Activism Change

In the future flying will be for everyone….

Question:

It is not difficult to predict that it will happen. At least it will, one day, be technically possible. In fact, a modern airliner can already perform a completely automatic flight, so the technology is already there. Of course, it is currently too expensive, but the trend points in the same direction all the time. When you get your new Mercedes S, a collision with the sudenly braking car in front of you will be a thing of the past, because its built-in autopilot will latch on and keep a precise distance of one second. It will automatically brake your car if the one in front of you brakes. This is a tiny first step, but there are many such steps, and there will be more, in both cars and aeroplanes. It’s a continuous process. One step that’s currently being taken is to ease navigation by means of GPS equipment. On Friday Space Shuttle Endeavour started and has already begun to create the topographical map that I hope will be built into all aviation GPS receivers. Inadvertent crashes into mountains because of poor visibility will then become a thing of the past too, and another small step is taken. Step after step flying and driving will become easier and safer. What happened to the Free Flight initiative anyway? Hans-Georg No mail please.

Response:

The missing element is collision avoidance.

Scott, have you heard of the Free Flight project? It was a serious attempt at automatic collision avoidance, done in recent years in the US. Hans-Georg No mail please.

Response:

I am all for progress and the growth of general aviation. It should be opened up to as many people as possible, but I have a problem with the latest talk about the future of aviation for the masses.

You are correct. This is all pie-in-the-sky nonsense that the cold light of reality will control. Besides, this kind of gibberish has been going on since at least the 1940s. When I daily see the stupidity and incompetence of my fellow commuters on the highways, I know there is no way most of them could become safe pilots. All that would happen is that accident rates would soar until the Feds would have clamp down on, and maybe kill, private aviation. All the fancy bells and whistles and high-tech gadgetry is only valuable as long as they, and the off-board systems they’re relying on, are working properly. It’s those moments of stark terror, which punctuate the hours of boredom, that require a real pilot in the cockpit rather than just Clueless Joe who knows how to flip the switches to engage the fancy automatic systems. IMHO. Walt — <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Walt Shiel Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal History of Cessna’s Involvement in the Armed Forces" –"An informative and entertaining book." – Flight Magazine —— Author: "Cabbages and Kings: An Eclectic Mix of Short Fiction" —— Web Site: http://www.writeshiel.com Subscribe to The Warbirds eXpress (TWX) FREE newsletter at: — http://www.writeshiel.com/twx.html <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Response:

One short term goal I will give them is to produce a factory new, 200hp engine and prop with FADEC control, ready to run (just add airplane and fuel) for $15,000 in todays dollars… That will do more than any George Jetson vision of the future… Denny – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chill out guys.  While I didn’t see the Speedvision show, I spent almost 4 years involved in AGATE.  I can assure you the reality is far removed from the "Vision."  Dr. Bruce Holmes at NASA has a wonderful vision of where general aviation should go if it is to grow and flourish in the future.  This ‘future’ is 20+ years out.  Some of that may actually be around 30, 40 or 50 years from now.  Remember, 50 years ago, there were only a handful of computers, and they filled huge buildings. In the meantime, the companies participating in AGATE have much more realistic and short term goals in mind.  It was created to help pull the industry out of one massive slump by bringing the product out of the 1960’s.  They want new technology they can build, certify, and sell in the next few years.  Since it’s a pain to certify stuff the FAA knows and understands, you can imagine the difficulty of certifying new technology.  By working together, they reduce the risk with new technology by getting the FAA to agree what the requirements will be. It then becomes easier to get company funding for a new project, since there is some assurance that it can be certified. The "Highway in the Sky" that AGATE is working on is nothing more than a fancy flight director.  Tests by the human factors types have shown these displays are more intuitive, require less training and practice to use, reduce pilot workload, and reduce pilot errors.  The AGATE companies are working to make realistic standards for these displays, so that they can be certified and sold at a reasonable cost. While glass cockpits are great video fodder, AGATE has had significant impact behind the scenes in simplifying certification methods and other areas.  The Cirrus SR-20 has benefitted from the program in a number of areas. As for the money, most of it comes from the industry members.  NASA is basically just the facilitator for the consortium. You can get some more info at http://agate.larc.nasa.gov Gerry Yes, the concept makes me really nervous.  Whenever I hear about this project I think of the "Back to the Future II" movie where everyone is flying and all you see out the front window is flying cars swerving to avoid one another. OTOH, being an avionics engineer I know how difficult this will be to implement.  Remember the Intelligent Highway System?  It was all the rage in the mid eighties.  Supposedly, you could hop into your car, tell it where you want to go, and it would take you there.  The government and industry spent millions working on this.  Eventually, the industrial organizations realized it would never work and pulled out.  However, as far as I know, the government is still throwing good money after bad on it.  Hey, it’s not their money, so who cares? I think the same thing will happen with the highway in the sky.  NASA will spend continue to waste taxpayer’s money on it until the next big round of budget cuts and then it will be quietly killed.  (I hope.)

Response:

"highways in the sky" being proposed to allow anyone to be able to fly an along electronic highways as effortlessly as they do in automobiles. This is something I cannot begin to fathom. There are thousands of auto accidents everyday due to incompetance.

I understand completely what you’re saying, but turn back a few decades worth of technology. Imagine making the decision today to flush the majority of the population into automobiles, into high speed highways and city roads filled with with pedestrians. Really, imagine introducing the concept today. It still amazes me seeing the hundreds of thousands of cars in the DC rush hour every day, and only a trifling few are caught in an accident, or willfully drive on the sidewalks. The diversity of people easily handling cars in all driving situations with just a couple of feet separating the cars is truly astounding. When I get really depressed about how irresponsible people can be, I marvel at modern traffic and think things are not at all as bad as I imagine. (Okay, then another imbecile blows a red light and I reassess my perspective for awhile.) There WILL be more fatalities with mass aviation, but this will be much more readily accepted. Really, the biggest killer of humans in this country today must be cars. But they’re so unbelievably useful that our culture makes room for fatalities. Aviation traffic will eventually be the same. The AGATE program is reinventing aviation, as the interstate highway system reinvented automobile usage. Flying will not be at all the same, just as today’s General Aviation is not at all the same as the barnstorming days. I think there is more promise in the AGATE program of "aviation for the masses" than most of us are willing to accept right now. I’m looking forward to it. — Jeff Cook DCPILOTS-L Mailing List Administrator General Aviation in the Washington, DC region http://www.cookstudios.com/dcpilots

Response:

Much like one of those aircars, the point went speeding past you. No one discussed having drivers operate an aircraft. Rather, the plan is to have the aircraft completely automated, and the persons inside are simply along for the ride. Total automation of transportation has been discussed, and this would probally be both safer and cheaper if done on standard automobiles first. The reasons are the same as why automobiles are less prone to "kills per accident" than planes. If the automation malfunctions, it is less likely to kill the occupants than a plane. The reason it might make more sense in a plane than a car is that less drastic changes are required to bring it about. Airplanes, using latest (not common) technology are or can be %99 percent automated. The missing element is collision avoidance. Unfortunately, there are good reasons that has not been automated, so it is much more likely that the problem would be avoided by separating normal pilot traffic and "aircar" traffic completely by law. This has the unfortunate side effect of creating a series, perhaps a large series, of "do not fly" zones for normal aircraft or helicopters. This does not exist now. See and be seen is still the rule, even with special traffic lanes such as high speed military. Of course the point about reliablity is taken. BART, here in San Fransisco, was designed originally to be completely automated, and the first trains were so run. After a couple of the trains decided to run right through the end of their tracks, the city did an abrupt about face, and the system is maintained by very human drivers to this day. Will automated aircars/planes happen ? Of course they will. Its just the time scale that is up for discussion. Ordinary surface cars are going to be automated as well, again, no one knows when. The most reliable prediction in the world today is that people want more/bigger/better/faster, and eventually will get it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am all for progress and the growth of general aviation. It should be opened up to as many people as possible, but I have a problem with the latest talk about the future of aviation for the masses. Speedvision had a program today and I have seen articles concerning the new "highways in the sky" being proposed to allow anyone to be able to fly an along electronic highways as effortlessly as they do in automobiles. This is something I cannot begin to fathom. There are thousands of auto accidents everyday due to incompetance. I would be deathly afraid to know that these people would have an opportunity to drive themselves and others in a 3 dimensional environment when they cant even handle 2. I think its an admirable but pie-in-the-sky undertaking but fails to miss the point about the complexity of flight not to mention the reliance on electronics and computers. As computer systems manager in a large company I would never entrust my life solely to computer software. No amount of programming can ever be bug free. Does anyone else seem to think that such a lofty plan is scary? Besides, I like the fact that flying takes a set of skills that not everyone can master. It allows me to think that I am accomplishing something significant. If everyone including my 83 yo grandmother could hop in an "personal aircar", turn a key, step on the accelerator and be whisked up into the air at over 200 mph by software and electronic beams I would be more than a little nervous….. Kirk Ellis ppl/asel

Response:

I would be deathly afraid to know that these people would have an opportunity to drive themselves and others in a 3 dimensional environment when they cant even handle 2.

I think you should be deathly afraid. If you give me a little while I’m sure I can dig up any number of car accidents in which a pilot was found to be at fault. I like the fact that flying takes a set of skills that not everyone can master. It allows me to think that I am accomplishing something significant.

As far as I’m concerned, the more people flying the more lobbying power pilots will have in Washington. Brett — Windows Novice (and proud)             U S WEST – Internet Services 186,282 miles per second:  It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.

Response:

You discarded my discorse on that. The problem is AUTOMATED FLIGHT WITH COLISION AVOIDANCE. Ie., automation of colision avoidance. It is certainly possible to plan, automatically, against midair colision with well defined traffic lanes and "aircars" going at basically the same speed. Having airplanes converge in multiple directions is a a different matter. I did’nt say the problem is not solvable. I am saying no one would spend all the money trying to get such a system to work when a simple regulatory stroke of the pen would accomplish the same result, ie. establishing a special separate lane system for any automated flight. Have you heard of canned beer ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The missing element is collision avoidance. Scott, have you heard of the Free Flight project? It was a serious attempt at automatic collision avoidance, done in recent years in the US. Hans-Georg No mail please.

Response:

It’s all the ATC system can do to handle the traffic it has on a VFR day without too many delays.  IFR, forget about it. And now you want to get "the masses" flying in this mess?  Absolutely ABSURD.

No, the entire point is to reinvent the entire system, not to squeeze thousands more planes into the existing system. Like most revolutionary ideas, they either require -or create- revolutionary concepts. They also create a lot of "I-told-you-so’s". Back up (again) a few decades. Fly a plane with no visual references? Fly faster than sound? Not to be pedantic, but someday people will stop defining the future by the past…or present. It’s gonna happen somehow. Put on the skids, or help define the future? Or not. — Jeff Cook http://www.cookstudios.com Washington DC area

Response:

Make of it as you want. Then put your bit of quoting back into the context it was originally posted with. The average American can’t afford to own and maintain personal air transportation. Therefore, the predictions of skies being overfilled with skycars is improbable. You are writing from Bangla Desh, Somalia, or what? Or is this just some kind of rhetorical remark? Is there a soc.poverty.whiners NG?

I’ll look for you. You might relate to that group better. D.

Response:

…put your bit of quoting back into the context it was originally posted with.

OK, here’s your post, in it’s entirety (and the larger context is the question of whether "AGATE" or similar concepts can realistically provide a system whereby the "average" citizen will have personal air transportation):    "It is a scary thought. Fortunately, I don’t forsee     that happening in my lifetime. The average person     today can’t afford to go to the store for groceries,     let alone going by airplane. That won’t change     anytime soon. Bill Piper and his Cub didn’t change it.     Today’s programmers won’t change it either." The average American can’t afford to own and maintain personal air transportation.

Well, that’s a foregone conclusion, "Capt", but it’s not what you said. It is a minor point perhaps for those who can read between the lines, and are willing to make assumptions about what you really meant. But since you are so thin-skinned about disagreement, as you have proved in the past, you will be held to a higher standard (just for entertainment purposes, of course). Therefore, the predictions of skies being overfilled with skycars is improbable.

Granted, but it’s too late, "Capt". The fog has lifted. Your baseless counter claims are exposed. The simple, adult thing would have been to say something like, "Sure, it was just a typical informal conversationl overstatement, the sort of hyperbole common in casual conversation, and I forgot that sort of thing doesn’t tanslate to the written word." You may quote those lines in the future, as often as needed. Jack —                     _[ ]_/                      (o)/                     {}/^{}              

Filed under: Lobbying

Related Posts

• OT| Bush
• Summary (was RE: It's time to consider splitting rec.ww
• Opportunities missed: (was Vouchers)
• Joe Allbaugh was in Lousianna far ahead of Michael Brown
• Ross: Remote psychial possession/intelligence/harras sment
• All the Olympic track
• A major is just another tournament
• Clinton, Mbeki Focus on AIDS During Meeting
• Question for DC, and DC Only
• Trout Unlimited Question