The amount of complexity in automation you are talking about is mind boggling. Joe public have no clue what goes into the automation of aircraft or the complexity of air traffic. The sky seems really simple until you get an idea of everything that goes into making sure aircraft don’t hit each other, fly into mountains, the dirt, or into thunderstorms. Winds change constantly, fog, mist, icing conditions, turbulence, bird activity, military activity, wild fires, etc. there is an infinite number of variables to deal with when flying.
Then you start talking about safety aspect of the aircraft. Minimum fuel reserves, system failure procedures, engine failure procedures, loss of GPS (happens A LOT), loss of ground based navigation, instrument failures, software bugs (again happens A LOT) I could go on and on.
Aviation is extremely safe because we have spent decades perfecting flying and you have to have intelligence to be able to interpret all the data coming at you. It’s going to be a long while before an AI can safely automate all of that.
Yeah a new network of skyways will need to be developed outside the traditional ones used for fixed wing craft, but a lot of that could be addressed with the new FAA drone implementation plans they're rolling out. An air-car could use the same system for navigation and to keep vehicles in their lane as drones will be used to deliver packages and such.
Avoding mountains and such could be done easily enough with camera based ai systems and strict no-fly zones.
GPS could be enhanced with sensor and camera-informed dead-reckoning until signal returns, much like a pilot would do.
Low visibility craft could follow major roads and train tracks for references as well, when able.
They could also, in extreme situations, trigger an automated emergency landing like DJI drones do when running low on battery.
A lot of auto-pilot, navigation and drone technology could be combined to make some powerful solutions, given some more time. I agree however it isn't a trivial task, and the risk is much higher in flight than on the ground. Parachutes and airbags would hopefully help.
You are very logical in your thinking but are missing a lot of information about the limitations on what is possible in the air. Aircraft being built right now will fly for the next 40 years and building the new airspace you’re talking about would require extremely expensive retrofits to already flying aircraft. That kind of extreme cost will deter this from happening soon.
The FAA recently took almost 15 years to implement a system called ADS-B for all airplanes flying in the US. All it is, is a satellite based transponder system that reports GPS altitude and speed. The push back from the industry was insane as it cost operators of jets $30K to $100K PER AIRCRAFT.
The biggest hurdle we have for your proposals is cost. And no technology does not reduce cost in aviation. Example, I flew a twin that had an alternator commonly used in cars. Same part number, same manufacturer, but the one for the plane said aviation on the side. That alternator cost $600 for the airplane the one cars was $80. The reason for the insane cost? The FAA.
What is your take on the video I shared? I'm definitely not suggesting that a Cessna or a Citation will be retrofit to this purpose. They would likely continue being directed down the established sky highways at different altitudes, etc as they do now, passed along to local TRACON's, Towers, etc.
Do you think your argument is similar to someone who worked at NASA before SpaceX really took off? Disruptive tech rarely plays by established rules.
I don't doubt your experience, and respect your profession.
We have some “established” airways but that is not really how airspace works. And not how the FAA functions either. Part 25 of the FAR regulates the minimum standards by which passenger carrying aircraft must abide by. In order for these autonomous drones carrying people to work the FAA would need to rebuild that entire section or create a whole new set of regulations and build new airspace.
When my company buys a new airplane it takes the FAA 6 months (after we have bought it) for them to say, yes you can fly this airplane. One that is fully certified meets all standards and well known airplanes. You’re talking about building an entire new type of passenger carrying aircraft and asking the FAA to build special airspace for it. The new type will need to go through rigorous testing to prove its airworthy. Why do you think we are still flying the 737 an airplane designed and built In the 1960s? Because it takes places like Boeing over a decade and billions of dollars to design, build, and certify a new airplane.
The problem is never the tech it’s always the regulators.
The amount of complexity in automation you are talking about is mind boggling. Joe public have no clue what goes into the automation of aircraft or the complexity of air traffic. The sky seems really simple until you get an idea of everything that goes into making sure aircraft don’t hit each other, fly into mountains, the dirt, or into thunderstorms. Winds change constantly, fog, mist, icing conditions, turbulence, bird activity, military activity, wild fires, etc. there is an infinite number of variables to deal with when flying.
Then you start talking about safety aspect of the aircraft. Minimum fuel reserves, system failure procedures, engine failure procedures, loss of GPS (happens A LOT), loss of ground based navigation, instrument failures, software bugs (again happens A LOT) I could go on and on.
Aviation is extremely safe because we have spent decades perfecting flying and you have to have intelligence to be able to interpret all the data coming at you. It’s going to be a long while before an AI can safely automate all of that.
Yeah a new network of skyways will need to be developed outside the traditional ones used for fixed wing craft, but a lot of that could be addressed with the new FAA drone implementation plans they're rolling out. An air-car could use the same system for navigation and to keep vehicles in their lane as drones will be used to deliver packages and such.
Avoding mountains and such could be done easily enough with camera based ai systems and strict no-fly zones.
GPS could be enhanced with sensor and camera-informed dead-reckoning until signal returns, much like a pilot would do.
Low visibility craft could follow major roads and train tracks for references as well, when able.
They could also, in extreme situations, trigger an automated emergency landing like DJI drones do when running low on battery.
A lot of auto-pilot, navigation and drone technology could be combined to make some powerful solutions, given some more time. I agree however it isn't a trivial task, and the risk is much higher in flight than on the ground. Parachutes and airbags would hopefully help.
You may find these interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwZNe1rIo0s
You are very logical in your thinking but are missing a lot of information about the limitations on what is possible in the air. Aircraft being built right now will fly for the next 40 years and building the new airspace you’re talking about would require extremely expensive retrofits to already flying aircraft. That kind of extreme cost will deter this from happening soon.
The FAA recently took almost 15 years to implement a system called ADS-B for all airplanes flying in the US. All it is, is a satellite based transponder system that reports GPS altitude and speed. The push back from the industry was insane as it cost operators of jets $30K to $100K PER AIRCRAFT.
The biggest hurdle we have for your proposals is cost. And no technology does not reduce cost in aviation. Example, I flew a twin that had an alternator commonly used in cars. Same part number, same manufacturer, but the one for the plane said aviation on the side. That alternator cost $600 for the airplane the one cars was $80. The reason for the insane cost? The FAA.
It ain’t going to happen any time soon
What is your take on the video I shared? I'm definitely not suggesting that a Cessna or a Citation will be retrofit to this purpose. They would likely continue being directed down the established sky highways at different altitudes, etc as they do now, passed along to local TRACON's, Towers, etc.
Do you think your argument is similar to someone who worked at NASA before SpaceX really took off? Disruptive tech rarely plays by established rules.
I don't doubt your experience, and respect your profession.
In short, we'll see :)
We have some “established” airways but that is not really how airspace works. And not how the FAA functions either. Part 25 of the FAR regulates the minimum standards by which passenger carrying aircraft must abide by. In order for these autonomous drones carrying people to work the FAA would need to rebuild that entire section or create a whole new set of regulations and build new airspace.
When my company buys a new airplane it takes the FAA 6 months (after we have bought it) for them to say, yes you can fly this airplane. One that is fully certified meets all standards and well known airplanes. You’re talking about building an entire new type of passenger carrying aircraft and asking the FAA to build special airspace for it. The new type will need to go through rigorous testing to prove its airworthy. Why do you think we are still flying the 737 an airplane designed and built In the 1960s? Because it takes places like Boeing over a decade and billions of dollars to design, build, and certify a new airplane.
The problem is never the tech it’s always the regulators.