
Flying Taxis May Be Years Away, but the Groundwork Is Accelerating - prostoalex
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/technology/flying-taxis.html
======
strong_silent_t
I think the ideal scenario for this tech is running a downtown core to airport
shuttle:

\- a short trip allows battery needs to not be excessive

\- bypass traffic, you don't have to go all that fast to get a huge speedup,
and remove the extra buffer time on traffic uncertainty

\- radically less infrastructure than roads or rails, reduces the cost of
adding more pickup zones

In cites with poor airport to downtown infrastructure you could probably start
off as a high-end service and charge i.e. 5x than an airport limo.

~~~
aarmenante
Doesn’t a helicopter serve these needs? I think the problem is there isn’t a
market for it yet. There is Blade in NYC and LA but it’s closer to 10x the
price. I think the cost could be a lot lower if there was higher demand.

I think there doesn’t need to be new tech to make this work. Helicopters are
safe and reliable, but are out of reach financially for most. I don’t see how
drones or multirotor would be able to compete on price for a very long time.

~~~
FabHK
Why do you think electric drones have taken off as toys and for filming etc,
when remote controlled helicopters have been available for ages?

Because they have better properties for many use cases: much simpler
mechanically, cheaper to operate, easier to control, etc. I’d also expect
drones to be more reliable, but that remains to be seen.

~~~
908087
There's a problem here, though. Drones can't autorotate, and autorotation is
kind of an important safety feature for helicopters carrying humans.

~~~
FabHK
Don't know about the (8-rotor) eHang, but the 18-rotor Volocopter remains
fully controllable with 3 rotor failures (or more, if they're benignly
distributed), and has a ballistic rescue chute in addition (which is hard to
fit on a heli).

(Of course, you need a certain altitude for the BRS to kick in successfully,
so low-level hover is a risk, just as with a helicopter.)

------
zhoujianfu
I think the chances “flying taxis” become a thing before fully autonomous cars
is actually pretty high.

It’s an easier technical problem I’d think, and the regulatory issues are
probably about the same.

But a flying, electric, quiet, self-flying drone taxi will mean no traffic
issues, as-the-crow-flies travel, and higher top speeds. It may eventually
mean the death of roads and the ability for people to live 100 miles from
where they work, possibly solving a lot of housing issues in metropolitan
areas.

Also it’d be a better way to get around watery/mountainous areas, not to
mention just a few helipads to clean off after snowstorms.

It would also be super cool, jetsons-style!

~~~
sharpercoder
Flying cars or taxis will (IMHO) never take off for various reasons:

\- they are inherently fuel inefficient compared to devices with wheels

\- they are noisy, a problem which can probably never be solved unless
breakthroughs are made in science-fiction fields like anti-gravity

\- airspace is very limited. In my country, we have already serious planning
problems with the current amount of air traffic

\- it's not sustainable from nature-perspective. Current air traffic accounts
for quite some insect & bird loss. Imagine a multitude of current airtraffic;
it would be disastrous for the already dwindling quantity of airborne
creatures

\- flying is inherently weather-bound. Especially for relatively small
aircrafts this is true. Taxis fit this property. This means service is limited
to a subset of all weather conditions; YMMV depending on the area of flight.

\- flying is heavily regulated, which poses barriers. Obviously, startups can
overcome these barriers, but they don't help in solving the overall problem

\- social opposition will always be a thing unless 100% security is neared
_and_ near-100% noiseness is reached. Until that time, there will be fierce
opposition to add any type of aircraft for mass-use to the airspace

This being said, I really, really, _really_ do like the idea of hopping in an
airborne transportation device and go straight to any place in a +-(a few
hundreds of KM) range.

~~~
red75prime
> it's not sustainable from nature-perspective.

There's no nature-perspective, there's the question how to keep the
environment the way we like it (or accustomed to). Flying insects/birds loss
is a tiny part of the equation that needs to be taken into account.

~~~
red75prime
From nature-perspective it's just another selective pressure.

------
wpietri
Interestingly, the iRobot founder and brilliant robot scientist Rodney Brooks
puts flying cars and robot taxis in similar buckets as to wide availability:
[http://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/](http://rodneybrooks.com/my-
dated-predictions/)

~~~
nsnick
The reasoning for that is kinda thin. "I am pretty sure that practical flying
cars will need to be largely self driving while flying, so they sort of fit
the category." Essentially, because self driving technology is a necessary
precondition for flying cars, flying cars are at least as difficult as self
driving vehicles. There really isn't any argument for why flying cars aren't
much more difficult than self driving vehicles.

~~~
elmar
> There really isn't any argument for why flying cars aren't much more
> difficult than self driving vehicles.

On a software level Self-flying aircraft are much more simple than self-
driving cars, there exist today technologies to have 100% safe self-flying
vehicles similar to small electrical planes capable of 1 to 2 passengers, it's
much more a regulation challenge.

~~~
sokoloff
I don’t believe that resilience against mechanical failure is a solved problem
for flying cars yet. Flying a plane when everything is working isn’t
particularly hard. Diagnosing and coping with partial failures is hard.

------
jra_samba
Flying cars/taxis will never be a widespread thing for the public (IMHO).

The weight of a car is an excellent kinetic energy weapon. Fly over soft
target, detonate something on-board to disable safety features and you have
the poor-man(terrorist?)'s remote-kill drone.

Makes driving trucks into crowded streets look positively medieval.

The danger of this _far_ outweighs any possible benefits.

Flying cars will become a thing, but stay heavily regulated and a rich-
person's toy.

~~~
redspectre
Isn't it sad that we can't have an exciting new technology because the threat
that some outsider will blow themselves up? Is there really nothing we can do
about this, either now, or in the future?

~~~
tdb7893
Very few people actually blow themselves up (terrorism is really really low on
the list of the most common causes of death) so I doubt that it will be why we
don't have flying cars.

~~~
jra_samba
Self driving flying cars (which will be essential for mass market adoption)
make an excellent weapon. No one needs to blow themselves up, just the car.

~~~
yeahsure
As far as I know terrorists have no problem blowing themselves up.

------
cmurf
Right now all ATC clearances (routing, takeoff, landing) are done by AM radio.
So how would a pilotless taxi do this? Drones don't, as currently UAS are
physically separated into their own airspace, they also can't fly in
instrument/zero visibility conditions.

To share the same space requires either really agile and smart flying taxis
that will always avoid legacy aircraft, regardless of conditions, a kind of
"smart separation" of aircraft, or we need a new air traffic control system.

Setting aside ATC's automation, even autonomous aircraft has all sorts of
unsolved technical problems. The reality today is that the vast majority of
flights are not automated at all when it comes to taxi, takeoff, and landings.
Most flights use Visual Flight Rules. The landing capacity of airports when
using Instrument Flight Rules is substantially less, and there are various
technical reasons why not least of which is that there is only one kind of
precision approach to landing system, and it requires ground systems, airborne
system, and pilot competency and certification. So we need a separate system
invented for autonomous systems to do this at scale, while also integrating
into the existing VFR and IFR systems for legacy aircraft.

Or someone comes up with a cheap enough retrofit of existing airplane cockpits
that this can happen really fast, and just ban all the legacy aircraft from
operating in autonmous only space (make it Class A, B and C space). That's
sort of a joke because this would be very expensive. But maybe a hybrid pilot
with augmented non-human secondary pilot could make this vaguely plausible.

Add in both FAA and ICAO regulations (global regulations apply for obvious
reasons), economics, politics, and it's just really complicated. So I have to
laugh every time I read "technical problems all solved" and "this could happen
in 5 to 10 years". That's something I've heard for 30 years...

~~~
prostoalex
> Right now all ATC clearances (routing, takeoff, landing) are done by AM
> radio. So how would a pilotless taxi do this?

That is the status quo, but FAA has been trying to move to an automated system
forever (they were testing ATD-1 in KMWH as of last year)
[https://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/research/ta...](https://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/research/tactical/ATD1_FS-2015-09-01-ARC_Web.pdf)

Most likely they will have to set up special flight rules for unmanned taxis.

It also helps that rotor-driven vehicles don't need the runways the way the
airplanes do - any large parking lot next to the airport could be designated
as UAS landing space.

~~~
cmurf
All of the existing automation systems are predicated on the existing use
cases. It's a centralized system where humans evaluate that data, and then
issue directives/clearances based on them.

ILS will not work on a large parking lot, the antennas are huge, transient
objects attenuate the signal making it unreliable, all kinds of monitoring is
needed to detect deviations and automatically shutdown the system if
necessary, etc. A whole new precision landing system is needed to fit into
smaller space requirements you're suggesting. And now there are new problems
like people walking around the landing zone and having physical access to the
ground based equipment.

------
sonium
I think there is an interesting problem to solve here is one of mass
production. To be cost competitive these vehicles need to be produced as
scale. This is nothing that the traditional aircraft business has experience
with, but car manufacturars have plenty. This reflects in the savety
architecture of airplanes vs cars: Airplanes rely on redundancy, which makes
manuacturing more expensive but. Cars on the other hand try not to break in
the first place, which is ensured through exhaustive testing and monitoring of
the production chain. I think the winner will be the one who brings these two
worlds together.

~~~
hexane360
>Airplanes rely on redundancy, which makes manuacturing more expensive but.
Cars on the other hand try not to break in the first place, which is ensured
through exhaustive testing and monitoring of the production chain.

I don't agree with this. You're missing a variable: safety factor. Cars try to
minimize safety factor to save money and weight, airplanes often have more
regulations to prevent this. Cars definitely break more often then airplanes.
Also, keep in mind that aircraft can rely on preventative maintenance by
trained professionals. Cars really can't, meaning they have to simplify their
components and assembly a lot.

------
agumonkey
I used to joke around that we passed the Minority Report point, which was the
latest movie where computer UI felt something unatainable (and new gesture,
recognition etc is mainstream). This would be the 5th element point.

------
brudgers
In the US Flying Taxis/cars would require require a massive change in FAA
regulations. In 2015, there were 6,876 air carrier aircraft.[1] Roughly
1/50,000 people. Air carrier aircraft are the only aircraft authorized to
carry passengers for hire.

There are so few because getting an aircraft certified is hard. Not just for
commercial use. Even private use. Most private planes in the US were built in
the 20th century. And there were only 210,000 of them in 2015. Roughly 1/1500
people. Even among the commercial fleet, many air carrier aircraft are more
than thirty years old because FAA certification is so difficult. To put it in
automotive terms, much of what is flying in the US is analogous to a 1973
Dodge Dart or a 1985 F600. Aircraft in the US are like old cars in Cuba.

The number of aircraft in the sky is limited by long standing policies against
general ownership. The FAA licensing of drone pilots is part of a general
stance of limiting access to private aviation that began long long before
9/11\. Just compare the number of private aircraft to recreational boats.

[1]:
[https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...](https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html)

~~~
oldcynic
Which is why the skies are so safe. It's not about limiting access. FAA
licencing is one of the more liberal aviation regimes across the world.

~~~
brudgers
FAA regulations make the sky inaccessible to the general citizenry. The safety
claim is analogous to a world in which the roads were restricted to commercial
vehicles and sports car owners. Safety is primarily achieved by limiting
access and hence use.

~~~
oldcynic
> Safety is primarily achieved by limiting access and hence use.

lol. No, safety is achieved by having strong licencing, both for pilots and
aircraft, maintenance requirements, such as engine checks every x hours and so
forth, and investigation into accidents. Any of the general citizenry can sign
up to get a PPL, and in the US it is quite cheap and easy to do so. Long may
it remain so. Even so, GA is considered dangerous, and can have impact on your
ability to get life insurance. The main cause of GA deaths is pilot error.

You can get easier access and lighter touch regulations simply by going for a
plane in the light sport category. That has an even poorer safety record than
GA.

~~~
brudgers
The 'light sport' category exactly supports the analogy to sports cars. Two
seats and an impractical cargo capacity.

The limiting factor for citizen access to the sky is aircraft availability not
pilot licensure. A Cessna 172's engine is slightly more sophisticated than an
air-cooled VW's but the same basic 1930's technology. A new one starts at
$70,000 because there is only a single source. There is only a single source
because FAA regulations create a moat. Again, there are only 210,000 non-
carrier aircraft in the US, the sky is only accessible to a fraction of the
one percent by regulatory intent.

~~~
freeone3000
$70,000 is also the price of a Lexus or Infiniti or other entry-level luxury
car. When you're on the highway surrounded by BMWs and Mercedes E-classes,
that's the sort of people who, if flying was something they wanted to do,
could have purchased an airplane instead, by your very own metric.

In fact, let's extend this a bit further. You say a Cessna is in a moat
because it's the only supplier.... of Cessnas. BMW is the only supplier of
BMWs! That's ridiculous reasoning. There are other GA and even light sport
aircraft available - Piper and FlightDesign and Zenith and Bristell all sell
aircraft. And they're all in the same price range, leading one to believe that
maybe aircraft manufacture isn't as cheap as you're making it out to be.

~~~
brudgers
$70,000 is about the price of a new four cylinder Lycoming O-320 engine for a
Cessna 172 (traditionally among the least expensive production aircraft).
Airframe, avionics, and installation not included. The alternative to a Lexus
is a pile of metal on a pallet not an aircraft.

The high price of the O-320 engine reflects FAA regulations that require the
use of a Lycoming O-320 in every Cessna 172...and actually a specific version
of the O-320 engine for each minor variant of the Cessna 172. There's no
second source for Cessna 172 engines _by regulation_...by regulation there's
no second source for engine parts either. The supply is restricted.

Light sport aircraft are by regulation impractical as ordinary transportation.
The allowable gross weight and one passenger restrictions insure that. It's
like arguing that a YZ250 is a reasonable alternative to a Civic.

------
mtgx
I hope they won't become mainstream until they can be fully battery-powered.
You don't want something like that to fly above you when it has only slightly
better Q&A than a regular car (and probably far less than a plane).

------
bobthepanda
Take all the bad road behavior you see with taxi and Uber drivers normally and
stick them in the air. It's a good thing it hasn't caught on.

~~~
maxxxxx
They will be fully automated and regulated.

~~~
vadimberman
Like the drones?

~~~
maxxxxx
I bet bigger drones will be automated and regulated tightly. It's one thing
that cars crash all the time but when flying vehicles crash they fall on other
people. If that happens a few times people will call for rules.

------
ppbutt
They already exist in parts of the world like Saudi Arabia, no? (Can't read
the article because I don't pay to view their site..)

~~~
FabHK
Dubai is planning a trial with Volocopter, but there is nothing in production
yet AFAIK.

------
mbid
Finally. This will be great for the environment and especially the climate.

~~~
nitwit005
That seems unlikely. The energy cost of flying is always going to be higher.
You do, after all, need to move upward.

~~~
sokoloff
I fly a piston engine airplane that seats 6 and gets ~15 miles per gallon at
over 200mph. If I slowed it down, I could probably get it to 20mpg. That’s
pretty competitive with 6-pax cars, so the spread may not be as much as you’d
first imagine.

------
Panino
Next time you drive past a car accident, picture the cars not along the side
of the road but in someone's house. That's where they will go when something
goes wrong and they fall from the sky.

~~~
tytytytytytytyt
And yet somehow we manage to constantly have people travel by plane.

------
matte_black
They are not years away, they are only a few innovations away, mostly related
to battery performance and more compact powerful engines. Then of course,
regulation.

~~~
loceng
Until the noise generated by the motors is solved they will only ever be
allowed for emergency vehicles.

~~~
matte_black
This is a solved problem that has mostly to do with propeller shape. By
creating 3D simulations of airflow you can come up with very quiet designs.

The reason it’s not done is because no one gives a damn. Planes and
helicopters fly too high up and if you’re in one of these vehicles the sounds
of the engine will be louder than the propellers anyway because they aren’t
electric.

The military however already has this tech.

~~~
loceng
Relative quiet and actual quiet are different things - I don't believe the
physics exists to displace the noise/vibrations generated; you can change the
propeller shape and sizes, however that energy still needs to go somewhere, so
you'll mostly just change where the energy's going and the frequencies and
concentrations that are output. I'd love to be proven wrong.

