3 ms·

Very neat idea, but good luck with getting FAA approval. This will probably count for a whole new type of approach: an automated mostly-hands-free 0-0 landing.

Very neat idea, but good luck with getting FAA approval. This will probably count for a whole new type of approach: an automated mostly-hands-free 0-0 landing. Even if it's just for an emergency, and even if you make all kinds of disclaimers and have folks sign all kinds of documents, you'd have better luck teaching monkeys to play in an orchestra than you'll have trying to use this legally in an airplane. Of course, you can always sell it and say it's for "demonstration purposes only" or some kind of silly shit like that. But still, anything to do with certificated airplanes has this crazy no-risk bar that makes it almost impossible to implement. There's a reason why planes work pretty much the same now as 50 years ago, even though technology has vastly changed. The industry and government regulators are almost (but not totally) impervious to change. Lots of lawyers filing lots of lawsuits for doctors who bent their Bonanzas have seen fit to that.

spitfire 16y ago
You can legally test and use this on experimental-amateur built aircraft. Which is what Austins Lancair evo is.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
maigret 16y ago
I agree with most of what you wrote here. One point I would like to add though is that there were massive amount of military investments that went into plane development during both world wars and the cold war, allowing complete new features. Also, it's not like no ones tries to bring new technologies on the market. But the number of planes sold is nowhere near the number of cars sold, for instance. So new investments are pretty risky. Look at the Dreamliner or the A380... Both delayed and still with major design issues. In the general aviation, a European motor maker introduced diesel motors for plane, which allows a much lower mileage, and an economic flight of even 2-props planes (see DA-42). There were so much technical issues that the company got bankrupt. It's not a compelling argument for new customers tempted to buy such a diesel plane. When you buy a plane, you don't want the company to go bankrupt in 3 years, so you take a Piper or a Cessna, even if these are massively inefficient. Finally, look at a C172 glass cockpit. The outside design may still be the same as it was 40 years ago (as is the motor, almost), but the cockpit is totally different, with brand modern software, complex GPS & autopilot capabilities, etc. Flying has become quite different in the last 10 years because of that.

spitfire 16y ago

You can legally test and use this on experimental-amateur built aircraft. Which is what Austins Lancair evo is.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

maigret 16y ago

I agree with most of what you wrote here. One point I would like to add though is that there were massive amount of military investments that went into plane development during both world wars and the cold war, allowing complete new features. Also, it's not like no ones tries to bring new technologies on the market. But the number of planes sold is nowhere near the number of cars sold, for instance. So new investments are pretty risky. Look at the Dreamliner or the A380... Both delayed and still with major design issues. In the general aviation, a European motor maker introduced diesel motors for plane, which allows a much lower mileage, and an economic flight of even 2-props planes (see DA-42). There were so much technical issues that the company got bankrupt. It's not a compelling argument for new customers tempted to buy such a diesel plane. When you buy a plane, you don't want the company to go bankrupt in 3 years, so you take a Piper or a Cessna, even if these are massively inefficient. Finally, look at a C172 glass cockpit. The outside design may still be the same as it was 40 years ago (as is the motor, almost), but the cockpit is totally different, with brand modern software, complex GPS & autopilot capabilities, etc. Flying has become quite different in the last 10 years because of that.