Humanoid Robot Can Fly a Plane Just By Reading the Manual

Topic

New Reply

https://www.extremetech.com/aerospace/humanoid-robot-can-fly-a-plane-just-by-reading-the-manual

Using natural language processing and AI, PIBOT can perform takeoff, landing, cruise, and taxi tasks without any modifications to the plane itself.

Engineers at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) announced this month that they’d successfully built a humanoid robot for aviation. Called PIBOT, the robot sits in the cockpit like a human pilot and uses its “hands” to physically move the necessary flight instruments. A set of external cameras allows PIBOT to keep an eye on its surroundings, while high-precision dexterity prevents turbulence and other forms of vibration from wrenching away control.

PIBOT learns to fly by reading flight manuals written in natural language…

So far, PIBOT has proven capable of starting KLA-100 (a Korean light aircraft), taxiing, taking off, cruising, cycling, and landing. These tasks have been conducted in a hyper-realistic flight control simulator, which physically and virtually mimics the real KLA-100…

2 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, Sky

Reply | Quote

Replies

Reply | Quote

Humans should be able to fly the plane after reading manual too But we have a different kind of memory than robots (machines).

On the other hand, humans can deal with situations not described in the manual. At least, we are still better in something.

Dell Latitude 3420, Intel Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, W10 22H2 Enterprise

HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

PRUSA i3 MK3S+

Reply | Quote

doriel wrote:

On the other hand, humans can deal with situations not described in the manual. At least, we are still better in something.

I am not so sure.

Flying is one of the safest forms of transport. But what happens when tragedy strikes? From human error and accidents to mechanical faults and design flaws, the success of aviation history is punctuated with disaster and catastrophe. It’s rare, but it does happen. Follow experts as they determine what went wrong and work out how to prevent these horrific tragedies from happening again. Examine the wrecks and official records, and hear from eyewitnesses, passengers and aviation experts as we reconstruct some of the most tragic disasters in aviation history. Air Crash Investigation looks at what went wrong and how future disasters can be averted.

Reply | Quote

On the other hand, humans can deal with situations not described in the manual

I’m a private pilot at least for private aircraft there is not much that is not described in the manual.  The “deal with situations” boils down to altitude.

When a malfunction occurs and you have plenty of altitude, you have time to think things through, make radio contact and “deal with situations”.

However, a high percentage of accidents happen shortly after takeoff when you have very little altitude no time think things through.

Ironically, engine failures shortly after takeoff are frequently (but not always) caused by preventable pilot error for one of three reasons:

1) Inadequate ground pre-flight check.

2) Shortcutting the in-cabin pre-flight just before takeoff. In a hurry.

3) Not having an “if this then what” engine fail plan before the throttle is opened for take-off i.e., planning and knowing when NOT to try to turn around and land on the runway from which you just lifted off and knowing the best spot to attempt a landing straight ahead. Without a conscious rehearsed plan, panic can set in and you try to turn around anyway, stall the plane resulting in a crash nose down.

Desktop Asus TUF X299 Mark 1, CPU: Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X 8-Core 3.6 GHz, RAM: 32GB, GPU: Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti 4GB. Display: Four 27" 1080p screens 2 over 2 quad.

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote

One of my favorites. I’ve seen every episode.

A recurring trope in the series is that there are plenty of unanticipated situations for which there is no procedure to follow. Failures that have been judged to be so unlikely that they never train pilots for it or develop a checklist to follow manage to happen anyway. Failures that have not been anticipated are always possible, and computers are notoriously bad at improvising.

There are also incidents of computers badly misreading the situation and trying to assert themselves in a way that endangers the plane and everyone on it. The two crashes of Boeing 737 Max aircraft were of this type. The MCAS system was meant to pitch the nose down in case of excessive angle of attack, but in the accident flights, it got confused and started a runaway elevator trim event pitching the nose down while the plane was in level flight, beyond the control authority of the plane’s elevators.

Boeing foolishly relied on input from a single sensor to engage MCAS, in violation of pretty much every rule of redundancy in aviation, but it demonstrates how wrong a computer can get it and not know it’s doing something that could kill everyone on board (and did, twice).

Having that happen in a Boeing was to me a bit surprising, since it is usually Airbus that thinks the optimal philosophy is to override the pilot when the computer thinks he’s making a mistake. There have been incidents or crashes detailed in the series where assumptions by Airbus avionics have had tragic or nearly tragic results when the assumptions built into the computers have proven wrong.

It is sad to see Boeing fall so far from its pinnacle… in retrospect, the merger with McDonnell-Douglas would appear ill-advised. McDonnell-Douglas, which was known for cutting corners and pinching pennies in a way that was penny-wise but pound-foolish (crashes are very costly), was said to have acquired the larger Boeing (known for its engineering culture) with Boeing’s money, rather than the other way around.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote