Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbus Details Plan To Build Flying Taxis (autoblog.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the science-fiction dept.

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.

11 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copter style air transport requires much more energy than rolling transport, even with the inefficiencies of heavy traffic. Do we want to increase our energy usage for transportation at at time when we are telling people to be more energy aware reduce consumption?

    2. Re:Uh-huh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      There's also the problem that (even if you somehow have a helicopter with operating costs closer to those of a taxi, which would be quite a departure from current models) you can't exactly just land it on any street corner; which means that you'll be limited to relatively patchy coverage around the locations where you can land. Just as with airports, the travel time to and from the landing pads will then make the overall trip time uncompetitive except for longer flights.

    3. Re:Uh-huh by Gussington · · Score: 2

      More energy , more noise, more regulation, more cost. There's no way it works better than a subway and footpaths. We already have the solution, why don't we just make it cleaner/safer/cheaper and be done with it?

    4. Re:Uh-huh by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bell 206 BIII chopper, pilot plus 4 passengers with a Rolls Royce Allison turbine engine. According to the specs, it can take 4 passengers 100 miles in 50 minutes at a fuel usage of around 40 gallons.

      Compare that to a VW Bluemotion with a claimed efficiency of 60 mpg, and a probable real world traffic efficiency of 45 mpg. So real world 100 mile journey would be say 2.2 gallons and a 110 minute journey. If each passenger in the chopper did the journey seperately, then you're still only looking at 10 gallons of fuel compared to the 40 gallons for the Bell.

      And that doesn't take into account the capital cost of a $400000 chopper versus a $40000 car.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  2. Fifth Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    is here!!!

  3. Sorry, the FAA says no. by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (drops bag of money at FAA door)

      We announce that sky Uber is now legal!

      If that doesn't work...

      (drops bag of money at politicans door)

      The laws have changed, Sky Uber is legal!

    2. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait, the FAA is now saying airlines can't take passengers on their flights?!

      Or is the FAA simply saying that what those "ride sharing" services do amounts to commercial air transport, requiring appropriately licensed pilots amongst other things? Airbus is simply proposing to develop and build, well, an air bus. Presumably these things will not be used by ride or fare share services, but used by taxi companies with the right licenses and pilots with a CPL. FAA isn't going to say no to that (though they might have something to say about what this does to the safe use of airspace)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. Re:Here's how this 'autonomous' thing will play ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude... she's obviously subtly hinting that you invite her over and fuck her brains out. What is wrong with you kids these days?

  5. Re:Fighting congestion? by Gussington · · Score: 2

    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.

    It doesn't. The whole idea is stupid
    The biggest issue in urban transportation is congestion. Cars do not solve that. Automated cars so not solve it. Flying cars do not solve it.
    The only solution involves increase packet size from 1 person per vehicle to 100+. That means buses and trains and footpaths (the only options that scale)
    The pedestrian/train model has proven to work. It currently moves 80000 people/hour in some places. Until any other model comes close to this, it's not even worth entertaining as an urban transport solution.