as expected and as the software engineers foresaw but lousy when it suddenly fails and chucks control to a human who has become little more than a systems manager. Probably not too much of a problem when your Tesla decides to quit by the roadside but not many places to pull over and park at 36,000 feet.
Wasn't it an Air India flight where that happened? A crosswind landing was outside the parameters, and the crew crashed the plane. Investigators found neither pilot had landed the type since qualifying on it. Airline rules were changed as a result. There's a TV doco, only reason I'd heard of it.
I can't remember if it was in the 1990s but the running joke/guess for the future was the copilot would be a dog and if the pilot went to touch something the dog would bite him. We are getting there.
We know where this is heading, I'm never getting on an airliner without two pilots up front. The safety folks are pushing CRM, while the bean counters are wanting to get rid of human crew.
@@brucebaxter6923 Near misses saved by the pilot are not tabulated. It’s a little more complicated. Having AI in the cockpit might be a good halfway to automation with the pilot having final authority.
I have a really bad feeling about this. Consider the first generation of self-driving automobiles, and what has been happening to them. Every now and then one of them does something really stupid, and people bleed, or die.
@fredferd965 cars are NOT aircraft. Automation in self-driving cars is NOT treated with the same technology, scrutiny and funding as automation on aircraft. That's before we talk about how aircraft actually get flown following laid out flight paths, airfields and approach/departure procedures. Cars? Can go anywhere and do anything with unlimited destinations.
😂 the fact they are "people" is one of the most dangerous parts of flying. They are extremely highly trained "people" but they are human nonetheless, and being one yourself, you should know how limited humans can be at times. Lack of sleep, illness, bad training, inexperience, innatentiveness, cockiness, distraction...
@@aeomaster32 "sensors can fail" - yes, but when you use 3 or 4 for one task, the chances of all failing at once are slim. Before we talk about reasonability checks from other data.
I think that's true and agree entirely. But it won't apply here, yet. The humans up front will still be monitoring the AI/whatever and will be able to override it.
Ha ha, I can see why Embraer is touting this. They're going to claim increased range due to optimisation, thus addressing the E2's major competitive weakness - lack of range. The concern I have is how does the system communicate with ATC? ATC gives vectors and altitude info to the pilots, how does the auto system know this?
What's the delineation of when the takeoff ends and the engagement of the AP? The auto takeoff function will just do what is theoretically optimal. But what about avoiding conflicting traffic and avoiding weather? Is it plumbed into TCAS and the weather radar? Is it listening to ATC advisories/instructions? Actually I can go on and on with questions: Does it know aircraft weight, does it know density altitude, does it know runway length, does it know prevailing wind direction and speed, does it know runway surface condition in case of an aborted takeoff (braking distance)...
I used to work at Hughes aircraft company and back in the 1970s there was a research project that created the ability to have a pilotless aircraft which would also create incredible aerodynamics since they no longer needed a cockpit and windows, etc. Although this was very doable it was decided that the general public combined with the aviation community just would not buy it! Unfortunately with Boeing's 15 years of Screwups in the technology department including the issues with the dreamliner where the computer system locked up and would not allow the pilots or even the tech department to disengage it, they're going to have a lot of work to do to build confidence in both the aviation community and the general public
Hi Maximus, The auto pilot can only land the aircraft when the wind is light. Having been an airline pilot for 21 years, when you would really have liked the auto pilot to land in really strong gusting wing it can’t do it. That is when you as the pilot really earn your money 💴 👨✈️👨✈️
Hi Max. Remember Qantas flight 72 incident back in 2008 ? Now Imagine a similar scenario with no pilots in control of the aircraft. Scary scenario isnt it ?
Yes, but the aircraft was built to HAVE three crew on board... Nobody is suggesting you just "delete" the humans and use the systems we have in aircraft as they are today. Plus, we could sit and list THOUSANDS of crashes where pilots have directly caused the accident by simply being human.
Actually, AF447 would be an even better example of the sensors being contaminated & the automation going haywire. Unfortunately, inexperienced pilots also helped to doom that flight due to them not being able to understand & panicking from all the automation false data & alerts. The Captain In Charge that came up from him resting during the flight, unfortunately, figured out correctly what was happening correctly too late. If he was in the flight deck during the automation failure, the flight most likely doesn't crash. But automation & failed equipment ultimately brought that aircraft down. BTW, a(un)i grammar & spell check has given me wrong information throughout my typing this reply. SMH. Hhh..... humanity is doomed (much faster) with a(un)i. Ugh! 🙄😔
@UTHookEmHorns73 but again. A scenario where the systems were built for a human to take over. What was the actual cause of the crash? Human error. Humans made a mistake in a position of the automation dropping out after hours of not having to do a lot. Then stress, panic and being overworked kicked in, before poor descision making and inexperience lead to the collision with the sea. Automation was a factor in the circumstances, humans caused the actual crash. AF447 is a perfect example of why you need to fully automate. Because the human/machine interface has reached a point where it has become flawed. Machines suddenly give up, and a human who rarely has to deal with anything like that situation gets forced into action after being under a very low workload. It is causing more and more accidents. The first 737 Max crash was the same, the pilots didn't know what was happening or how to react, so they crashed. This was obviously down to Boeing lying about how much training was required (and the FAA for allowing legacy type with MCAS). Sadly, the second crash also highlighted how even with full system Knowledge and the training on how to react, the system was poorly designed and had too much Authority to move the tailplane beyond where a human could reverse it in time.
Auto pilot has been around for decades. How ever I strongly believe we still need human supervision. Electronics fail without notice. backups are still necessary.
Malfunctions? I'm not aware of many "computer malfunctions" that attempt to fly a plane into the ground. The difference is however, you are talking about a scenario with one or more human pilots monitoring the automation. If we built automation to be robust enough that it doesn't need human intervention, "malfunction" isn't an issue. For example, I have worked aircraft with four flying control computers... Two active and two backup. The aircraft only needs one to still fly with it enabled. The active two are always "comparing" with each other and the dormant two are always paying attention, keeping an eye on the other two. What people don't realise, is how much of our modern commercial aircraft is already automated by computers 😂 FAR more than you realise. For example, the throttles, FADEC exists on most modern engines and keeps the engines within acceptable parameters at each stage of flight. They could "firewall" them for take off, but the system knows the pressure and temperature of the day, it can be told the weight of the aircraft and runway length, to then calculate the amount of thrust required. Those throttles might be at max, but the engine might not be.
@@richardwillson101 there are lots of faults that a flight computer cant handle. there was an incident where the ailerons got connected backwards, the pilots figured it out. a computer would fly it into the ground inverted. MCAS style failure where the AOA malfunctions pitot tube icing or any other large scale sensor malfunction like uncontrolled engine failure takes out a load of wires. engine malfunctions , does the plane attempt restarts or just fly it into the ocean when it runs out of altitude. the BA 747 that went through the volcano ash and had all 4 engines stall out. there still isn't an automatic engine surge suppressor. The engines would just explode without a pilot to bring back the throttle. this is the fundamental problem is a computer cannot fix problems.
@geofrancis2001 again, you design these scenarios out. That Aileron scenario? If its the one I'm thinking of, it was an Airbus with a Fly by Wire system that was incorrectly wired due to a service bulletin that the technician didn't have access to, changing the wiring slightly. The technician wasn't given the correct data, the certifying engineers didn't carry out the testing correctly (watching the controls move as expected) and the flight crew missed it on their pre flight. The report is out there for anybody to read... At NO point did automation fail, an organisation failed, as did its three layers of human controls. Yes, you can get automation to recognise a situation like that faster than those two humans did... Left bank required... surface moves to a right bank, accelerometers pick up a right roll, establish there is an issue and roll left. Although, the issue was the wiring to the side stick, which automation wouldn't be moving, so that scenario doesn't really work.
@@richardwillson101 the point is you would have to anticipate that exact failure, figure out a way of detecting it without triggering a false alarm and program alterative control law in to deal with it. if it's not anticipated by the programmer then it cant do anything. no flight control system is going to make up control logic on the fly. it would never get certified.
@geofrancis2001 not true at all. Plenty of aircraft automation already has that capability. The biggest barrier to automation is passenger acceptance of it. Of course you have to programme in every scenario, but we have over 100 years of aviation history to teach us what can go wrong. Not to mention that if you use remote telemetry, ground based data can be fed to it... you know, like a remote pilot. A team of a couple per airline with access to the telemetry for the fleet. That's how I see single pilot operation being. Somebody ground based, available to assist with descision making in an emergency... lose an engine, you fly whilst the person on the ground calculates fuel, finds a diversion and calls ATC there. Even dispatch technical personnel to the gate, as they can do already based on telemetry.
Pilots have saved more lives than a(un)i automation. Hell... even the Starship Enterprise had humans flying, observing, & maintaining it. Same for Star Wars vehicles. Every legit & level minded computer engineer I've met has said that they'd never trust a(un)i automation with their lives. Amen! Boycot all a(un)i automation! It doesn't bother me if a(un)i helps suggest things or helps me filter information, but that's it. Computers can't have cognitive thinking. It's absolutely impossible. Programming at it primary basis is just ones & zeros. On or off. Yes or no. No grey areas. NO a(un)I! Save humanity!
DEI is just a cover for racism and ignorance. Pilots undergo rigorous training and regular assessment therefore any deficiencies are either systemic and not race spefic. What an idiotic statement !!!!
No.. just no.. standards and numbers in western military air forces have dropped badly. This has reduced the number of experienced and hardened pilots available. I absolutely don't want to be on an aircraft without a skilled pilot in actual charge.. I only have two degrees, one on EEeng and the other in automated control systems; but even I know that automatics have numerous critical failure methods.. even if well designed and tested.
Is an AI Robot gonna do the walk around too? How many times have pilots had to cut off auto-pilot and take control of an aircraft when these systems fail? just saying...
At last! Take off is way easier than landing. No more missed checklist items! Don't inform passengers that it is an AI takeoff and they will never know....
One pilot, automation and a dead man button in case the pilot drops dead. Then automation that already exists in general aviation with the Garmin system or the ground which is linked to the flight management computer can act to land or continue the flight.
Well done Embraer! Supervised autonomy is the path to full autonomy but most importantly, they are showing the industry that they are pushing forward vs share buybacks and ignoring safety culture...
Absolutely! Somebody needs to bear the burden of being "the first" to push the technology into commercial service. We can't be stuck in the dark ages forever with poorly designed systems and pilots who have been told the systems "haven't changed" when they have.
I would go on these aircraft as long as the pilots are still there in charge of the computers. Good to hear that Embraer aircraft are competing with the A220. It doesn't quite make Embraer a full competitor with Airbus and Boeing but it's one step towards that. Especially if Embraer's order book is full.
Lots of jets in the military and civilian aviation only have one pilot flying them. Speaking of military a F16 using AI was able to meet the dog fighting skill of a senior pilot with 2000 to 3000 hours of experience.
Embraer is in a good position to take Boeing's place in the commercial market if they just build larger aircraft. If Boing doesn't let engineers run the production soon , Embraer will have the time they need to surpass Boing .
It’s not about what you prefer. It’s about engineering data and real world implementation. There will be limitations for computer, same as human beings. The question is how to make a healthy balance to improve flying safety.
@BigDaddy_MRI it wasn't meant as an insult, more of a fact. Humans are quite scary TBH, and my experience of automation and if humans is that they both have their issues. Humans make mistakes, misunderstand things, require sleep and also get ill. Automation however needs to be designed right for it to be if any use. Every scenario planned out and its responses mapped. This was one of the issues with MCAS, it wasn't designed properly, then even more poorly implemented.
As a non-pilot, it seems if landings can automated, takeoffs would be easier. I know assumes typical conditions and perhaps won't be helpful in all situations.
In the 1980s Airbus 320 design mission was to relegate the pilots to just sitting there. Let the computer do the monkey business. To the point each input from a pilot has to be approved by the computer program before it is allowed to occur.
It also crashed despite the pilots trying to save the aircraft too. Many other Airbus aircraft have crashed (AF447) due to Airbus a(un)i automation failures, also. Computers can't ever be perfect. It's impossible due to the impossibility of programming to handle every situation properly. The basis of programming is 1 or 0. Yes or no. Computers will never ever have cognitive thinking. It's literally physically impossible.
Thanks for showing that Trident 1C had the first approved auto-land system, it was amazing to see them come out of the fog perfectly set up on the centre line at London Heathrow whilst the big jets circled or re routed to Paris or Manchester. Great aircraft all be it a tad under powered.
It’ll be interesting to see the safety stats between Human Pilots vs A.I. Pilots. To get those stats, they could trial-run the new A.I. Pilots on cargo planes for 5 years before implementing them on passenger planes. They should also test the A.I. Pilots within flight-simulators for hypothetically unforeseeable scenarios which the air-industry has experienced over the last century. There’s an incident where an aircraft’s hydraulics got completely disabled mid-flight and the crew lost total control of the plane’s steering, but due to the ingenuity of the human pilots they were able to steer the plane only by alternating the thrust of the jet’s engines and they managed to land safely. Would an A.I. Pilot be capable of improvising a creative solution like that in a similar scenario? Would it possibly do even better? I’d highly doubt it, I don’t think A.I. technology is even close to that kind of ability yet.. maybe in 20 years
As long as there are 2 pilots in the cockpit, I'm fine with these automation. Embraer also will require training, unlike Boeing who was hiding the existence of MCAS from everyone.
I have watched several aircraft accident reports where one of the major causes of the fatal crash was the Pilot Flying suddenly dumped the flight responsibility to the Pilot Monitoring (the other pilot), who was busy doing the other tasks (communicating w/ the tower, running checklists, etc.). Even when behind the wheels of a car on "autopilot", the human driver who, under test conditions, has been told that at some point the system will be throwing them the driving responsibility, takes many seconds to fully engage. This is an accident waiting to happen. Boeing's misconduct and prioritizing the bottom line seems to be spreading through the industry like the plague, despite the industry seeing clearly the potentially fatal outcome for Boeing. "It won't happen here" are the famous last words of many, many otherwise successful businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, none of us are likely to know if the aircraft that we are boarding has this "feature". Sadness....
While I assume they will still continue to refresh pilots' skills, when I think of self-driving cars, where the manufacturers say that the driver will still be able to take control of the car (though we have seen lots now without a driver at all - taxis and busses), I always wonder how quickly and easily someone would be able to assume control of a moving conveyance in an emergency situation if they have not be handling normal situations for a long time.
Like every new technology there are a few (well maybe not a few) questions that must be asked and answered before the system operation for known takeoff variances can be fully understood.
I'd say this probably works best under optimal conditions. Not sure anyone would be using it under blizzard conditions or where there's limited visibility in general.
Just sounds like automatic cruise control or lane assist or even... automatic gearboxes. They aren't always perfect but they significantly reduce the workload and make things safer.
I like live pilots . When problems arise auto pilots decouple. Most people don't know how often problems occur. Triple redundancy & 2 pilots are the reason we don't have daily crashes .
this new system bring flight in a narrower path around the catastrophes. Speeding up the transition to step climb trajectory reduce the mannouver margin in case of engine problem.
Howdy, Maximus! Another good 'un. I am generally not opposed to automation enhancement, unless Boeing does them, these days. It is interesting to see this new system in action, and, while I'm not embracing it until it has more proving miles under its belt.
I think airliners are the safest form of travel, but there is NO WAY on this planet we call earth that I'm going to step into one that does not have someone in the cockpit.
Airbus A320, flight 296Q, 26 June, 1988. While never proven that a computer issue caused this crash, that has been the popular folk story for years. In more recent history, the Boeing Starliner failure is fresh in everyone's mind. When you can prove to me that computer controlled flight is safe, maybe I will be willing to fly. Edit: I happen to really like the Embraer aircraft. I think their entry into the sky will help bring about the next generation of atmospheric transportation which Boeing and Airbus seem to be unwilling to attempt. Just not sure I like full automation.
I'll consider flying on such an automated aircraft only if they have been thoroughly tested with cargo for about 20 years! BUT, if Boeing is involved, FORGET IT!
A few comments. If the auto takeoff mimics the way a pilot will takeoff…..how do you get an increase in performance (higher takeoff weight). Second, if the system does indeed takeoff different than the pilot, and you are taking off with the higher weight, how can you continue the takeoff if the autopilot fails? Last comment, as a thirty year airline pilot there have been many times I have gone to rotate, and right away I knew we were much heavier than the weight and balance stated. Slow the rotation down and gently get it in the air. I don’t see an autopilot being programmed with that fidelity.
Will the "new" technology include a French Tickler to wake up the crew when they invariably nod off due to lack of meaningful interaction during all phases of the flight?
I was thinking about this a few days earlier. We have auto pilot and auto land. Why not auto take off. As a private pilot I have thought taking of was much easier to accomplish than landing. I guess at some point. The pilot will be sitting behind a looked glass door, with a sign above. Saying, in case of a emergency. Break glass.🤣
Marketing tech-toys are the thing it seems. So the automation will do the weights and balance input and sense if the information is problematic? Will the pilot take control and safely take over the aircraft just like with the MCAS system? I do not believe a pilot will be able to recover the aircraft quickly enough during the critical takeoff phase, if the autopilot has problems.
"Profit Hunter"! When I see the word Profit, I immediately think of Boeing and its "quality escapes". In the end, Embraer and Boeing could have merged... Is there any airline whose nickname is “Quality Prime” instead of “Profit Hunter”?
Although full autonomy sounds scary, please be assured that all Airplanes are designed such that they eventually reach the ground! Most of these you can walk away from. I hope that's put your minds at rest.
What about pilot proficiency if they can't practice, their skills will diminish, as it is a pilot on long haul may only do one landing and take off a day! So it could be three or four days before a pilot can practice. On short haul that's not a problem, with them taking turns!
I guess we all prefer real pilots for now. But if I had to choose between an Embraer or Airbus piloted by AI vs a Boeing with pilots, I would prefer the former one!
Autopilots quit in many situations, forcing human pilots to troubleshoot the problem. Imagine relying on a computer to analyze the many variables in an emergency situation and come up with the right solution. Just look at the laughable results AI comes up with from a simple search query now.
Boeing says MCAS is safe too... til it isn't. I'm landlocked. If I can't drive, I'm not goin' Thanks Boeing. My old inspector eyes have seen far too much to ever trust this.
I won't be flying anymore unless there's a real Pilot in the Cockpit !! Too many things that can go wrong that an AI wouldn't know what to do. No, this boy will keep his feet on the ground and his butt on a Greyhound !!
In principle pilotless aircraft is okay. However, the technology is far from ready. I would need 20 years of testing, not Alpha software. Also, not Boeing, who couldn't program, simple redundancy in MCAST, a mistake a first-year software engineering student would not have made, and if he/she did would get an F
@southbound1969 aww, did somebody with a different skin colour or gender take your job because they were better than you? Boo hoo 😭 Maybe if you were better at your job, you wouldn't be crying about DEI.
actually? no..at least no to pilot reduction,, NOTHING can replace the human brain..can it be made to monitor the planes performance and be programed to seek most efficient AOA? sure,,in the end, we'll see..
I thought of this question too late BUT ... Isnt that angle of attack for takeoff too steep for passenger comfort? I don't think the US FAA will allow that here. Because I'm sure if airlines could take off that steep they would right? What'a you think?
I don't think a steep takeoff really impinges much on passenger physical comfort. Motion sickness usually manifests due to rapid changes in vertical acceleration, (up/down movements) which is not a factor in a takeoff. .Mentally they may be concerned if they are nervous Nellies.
"Welcome to the first fully autonomous airline flight. Relax; nothing can go wrong. go wrong. go wrong..."
Years ago, United was testing auto landing in Denver. So why not auto take off?
@@MBrieger Auto landing came in the late 70s/early 80s IIRC.
perfect
@@richardwillson101 Apparently not every Airport had the Equipment. I was travelling through Denver (can't recall the Date) and United invited a bunch of Employees for the then not so obvious Test Landing. I mean who tests with live animals? :)
In one sense, automated take off and landing makes sense. Let the computers do it all. Trouble is, a lack of hands on experience will so degrade a pilot's skill set that when things go tits up, as they inevitably do, the pilot will be about as useful as a chocolate coffee mug.
Automation has serious downsides in that respect. Great when everything works as expected and as the software engineers foresaw but lousy when it suddenly fails and chucks control to a human who has become little more than a systems manager.
Probably not too much of a problem when your Tesla decides to quit by the roadside but not many places to pull over and park at 36,000 feet.
Wasn't it an Air India flight where that happened? A crosswind landing was outside the parameters, and the crew crashed the plane. Investigators found neither pilot had landed the type since qualifying on it. Airline rules were changed as a result. There's a TV doco, only reason I'd heard of it.
I can't remember if it was in the 1990s but the running joke/guess for the future was the copilot would be a dog and if the pilot went to touch something the dog would bite him. We are getting there.
🤣🤣🤣
We know where this is heading, I'm never getting on an airliner without two pilots up front. The safety folks are pushing CRM, while the bean counters are wanting to get rid of human crew.
Bet it crashes automatically, too. 😉
Israeli feature.
You do realise pilots are at fault for half of all deaths.
@@brucebaxter6923 Near misses saved by the pilot are not tabulated. It’s a little more complicated. Having AI in the cockpit might be a good halfway to automation with the pilot having final authority.
@@naughtiusmaximus830
The pilots cased one third of all crashes.
"What's the worst that could happen?" 😳
I have a really bad feeling about this. Consider the first generation of self-driving automobiles, and what has been happening to them. Every now and then one of them does something really stupid, and people bleed, or die.
@fredferd965 cars are NOT aircraft.
Automation in self-driving cars is NOT treated with the same technology, scrutiny and funding as automation on aircraft.
That's before we talk about how aircraft actually get flown following laid out flight paths, airfields and approach/departure procedures.
Cars? Can go anywhere and do anything with unlimited destinations.
I'm not getting aboard unless there are a couple of people in control up front (with at least as much to lose as me!).
😂 the fact they are "people" is one of the most dangerous parts of flying.
They are extremely highly trained "people" but they are human nonetheless, and being one yourself, you should know how limited humans can be at times.
Lack of sleep, illness, bad training, inexperience, innatentiveness, cockiness, distraction...
@@richardwillson101
Sensor inputs can fail, leaving computers that depend on them crippled. Humans can innovate.
@@aeomaster32 "sensors can fail" - yes, but when you use 3 or 4 for one task, the chances of all failing at once are slim.
Before we talk about reasonability checks from other data.
@@richardwillson101 Humans will design the system, humans screw up. MCAS? Your statement has very little logic.
I think that's true and agree entirely. But it won't apply here, yet. The humans up front will still be monitoring the AI/whatever and will be able to override it.
Ha ha, I can see why Embraer is touting this. They're going to claim increased range due to optimisation, thus addressing the E2's major competitive weakness - lack of range. The concern I have is how does the system communicate with ATC? ATC gives vectors and altitude info to the pilots, how does the auto system know this?
Yeah, it's all about takeoff optimising fuel burn. It's front and centre in the Embraer promo.
What's the delineation of when the takeoff ends and the engagement of the AP? The auto takeoff function will just do what is theoretically optimal. But what about avoiding conflicting traffic and avoiding weather? Is it plumbed into TCAS and the weather radar? Is it listening to ATC advisories/instructions?
Actually I can go on and on with questions: Does it know aircraft weight, does it know density altitude, does it know runway length, does it know prevailing wind direction and speed, does it know runway surface condition in case of an aborted takeoff (braking distance)...
I used to work at Hughes aircraft company and back in the 1970s there was a research project that created the ability to have a pilotless aircraft which would also create incredible aerodynamics since they no longer needed a cockpit and windows, etc. Although this was very doable it was decided that the general public combined with the aviation community just would not buy it!
Unfortunately with Boeing's 15 years of Screwups in the technology department including the issues with the dreamliner where the computer system locked up and would not allow the pilots or even the tech department to disengage it, they're going to have a lot of work to do to build confidence in both the aviation community and the general public
Hi Maximus, The auto pilot can only land the aircraft when the wind is light. Having been an airline pilot for 21 years, when you would really have liked the auto pilot to land in really strong gusting wing it can’t do it. That is when you as the pilot really earn your money 💴 👨✈️👨✈️
What can go wrong? A lot of things. I prefer a human in the cockpit.
First they will implement this, then reduce flight crew to one, then none. I am so glade I am old so I won't have to deal with pilotless traveling.
Hi Max. Remember Qantas flight 72 incident back in 2008 ? Now Imagine a similar scenario with no pilots in control of the aircraft. Scary scenario isnt it ?
Yes, but the aircraft was built to HAVE three crew on board...
Nobody is suggesting you just "delete" the humans and use the systems we have in aircraft as they are today.
Plus, we could sit and list THOUSANDS of crashes where pilots have directly caused the accident by simply being human.
Actually, AF447 would be an even better example of the sensors being contaminated & the automation going haywire. Unfortunately, inexperienced pilots also helped to doom that flight due to them not being able to understand & panicking from all the automation false data & alerts. The Captain In Charge that came up from him resting during the flight, unfortunately, figured out correctly what was happening correctly too late. If he was in the flight deck during the automation failure, the flight most likely doesn't crash. But automation & failed equipment ultimately brought that aircraft down. BTW, a(un)i grammar & spell check has given me wrong information throughout my typing this reply. SMH. Hhh..... humanity is doomed (much faster) with a(un)i. Ugh! 🙄😔
@UTHookEmHorns73 but again. A scenario where the systems were built for a human to take over.
What was the actual cause of the crash?
Human error.
Humans made a mistake in a position of the automation dropping out after hours of not having to do a lot.
Then stress, panic and being overworked kicked in, before poor descision making and inexperience lead to the collision with the sea.
Automation was a factor in the circumstances, humans caused the actual crash.
AF447 is a perfect example of why you need to fully automate.
Because the human/machine interface has reached a point where it has become flawed.
Machines suddenly give up, and a human who rarely has to deal with anything like that situation gets forced into action after being under a very low workload.
It is causing more and more accidents.
The first 737 Max crash was the same, the pilots didn't know what was happening or how to react, so they crashed.
This was obviously down to Boeing lying about how much training was required (and the FAA for allowing legacy type with MCAS).
Sadly, the second crash also highlighted how even with full system Knowledge and the training on how to react, the system was poorly designed and had too much Authority to move the tailplane beyond where a human could reverse it in time.
Auto pilot has been around for decades. How ever I strongly believe we still need human supervision. Electronics fail without notice. backups are still necessary.
What can go wrong?
bird strikes
And, if the computer malfunctions? It’s not unheard of for a flight computer to attempt to fly a plane into the ground.
Malfunctions?
I'm not aware of many "computer malfunctions" that attempt to fly a plane into the ground.
The difference is however, you are talking about a scenario with one or more human pilots monitoring the automation.
If we built automation to be robust enough that it doesn't need human intervention, "malfunction" isn't an issue.
For example, I have worked aircraft with four flying control computers... Two active and two backup.
The aircraft only needs one to still fly with it enabled.
The active two are always "comparing" with each other and the dormant two are always paying attention, keeping an eye on the other two.
What people don't realise, is how much of our modern commercial aircraft is already automated by computers 😂
FAR more than you realise.
For example, the throttles, FADEC exists on most modern engines and keeps the engines within acceptable parameters at each stage of flight.
They could "firewall" them for take off, but the system knows the pressure and temperature of the day, it can be told the weight of the aircraft and runway length, to then calculate the amount of thrust required.
Those throttles might be at max, but the engine might not be.
@@richardwillson101 there are lots of faults that a flight computer cant handle. there was an incident where the ailerons got connected backwards, the pilots figured it out. a computer would fly it into the ground inverted.
MCAS style failure where the AOA malfunctions
pitot tube icing or any other large scale sensor malfunction like uncontrolled engine failure takes out a load of wires.
engine malfunctions , does the plane attempt restarts or just fly it into the ocean when it runs out of altitude. the BA 747 that went through the volcano ash and had all 4 engines stall out.
there still isn't an automatic engine surge suppressor. The engines would just explode without a pilot to bring back the throttle.
this is the fundamental problem is a computer cannot fix problems.
@geofrancis2001 again, you design these scenarios out.
That Aileron scenario? If its the one I'm thinking of, it was an Airbus with a Fly by Wire system that was incorrectly wired due to a service bulletin that the technician didn't have access to, changing the wiring slightly.
The technician wasn't given the correct data, the certifying engineers didn't carry out the testing correctly (watching the controls move as expected) and the flight crew missed it on their pre flight.
The report is out there for anybody to read...
At NO point did automation fail, an organisation failed, as did its three layers of human controls.
Yes, you can get automation to recognise a situation like that faster than those two humans did...
Left bank required... surface moves to a right bank, accelerometers pick up a right roll, establish there is an issue and roll left.
Although, the issue was the wiring to the side stick, which automation wouldn't be moving, so that scenario doesn't really work.
@@richardwillson101 the point is you would have to anticipate that exact failure, figure out a way of detecting it without triggering a false alarm and program alterative control law in to deal with it. if it's not anticipated by the programmer then it cant do anything. no flight control system is going to make up control logic on the fly. it would never get certified.
@geofrancis2001 not true at all.
Plenty of aircraft automation already has that capability.
The biggest barrier to automation is passenger acceptance of it.
Of course you have to programme in every scenario, but we have over 100 years of aviation history to teach us what can go wrong.
Not to mention that if you use remote telemetry, ground based data can be fed to it... you know, like a remote pilot.
A team of a couple per airline with access to the telemetry for the fleet.
That's how I see single pilot operation being.
Somebody ground based, available to assist with descision making in an emergency... lose an engine, you fly whilst the person on the ground calculates fuel, finds a diversion and calls ATC there.
Even dispatch technical personnel to the gate, as they can do already based on telemetry.
I prefer at least 2 pilots in the cockpit.
Pilots have saved more lives than a(un)i automation. Hell... even the Starship Enterprise had humans flying, observing, & maintaining it. Same for Star Wars vehicles. Every legit & level minded computer engineer I've met has said that they'd never trust a(un)i automation with their lives. Amen! Boycot all a(un)i automation! It doesn't bother me if a(un)i helps suggest things or helps me filter information, but that's it. Computers can't have cognitive thinking. It's absolutely impossible. Programming at it primary basis is just ones & zeros. On or off. Yes or no. No grey areas. NO a(un)I! Save humanity!
FINALLY!!! I can now add a face to the AWESOME voice. Thanks for all the greats vids Bro.
Drinking on flights is going to go up, unless they're taking beverages to the cockpit, then you'll know you have live pilots.
If we are going down this road, then I prefer an AI pilot to a DEI pilot. Cool glasses Max!😎
DEI is just a cover for racism and ignorance. Pilots undergo rigorous training and regular assessment therefore any deficiencies are either systemic and not race spefic.
What an idiotic statement !!!!
Personally, I would rather have a drunk pilot.
Given the number of DEI pilots hired, I will take my changes with an A.I. pilot...
What is the point and why do people think it is necessary.
No.. just no.. standards and numbers in western military air forces have dropped badly. This has reduced the number of experienced and hardened pilots available. I absolutely don't want to be on an aircraft without a skilled pilot in actual charge.. I only have two degrees, one on EEeng and the other in automated control systems; but even I know that automatics have numerous critical failure methods.. even if well designed and tested.
Can it be a bridge too far and a slippery slope at the same time?
Is an AI Robot gonna do the walk around too? How many times have pilots had to cut off auto-pilot and take control of an aircraft when these systems fail? just saying...
Let's start with the concept "1 pilot + remote control from the ground" . Then we'll see.
Pilots nightmare
Yeah...... There better be a pilot sitting in that seat at least monitoring the systems ready to take over WHEN a system fails. Good Morning Maximus!
At last! Take off is way easier than landing. No more missed checklist items! Don't inform passengers that it is an AI takeoff and they will never know....
No idea what the title even is
One pilot, automation and a dead man button in case the pilot drops dead. Then automation that already exists in general aviation with the Garmin system or the ground which is linked to the flight management computer can act to land or continue the flight.
Well done Embraer! Supervised autonomy is the path to full autonomy but most importantly, they are showing the industry that they are pushing forward vs share buybacks and ignoring safety culture...
or, they need SOMETHING to sell more than 300 E-Jets,,at least they aren't part of Stellantis ,,,
Absolutely! Somebody needs to bear the burden of being "the first" to push the technology into commercial service.
We can't be stuck in the dark ages forever with poorly designed systems and pilots who have been told the systems "haven't changed" when they have.
As long as this system doesn’t encourage airlines to adopt single pilot operations for Embraers
About bloody time
Combination is most probably the best
I would go on these aircraft as long as the pilots are still there in charge of the computers. Good to hear that Embraer aircraft are competing with the A220. It doesn't quite make Embraer a full competitor with Airbus and Boeing but it's one step towards that. Especially if Embraer's order book is full.
Pilots will be replaced before flight attendants. Makes me think which job is really unique.
The robot nurse in the retirement home, which the penny squeezers have decided for you already to be more profita... errhh more comfortable for you.
Next step one pilot as second in command and back up to the computer.
You have to be kidding!!!
Lots of jets in the military and civilian aviation only have one pilot flying them. Speaking of military a F16 using AI was able to meet the dog fighting skill of a senior pilot with 2000 to 3000 hours of experience.
Embraer is in a good position to take Boeing's place in the commercial market if they just build larger aircraft. If Boing doesn't let engineers run the production soon , Embraer will have the time they need to surpass Boing .
I prefer a real pilot.
😂 how naive
@@richardwillson101 Yep. That’s me! Badge of honor, thank you!! At 71 years old, I’m immune to insults. 😂😂
It’s not about what you prefer. It’s about engineering data and real world implementation. There will be limitations for computer, same as human beings. The question is how to make a healthy balance to improve flying safety.
@BigDaddy_MRI it wasn't meant as an insult, more of a fact.
Humans are quite scary TBH, and my experience of automation and if humans is that they both have their issues.
Humans make mistakes, misunderstand things, require sleep and also get ill.
Automation however needs to be designed right for it to be if any use. Every scenario planned out and its responses mapped. This was one of the issues with MCAS, it wasn't designed properly, then even more poorly implemented.
Most of the crashes are a result of human error.
By this logic, having the autopilot do everything from start to finish, would be a huge improvement.
As a non-pilot, it seems if landings can automated, takeoffs would be easier. I know assumes typical conditions and perhaps won't be helpful in all situations.
In the 1980s Airbus 320 design mission was to relegate the pilots to just sitting there. Let the computer do the monkey business. To the point each input from a pilot has to be approved by the computer program before it is allowed to occur.
It also crashed despite the pilots trying to save the aircraft too. Many other Airbus aircraft have crashed (AF447) due to Airbus a(un)i automation failures, also. Computers can't ever be perfect. It's impossible due to the impossibility of programming to handle every situation properly. The basis of programming is 1 or 0. Yes or no. Computers will never ever have cognitive thinking. It's literally physically impossible.
Thanks for showing that Trident 1C had the first approved auto-land system, it was amazing to see them come out of the fog perfectly set up on the centre line at London Heathrow whilst the big jets circled or re routed to Paris or Manchester. Great aircraft all be it a tad under powered.
It’ll be interesting to see the safety stats between Human Pilots vs A.I. Pilots.
To get those stats, they could trial-run the new A.I. Pilots on cargo planes for 5 years before implementing them on passenger planes.
They should also test the A.I. Pilots within flight-simulators for hypothetically unforeseeable scenarios which the air-industry has experienced over the last century.
There’s an incident where an aircraft’s hydraulics got completely disabled mid-flight and the crew lost total control of the plane’s steering, but due to the ingenuity of the human pilots they were able to steer the plane only by alternating the thrust of the jet’s engines and they managed to land safely.
Would an A.I. Pilot be capable of improvising a creative solution like that in a similar scenario? Would it possibly do even better?
I’d highly doubt it, I don’t think A.I. technology is even close to that kind of ability yet.. maybe in 20 years
I like 2 pilots thanks
I see a problem when a quick decision is needed due to something showing up on the take off path
As long as there are 2 pilots in the cockpit, I'm fine with these automation.
Embraer also will require training, unlike Boeing who was hiding the existence of MCAS from everyone.
I have watched several aircraft accident reports where one of the major causes of the fatal crash was the Pilot Flying suddenly dumped the flight responsibility to the Pilot Monitoring (the other pilot), who was busy doing the other tasks (communicating w/ the tower, running checklists, etc.). Even when behind the wheels of a car on "autopilot", the human driver who, under test conditions, has been told that at some point the system will be throwing them the driving responsibility, takes many seconds to fully engage. This is an accident waiting to happen. Boeing's misconduct and prioritizing the bottom line seems to be spreading through the industry like the plague, despite the industry seeing clearly the potentially fatal outcome for Boeing. "It won't happen here" are the famous last words of many, many otherwise successful businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, none of us are likely to know if the aircraft that we are boarding has this "feature". Sadness....
I would prefer full implementation of auto-land all the time. I’ve been on way too many “well if you can walk away it’s a good landing” landings.
While I assume they will still continue to refresh pilots' skills, when I think of self-driving cars, where the manufacturers say that the driver will still be able to take control of the car (though we have seen lots now without a driver at all - taxis and busses), I always wonder how quickly and easily someone would be able to assume control of a moving conveyance in an emergency situation if they have not be handling normal situations for a long time.
Like every new technology there are a few (well maybe not a few) questions that must be asked and answered before the system operation for known takeoff variances can be fully understood.
this sounds a little bit like when boeing said the max is the same as the NG, so no training needed, until all went wrong.
I'd say this probably works best under optimal conditions. Not sure anyone would be using it under blizzard conditions or where there's limited visibility in general.
Just sounds like automatic cruise control or lane assist or even... automatic gearboxes. They aren't always perfect but they significantly reduce the workload and make things safer.
I like live pilots . When problems arise auto pilots decouple. Most people don't know how often problems occur. Triple redundancy & 2 pilots are the reason we don't have daily crashes .
this new system bring flight in a narrower path around the catastrophes. Speeding up the transition to step climb trajectory reduce the mannouver margin in case of engine problem.
Howdy, Maximus! Another good 'un. I am generally not opposed to automation enhancement, unless Boeing does them, these days. It is interesting to see this new system in action, and, while I'm not embracing it until it has more proving miles under its belt.
Wasn’t MCAS supposed to keep the pilot from having to crash by hand.. AutoCrash?
I think airliners are the safest form of travel, but there is NO WAY on this planet we call earth that I'm going to step into one that does not have someone in the cockpit.
What ia in this, that ensures pilots are current with flying the plane, as opposed to chatting up the cabin robots?
Yes, pilots are a hazard to flying…. The computer would never have thought to land in the middle of the Hudson River.
I prefer 2 pilots
Computers and sensors routinely fail everywhere, as all of us know. So what makes these on airplanes never malfunction?
Airbus A320, flight 296Q, 26 June, 1988. While never proven that a computer issue caused this crash, that has been the popular folk story for years. In more recent history, the Boeing Starliner failure is fresh in everyone's mind. When you can prove to me that computer controlled flight is safe, maybe I will be willing to fly. Edit: I happen to really like the Embraer aircraft. I think their entry into the sky will help bring about the next generation of atmospheric transportation which Boeing and Airbus seem to be unwilling to attempt. Just not sure I like full automation.
Max 8. Anyone remember that system that made those so safe.
I'll consider flying on such an automated aircraft only if they have been thoroughly tested with cargo for about 20 years!
BUT, if Boeing is involved, FORGET IT!
No way on gods green earth will I ever fly in a drone airliner.
Will work great until a situation it hasn't seen or been programmed for occurs.
A few comments. If the auto takeoff mimics the way a pilot will takeoff…..how do you get an increase in performance (higher takeoff weight). Second, if the system does indeed takeoff different than the pilot, and you are taking off with the higher weight, how can you continue the takeoff if the autopilot fails? Last comment, as a thirty year airline pilot there have been many times I have gone to rotate, and right away I knew we were much heavier than the weight and balance stated. Slow the rotation down and gently get it in the air. I don’t see an autopilot being programmed with that fidelity.
Will the "new" technology include a French Tickler to wake up the crew when they invariably nod off due to lack of meaningful interaction during all phases of the flight?
I was thinking about this a few days earlier. We have auto pilot and auto land. Why not auto take off. As a private pilot I have thought taking of was much easier to accomplish than landing.
I guess at some point. The pilot will be sitting behind a looked glass door, with a sign above. Saying, in case of a emergency. Break glass.🤣
Company exects to fly on all test flights as guinea pigs.
who retracts or extends the landing gear ?
I might fly in one, but never a Boeing
Marketing tech-toys are the thing it seems. So the automation will do the weights and balance input and sense if the information is problematic? Will the pilot take control and safely take over the aircraft just like with the MCAS system? I do not believe a pilot will be able to recover the aircraft quickly enough during the critical takeoff phase, if the autopilot has problems.
so that's what you look like, huh? cool 👍
The passengers are not going to like the aggressive pitch change this system produces.
"Profit Hunter"! When I see the word Profit, I immediately think of Boeing and its "quality escapes". In the end, Embraer and Boeing could have merged... Is there any airline whose nickname is “Quality Prime” instead of “Profit Hunter”?
I wish KLM be exempted with noice restrictions in Schiphol w/ that system, and i think it will show air show style take offs ._____.
Although full autonomy sounds scary, please be assured that all Airplanes are designed such that they eventually reach the ground! Most of these you can walk away from. I hope that's put your minds at rest.
What about pilot proficiency if they can't practice, their skills will diminish, as it is a pilot on long haul may only do one landing and take off a day! So it could be three or four days before a pilot can practice. On short haul that's not a problem, with them taking turns!
First the jobs involving repetitive physically manual monkey business tasks to be replaced. Then AI plus automation will take over the rest.
Don't think that will fly with the regulator, wherever that regulator resides.
I guess we all prefer real pilots for now.
But if I had to choose between an Embraer or Airbus piloted by AI vs a Boeing with pilots, I would prefer the former one!
Are they seriously taking off at that steep an angle? Or is that just for advertising show?
Autopilots quit in many situations, forcing human pilots to troubleshoot the problem. Imagine relying on a computer to analyze the many variables in an emergency situation and come up with the right solution. Just look at the laughable results AI comes up with from a simple search query now.
Boeing says MCAS is safe too... til it isn't.
I'm landlocked. If I can't drive, I'm not goin'
Thanks Boeing. My old inspector eyes have seen far too much to ever trust this.
I won't be flying anymore unless there's a real Pilot in the Cockpit !! Too many things that can go wrong that an AI wouldn't know what to do. No, this boy will keep his feet on the ground and his butt on a Greyhound !!
In principle pilotless aircraft is okay. However, the technology is far from ready. I would need 20 years of testing, not Alpha software. Also, not Boeing, who couldn't program, simple redundancy in MCAST, a mistake a first-year software engineering student would not have made, and if he/she did would get an F
Just as long as DEI employees do not program the automation.
@southbound1969 aww, did somebody with a different skin colour or gender take your job because they were better than you?
Boo hoo 😭
Maybe if you were better at your job, you wouldn't be crying about DEI.
Because nothing ever goes wrong with automation... Right, 737 Max? 🙄
actually? no..at least no to pilot reduction,, NOTHING can replace the human brain..can it be made to monitor the planes performance and be programed to seek most efficient AOA? sure,,in the end, we'll see..
If you have pilots anyway why do we need this? And if there are no pilots I won't be flying!