Ameriflight Drone

[DropTank]

Oh boy guys...alright we'll do this. I meant that the automation causes accidents that probably wouldn't have occurred otherwise. You know, based on the context of what we're talking about. Like plowing straight ahead into a pedestrian or zigging when it should have zagged and turning into a big fireball. And before you ask, yes I'm using hyperbole. But it seems like something like this happens more frequently than it should. So now scale that up to aviation and you've got issues. It might work perfectly 99% of the time, but as always it's that pesky 1% that's the issue. How often does your autopilot do something wacky and you just shut it off and handfly? I'd say once a month for me at least. Works great until it doesn't, and then it's human intervention time. I know we're all excited to live in that Star Trek & Jetsons future but again, the existence of the technology is a big difference from it being ready for practical application in the real world. This is a puff-piece for Ameriflight and Natilus designed to get people buzzing and generate a couple days of morning news segments. Look how long it took the FAA to warm up to GPS for navigation. You think this is right around the corner?

Look rookie, you acting like your paragraph has no amazing new revelation on information that only you have.
To explain this to you, apparently I'll have to explain automation, statistics, and very basic engineering just to get to the point where you're just laughably wrong.

Move along, you're out of your league.

 

[EIR]

This is such a disingenuous argument. How long do we go between ape-driven automobile accidents that kill someone?

I won’t make you look it up. The answer is 13 minutes. Every 13 minutes someone dies in a car accident from a car driven by a human.

This isn't a jab at you, but automation has its flaws as well.

Automation is grant

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This isn't a jab at you, but automation has its flaws as well.

Automation is grant

It seems like you’ve read nothing that was posted by us in the prior posts.

 

[EIR]

It seems like you’ve read nothing that was posted by us in the prior posts.

Oh, I've read it. I read it last month and the month prior. This is a common theme on JC. I still stand by what I posted.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Oh, I've read it. I read it last month and the month prior. This is a common theme on JC. I still stand by what I posted.

So you don’t understand statistics and will make no effort to do so. Cool.

 

[EIR]

So you don’t understand statistics and will make no effort to do so. Cool.

No, not what I posted.

 

[KLB]

I do remember when Ameriflight was about to get those Cargo converted CRJ 200's also. Nothing ever came of those. I worked at AMF for a very long time in the past and know to believe it when I see it.

 

[NOGUFFCHET]

I believe this is a $ issue just as much as public appetite or ability. I see the press releases talking about future tech, but doesn't Ameriflight fly one of the oldest fleets in the US and rely on pilot staff to assist in loading? It seems like a stretch that whomever is holding the purse is going to pay for anything but the practical minimum until all other options are gone. there are a lot of ways spending more money on a fleet can save money in the long-run, but from the outside this doesn't seem like that kind of culture.

 

[mwflyer]

We here have always surmised that 121 cargo would go autonomous first before 121 pax. At least we did a few years ago, I believe that, that was the general consensus. We'll of course agree to disagree, but I don't think fully autonomous 121 pax ops will occur in my lifetime. Or at least the next 2 decades. Will it happen? Maybe, probably. But I don't think many here will see it in their careers.

Somebody also made a good point once about cargo. Everyone always claims cargo will go autonomous first, but it was cargo that held onto the FE way longer than passenger ops.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Somebody also made a good point once about cargo. Everyone always claims cargo will go autonomous first, but it was cargo that held onto the FE way longer than passenger ops.

I think this is a bit of a different situation because public perception is a real issue on the pax side. Nobody was worried about the safety of not having an FE. I think a significant number of people over the age of 40 or so are extremely worried about the idea of autonomous aircraft. Cargo is the obvious solution for a proof of concept on this so that Gen Z and A will be comfortable with it down the line as passengers.

 

[tcco94]

I believe this is a $ issue just as much as public appetite or ability. I see the press releases talking about future tech, but doesn't Ameriflight fly one of the oldest fleets in the US and rely on pilot staff to assist in loading? It seems like a stretch that whomever is holding the purse is going to pay for anything but the practical minimum until all other options are gone. there are a lot of ways spending more money on a fleet can save money in the long-run, but from the outside this doesn't seem like that kind of culture.
View attachment 69381

All of this full automation stuff is going to come down to $. There’s no guarantee this is a huge money saver or 100% success rate over having pilots up front. But throw some money at it, maybe get tax write off. Ameriflight has nothing to lose anyways since they struggle to hire. This might be required for them to give a chance just based on pilot supply and how difficult it is for them to find people over next decade +. The company who is making this airplane sure has raised a lot of funding, was supposed to have a prototype out years ago and still has nothing even testing the skies.

 

[tcco94]

So, tell me, how long between regular automobile deaths?

As for "public appetite", that's completely irrelevant.
What's the "appetite" for smaller seats and baggage fees? Probably near zero
Do we still get them? Sure do!

Why does any company do something that its customers obviously don't want?

Because money...

Seat sizes to robo planes is sure an interesting comparison. But the arrogance you show around here about how you’re right about everything and we are all here to learn from you makes it okay I guess. Any logical person would not need such a reach as that argument.

 

[Wardogg]

I think the 2 big elephants in the room are the Feds and Insurance.

The regulations are going to be so slow to catch up to the technology the conversation is almost moot for anyone flying professionally today. The funding for evaluations after testing after evaluation after testing is going to be tied up in congress for years to come. To think this is going to be approved quickly for 121/135 ops is laughable.

Why are LPV approaches considered precision approaches for training and checkrides but not for actual flight planning? Yeah, no ape airplane regulations are going to be fun to watch come out.

Having just watched my current shop go through an insurance adjustment for the next few years their requirements are tightening and tightening causing more cost to the company to be in compliance so that there is coverage. Good luck getting any one of those companies to sign up to cover the first 50 of these airplanes to come out. And even if you do, say the worst happens and one plows into a playground during recess, who's covering it? The company that operates the airplane? The manufacture that said the airplane was safe and sound? The company that built the individual component that failed and caused the crash? Which insurance company is going to cover the liability? Once you take the apes out of the loop the blame is going to have to shift somewhere.

I won’t make you look it up. The answer is 13 minutes. Every 13 minutes someone dies in a car accident from a car driven by a human.

I want to make a joke.......unfortunately we aren't in the Lav.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I think the 2 big elephants in the room are the Feds and Insurance.

The regulations are going to be so slow to catch up to the technology the conversation is almost moot for anyone flying professionally today. The funding for evaluations after testing after evaluation after testing is going to be tied up in congress for years to come. To think this is going to be approved quickly for 121/135 ops is laughable.

Why are LPV approaches considered precision approaches for training and checkrides but not for actual flight planning? Yeah, no ape airplane regulations are going to be fun to watch come out.

Regulators move a lot more quickly when rich donors are pestering politicians because they want to save or make more money.

Having just watched my current shop go through an insurance adjustment for the next few years their requirements are tightening and tightening causing more cost to the company to be in compliance so that there is coverage. Good luck getting any one of those companies to sign up to cover the first 50 of these airplanes to come out. And even if you do, say the worst happens and one plows into a playground during recess, who's covering it? The company that operates the airplane? The manufacture that said the airplane was safe and sound? The company that built the individual component that failed and caused the crash? Which insurance company is going to cover the liability? Once you take the apes out of the loop the blame is going to have to shift somewhere.

Unlike most people, insurance underwriters care only about statistics. And the statistics are clear: humans are exceptionally bad at operating heavy machinery.

 

[tcco94]

So what are the statistics of robot airplanes? Oh there are none. How unfortunate.

Last I checked the statistics of humans operating airliners in this country and some other very well taught countries has been pretty impeccable over the last couple decades. Let’s choose to ignore that too. My Tesla drives great.

*waits for condescending reply from Todd

 

[Wardogg]

Regulators move a lot more quickly when rich donors are pestering politicians because they want to save or make more money.

Tell that to the lobbying group the Families of Colgan Air. I have a feeling they'll disagree. One 737Max story and people are going to fight against. this.

 

[tcco94]

There is a lot we don’t know and the comical part is the slam dunk perception this is massive cost savings guaranteed when the most unknowns revolve around money. So far these companies have raised and invested unprecedented amounts of money to get prototypes built and in the air. The monthly costs of security, safety, reliability, efficiency are all unknowns. Comparing this to other fields replacing jobs with technology is comical. Most fields in the world could have replacements with technology that any issue or error would not be a detriment of hundreds of lives. A robot airplane that kills people could bankrupt your company in a matter of months, but more so CANNOT be error prone when it’s responsible for people’s lives.

Not many people argue about the technology being there. There’s lots of advanced technology that is normal people probably have no idea about. But these threads get increasingly more stupid by the week from those who are so sure of themselves or timelines, financials, implantation and everytime the comparison straw manning gets worse and worse. Instead of having any logical back and forth It’s a Johnson sizing contest of here’s what I know plebe, sit back down. My perception of the future is better than yours. When in reality we don’t know A LOT about how these will even be built, cost, or implemented into society. Anyone who sits on this forum so sure of themselves about any of that is just lying to Pat themselves on the back to help their egos.

 

[DropTank]

Regulators move a lot more quickly when rich donors are pestering politicians because they want to save or make more money.



Unlike most people, insurance underwriters care only about statistics. And the statistics are clear: humans are exceptionally bad at operating heavy machinery.

I appreciate you saving me the time.
(no sarcasm)

 

[DropTank]

Seat sizes to robo planes is sure an interesting comparison. But the arrogance you show around here about how you’re right about everything and we are all here to learn from you makes it okay I guess. Any logical person would not need such a reach as that argument.

Maybe you should try and educate yourself and maybe you too can be right for once.

"any logical person"

oh my...

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Hi. We ‘re human beings. And we can’t wait to engineer ourselves out of jobs.