To be fair, this isn't a private airport, it's really just a private terminal at San Jose International (SJC). Don't get me wrong, that's pretty darn cool, though really no different to, say, Lufthansa's dedicated First Class Terminal at Frankfurt. Well, apart from the private Google planes, of course :-)
"Content from us.bernerverein.ch, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware."
This actually looks like a false positive (I'm not 100% sure though, still waiting on confirmation from my researchers). Earlier today the Mercury News reported on Chrome blocking a number of websites, including Youtube, for distributing malware. The article specifically mentioned the malicious server ( us.bernerverein.ch ) that google is claiming is present on that site, and I think they got it from the article itself.
I hate to point you back to OP's link but if you read the headline, it's in response to the exploits that have taken place at the New York Times and others.
A number of news sites, including SB Nation, have had some weird malware warnings go on today. Wonder if one (or more) providers have been compromised.
Does it occur to anyone that the folks who are working on driverless cars might have a reason to want a place to work on pilotless planes? While the current autopilot in many commercial planes can handle a lot of the flying, there are some decent savings available if you could reduce the number of pilots. Especially if you can make the solutions small and cheap enough for 2-4 seat planes.
My understanding of modern airlines is that unless your plane is in the process of taking off, landing, or crashing, it's already essentially pilotless.
There's always been too much at stake in the airline industry to allow a lot of room for human error. Combined with the huge leaps that fly-by-wire planes have made in the last few decades, that made for some very powerful incentives on everyone's part (engineers, regulators, and companies) to advance autopilot as far as they possibly could.
In normal conditions, yes. But when things go wrong (your "or crashing", perhaps), the pilot is suddenly very much involved, and screwups can be fatal.
Take, for example, Qantas flight 32, an A380 that was successfully landed after one of the engines more or less blew up, damaging several other systems. Truly pilotless operation would require automated systems that could do as well --- and hopefully better than the pilots of Air France 447, the transatlantic flight that was lost due to recoverable pilot error.
Yes. The failure/recovery mode for "speedometer is reporting inconsistent speeds" is stop the engine and coast to a stop. That doesn't work as well with planes.
Then again, human pilots are fallible, and lots of crashes would be avoided if they paid more attention to instruments and less to instinct (where's that horizon again?), so maybe programming planes to just blindly follow the instruments would result in a net reduction in crashes.
Your link doesn't argue with Cowen's first sentence. When Cowen says "essentially pilotless" I understand it to mean "keeps going without operator intervention", and after reading your link that's still my understanding of what happens.
And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean, anyway? Autopilot is simply a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it and when to do it. And although it frees the pilot from having to have his or her hands physically on the control wheel (or sidestick) or thrust levers, this is only a fraction of what the act of “flying” entails. The autopilot is not flying the plane. The crew is flying the plane, through the autoflight system.
That in no way says "keeps going without operator intervention" to me.
The technology is pretty much there, but currently there's still a requirement for human supervision/control in case of mechanical or electronic failures.
Like a need to land the plane in Hudson River when the plane hits a flock of geese, or emergencies when vital system monitoring tools become inaccessible.
Good luck pitching that to the FAA. I think they'd happily shut down aviation before they'd let planes without pilots carry passengers. A human being with his life at stake is extraordinarily resourceful. Sure, 'pilot error' is the cause of quite a few incidents. But 'pilot lands plane in difficult circumstances' outnumbers pilot error by a substantial amount, it's just that those don't get nearly as much press.
So I don't think that Google is working on 'pilotless planes'.
Yes, remotely piloted or autonomous flying drones could never work. There must be 2 pilots flying a bird, that will never change, even the Air Force wouldn't be that crazy.
Airplanes are already capable of operating without pilots much better than cars. The only remaining issue is listening to flight controllers, but that's a bloody difficult problem.
Isn't that the easy part though? The onboard pilots will automatically listen to flight controllers.
But honestly, don't you see the solution here? You have a room full of pilots in Tulsa Oklahoma (or wherever) or are providing manual intervention when necessary. Just like how we manage millitary drones today.
Drones are managed very poorly in busy airspace, and tend to crash if there is a link failure. Currently, I think that airline Captains have to specifically set the auto-pilot to fly the final approach and landing, and be ready for a manual go-around if required. Typically pilots use "preset" auto-pilot only for enroute flying to initial hold point, then sometimes use fixed-rate decent with heading hold mode after that, until they turn onto final approach.
The savings aren't that big of a deal when you're talking about a flight with 200+ paying passengers. You are still going to have someone in there in case the computer system malfunctions, they might as well be a pilot. Autopilot is driverless flight already.
This seems like a downgrade from their current arrangement[1]. I'm surprised TechCrunch did not mention this agreement with Moffett Field, which is much closer to Google HQ and much more private.
Google's attempts at buying Moffett field and taking it private have been unsuccessful. The 'take measurements when we fly in' was a nice hack to get around stipulations about all aircraft must be working on research but at the end of the day both Sunnyvale and Mountain View have made it clear they do not want Moffett turned into a General Aviation airport and once the Naval armory got Lockheed moved it has become only a matter of time before the Military wants out. NASA doesn't have the budget to run the airport facilities.
It has been the topic of quite a number of spirited debates at both city halls.
The company that wants to build the terminal is Signature Flight. Currently Google is their own client, but the terminal would be accessible to other private aviation clients.
For the lay - could someone explain the benefit of a private airport (as opposed to a fleet of private planes)? The speed at which you can get through security can't be worth that much - can it?
Private flights (aka "general aviation") have to take off from somewhere. I don't know if there are currently private flights taking off from SJC - I think the Google executive planes take off and land at the nearby military base.
Moffett Field (a NASA-run federal airfield, and former Naval Air Station) has significant operating restrictions for Google, and there is probably strict limits on what aircraft they can base there, and how often they takeoff and land there.
You mean at Moffett Field, which is operated by NASA.
For what it's worth, there's already a Signature terminal near SFO that private jets can fly in and out of, so Google is just saving the 10 extra minutes it takes to get to SFO by lobbying for a Signature terminal at SJC.
From what I understand, its at the discretion of the Captain or owner/operator of the jet, and what their FAA Air Operators Certificate allows. For charter flights with vetted/verified clients, that is very minimal security, and rarely by the TSA.
Technically speaking, TSA, who are not federal agents, have to be invited onto an aircraft by the Captain.
I wonder where the TSA VIPR teams land on that axis.
As I understand it, they can be comprised of actual law enforcement personnel, including federal. But don't necessarily. And even if a VIPR team included federal law enforcement personnel, it's not clear that they're necessarily acting with federal law enforcement authority.
As if the TSA wasn't a confusing-enough bureaucratic monstrosity.
Not sure.. but my comment was referring to TSA Screeners, which despite labels to the contrary are not federal agents or (sworn) federal officers. My guess (IANAL etc) they can be refused permission to search a private aircraft without probable cause or invitation by the Captain, same deal for any federal agent.
Right. But screeners can also be on VIPR teams. And as the VIPR program falls under the TSA's law enforcement office, it seems an open question whether random TSA gate goons gain federal law enforcement authority in those situations.
The old rules are simply not something I'd be confident applies. In the trivial case, sure, a gate agent isn't a federal officer. But if a TSA agent were to appear at a private aircraft, that would be out of the ordinary. And once you start talking about out-of-the-ordinary set-ups, it's worth noting that even a random TSA gate rapist may have out-of-the-ordinary legal authority in some situations. To say nothing of what law enforcement officers may be operating under the TSA's purview in said out-of-the-ordinary set-ups.
I think your mistaken. The TSA personnel don't get privileges just because their part of some "law enforcement office", only the sworn "Federal Agents" in the team have the actual privileges.
I know an attorney who flies their own jet, and if the TSA "agents" are doing something "out-of-the-ordinary", that is the time when there is a "badge check".
I think this is a moot point, as what VIPR teams are typically for securing public transportation or public events, neither of which is a private jet. Air Marshals, although actual federal agents, don't typically fly on private jets unless under Space-A (invited) privileges.
I'm wondering aloud here. I quite specifically don't know how it would go down. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem clear beyond the trivial case -- gate agent and private plane -- and that doesn't seem to happen anyway.
As to what VIPR teams do, a small airport is a VIP away from all sorts of federal officers asking all sorts of questions, private planes or not.
