12 ms·

Garmin's got a relatively new system called Autoland that is designed for this exact situation. It allows a plane to land simply by pushing one button. It will

Garmin's got a relatively new system called Autoland that is designed for this exact situation. It allows a plane to land simply by pushing one button. It will pick the nearest appropriate airport, communicate with ATC, and land the plane entirely on its own. It's pretty amazing technology: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-this-changes-everything/ https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-thi...

tragictrash 4y ago
I've always said the reason we don't have flying cars yet is because people can't drive in 2D much less 3D. This gives me hope.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  The autopilot declares an emergency via transponder code and radio calls, which means suddenly everything else in the sky is moved out of your way for you and you're given near-exclusive use of whatever airport the autopilot picks. This does not bring us closer to "flying cars."
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    You mean like when cars turn on emergency blinkers any everything moves out of your way?
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      A pilot declaring an in-flight emergency gets near authority over the airspace they are in. After confirming the declaration fuel/passenger count, the next question a controller usually asks is "what are your intentions?", ie "what are you going do, so we can get everyone out of your way?" I've never heard a controller get more authoritative than politely ask the pilot if they'll consider something or are able to do something.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Isn’t 3D easier? There sure is a lot more room.
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    It's not the 3D that kills you; it's the sudden 2D at the end.
    - anthropodie 4y ago
      Yup but I always thought what if we do like a 1 feet above the ground? We avoid death by plummeting from the sky. There are other advantages like - we don't need roads and we save a lot of energy and money on their construction and maintenance. - we also save energy by going from point A to point B directly instead of following the road. - No friction between tyre and ground I guess the amount of energy required to keep vehicle above ground by 1 feet is more than all the savings combined.
      - travisjungroth 4y ago
        You’re not going point to point a foot above the surface unless you’re over water (calm seas at that). Soviets built a concept plane that did just this, though. Airplanes are more efficient near the ground than a little bit away, but not as efficient as at normal cruising altitudes.
        tialaramex 4y ago
        You're probably thinking of Ground Effect Vehicles (sometimes Ekranoplans). The Russians built lots, not just as a concept, if you own a huge lake (not an ocean) they're somewhat practical for crossing it quickly. The Americans and Canadians (who also own some large lakes) have likewise built some of these. The Ground Effect, as its name suggests, only exists near the ground, so in one sense you're "flying" but if the surface drops away you will fall too. Hence it's good on a lake or possibly open plains, but won't work on normal ground with rises and hills and so on, never mind buildings and trees.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  The real reason is that no one wants thousands of flying cars buzzing everywhere over a city.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    The real reason is that we don't have one-person aircraft that can stop and hover with <300ft stopping distance and is under 10 ft wide. Helicopters come close but they're expensive and I'd hate to see parking for such a model of transportation.
    - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
      Helicopters aren't really allowed to fly over most areas in cities though, except for police and other emergency helicopters. The noise and danger make it a no go, even if they were smaller.
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        Helicopters can fly wherever they want, barring the same restrictions that apply to fixed-wing planes. For the most part, there aren't really any helicopter-specific restrictions.
        FartyMcFarter 4y ago
        Yes, but this doesn't really help the case for flying cars either way. Edit to clarify: Presumably you'd want to land your flying car almost anywhere in the city; this is not going to happen anytime soon, for the same reasons that helicopters and planes can't.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - aksss 4y ago
    Buzzing should emphasize the loud freaking noise these things would create landing, taking off, and flying at low altitude. Annoying to say the least. What we don't need more of is noise pollution.
- pilot7378535 4y ago
  "Flying cars" made sense to me until I started flying. Now I think "driving airplanes" is the more appropriate phrase for what might be in the realm of possibility. For example: here's how you'd prepare to visit distant relatives with each vehicle: Car: load up however much weight you want, turn the keys and start driving. Low on gas? Just turn off at the next exit. Weather looks bad? Just drive slowly and carefully and you'll be fine. Airplane: visually inspect your vehicle, be careful distributing limited weight around the cabin, get a weather briefing and accept that many days you just can't fly, break out your slide rule (literally!) and plot a course between waypoints, with calculations accounting for wind deflection, magnetic variation, fuel burn, and various other factors. And don't forget to plan out refueling stops and emergency airfields too. Then run through your checklist and (once you get permission from the tower, if any) take off. I never appreciated how user-friendly modern cars are until flying. And air travelers are spoiled by all-weather jetliners piloted by the pros.
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    How much weight do you think it would realistically take to alter flight in a plane of this size? For instance, if both the pilot and passenger weighed e.g. 200lbs and sat toward the left of the plane, would that considerably (or perhaps even just perceptibly) impact flight? Same for some of the other variables, is there an appreciable different for things like magnetic variation? Wind, of course, seems reasonable - the others I've heard less about. I don't fly, and have never been in a small engine craft.
    - pilot7378535 4y ago
      Not sure about the plane from the original post; it looks pretty hefty. And lateral weight is so close to the center of mass that it's unlikely to have much effect. What's more of a concern is having a bunch of weight far from the plane's center of mass, where the weight tries to lever the plane end over end, increasing the risk of a stall. I heard about a crash where the pilot's seat adjuster didn't lock, so when he took off his seat slid all the way back (just a few inches) but that was enough to cause a crash. Could theoretically happen to any size plane, but matters more with little light planes like those in general aviation. I have no idea if "Spirit Airlines weight distribution issue" actually happened, but it's funny so I'll share: https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4 https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4 Magnetic variation in my area is +20° (west) off true north. So if I want to follow longitude line true north I need to fly such that the compass reads 20° NEN. And don't forget to account for the hunks of metal inside the airplane, which can affect the compass differently depending on your heading.
dangwu 4y ago
Hasn't autopilot had "auto-land" technology for many years now? How is Garmin's different?
- arianvanp 4y ago
  Not really. You need to intercept an ILS beacon and not all airfields have them and you still need to find the intercept. Garmin allows true auto landing without ground equipment
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Garmin's is literally "oh shit the pilot passed out!" and an entirely inexperienced passenger can push a single button, ending up with the plane stopped on the nearest appropriate runway with the engine off. The autoland system in airliners requires a lot of setup by the pilots and continuous monitoring all the way down, plus working ILS (instrument landing system) equipment at the airport.
  - nopcode 4y ago
    When flying private, my pilot told me: “just press this button when I have a stroke or something”. Almost 20 years ago. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      Yeah, I don't know what button he would have told you to push, but it definitely wouldn't have landed the plane. I don't think there were even automatic wing-leveling systems that far back.
- scottyah 4y ago
  US military drones have been doing it for decades now.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    How successfully? An bad landing for a drone is much less costly than for a plane with people in it.

tragictrash 4y ago

I've always said the reason we don't have flying cars yet is because people can't drive in 2D much less 3D. This gives me hope.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
The autopilot declares an emergency via transponder code and radio calls, which means suddenly everything else in the sky is moved out of your way for you and you're given near-exclusive use of whatever airport the autopilot picks. This does not bring us closer to "flying cars."
- moffkalast 4y ago
  You mean like when cars turn on emergency blinkers any everything moves out of your way?
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    A pilot declaring an in-flight emergency gets near authority over the airspace they are in. After confirming the declaration fuel/passenger count, the next question a controller usually asks is "what are your intentions?", ie "what are you going do, so we can get everyone out of your way?" I've never heard a controller get more authoritative than politely ask the pilot if they'll consider something or are able to do something.
tshaddox 4y ago
Isn’t 3D easier? There sure is a lot more room.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  It's not the 3D that kills you; it's the sudden 2D at the end.
  - anthropodie 4y ago
    Yup but I always thought what if we do like a 1 feet above the ground? We avoid death by plummeting from the sky. There are other advantages like - we don't need roads and we save a lot of energy and money on their construction and maintenance. - we also save energy by going from point A to point B directly instead of following the road. - No friction between tyre and ground I guess the amount of energy required to keep vehicle above ground by 1 feet is more than all the savings combined.
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      You’re not going point to point a foot above the surface unless you’re over water (calm seas at that). Soviets built a concept plane that did just this, though. Airplanes are more efficient near the ground than a little bit away, but not as efficient as at normal cruising altitudes.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        You're probably thinking of Ground Effect Vehicles (sometimes Ekranoplans). The Russians built lots, not just as a concept, if you own a huge lake (not an ocean) they're somewhat practical for crossing it quickly. The Americans and Canadians (who also own some large lakes) have likewise built some of these. The Ground Effect, as its name suggests, only exists near the ground, so in one sense you're "flying" but if the surface drops away you will fall too. Hence it's good on a lake or possibly open plains, but won't work on normal ground with rises and hills and so on, never mind buildings and trees.
FartyMcFarter 4y ago
The real reason is that no one wants thousands of flying cars buzzing everywhere over a city.
- judge2020 4y ago
  The real reason is that we don't have one-person aircraft that can stop and hover with <300ft stopping distance and is under 10 ft wide. Helicopters come close but they're expensive and I'd hate to see parking for such a model of transportation.
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    Helicopters aren't really allowed to fly over most areas in cities though, except for police and other emergency helicopters. The noise and danger make it a no go, even if they were smaller.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      Helicopters can fly wherever they want, barring the same restrictions that apply to fixed-wing planes. For the most part, there aren't really any helicopter-specific restrictions.
      - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
        Yes, but this doesn't really help the case for flying cars either way. Edit to clarify: Presumably you'd want to land your flying car almost anywhere in the city; this is not going to happen anytime soon, for the same reasons that helicopters and planes can't.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- aksss 4y ago
  Buzzing should emphasize the loud freaking noise these things would create landing, taking off, and flying at low altitude. Annoying to say the least. What we don't need more of is noise pollution.
pilot7378535 4y ago
"Flying cars" made sense to me until I started flying. Now I think "driving airplanes" is the more appropriate phrase for what might be in the realm of possibility. For example: here's how you'd prepare to visit distant relatives with each vehicle: Car: load up however much weight you want, turn the keys and start driving. Low on gas? Just turn off at the next exit. Weather looks bad? Just drive slowly and carefully and you'll be fine. Airplane: visually inspect your vehicle, be careful distributing limited weight around the cabin, get a weather briefing and accept that many days you just can't fly, break out your slide rule (literally!) and plot a course between waypoints, with calculations accounting for wind deflection, magnetic variation, fuel burn, and various other factors. And don't forget to plan out refueling stops and emergency airfields too. Then run through your checklist and (once you get permission from the tower, if any) take off. I never appreciated how user-friendly modern cars are until flying. And air travelers are spoiled by all-weather jetliners piloted by the pros.
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  How much weight do you think it would realistically take to alter flight in a plane of this size? For instance, if both the pilot and passenger weighed e.g. 200lbs and sat toward the left of the plane, would that considerably (or perhaps even just perceptibly) impact flight? Same for some of the other variables, is there an appreciable different for things like magnetic variation? Wind, of course, seems reasonable - the others I've heard less about. I don't fly, and have never been in a small engine craft.
  - pilot7378535 4y ago
    Not sure about the plane from the original post; it looks pretty hefty. And lateral weight is so close to the center of mass that it's unlikely to have much effect. What's more of a concern is having a bunch of weight far from the plane's center of mass, where the weight tries to lever the plane end over end, increasing the risk of a stall. I heard about a crash where the pilot's seat adjuster didn't lock, so when he took off his seat slid all the way back (just a few inches) but that was enough to cause a crash. Could theoretically happen to any size plane, but matters more with little light planes like those in general aviation. I have no idea if "Spirit Airlines weight distribution issue" actually happened, but it's funny so I'll share: https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4 https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4 Magnetic variation in my area is +20° (west) off true north. So if I want to follow longitude line true north I need to fly such that the compass reads 20° NEN. And don't forget to account for the hunks of metal inside the airplane, which can affect the compass differently depending on your heading.

dangwu 4y ago

Hasn't autopilot had "auto-land" technology for many years now? How is Garmin's different?

arianvanp 4y ago
Not really. You need to intercept an ILS beacon and not all airfields have them and you still need to find the intercept. Garmin allows true auto landing without ground equipment
jaywalk 4y ago
Garmin's is literally "oh shit the pilot passed out!" and an entirely inexperienced passenger can push a single button, ending up with the plane stopped on the nearest appropriate runway with the engine off. The autoland system in airliners requires a lot of setup by the pilots and continuous monitoring all the way down, plus working ILS (instrument landing system) equipment at the airport.
- nopcode 4y ago
  When flying private, my pilot told me: “just press this button when I have a stroke or something”. Almost 20 years ago. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    Yeah, I don't know what button he would have told you to push, but it definitely wouldn't have landed the plane. I don't think there were even automatic wing-leveling systems that far back.
scottyah 4y ago
US military drones have been doing it for decades now.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  How successfully? An bad landing for a drone is much less costly than for a plane with people in it.