MIT Creates Car Co-Pilot That Only Interferes If You're About To Crash 238
MrSeb writes "Mechanical engineers and roboticists working at MIT have developed an intelligent automobile co-pilot that sits in the background and only interferes if you're about to have an accident. If you fall asleep, for example, the co-pilot activates and keeps you on the road until you wake up again. Like other autonomous and semi-autonomous solutions, the MIT co-pilot uses an on-board camera and laser rangefinder to identify obstacles. These obstacles are then combined with various data points — such as the driver's performance, and the car's speed, stability, and physical characteristics — to create constraints. The co-pilot stays completely silent unless you come close to breaking one of these constraints — which might be as simple as a car in front braking quickly, or as complex as taking a corner too quickly. When this happens, a ton of robotics under the hood take over, only passing back control to the driver when the car is safe. This intelligent co-pilot is starkly contrasted with Google's self-driving cars, which are completely computer-controlled unless you lean forward, put your hands on the wheel, and take over. Which method is better? A computer backup, or a human backup? I'm not sure."
Re:Much better than Google's approach (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure computers are landing airplanes with the pilots overseeing the process.
Correct. However, it requires a pilot to program and monitor its progress as well as very specific requirements for onboard equipment, crewmember training and triple redundancy in the event of malfunctions. I've had numerous Cat III approaches to a safe landing and it works but I wouldn't say the computers are better than the pilots. Its only used when there is not adequate visual reference for the pilot to do it. After the aircraft finishes its rollout in a straight line using ILS, the pilot still has to find his way to the gate with visibility at only a few meters.
Re:Much better than Google's approach (Score:4, Informative)
Auto pilot for landing exists, but it requires ground equipment that is only available in the biggest airport, and it's only installed in the biggest airliners.
The vast majority of landings are done manually by the pilots, while the autopilot is sometimes used in extreme conditions (fog especially).
Re:Much better than Google's approach (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the autopilot will usually take you to the "minimums" which is usually set to several hundred feet above the deck at which point, an audible alarm is sounded "Minimums!" and the pilot is expected to take over the throttles and yoke. If that does not happen, the AP will make an attempt at landing using nothing but the ILS and glidescope, provided you are nav and gs captured (which you should be while landing).
Re:Much better than Google's approach (Score:3, Informative)
In important industrial applications, a set of 3 sensors is used.
If they all agree, fine.
If one of them disagrees by a certain margin, use the information of the other two and light up a warning.
If they all disagree, turn it to manual and blast the alarms.
In really important stuff, like nuclear stuff, it is used up to 5 sensors, each with a different functioning principle.