Uber flying cars

[NiHaoMike]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/uber-flying-car-prototype.html
A passenger aircraft from a company with less than stellar safety records. What could possibly go wrong?

[Brumby]

I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.

At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues.  What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?

[Electro Detective]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/uber-flying-car-prototype.html
A passenger aircraft from a company with less than stellar safety records.

What could possibly go wrong?

Bad plane food or hitting a flying pig ?   

[ez24]

A pedal set up to drive the propellers.  It is a known fact that people would pedal like hell on their way to their death.  I believe my city has become a "drone" city and Uber is suppose to test delivering food by drones.  I am trying to contact them to sign up.  If Uber ever delivers a hot dog to me, I will upload a pic.   

[Tomorokoshi]

I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.

At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues.  What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?

A very long and detailed contract absolving UBER of any and all liability.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

-Here's your drones.
-With safety features?
-Yes, everything.
-Disable.
-Ok, no problem.
-Thanks.
-My pleasure.
-Bye
-Bye

[Cyberdragon]

Reminds me Mrs Weasley ranting about his son stealing her husband's enchanted flying car.

Anyone who has one that crashes or malfunctions instantly gets a Howler.

[ConKbot]

They can't detect a person walking in a clear road with 3 independent systems which all should have been able to do so, and even the stock safety systems that were disabled probably would have too... But now they want to make flying cars.

Yeah I'll pass no matter how much "redundancy" they have.

[SiliconWizard]

The flying cars, which the company hopes to introduce to riders in two to five years,

Yeah, right. I'm sure it will.

Even with the safety issues sorted (which I don't see happening any time soon), any clue how to work one's way through the legal matters of civil aviation?
 

[Brumby]

Those are going to be some very serious challenges - and ones that are not going to happen overnight.

[Electro Detective]

One might assume the backers of this soon to FAIL farce got influenced to drop their cash
during some weed indulgence whilst watching The Fifth Element and Total Recall (11)   


 

[SiliconWizard]

Now it's Airbus's turn: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-28/airbus-steps-up-push-for-flying-taxis-on-demand-helicopters
At least they are not promising anything within 5 years.

I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?

[Po6ept]

Now it's Airbus's turn: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-28/airbus-steps-up-push-for-flying-taxis-on-demand-helicopters
At least they are not promising anything within 5 years.

I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?

Seeing how well people drive in only two axes...

[janoc]

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Given how much cash is Uber burning through (they have never been profitable, despite their business model of flouting every rule imaginable), it is very likely that the company will be bust before this pipe dream takes off the ground.

Given how much bad rap they have already with the non-flying taxis, I just don't see cities letting them operate flying ones.

Oh and that doesn't include the inevitable lawsuits, like the the one sure to come because of their self-driving car crash.

[janoc]

The flying cars, which the company hopes to introduce to riders in two to five years,

Yeah, right. I'm sure it will.

Even with the safety issues sorted (which I don't see happening any time soon), any clue how to work one's way through the legal matters of civil aviation?
 

Uber was never a company that made a big deal of any laws or rules. Their business model is literally built on flouting them - e.g. all the rules covering taxi services and the stead-fast denial that Uber is a taxi service (it is easy to "disrupt" the market when you don't have to pay the same fees and obey the same rules as the competitors) or that the drivers are effectively employees (they would have to pay social insurance and collect taxes on their behalf) and so on ...

So I can literally see some idiot exec doing it "guerilla" style - and then cry wolf when FAA busts their ass.

[hendorog]

I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.

At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues.  What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?

Not to mention the Deadmans curve region, where even helicopters with trained pilots are going to make a hole if they lose power.

Until someone solves the survivability issue between 10 feet and the minimum effective height of a parachute, then humans in drones will never take off. Although, perhaps this is Darwin at work. 

[janoc]

I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.

At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues.  What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?

Not to mention the Deadmans curve region, where even helicopters with trained pilots are going to make a hole if they lose power.

Until someone solves the survivability issue between 10 feet and the minimum effective height of a parachute, then humans in drones will never take off. Although, perhaps this is Darwin at work. 

Well, that's actually a solved problem - it is called a zero-zero ejection seat. On the other hand that isn't going to fly in an aircraft with untrained passengers on board, never mind the costs (both the seats and their maintenance).

And a bit higher up (>400 feet, >900 feet if in a spin) you can use a ballistic parachute - those are common in small general aviation planes, e.g. Cirrus SR22. However, again, it requires a trained user - e.g. if the crew isn't strapped in tight when the chute activates they are going to be pretty badly injured.

Both are actually going to be a bit easier to use on a multirotor than a heli because they may not have to fire through the rotor disk (well, depends on where the rotors are and whether they overlap the cabin or not).

[Marco]

I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?

This isn't supposed to be scaled up, this is for the elite, a result of current wealth disparities ... although after the first couple die in them I doubt it will survive.

[hendorog]

I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.

At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues.  What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?

Not to mention the Deadmans curve region, where even helicopters with trained pilots are going to make a hole if they lose power.

Until someone solves the survivability issue between 10 feet and the minimum effective height of a parachute, then humans in drones will never take off. Although, perhaps this is Darwin at work. 

Well, that's actually a solved problem - it is called a zero-zero ejection seat. On the other hand that isn't going to fly in an aircraft with untrained passengers on board, never mind the costs (both the seats and their maintenance).

And a bit higher up (>400 feet, >900 feet if in a spin) you can use a ballistic parachute - those are common in small general aviation planes, e.g. Cirrus SR22. However, again, it requires a trained user - e.g. if the crew isn't strapped in tight when the chute activates they are going to be pretty badly injured.

Both are actually going to be a bit easier to use on a multirotor than a heli because they may not have to fire through the rotor disk (well, depends on where the rotors are and whether they overlap the cabin or not).

No it is not a solved problem _for drones_

Has any drone manufacturer integrated an ejection seat? Start talking about that and watch the masses lose interest in flying around in a drone real fast. Training or not that isn't an option.

Ballistic parachutes are exactly what I meant when I said parachute Still harder than it looks, as you said, and only part of the solution.

So the original statement stands. No humans in drones for the masses until the low altitude survivability issue is solved (properly).

[janoc]

No it is not a solved problem _for drones_

Heck, it worked for the LLRV trainer which was similar if not worse deathtrap than a multirotor, just had a massive jet engine instead of props.

Has any drone manufacturer integrated an ejection seat? Start talking about that and watch the masses lose interest in flying around in a drone real fast. Training or not that isn't an option.

I know, that's why I have said it isn't going to fly. But strictly speaking there is a solution to that problem.

Ballistic parachutes are exactly what I meant when I said parachute Still harder than it looks, as you said, and only part of the solution.

Well, parachute could also mean some hapless guy opening the door and jumping out with a backpack. Ballistic parachute is a lot faster to open than that + you rely on deformation zones of the craft's body to cushion the impact. If you jumped at 400' with a normal chute, you likely wouldn't survive it.

So the original statement stands. No humans in drones for the masses until the low altitude survivability issue is solved (properly).

Agreed to a point. It is not necessarily the low altitude survivability that is the main problem - planes and helis will also not end up well if something goes wrong at a low altitude (you need altitude to enter autorotation in a heli and speed + altitude to glide in a plane) and that didn't prevent their use, even in passenger transport.

I think the main issue is the fact that should anything go cactus with the rotors or engines, the thing will just flip over and crash, regardless of altitude. You can either make  each pylon have two motors + rotors (like the one that is supposed to fly in Dubai) or you have more than 4 pylons so that the rest can take over for a failed engine/rotor and land it safely. However, the more things you put in that craft, the higher the chances that something is going to break.

All of that is going to be insanely expensive and complex, not to mention the noise. No advanced AI mumbo jumbo can beat basic physics there. At the end it will most likely be much cheaper to take a normal helicopter (most have only a single engine, only the larger ones have two) and either modify it for autonomous/remote operation (that exists already) or simply put a pilot behind the controls.

[hendorog]

Yes good point about the noise. That will get old quickly as well.

I had a conversation with a guy at work (proper Engineer, clever guy, highly qualified, however he was British) who was adamant that Uber type 'driverless' drones would be in common use before driverless cars. My conclusion was that only crazy Brits come to live in New Zealand...

[SiliconWizard]

I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?

This isn't supposed to be scaled up, this is for the elite, a result of current wealth disparities ... although after the first couple die in them I doubt it will survive.

Nah. A niche market like this would serve no useful business goal. So I don't believe one bit they are only targetting a few wealthy guys. Especially in this kind of air business, and on very short trips. Makes no economic sense. Besides, there are already acceptable solutions for that: helicopters. But a monster like Airbus working on niche markets? Absurd IMO.

[rfeecs]

Kind of deja vu:

Fifty years ago, a helicopter company called New York Airways whisked passengers from the rooftop of the iconic Pan Am Building in midtown Manhattan to any city airport in just 10 minutes. A fatal accident in 1977 brought that era to an end.

These little helicopter services were popular in the 1960's.  I recall you could take a helicopter from Berkeley marina to San Francisco Airport (1973 ad, fare was $8.10):


http://www.ibabuzz.com/westcounty/2014/03/14/remembering-the-berkeley-heliport/

[Brumby]

I had a conversation with a guy at work (proper Engineer, clever guy, highly qualified, however he was British) who was adamant that Uber type 'driverless' drones would be in common use before driverless cars.

I'm inclined to agree.  You aren't likely to have to deal with a bicyclist walking their bike across your path.

[hendorog]

I had a conversation with a guy at work (proper Engineer, clever guy, highly qualified, however he was British) who was adamant that Uber type 'driverless' drones would be in common use before driverless cars.

I'm inclined to agree.  You aren't likely to have to deal with a bicyclist walking their bike across your path.

True, however to be blunt, the car will win that battle every day of the week. In a drone even a bird or two could end you.