Slashdot Mirror
Airbus Details Plan To Build Flying Taxis (autoblog.com)
CityAirbus is a new program from Airbus that aims to put commuters in the air to combat overcrowded cities. It sounds a lot like an airborne Uber, writes Brandon Turkus from Autoblog: "Passengers can use an app to book passage, head to their local helipad, climb aboard with a number of other passengers, and in the words of Airbus are 'whisked away to their destination.' Each ride would cost 'nearly the equivalent of a normal taxi ride for each passenger.' Beyond the advantages of avoiding traffic, Airbus claims its new conveyance will be faster, more sustainable, and, obviously, more exciting. Initially, the program would rely on a human pilot, but as with nearly every mode of modern transport, there would eventually be an autonomous version." The company has no timeline for when CityAirbuses will be ready for flight. They did note that the autonomous functionality will be the biggest challenge. "No country in the world today allows drones without remote pilots to fly over cities -- with or without passengers," writes Bruno Trabel from Airbus Helicopters. He leads the Skyways project, "which aims to help evolve current regulatory constraints." Project Vahana, a similar project that consists of an electric-powered, autonomous helicopter used for personal and cargo flights, will be tested in late 2017.
Fly United!
They did note that the autonomous functionality will be the biggest challenge.
Funny, that seems like the least challenging part of providing random individuals air transport for the same cost and as sustainably as ground transport, especially since we are talking about cities where walking and cycling are typically realistic options.
Let's see - small personal size helicopter.. sounds a lot like http://www.auto-gyro.com/en/ doesn't it? Only with a remove pilot, which .. I dunno, I will enjoy flying myself.
is here!!!
The FAA has already said no to ridesharing. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
The FAA has already said no to "Uber in the sky". http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
And http://marginalrevolution.com/...
And https://fee.org/articles/how-t...
The reason for it is that the FAA has different rules for carrying yourself as a private pilot, carrying others for commercial gain, fare-sharing, etc. The regulations for fare-sharing mean you actually ALL have to be going TO GO DO the same thing, not just going to the same place. https://www.tnooz.com/article/...
The FAA has a higher requirement of pilots, equipment, and maintenance when used to carry passengers (other than private pilots who are NOT getting reimbursed).
Ehud
OB DISC: I'm an FAA certificated commercial helicopter pilot
Dude... she's obviously subtly hinting that you invite her over and fuck her brains out. What is wrong with you kids these days?
I sorta feel like these heli-pads would be a point of congestion ...? Kinda like every train station and parking lot in every city? I'm not seeing how this avoids congestion.
And good luck getting your helipads built around a city like San Francisco. Gigabit internet now comes down from the power lines because people whined too much about a little metal box on every corner. Or even buried under the sidewalk on every corner. (here's an idea. replace all those useless mailboxes with last-mile fiber access points. Problem solved.)
I hear the 'Simply just live near where you work!' crowd already. Hey look, we all can't work stuffing envelopes from home. And guess what? Lots of people already do that, anyway, but we don't live in the same building where we work. I live in the same city but my commute on non-train days still sucks. For a new system of commuting to work, you need to get people from where they live (neighborhoods where houses and apartments are) to where they work (downtown.) I don't see a time where most cities will be cool with helicopters buzzing over densely populated residential areas.
Commercial flight works (mostly) because there's better economics in moving a couple hundred people at one time in the same vehicle. The smaller the vehicle, the less those economics work. There's a reason why so many people take a bus to work and no public transportation system in the world is made up of a fleet of cars.
I figure Airbus has smart people working for them somewhere, but this just seems rather unfeasible. And frankly just kinda dumb.
I'm waiting for a new startup to propose public zip-lines as a means to disrupt the moving economy.
With more and more people getting out of huts made of grass and mud and into houses made of brick and wood we are going to see these same people with the means to do more than hike, bike, or ride a horse to get somewhere. With economies of scale aircraft have been getting cheaper, aided by more automation, improved materials, etc. to bring costs down. I thought it nearly inevitable that at some date we'd see more point to point aircraft services to the point that nearly any grass strip is an airport.
What problem I see is a regulatory resistance. People getting pilot's license won't be the problem. Neither will the increased air traffic. The regulatory resistance will come from the TSA being unable to poke through the luggage of people taking off and landing at privately owned airports.
I've flown from some small airports before on commercial flights and the TSA cannot even keep up with that. I've boarded a plane without having gone through a TSA checkpoint only to have to do so *AFTER* I got off the plane and landed at a larger airport. What was the point of that? I already completed my flight? The only answer I could come up with is that the TSA had to make itself "useful" and/or impose its control on air traffic or someone might get the idea that the TSA is useless.
Well, the TSA is useless. Expect them to kill point to point air travel only to "prove" they are providing a useful service.
My brother in law is in training to become a pilot and has many private pilot friends which has given him plenty of experience on how useless the TSA is in providing security. An example is that just about anyone can drive up to a gate to the tarmac, claim to be a pilot going to their own plane, and be waved through. Their truck was not searched and even though they were carrying 200 pounds of equipment on the plane no one looked at it. They flew to a private airport, where there was no TSA, to unload their delivery. Upon return they flew back to the same airport, got back in their truck, and drove out of the tarmac gate slowing down only enough to wave at the "security" guard.
Another thing that I realized is that the TSA is not about keeping us, the flying public, safe. What the TSA is there to do is prevent another plane from landing on a building in DC. That's what the policy makers fear. They don't care about us dying in a hijacked plane, they just don't want the plane to land on their laps while they sit in the US Capitol. Privately owned aircraft is a problem for them, especially after that retired postal worker landed his autogyro on the Capitol lawn.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Such initiative will not help curbing down greenhouse gas emissions...
If it is going to be an experience as appalling as flying currently is, I'll give it a big miss.
Yup, and it will fail for exactly the same reasons. Noise, cost, risk, efficiency.
Where are these "local helipads" supposed to be? There are various private buildings with helipads on their roofs, and plenty of open parks and maybe some parking decks with room on their roofs, but nearly all of these are private properties not open to the public. Most of them show "PRIVATE!" when seen from the air.
I can't think of a single spot in my city where you could do this kind of operation. Sure you could use a park once or twice, but try to make it routine and the cops will probably cite you for trespassing.
Sig for hire.
You just need to have one pilot for many aircraft.
I know. They can rent out jetpacks to launch up to the helipads! It's about as likely of an idea as stupid flying taxis is.
If (mighty big if) such a service ever came into being, I'm sure they could strike deals with the private buildings.
I could see some use in an area like DC, where a trip to Dulles can vary unpredictably from 40 minutes to 1.5 hours. I bet a decent number of people would pay $100+ to make that in 15mins (plus the time spent getting to the helipad). There will be a Metro out there at some point, but for many people that will still be at least an hour, often crowded, and often unreliable.