PAV- will it work?

[PTKay]

I sincerely believe yes.

My belief is based on the example of the house lift.

At it's beginnings it was also bringing people high up
and making them scared to fall.

First, it was the invention of Otis, the rail brake.

For a long time people were using lifts with a skilled "operator", "pilot".
It was unusual for a person to use the lift alone.
Then the automation came, simple, on relays and switches,
and people trusted it eventually.
Now we relay on processor controlled lifts and nobody is hesitating
to trust them.

Gradually this trust moved to horizontally moving "lifts",
like operator-less subway. Also accepted and more and more popular.

Further, we trust the cruise control in our cars without hesitation.
Recently, the radar enhanced cruise control increases safety and
will soon allow for "road trains" coupled by the electronic signal
running 100mph.

So why wouldn't we trust the automation in the Carter PAV.

The reliability of the GPS control is proven in aviation, automated
take off and landing are a common procedure in aviation since years.

So why not get rid of the "lift boy" in our PAV and trust it,
and believe it will do the job.

I also sincerely believe, that like in many other cases the military
will pave the way for this development.

Behind the scenes all kind of UAV are being flown with success.

It is just a matter of time and trust, until we will sit down in such a
device and let it fly us to the destination we selected on the touch screen.

:)

[PTKay]

Recent news:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:6b70a5dd-92ff-4169-87fb-2b34b4658ff1

[scottessex]

Personally I do not believe the "flying car" will ever be what the MFG's hope for.

[PW_Plack]

I believe Carter's Slowed Rotor Compound will have many useful applications. I don't believe NASA's "Highway in the Sky" is realistic.

There have already been problems for GPS instrument approaches at US airports bordered by major highways, caused by truck drivers using GPS jammers to disable the tracking systems used by their employers to locate their trucks. The devices have been sold over the internet for about $30, and emit enough signal to also disable the GPS receivers in nearby aircraft.

It's not hard to imagine terrorists finding a way to jam GPS.

The only backup the US had for GPS, the e-Loran navigation system developed for marine use, was defunded and is being decommissioned.

I suspect the general public will never feel comfortable entrusting heavy, fast aircraft over their neighborhoods to people without pilot qualifications.

There are environmental and economic implications of large numbers of people burning 17 GPH (65L/hour) commuting to work, or doing jump takeoffs from their neighborhoods with 45' (15m) rotors.

[PTKay]

It's not hard to imagine terrorists finding a way to jam GPS.


Still the military fully relies on it in it's missions.

I suspect the general public will never feel comfortable entrusting heavy, fast aircraft over their neighborhoods to people without pilot qualifications.
But do you remember the times when it was mandatory
to have a man with a red flag running in front of a car to warn the public...
It was also absolutely not acceptable by the public.
Times they are a changing.
:)

There are environmental and economic implications of large numbers of people burning 17 GPH (65L/hour) commuting to work, or doing jump takeoffs from their neighborhoods with 45' (15m) rotors.
Why commute with such heavy gear.
Xenon burns 20 litres/h and has just 8.6m rotor.
And is good enough for commuting.
To calculate the total fuel consumption you have to consider,
that flying you go app. 30% shorter distance than by the road,
with app. double the speed.
So the fuel per effective commute might be actually lower than by car.

[hillberg]

The Mil's has inertal nav,GPS has been an on & off thing,:der: Had a loss signal and the GPS was inop we had the runway in sight and ol Harry said "What do I do now?" :Cry:reply "You Have the runway in sight land." :rolleyes:The Genpublic has more fear than brains,:cool:and the FAA needs a fish to fry after the fire....electrons make poor pilots:spy: Add the cost & its a dead project.:bored: like the Moller sky car.

[PW_Plack]

Why commute with such heavy gear.
Xenon burns 20 litres/h and has just 8.6m rotor.
And is good enough for commuting...

...and cannot take off vertically. That's the whole point of the PAV.

[PTKay]

...and cannot take off vertically. That's the whole point of the PAV.

They are working on it.
Still top secret.

:)

[HobbyCAD]

You won't soon see any commercial unmanned aircraft flying in civilian airspace, not a snowballs hope in hell for that to happen. Maybe in 10-20 years from now, but not soon. Yes, there are some military and R&D systems flying under extremely controlled conditions, but not "on it's own".

It's not that we don't "trust the electrons", it's that there is no substitute for the traditional humans pilot's eyes and brains to execute "see and avoid". We can make the UAV fly perfectly, with centimeter precision, but typically, we cannot 110% make it "see and avoid" the other guy that might be flying a collision course with it, or "see and select" a safe area to crash land, after an engine failure. The FAA will NEVER allow the "see and avoid" part to be automated. The system currently still relies on the pilot to ultimately perform the safe seperation role. Machines currently assist us in managing it, but a pilot is still required to enforce it.

Until ALL of the aircraft in commercial airspace is not in one or other way "automated", we won't see UAV's doodeling around above your neighbourhoods.

[HobbyCAD]

In response to those who think modern electronics are trusted in aviation, we would think that the system "trusts" the high accuracy low probability of failure solid state "electron" based systems now becoming the norm in aircraft, such as the glass EFIS equipment you see in aircraft. One would think those analog "steam gauges" in aircraft, the typical old 6-pack set of instruments that needs periodic maintenence or calibration, would be seen as more prone to failures than electronics. The electronics are tested against the most rigorious standard, but still they are not trusted. Read the regs, if you install an electronic display instrument as a primary flight display, you need to have a back-up set of primary flight instruments installed. Either a set of the same old steam gauges you just got rid of, or a second electronic PFD has to be installed. Amazingly, if you certificate an aircraft with only the old analog steam gauges, you don't need to have a back-up set!!

That's why you see those lovely old Bonanza's out there, upgraded to the hilt with cool looking digital displays, but tucked away in the corner, still sit's an ugly analog ASI, ALT and AH.

[PTKay]

HobbyCAD,

I agree with what you say about the instruments,
but you have kindly omitted the case of "fly-by-wire",
were we trust them "electrons" all the way since decades.

As to "See and avoid", it is the common practice by every car driver
and can be realized by such in an aircraft with FBW, where
the "driver" just points to were he wants the craft to go,
and the system takes care of the safe execution, without stall,
too steep bank etc.

Like in the house lift, the "driver" pushes the floor button and the
lift does the rest.
You seem to forget, that the next generation of PAV "drivers" grew up
in front of computer screens with a mouse or a joystick in the hand.

It will be absolutely natural for them to sit in front of glass cockpit and
have a side-stick to control the thing.

As to "see and avoid" in the car, it has been shown, that the new radar
assisted cruise control systems, some with visual assistance are much
safer, than the driver alone.

Mass production will make this advanced technology cheap enough
to include gradually in all vehicles, like ABS was...

I don't believe, the PAV will be kind of UAV transporting cargo,
in this case passive passenger.
I do believe, the automation will take the burden of flight control
of the shoulders of the "driver" in such a way, that skills good
enough to drive a car will be good enough to fly the PAV.

And of course it has to be "roadable", "stowable" in your garage
and easy to maintain like your family car now is.

[Aviomania]

And were is the fun of flying in the PAV?

Also... when the sky is full of "Drivers" in there PAV..... were will it be room for us "Pilot" that enjoy flying aircraft?

Next generation may see PAV... not US...... we do not want PAVs :)

[WHY]

I could see the Feds having a total melt down trying to license/regulate/administrate this type of vehicle.

Tony

[PTKay]

I could see the Feds having a total melt down trying to license/regulate/administrate this type of vehicle.

Tony

Some also predicted, that LSA, with "drivers" in control, will be
never accepted, and killed in the cradle by FAA.

Just few years, and over 1000 aircraft flying later, they were proven wrong.

I do believe the PAV will start on the edge of LSA class, like Terrafugia does,
profiting form gyrocopter experience, like Carter does.

But I agree, it will take time.

BTW: the successful amphibious car, crossing the Channel with Branson,
was also stopped by authorities, the water and road licensing rules
collide with each other in a way, that makes it impossible for such a craft to be legal.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/06/report-gibbs-aquada-amphibious-car-hobbled-by-federal-requireme/

Gibbs Aquada story:
http://www.gibbstech.com/aquada.php

[PTKay]

I could see the Feds having a total melt down trying to license/regulate/administrate this type of vehicle.


Afair they had a similar "meltdown" trying to cope with the Osprey.
The road is already paved for VTOL licensing.

:)

[Gyro_Kai]

I wondered, when the Aquada is finally making its breakthrough.

In what way do the regulations collide? I could not find any information on these problems on the Gibbs website.

Kai.

[PTKay]

In what way do the regulations collide? I could not find any information on these problems on the Gibbs website.


http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/06/report-gibbs-aquada-amphibious-car-hobbled-by-federal-requireme/

For starters, the EPA wants the Aquada to use a standard catalytic converter. Unfortunately, the emissions equipment needs to operate at close to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit – nearly 1,200 degrees more than what the U.S. Coast Guard allows on a typical watercraft.
...
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration wants the Aquada to come equipped with airbags, only Gibbs Technologies worries that pounding from waves will set the devices off accidentally

[gyro-3xio]

PT Kay,

Your comment below:

"The reliability of the GPS control is proven in aviation, automated
take off and landing are a common procedure in aviation since years."

Automated take-off? (Common procedure?)
Who does this? Are you speaking in terms of military or civil aviation?

Just curious.
Good thread by the way.

Jim

[All_In]

Hi Jim

I believe Heathrow airport they do automated landings for quite awhile now.

Here is a video that shows how much you have to trust it.
http://videosift.com/video/Landing-in-heavy-fog-at-Londons-Heathrow-Airport

PS:
I just checked to make certain I wasn't posting pilot hearsay!

Here is part of what I found:
Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions, although limitations do apply for most aircraft—for example, for a Boeing 747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts, and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots. They may also include automatic flare, braking to a full stop once the aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system, and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.

[HobbyCAD]

In this thread, 2 things are being mixed up, automated flight, and autonomous flight. My post #9 was directed at autonomous flight. All the autoland, GPS and auto driving references given all have a trained pilot on-board to be the ultimate judge of safety, the "see and avoid" operator, that can fully take over control, at any time. what will not be happening, is a PAV where the passengers are simply "spam in the can", or simply inputting destination commands. No way will the vehicle be allowed to autonomously make an in-flight decision, without the ability to totally switch off the automation at any time, and have the ability for a pilot to manually fly the vehicle. If no humans are on-board, different story, but with passengers, no chance. It's stuck in the realms of R&D operations, lightyears away from commercial operations.

[scottessex]

Great, That is all we need, A bunch of soccer Moms, careening willy-nilly across the sky while yacking on the cell phone and stuffing Big Macs down their gullet!
I foresee lots of fiery crashes! Of course on the positive side, These idiots would be taken out of the gene pool, and would not reproduce more idiots.....
It would never be for everybody, that is what mass transit is for. Only a few people will be able to afford the technology, and the Faa still does not like you to use the highway to take off and land. I just think that it is more "vapor ware" like the Moeller sky car, 40+ years of development and still nothing, at least Carter has a prototype,But I don't see us hopping in flying cars that automatically go from point A to B like in the Movie "Minority Report" Just don't see it. Lets face it, cars make poor airplanes, airplanes make poor cars, so what we get is a super expensive vehicle that does neither job very well. It is much more practical to get a car, and get an airplane, the 2 cannot be made one, just ain't gonna work.

[BEN S]

I agree with you as long as the idea is to use advances in current outdated technology. Just supposing the Moeller sky car used a form of electromagnetic anti-gravity to make it take off from the driveway and there was a "highway"in the sky the car automatically uses when flying. Of course none of this is important OR relevant as the world is going to end in 2012 and we haven't found a suitable anti gravity device as of yet(as far as we know)
Besides all sci-fi aside the advances they are making in teleportation will make cars and planes merely toys for older folks as nobody will actually drive anywhere anymore......assuming we survive 2012:p
Ben S

[All_In]

Until a Henry Ford type provides a much cheaper aircraft to buy and fly the general public probably won't be joining us anytime soon just because it's easier to fly.

Also I believe it was in the late 70's the first time we heard the FAA tell us that one day soon only autopilots will fly the flight plan we all must enter prior to flight.

We all hated the idea then I suspect that most still do.

We have heard over many years that the FAA computer is going to one day fly the plane. No pilot required except for emergency's.

Just today I had to alter my (direct to airport) heading to avoid a major fire (controlled burn) as I was climbing out over our mountains and would have flow through major up drafts and smoke.

So pilots can't just let the FAA computer fly the course they select all of the time. I do not think it will work in real life, nor would I want it too as I also just stopped and circled above a few sight seeing locations and on the way back we flew part way home through theTerisso(spelling) gorge just for fun.

[Heron]

Scott . . .have you lost faith in our instructors?
Driving pilots will be well trained and make better drivers.
Heron

[scottessex]

True in Theory Heron, proplem is that it will be regulated by the Gov. Just as ralph Nader and his ilk back in the 1960's, with automobiles. The question was how to make driving safer....Training was brought up, but no, someone with training might take unnecessary risks because they may think they are a better driver since they have had training. So the answer was make cars safer and more idiot proof.....see where that has gotten us, you walk into any DMV with $15 and can fog a mirror, you are driving out with a brand new license to drive a motor vehicle! free to drive willy-nilly all over the U.S.

[Heron]

I think it will be a learning generation, higher educated, middle class mostly (abc) that will set the standards for the market. Sure idiotic fringe will be there and we are going to laugh about it . . .and some tears . . .
Untill we find a way to control gravity, rotors are the best option to stay afloat and the very best to come down in an emergency . . .
First we will have the model Ts going up and down for a while and the improvements will show pretty fast. When we were at Osh and Boeing came knocking for a platform to test the laser reader that makes landing all automatic, we missed a great opportunity to show what gyros can do.
With the learning computer, most routes will be stored and flown by the machine, operator will offer input when necessary. It is pretty much developed . . .
thanks
Heron