
Passenger drones are hovering over the horizon - martincmartin
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21701080-personal-robotic-aircraft-are-cheaper-and-safer-helicopterand-much-easier
======
sleepybrett
The argument in the article's first paragraph seems to be using fly-by-wire
tech drone-a-copters will be easier to fly than helicopters. Why can't we
apply the same fly-by-wire techniques on a helicopter drive train?

I mean I love my little racing quad just as much as anyone, but it's not like
the three (or 5.. i also have a hexa) extra props/motors increase the
dependability of the device. Lose one of those and it's a shitshow headed into
the ground.

~~~
lastbestmatt
Right, this doesn't make much sense. You can add fly-by-wire and autonomy to a
helicopter as well (it's been done). The two come from different backgrounds,
though: people are familiar with "drones" being relatively cheap and easy to
fly. So scale it up and add a person, and now it's both easy-to-fly and
accessible to your average commuter.

Of course, this reasoning doesn't usually account for the cost of implementing
all that safety and redundancy stuff that was previously just understood to be
possible. Not to mention the cost of getting it FAA-certified when you're
done.

~~~
dannycodes
On the other hand, having 12 rotors is already much better redundancy than a
helicopter.

Maybe they're onto something.

~~~
blakes
Ah, but don't forget that the rotors on a helicopter can be pitched (like
wings). I'm not sure the rotors on this "drone" can do the same thing.

A helicopter can land with the engine out by using it's rotors like a wing
essentially. If these rotors are fixed, then essentially it becomes a falling
brick.

~~~
nine_k
AFAIK, helicopter's rotors cannot be used 'like a wing', that is, for gliding.
They can be set to auto-rotate in the direction opposite to normal and thus
slow down the descent (even a completely vertical descent) and provide some
control during it.

I suspect that there can be a way to relatively passively control auto-
rotation of drone-style rotors. Pitch control is much trickier. It's not
unheard of (even model planes sometimes have variable-pitch propellers), but
it would noticeably complicate the rotor, lowering its reliability. I suspect
that a fixed-pitch rotor with an independent mechanical axis brake could be
much more reliable with comparable efficiency.

~~~
theoh
Autorotation doesn't involve the rotor rotating in reverse. It involves
changing the pitch of the blades so that an upward airflow keeps them moving
while they generate some lift.

It's like a wing in the sense that it resembles the operation of an autogyro,
which has an unpowered rotary wing.

------
michaelvoz
Anecdotally related: I was recently at Golden Gate park, and one of my co-
workers was flying a tiny drone a few hundred feet over us. The noise was very
annoying. I hope that if this technology does ever become mainstream, we find
a way to make it quieter. The noise pollution is astounding.

~~~
phire
It's not like helicopters or planes are quiet either.

Moving large volumes of air in the downwards direction creates noise.

~~~
mikeash
Helicopters and planes exist in relatively small numbers, and their movements
are often modified to reduce the impact of their noise.

A nitpick: almost all fixed-wing airplane noise comes from the engines, not
the downward movement of air. Listen to a glider and a light powered airplane
of similar mass for a good illustration. Helicopter noise is more complex.

~~~
phire
It wasn't until I moved into a house under the final approach (for the least
commonly used runway) that I realised this is untrue.

On a calm night with no wind, the wake turbulence makes a significant amount
of nose that lasts for several min after the plane passes. Normally wind noise
drowns it out, but due to the longer duration the total amount of noise is
equal-to or greater than the engine noise.

------
Animats
The Ehang 184 [1][2][3] looks like it's going to be the first usable flying
car. It's all-electric, with four sets of two contra-rotating props. This
provides redundancy if a motor fails. They showed a prototype as a static
display at CES last January. This is from the people who make the Ghost drone.
They're in Guangzhou.

The range will probably be short, but I expect that executives in Beijing will
be using these to get around the traffic jams in a few years.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4nDFgVx2o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4nDFgVx2o)
[2] [http://www.ehang.com/ehang184](http://www.ehang.com/ehang184) [3]
[https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/06/the-ehang-184-is-a-
human-s...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/06/the-ehang-184-is-a-human-sized-
drone-taking-off-at-ces/)

~~~
FabHK
Are you sure? Where are they in the production, flight testing, certification
process? Have they even built a prototype (not a life-size plastic model to
display at an airshow, but an actual prototype?)

The Volocopter VC200 [1] has had unmanned and manned flight tests [2], and
they're actually working on the (laborious) certification process.

[1] [http://volocopter.com/index.php/en/](http://volocopter.com/index.php/en/)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazFiIhwAEs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazFiIhwAEs)

------
advisedwang
I'm very skeptical of their claims of better safety that regular helicopters.
Thanks to "autorotation" a helicopter can safely land in most situations even
with complete power failure. The claims of safety of this craft seems to
derive from single rotor failure resilience and ease of use, which doesn't
impress me much.

~~~
jerf
It seems to me that it depends on how it's wired up internally, where we can't
see it.

If all the drone controls are wired to one battery controlled by one computer,
yeah, there's a lot of single-points-of-failure there, and the result is
scarier than a helicopter to me.

On the other hand, if it was basically a whole bunch of independent drones
with pretty much their own electronics (I'll permit for convenience a single
charging bus), and communicating with active-acknowledgement protocols such
that each drone assumes the others are failed unless there is active assurance
they are on and working, the whole ensemble can come out much safer than a
helicopter. In theory you could get to the point where it doesn't just have no
single point of failure, but even no dual- or treble-points of failure either.

Depends on the details.

~~~
FabHK
I'm pretty sure they've thought of avoiding single points of failures. It's my
understanding that there are multiple busses, and I assume that failure of a
single battery only shortens the range, not leading to a catastrophic failure.

The 18-rotor Volocopter can have several rotors fail with no problem before
the ballistic rescue parachute becomes necessary.

------
blakes
As someone who has been into ultralight aircraft in the past, I think this is
actually pretty cool.

Ultralight flying has weight and speed requirements (as well as fuel) and no
pilot's license necessary [1]. I believe that if one of these type of aircraft
could get into the ultralight category, it would be a positive. I'd bet there
would be fewer crashes/deaths in these drone type of aircraft than a
conventional ultralight (which resemble anything from a hanglider or parachute
with a propeller attached to an actual airplane).

[1] [https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interest...](https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-
flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights)

------
projectramo
To quote Marc Andreessen: They promised us flying cars and they gave us...
flying cars.

------
ourmandave
So fast forward 10+ years, what does this look like?

Can I get a drone Uber to pick me up? Where exactly? Are there helipads
everywhere there use to be a bus stop?

For private owners, do they build a landing area in their backyard or rooftop?
Or do you drive out to the airport?

Does the paramedic-flying-themselves-to-the-accident know where to land the
drone with 18 chopping blades (for stability and redundancy)?

~~~
coldcode
Flying cars can generate flying car crashes which seem inherently dangerous. A
drone is nothing more than a flying car without a driver. If it breaks down
and kills the passenger (and anyone unlucky beneath) who is responsible?

~~~
ourmandave
That's all I can think about when I watch SF movies with flying cars (e.g.
Fifth Element, Star Wars, Natl Lampoon's Vacation).

Where do you park?

What happens if the battery dies?

Why is there so much cartoon physics?

~~~
nine_k
1) You park in a garage or a parking lot, as you would a normal car of
comparable size.

2) There's no "the battery", there are several cells, each capable of giving
you enough juice for a landing if all others die. OTOH catastrophic failures
are of course possible, as with cars. A parachute pushed out by a small charge
can help if the altitude allows.

3) Because cartoon physics look good (and funny) on screen. I suppose the rest
of Fifth Element does not look boringly realistic to you either.

~~~
ourmandave
The Fifth Elements dudes in the rubber masks was not a high point.

But I was thinking more about Jedi jumping out of cars and not going splat on
someone's windshield.

------
JustSomeNobody
Something about dying in a crashed aircraft that was piloted by someone in a
comfy seat 2000 miles away bothers me.

~~~
ourmandave
Especially when that someone was an evil hacker because you didn't have enough
bitcoins to get the controls unencrypted.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
That should be a writing prompt!

------
6stringmerc
IBIWISI @ Paris or Oshkosh airshow. I mean, not in person because I don't get
to visit such places with my budget and schedule, but I'll watch the coverage
closely. Until then, yay, another article about how _promising_ technology is
these days!

~~~
FabHK
The Volocopter VC200 was displayed at the AERO Friedrichshafen 2016, just
after its maiden (manned) flight:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC9YWvKX0lY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC9YWvKX0lY)

~~~
6stringmerc
Maiden flight is nice but like I said I'd like to see something proven to the
point of being flown at a major international airshow - not just put on
display with a video.

~~~
FabHK
Yeah, you've got a point there... And even that might not be enough: Remember
the Icon A5 [1] (cool amphibian light sport plane) or the Terrafugia
Transition [2] (flying car)? They've flown, been presented at Oshkosh, even
partially certified - but will they ever really (wait for it...) take off?

(BTW, though, the AERO is probably _the_ major European general aviation
show.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5)
[2]
[http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transition](http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transition)

------
ldom66
How would this be able to land in the event of complete electrical failure? A
helicopter is able to glide by twisting the rotor blades but this would just
fall like a brick. I would be really scared to be in that.

~~~
altano
Parachute?

~~~
ldom66
Doesn't a parachute need some free fall before being completely deployed? Plus
there would be no way of gliding somewhere safe to land.

~~~
nradov
A small rocket can be used to deploy the parachute from low altitude. This is
already in use on some light aircraft today.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems#Com...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems#Components)

------
huuu
I don't think this is going to be mainstream very soon because these multi
rotors can only fly for a few minutes.

Right now batteries are way too heavy. And combustion engines can't alter
speed that quick.

~~~
FabHK
Yes, batteries don't have the energy density of petrol yet, but they're
improving. Also, hybrids are an option, with a combustion engine (running at
optimal speed throughout) driving a generator recharging a battery - best of
both worlds, potentially.

------
Aelinsaar
This is really the only way that "flying cars" could have ever worked, unless
people were truly willing to embrace a future of mid-air collisions and
raining debris.

~~~
lujim
The people I encounter on my commute will find a way to mess this up.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
"Whenever you make something idiot proof, God invents a better idiot."

------
loeg
Thinking a bit bigger — when do we stop involving pilots in commercial
aircraft flight? Much like trucking, flight is something computers can do very
well.

~~~
dputtick
Currently, pilots have the primary function of monitoring the automation, and
exercising critical thinking when things go wrong. This can be everything from
flight computers misbehaving, dealing with weather, avoiding turbulence,
troubleshooting an engine fault indicator. Their secondary function of flying
the plane is more or less because they have to be there anyway, and for almost
all larger aircraft the autopilot takes care of everything except for maybe
the first few minutes and the last ~1 to 10 minutes of the flight (although
this varies based on airline, aircraft type, and individual pilot preference).
Autoland does exist (google cat. 3 ILS), but it hasn't really been refined to
perfection because the pilots aren't going anywhere as of yet and they are
quite excellent at performing the last 200 ft of the landing sequence (once
the runway is in sight in low vis conditions). Your average airline flight, in
daylight and good weather, can really be quite a simple exercise. The
outliers, with equipment out of service, bad weather, icing, or really serious
things like an engine failure, are extremely cognitively demanding in a very
"human" way and certainly outside the capabilities of perhaps anything short
of an artificial general intelligence. I think the future of computing in the
cockpit for the foreseeable future involves collaborating with humans to help
them navigate these challenging situations and focus on higher level problem
solving, rather than replacing them.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Also, not implementing autolanding means pilots constantly practice landing
airplanes. This is surely invaluable in the case of an emergency landing.

------
jcfrei
I couldn't find any info on flight times. I'm guessing anything up to 15
minutes?

~~~
martincmartin
It's in TFA, 20 - 30 minutes, although they mention one with a hybrid engine
that can use gasoline, presumably to recharge the battery.

------
Shivetya
would make a cool battlefield ambulance if it could fly itself, just needs a
bit more endurance.

Curious, at what speed the rotors must go so that if you kill all power it
doesn't plummet. How high would that fail altitude actually be

------
lujim
I'm going to let the term "Passenger drone" slide, but I will feel a hint of
aggravation when CNN reports on "Manned UAVs"

~~~
wernercd
What's the aversions? A drone is a plane that is remote controlled or flies
itself... a passenger drone or a manned uav would be a remote/self controlled
airplane that has cargo: people.

Not that people won't butcher the terminology (ATM Machine), but even at the
worse, these shouldn't be to bad...

~~~
dcgoss
(U)nmanned (A)erial (V)ehicle = UAV. A manned UAV would be a bit of an
oxymoron.

~~~
chatmasta
Passengers != manned. They aren't operating the vehicle, they're cargo.

~~~
lujim
even if that is the definition of manned it still doesn't make sense. because
the "U" in UAV stands for Unmanned not Unpiloted. However "Manned space
flight" would still apply even if the astronaut was just ballast right?

A trip to mars would be completely automated but you still wouldn't call it
unmanned if a scientist was on board that did nothing but scientist stuff.

