4 ms·

I don't think the critical challenge here is how to design a small sexy "innovative" plane. I think the elephant in the room (I love metaphors) is solving the p

I don't think the critical challenge here is how to design a small sexy "innovative" plane. I think the elephant in the room (I love metaphors) is solving the problem of (1) who we allow to pilot them, and/or (2) whether they can be designed to fly in a fail-safe manner. For those folks who've experienced on a daily basis what the average herp-derp car driver is like, you should, I hope, shudder to think what it would be like if there were millions of those kinds of folks flying small planes around you. In other words, in a world where everybody has a plane we probably want "planes on rails". Whether physically-enforced or software-enforced.

cyrus_ 14y ago
I'm guessing that building a self-driving car is a much harder problem than a self-driving airplane, and we seem to be making substantial progress on the car front.
- jrockway 14y ago
  The self-driving airplane pretty much exists. Assuming perfect conditions, an airplane can climb to a desired altitude, follow a GPS course, switch to a nonprecision VOR/DME approach, and follow a precision ILS approach (and descent) to within a few hundred feet of the runway. And that's a Cessna 172 with a mildly recent avionics package -- a modern airliner can take you to the runway surface in zero visibility. (Taxiing and takeoff are still manual operations that require more than zero visibility, however.) The reason a self-flying plane is easier than a self-driving car is because there is much less stuff in the air than on the ground, and everything in the air has a transponder that tells you its exact location and speed. (Not true of small VFR planes, but transponders are becoming more common and if we really wanted to, we could make them mandatory.) Compare this to a car, where there are kids running into the street, traffic lights, other drivers, loads falling off the back of trucks, and so on. The number of things that can suddenly change the driving conditions are dramatic. In the air, that's not the case; the environment is very controlled and you have an extra dimension to navigate in. With that in mind, we're still a ways away from untrained people getting into an airplane, pressing a button, and arriving at their destination. But honestly, that's details and risk management rather than a fundamental lack of technology. (What happens if the engine fails? What happens if there's a thunderstorm? The corner cases are why you have trained pilots there to assist the computers. If you're willing to die because of a simple mechanical or software failure, then self-flying planes are a reality today. If you're more cautious, then not quite yet :)
  - sneak 14y ago
    Every time I read a comment of this quality and look up at the username, it seems to be you. Thank you for your posts!
- aaroneous 14y ago
  http://verticalpower.com/vp-400/ http://verticalpower.com/vp-400/ In an emergency it'll automatically calculate the best airport to land at (factoring in rwy length, winds, terrain & distance), fly the approach and land the plane - all at the press of a button. The software was written by the same team that make the X-Plane flight sim (http://x-plane.com/ http://x-plane.com/)
run4yourlives 14y ago
I think point 1 (and by extension point 2) is a little overstated. Many, many people wouldn't set foot in a small aircraft, be it a Cessna or this. This idea is for those individuals that would easily obtain (or use) a PPL if it wasn't such a daunting financial commitment to fly. It actually is quite challenging to design an aircraft that is efficient, capable (as in 4+ people) and cheap to operate. The Pipistrel Panthera and the Icon A5 are about as close as it comes, but both have serious shortcomings. Panthera is fricken expensive to buy and unproven, and A5 is that and not very capable. The average Cessna and/or Piper cub is still the easiest way to get into the sky in something useful for more than a lap around the airport. I'd love to see something that isn't going to cost the price of a house to buy and the average salary to fly before we look to make everyone a pilot, because that challenge alone is a long, long way off.
- sokoloff 14y ago
  I have one of the cheapest practical family airplanes, and it's so far from affordable on the average salary that the gulf is insurmountable, IMO. And mine is 1/5 or less the likely acquisition cost of this one. That difference in capital cost will take 2000 hours of operation (more than 20 years for most private pilots) to make up in nominal dollars. If people today can't afford a Skylane (or even Warrior or Skyhawk), they will be able to afford this even less. Putting the "everyman" in the air is better done with a partnership or club owning 60s/70s/80s metal airplanes, IMO, and that's not even that achievable in days of $6 avgas and $75/hour "dry rental" (everything other than gas).
rbanffy 14y ago
The avionics they plan to use are very impressive. As long as the pilots don't touch the controls and don't try to fly the plane themselves, we're safe.
amalag 14y ago
I don't think those are elephants in the room, those will happen. The elephant in the room is cost. Can he make a plane with a order of magnitude difference in price.

cyrus_ 14y ago

I'm guessing that building a self-driving car is a much harder problem than a self-driving airplane, and we seem to be making substantial progress on the car front.

jrockway 14y ago
The self-driving airplane pretty much exists. Assuming perfect conditions, an airplane can climb to a desired altitude, follow a GPS course, switch to a nonprecision VOR/DME approach, and follow a precision ILS approach (and descent) to within a few hundred feet of the runway. And that's a Cessna 172 with a mildly recent avionics package -- a modern airliner can take you to the runway surface in zero visibility. (Taxiing and takeoff are still manual operations that require more than zero visibility, however.) The reason a self-flying plane is easier than a self-driving car is because there is much less stuff in the air than on the ground, and everything in the air has a transponder that tells you its exact location and speed. (Not true of small VFR planes, but transponders are becoming more common and if we really wanted to, we could make them mandatory.) Compare this to a car, where there are kids running into the street, traffic lights, other drivers, loads falling off the back of trucks, and so on. The number of things that can suddenly change the driving conditions are dramatic. In the air, that's not the case; the environment is very controlled and you have an extra dimension to navigate in. With that in mind, we're still a ways away from untrained people getting into an airplane, pressing a button, and arriving at their destination. But honestly, that's details and risk management rather than a fundamental lack of technology. (What happens if the engine fails? What happens if there's a thunderstorm? The corner cases are why you have trained pilots there to assist the computers. If you're willing to die because of a simple mechanical or software failure, then self-flying planes are a reality today. If you're more cautious, then not quite yet :)
- sneak 14y ago
  Every time I read a comment of this quality and look up at the username, it seems to be you. Thank you for your posts!
aaroneous 14y ago
http://verticalpower.com/vp-400/ http://verticalpower.com/vp-400/ In an emergency it'll automatically calculate the best airport to land at (factoring in rwy length, winds, terrain & distance), fly the approach and land the plane - all at the press of a button. The software was written by the same team that make the X-Plane flight sim (http://x-plane.com/ http://x-plane.com/)

run4yourlives 14y ago

I think point 1 (and by extension point 2) is a little overstated. Many, many people wouldn't set foot in a small aircraft, be it a Cessna or this. This idea is for those individuals that would easily obtain (or use) a PPL if it wasn't such a daunting financial commitment to fly. It actually is quite challenging to design an aircraft that is efficient, capable (as in 4+ people) and cheap to operate. The Pipistrel Panthera and the Icon A5 are about as close as it comes, but both have serious shortcomings. Panthera is fricken expensive to buy and unproven, and A5 is that and not very capable. The average Cessna and/or Piper cub is still the easiest way to get into the sky in something useful for more than a lap around the airport. I'd love to see something that isn't going to cost the price of a house to buy and the average salary to fly before we look to make everyone a pilot, because that challenge alone is a long, long way off.

sokoloff 14y ago
I have one of the cheapest practical family airplanes, and it's so far from affordable on the average salary that the gulf is insurmountable, IMO. And mine is 1/5 or less the likely acquisition cost of this one. That difference in capital cost will take 2000 hours of operation (more than 20 years for most private pilots) to make up in nominal dollars. If people today can't afford a Skylane (or even Warrior or Skyhawk), they will be able to afford this even less. Putting the "everyman" in the air is better done with a partnership or club owning 60s/70s/80s metal airplanes, IMO, and that's not even that achievable in days of $6 avgas and $75/hour "dry rental" (everything other than gas).

rbanffy 14y ago

The avionics they plan to use are very impressive. As long as the pilots don't touch the controls and don't try to fly the plane themselves, we're safe.

amalag 14y ago

I don't think those are elephants in the room, those will happen. The elephant in the room is cost. Can he make a plane with a order of magnitude difference in price.