Airbus Completes Autonomous Airliner Experiment

18

Airbus has flown a new A350-1000 without the help of pilots 500 times in a research project that involved equipping the huge airliner with a form of machine vision it calls “image recognition technology.” The system uses external cameras and processes the resulting images to make the myriad adjustments necessary in the various phases of flight. Those cameras are the same ones used by pilots for moving around on the ground without bending or scraping anything. Passengers can also see them on the entertainment system. 

Early in the program, which began in 2018, pilots were partners with the computers and did the taxi and runway lineup. By the end of the program, the widebody taxied, took off and landed all on its own. There were pilots on the later flights, but they didn’t touch anything. The big question is where does the technology go from here. Actually flying without pilots aboard or, perhaps with just one in a supervisory role, would involve a lot of paperwork and discussion, not to mention selling the public on it. 

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.

Other AVwebflash Articles

18 COMMENTS

  1. “…not to mention selling the public.”
    No sale here, thanks.

    I wonder how this system would have performed if it was installed on the Airbus aircraft that lost both engines to bird strikes and then was guided to a successful water landing by Capt. Chelsey Sullenburger. In their 500 flights, did Airbus impose any unusual or emergency conditions on the computers to see if they could handle them? If they assume that the lone supervising pilot would be able to take over and handle the situation, they may be deluding themselves. When the crap hits the fan, asking a single pilot to suddenly step in, recognize the problem and take appropriate action is asking a lot, especially if it happened several hours into a boring flight when the pilot is not really paying attention. Monitoring an aircraft that is on autopilot is a little different that sitting with arms folded from engine startup to shutdown while the computer handles every aspect of the flight.

    • I remember irreplaceable elevator operators. And keypunch technicians.

      Can’t speak for Airbus, but a properly-designed autonomous aircraft control system not only could do what Sully did – it could do it at night, in zero-zero weather conditions.

      • YARS. I remember the same irreplaceable elevator operators and keypunch technicians. Apples to oranges. Nowhere near an equivalent. But I do believe that “a properly-designed autonomous aircraft control system could do what Sully did” at night and in 0/0 conditions. However I’ll never trust AI to be able to make the judgment call between Teterboro and the Hudson River, then run the appropriate ditching checklists (yes I am aware that at least one checklist item was not accomplished on Sully’s flight), then physically help evacuate the airplane. As John M. says, “no sale here, thanks”. Someday my grandkids might come up with a different evaluation. I will not today.

        • Please keep in mind that AI, a.k.a. “machine learning,” absolutely is NOT the proper way to design an autonomous aircraft control system.
          Code-branching = behavior-branching. Definately not what you want to enable.

          • Modern Airbus aircraft have sensor failures, software failures, avionics failures and NOW you want to add a 2nd layer of hardware/software on top of that? Honestly I don’t think we (or the French) are smart enough to make that happen safely.

          • I put my money on machines being able to identify and bypass failing sensors way faster and precise than a man can. Humans proved to be the weak link when sensors fail.

  2. We used a navigator, flight engineer, first officer and captain to fly air commerce. Then to second officer, first officer and captain. When I retired 13 years ago, it was first officer and captain. It’s called progress I guess. As long as fares are dirt cheap, airlines will stay in business with one pilot when they fill up.

  3. If we give authority to automation to resolve air traffic conflicts, why not let it drive all the way and render voice ATC obsolete as well?

  4. I don’t question machine learning and its ability to adapt to new circumstances. However, in its current state, I am doubtful that it has advanced to the point of handling 200 tons of metal hurtling through the air successfully under all conditions. I freely admit that humans are the weak link in any system, but you must also remember that humans are also the ones writing the millions of lines of code to “teach” the computer its initial lessons. An automatic elevator moves along rigid tracks in a highly predictable environment (no weather, temperature changes or dodging other elevators). It also moves at a snail’s pace compared to an aircraft. We have had automatic elevators for generations, but they still have malfunctions and issues on a regular basis. I agree that by 2050 we will have truly capable computers that are up to the task of “piloting” an airliner and can handle any emergency. I just don’t think we are there yet.

  5. “I freely admit that humans are the weak link in any system, but you must also remember that humans are also the ones writing the millions of lines of code to “teach” the computer its initial lessons.”

    “Ego and politics.
    But then, I’m redundant.”

    “humans are also the ones writing the millions of lines of code to “teach” the computer its initial lessons.”

    Selfish human beings, with self driven egos ( the basis of politics), with it’s narcissistic drive for greed, avarice, self elevation, is all encompassed in the famous Burger King jingle…”Have it your way”. It is the permanent flaw that makes machine perfection impossible.

    We want everything our way. How far we push that depends on many things but in the end we want it our way. Some are in jail, some have been executed for taking it too far, and millions exterminated depending on one’s power to “have it your way”. Most of us live every day on a much smaller scale of “have it your way”. But that Burger King mentality is a permanent stamp in every human being’s character. And Burger Kings are writing the millions of lines of code of automation.

    Can you imagine automation, or AI, when it is “taught” by selfishly flawed human beings, “have it your way? Greedy automation will be the result. Can greedy automation or AI begin to cover all aspects of risk? Does that sound safe?

    MCAS was not supposed to be seen nor heard…operating only in the background at the extreme ends of the flight envelope. In fact, it was supposed to be so discreet, even Boeing MAX customers had no need to know. Oops, Boeing wanted that automation “their way”.

    Imagine the potential for greedy automation and/or AI attached to an 400-800,000 lb airplane loaded with human beings, Jet A, into ever changing, far from predictable weather, taking off and landing at airports placed in close proximity to major cities, with each step along the autonomous way determined by Burger Kings.

    Sully and Jeffery had and have a conscious. That determined duty over “having your way”. Not only did they execute a perfect dead stick landing, they also exercised their conscious, to make sure every person was accounted for and attended to as best as circumstances permitted. Automation cannot do that. That cannot be written into the millions of lines of code.

    • Backhoes are better at diging big holes, than are humans armed with shovels.
      5-axis CNC machining centers are better at making parts, than are the most-experienced Bridgeport operators.
      Properly-designed autonomous aircraft control systems will be vastly better than an army of Sullys.

      Do you want fries with that?

      • No fries thanks but who or what in your autonomous world makes true judgement calls YARS? Who or what in your autonomous world helps cabin crew evacuate passengers after ditching?

  6. I am reminded about the passengers held in stasis waiting for the “lemon soaked paper napkins” to arrive in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. The human lateral thinking, while imperfect, combined with skill and experience is currently optimal in unusual situations.
    Interesting research, the report details should make interesting reading. I’m curious how the automation interfaced with ATC and read-backs!

  7. 1. Thoughtfully considered algorithms that capture the collective experience and wisdom of thousands of pilots.
    2. The cabin crew.

  8. “Backhoes are better at digging big holes, than are humans armed with shovels.
    5-axis CNC machining centers are better at making parts, than are the most-experienced Bridgeport operators.
    Properly-designed autonomous aircraft control systems will be vastly better than an army of Sullys.

    Do you want fries with that?”

    “Backhoes are better at digging big holes, than are humans armed with shovels.”
    Providing the operator knows what he is doing, exercising good judgement knowing the limitations of a backhoe’s ability to dig big holes. Many times, a shovel manned by a human can provide a closer tolerance when dealing with an array of underground utilities limiting the usefulness of a “big hole machine”. Burger Kings are still making the decisions on the design, manufacture, and use of both the backhoe and shovel. Both have practical applications and use in this world. Mismanaged, either by automation or human greed (AKA Burger Kings) , and both are capable of delivering unwanted results.

    “5-axis CNC machining centers are better at making parts, than are the most-experienced Bridgeport operators. True…to the extent that finances, personal motivation, Burger King autonomous designers, Burger King led automated technology manufacturers that Burger King buyers and Burger King sellers will permit. Once that CNC is programmed ( that being done by Burger Kings), it produces a consistent part…which could be bad or be good depending on Burger King’s initial protocols and motivations behind those protocols ( don’t forget MCAS). The Bridgeport does the same thing. Initial operator input will determine if the part size and precision necessary will be produced. In both cases, garbage in…garbage out. How the garbage is introduced and when it is noticed still requires a Burger King’s evaluation at some point. Ultimately, the overall cost of that entire process will be evaluated by a Burger King. And any evaluation will also include personal and corporate motivations.

    “Properly-designed autonomous aircraft control systems will be vastly better than an army of Sullys.”
    Properly designed is an interesting phrase in this discussion. Machines, especially autonomous machines, cannot introduce creativity. Creativity, with all it’s beauty and potential comes from the minds of Burger Kings. Within creativity lies motivation. Motivation includes greed, avarice, personal ambitions, duty, honor, dishonor, and conscious among a host of human emotions, feelings, and personal desires. Properly designed by whom? Burger Kings. Proper designs evaluated by whom to be determined as properly designed? Burger Kings. Properly designed to account for every variable a world inhabited by almost 8 billion Burger Kings? I am going with an army of Sullys.

    Automation cannot completely replace the human. Automation, no matter how sophisticated, whose usefulness and management held against a benchmark of “perfection”, will have to be evaluated ultimately by a Burger King. The end user is still a Burger King not a machine. And that evaluation of proper design, cost, benefit, usefulness, precision, etc will be ultimately made by Burger Kings.

    Do I want fries with that? That question is a pet peeve of mine when ordering fast food. If I want fries with that, I would ask for fries with that. Since I am a Burger King and the question posed by either a machine or another Burger King, that question makes a presupposition that I don’t know what I want. Or, as a lip loader, presupposes I want fries when asked but don’t want fries if not asked. I know what I want…I am a Burger King. Answering your question, from one Burger King to another… No thanks, I don’t want fries with that.

LEAVE A REPLY