
The Death and Life of Helicopter Commuting [video] - kenneth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nbz5VFilxY
======
jonawesomegreen
In order to commute to offshore oil rigs via helicopter you need to do a
training course to learn how to escape a helicopter should it need to be
ditched in the water. A large reason for this is that if its ditched it will
likely invert as they are top heavy, which makes escape disorienting.

This is one certification:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_Training)

I've always wondered if folks commuting by helicopter like this have to
undergo any sort of training. Given the nature of non-redundant systems in a
helicopter it seems like having an emergency plan is prudent. I've never been
on a helicopter except to go to an offshore platform though.

~~~
ghaff
I wonder how common it is or if it's always required. When I used to travel
out to oil rigs by helicopter (admittedly a long time ago), I never had any
training. But it wouldn't shock if rules were stricter today.

Given how helicopters are used for all sorts of scenic flights, I'd be
surprised if it were any sort of universal requirement.

------
ChuckMcM
Tl;Dr - helicopters are noisy and expensive to operate, but hopefully electric
'quad copter' like vehicles won't be.

The caveats being that batteries, air traffic control, and regulations have to
change so in short, "I've your 25 today, perhaps your grand children will see
a benefit here." :-(. Somehow I think even the hyperloop is nearer term than
this technology, and its still out there.

~~~
TylerE
You wouldn't see a quadcopter on a human-scale craft. The efficiency is too
low. The reason they are used in drones is that you can get 3 axis control
with only varying motor torque, instead of varying blade pitch/tilt.

Less efficient, but much simpler mechanically.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Except that there are many examples now of human scale 4, 6, and 8 rotor
craft. So perhaps the litmus test is 'efficient enough'. And the article did
point out the need for improved batteries.

As energy density in batteries gets closer to kerosene the 'mechanically
simpler' aspect of these crafts flips the value equation in their favor.

~~~
Alupis
Relevant: "Why haven't quadcopters been scaled up yet?"[1]

The gist is, scaling up multi-rotor systems isn't as simple as making things
bigger - the size adds many issues that the small models don't face (models
having nearly impossible performance characteristics compared to full scale
versions). Also, there's safety issues regarding controlling such as system
when one or more rotors/motors fail.

It's not to say it cannot be done, because obviously it can. It's a question
of "why?", when there's clearly better, more simple and efficient ways to get
around.

Also, battery power density (and weight) has a long way to go before it will
match Kerosene, or even regular AvGas - "Could an electric engine provide the
same performance as jet engines on current aircraft?"[2].

[1] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3300/why-
havent...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3300/why-havent-
quadcopters-been-scaled-up-yet)

[2] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26910/could-
an-...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26910/could-an-electric-
engine-provide-the-same-performance-as-jet-engines-on-current)

~~~
ChuckMcM
> _It 's not to say it cannot be done, because obviously it can. It's a
> question of "why?", when there's clearly better, more simple and efficient
> ways to get around._

I observe that in spite of the 'simple and efficent' ways to get around there
is a tremendous amount of capital being invested to find new transportation
modalities. Perhaps one or more of those investments will surprise you.

~~~
Alupis
There are two things that a full-sized electric multi-rotor vehicle must
contend with to be practical:

1) Battery power density must have a tremendous breakthrough, in both terms of
weight and stored capacity.

2) Electric motors capable of producing the energies required to produce the
thrust necessary to propel a full-sized vehicle must also have a tremendous
breakthrough in size, weight, and heat dissipation (especially if we're
discussing vehicles capable of typical cruise altitudes over long distances).

It would be far more simple and efficient to make a full-sized Kerosene,
AvGas, or any other petroleum-based fuel multi-rotor vehicle... but then you
must also overcome the unnecessary challenges multi-rotor systems introduce at
this scale. Which... leads back to today's average helicopter and airplane
designs.

Like I said, it's not impossible... it's just not practical for these reasons.
If someone wants to do it, they can... obviously... but it's not the most
effective way.

> Perhaps one or more of those investments will surprise you

Indeed, people often invest in some very surprising ideas... sometimes even
without really understanding what they are getting into...[1]

[1] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33541/are-
fixed...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33541/are-fixed-wing-
aircraft-with-gimbal-thrust-feasible/33542#33542)

~~~
Gravityloss
The motors are there. Batteries not. A vehicle carrying multiple persons would
have a gas turbine and a high speed generator. The electricity would be used
to run distributed direct drive thrusters. The key here is to bypass the
complex, heavy, expensive, maintenance intensive and unreliable gearbox. Also
no shafts are needed. Power can be varied instantly.

~~~
Alupis
> Also no shafts are needed. Power can be varied instantly

You need to be able to decouple from the motor/engine for safety. Gearboxes
provide this ability. One cannot autorotate if a motor has seized and locked
the rotor in position, or has been damaged and pegs to full RPM. Also
gearboxes can vary torque and RPM without having to adjust the engine/motor
RPM/Power.

Also, varying power instantly isn't necessarily a desirable trait in a full-
scale aircraft. You have rotors/propellers traveling close to, or exceeding
the speed of sound. Instant acceleration would put a lot of forces never
before seen on these components.

Usually in aircraft, the RPM of the rotor/propeller remains fairly constant,
or within a small bounds. Typically you increase power to the engine/motor,
and the gearbox keeps the rotor/propeller RPM's constant.

> unreliable gearbox

They're a lot more reliable than you seem willing to give credit for. Even in
your run-of-the-mill car, the gearbox usually fails well after many other
major components, especially with regular maintenance (where it may never fail
over the lifetime of the vehicle). Aircraft are subject to very stringent
maintenance and inspection schedules.

> The motors are there

Seems they aren't quite.[1]

[1] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26910/could-
an-...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/26910/could-an-electric-
engine-provide-the-same-performance-as-jet-engines-on-current)

~~~
Gravityloss
If you have fixed pitch, you can't really autorotate anyway. Safety would be
provided by redundancy.

With collective pitch, it becomes interesting. Does the motor help or hinder
autorotation?

In a hybrid system, you anyway decouple the propeller and turbine with the
electric system.

Your car gearbox operates at much lower speeds (because it's not attached to a
turbine) and has a lot less weight constraints. Helicopter powertrains require
a lot of maintenance.

The stack exchange link talks about jetliners while we're talking about
copters.

~~~
Alupis
> If you have fixed pitch, you can't really autorotate anyway

Helicopters are not fixed pitch... your run-of-the-mill hobby multi-rotor is,
but that's due to the reasons mentioned above in my previous posts (eg.
simplicity at this small scale).

> Safety would be provided by redundancy

Unless you suffer a total electric failure. Or even just a failure on one side
of the aircraft (or even just one motor, in a quad setup). Being able to
mechanically work these systems is fairly important, since it's less likely
both mechanical and electrical systems fail simultaneously.

> In a hybrid system, you anyway decouple the propeller and turbine with the
> electric system

Unless your electric system is the failure.

> Your car gearbox operates at much lower speeds (because it's not attached to
> a turbine)

Even some model multi-rotors use gearboxes. You have a motor, spinning either
slower or faster than the desired RPM for the rotors... a gearbox solves that
difference, and provides a mechanical means of fully decoupling from the motor
should the need arise.

> Helicopter powertrains require a lot of maintenance

This is true, but this is not really an issue... and nobody really is looking
to "solve" this non-problem. Aircraft require a lot of maintenance and
inspections.

------
bmomb
Just a curiosity, in Brazil some executives are using ambulances for
commuting[0].

[0] [https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-
aluga...](https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-aluga-
ambulancias-por-r-200-para-escapar-transito-em-sao-paulo.html) (article in
portuguese)

~~~
rkowalick
Orson Welles also famously used an ambulance to get around to various radio
shoes in NYC:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles)

    
    
      Due to his busy radio schedule,
      he was hard pressed to find ways
      to get from job to job in busy New
      York City traffic. In an interview
      conducted in his later years,
      Welles tells how he "discovered
      that there was no law in New York 
      that you had to be sick to travel 
      in an ambulance." Therefore, he
      took to hiring ambulances to take 
      him, sirens blazing, through the
      crowded streets to get to various
      buildings.

~~~
brightball
There's a lady in South Carolina who's on medicaid that did that to the tune
of costing the medicaid office about $400,000. I'll have to see if I can find
the article.

EDIT: Found it [http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-
investig...](http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-investigates-
woman-accused-of-using-ambulance-for-taxi-service)

~~~
dogruck
Shameful to see the officials congratulate themselves on busting the lady
after she copped a free ambulance ride _100 times._

Seems like she was merely hacking a horribly inefficient system.

~~~
malcolmgreaves
Wrong: the shame is on the woman who knowingly abused the system and took
money away from sick people. Just because you can hack a system doesn't mean
that you should.

~~~
cbhl
Okay, but why does an ambulance ride in America cost $4,000 a pop? An Uber
travelling the same distance would cost $4, maybe $40.

This is health care costs being out of control right there.

------
melling
They could just extend the NJ PATH by 3 miles and make it a $3 ride to the
airport.

The distance to any of the 3 major airports from Manhattan is quite short. The
idea that we need helicopters to make good time is crazy. It doesn't scale.

~~~
CydeWeys
I live in Manhattan and it's an absolute joke that there isn't good mass
transit to any of the three major airports in the area (Newark, JFK, and La
Guardia). There are various air trams and buses and such, but none that are
directly part of the mass transit system. Considering that NYC has the best
mass transit in the country, you'd think it could take you to the airports,
but nope! The best ways to get to the three are subway to regional rail for
Newark, subway to air tram for JFK, and subway to _bus_ for La Guardia (which
has guaranteed terrible traffic pretty much always).

Contrast with Washington National Airport, which has a Metro station right at
the airport.

~~~
alexhutcheson
Airports normally aren't the most valuable nodes to connect in a mass transit
system, compared to other projects that could be accomplished with a similar
amount of space and money. Alon Levy wrote a fairly detailed argument to that
effect here: [https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-
connec...](https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connectors/)

~~~
melling
According to the article:

"The mode of transportation that best suits the needs of international
airports is then mainline rail."

~~~
alexhutcheson
Exactly, and mainline rail is not normally what people are referring to when
they complain that the airports aren't connected to NYC's mass transit system.

