Innovation vs Public Safety

[FoxKat]

I don't think that drone delivery is dead in the water. In fact I think it is on the horizon for sure. What I want to see is a safer propulsion system. For instance... Dyson has a fan that has no exposed blades.


It uses the Bernoulli principle which provides the basis for common aircraft wings and also in jet engines, by using a curved surface to create high and low pressure zones and create lift in flight, or in this case air in a cone or tube shape (or air multiplier), to increase air flow. The resulting pressurized airflow creates a low pressure area behind the cone which draws more air through the cone to increase total airflow. Using three basic principles of airflow it is able to move very little actual air through the fan system, and yet result in massively greater airflow through the cone.

The Airfoil principal used in aircraft wings, coupled with the cone diameter which gets larger towards the face (or bottom in the case of lift propulsion), and finally viscous shearing (which pulls air down around the cone as well, giving even more lift), all combine to give the ability to move large volumes of air with relatively little actual forced air. To change it from just fan speed air going horizontal to actual vertical propulsion air in order to create the kind of lift needed to raise a quad, you need only turn the tubes to face downward (or rearward for forward propulsion), reduce the diameter of the tubes to create greater pressure difference between front and back (or top and bottom as the quad would need) and increase the pressure of the air through the slot around the tubes.

This could easily be adapted to quad or octocopters. The entire thing could be controlled by servo-dampers at each of the individual propulsion tubes facing downward controlling how much pressure is administered to each propulsion tube, and the device would only need one fan to pull air in and create the force necessary to push out the air at the propulsion tubes. Since it only needs one fan, it could be completely encased in the center of the device,. facing upwards, and protected by screen so no fingers or birds could be sucked in. Then it just needs to vary the intensity of the propulsion tubes to create the lift and directional travel desired.

This could be further enhanced by allowing the propulsion tubes to rotate slightly, maybe 20 to 30 degrees and provide even significantly greater flight speeds. This is no different in concept than the Osprey, except that the Osprey uses exposed blades. In fact, this could be completely done with just one tube and a fully gyroscopically controlled gimbal for the propulsion tube, although a minimum of 3 tubes would be far more stable and provide greater control of speed, direction and lift.

We have the technology to do this now, so why not adapt it to flight? It's not all that different than a jet engine in one respect. It's the shape of the jet engine's cowling, coupled with the increasingly smaller fans and narrower path that draws in more air and pressurizes it before injecting and igniting the fuel, and then for even greater thrust injecting fuel through the afterburners to produce the tremendous quantity of expanding air through the nozzle at the rear of the jet engine.

I want to see this (minus the jet fuel process mind you), worked into a quad copter. I believe it's coming.

 

[cr6]

Sounds like you have it all figured out FoxKat, time to draw up some plans & file for a patent for this bad boy

S5 tap'n

 

[Jeffrey]

Whatever you said FK, I'm ok with.....

 

[swc2001]

i'm really torn on this one
I think its awesome tech first off, and most of all I am all about Freedom and NOT having the Gov't involved in every minutia of our lives. I mean if I want to fly a drone I should be able to. I should be able to fly it anywhere a plane can go. If that means being trained and having to use some kind of control tower and pilot lingo.... thats fine, but we should have the ability. NOW with all the personal freedom and liberty out of the way.... yes my conspiracy side does start to kick in. What if the Gov't made up drones to look just like Amazons including with a fake package? they could easily spy on us anytime they pleased. (not that they dont already in various other ways.) Then like someone else already said..... accidents are going to happen.... how much, how bad, and when are the questions.
you also have to know that these guys are going to be targets for the red necks. I mean they are going to have so much fun knocking these things out of the sky. Possibly thieves..... will knock them down to take packages.... I dunno I just see too many problems with this!

 

[FoxKat]

With regard to the safety issues, there are far more risks in a plane or helicopter falling out of the sky and doing extensive damage, than a drone falling and doing extensive damage. True, if it fell right on the head of someone it would possibly kill them, but almost definitely cause bodily harm, but the odds are so infinitesimally slim given the sizes of the projectile and target. There is far more liklihood that a helicopter would land on someone and kill them instantly than a drone.

True, there are extensive safety features and tremendous engineering involved in an FAA certified flying apparatus, but they still can and do crash. Take the jumbo jet flights that have recently plummeted to utter destruction or lost at sea including the most recent in the mountains of France. Not only did it do massive destruction of the plane - literally obliterating the aircraft, but all on board were apparently killed as well. In that case, thankfully it landed in a remote undeveloped area of the mountains so there were no other "innocent bystanders" killed, but could you imagine the devastation if that had landed in the middle of the developed areas of France? It would have taken out entire city blocks of houses or businesses and the losses to human life could easily have been several hundred to several thousand more, potentially hundreds or thousands more injured and the monetary destruction could have easily been in the tens of millions or more. Does anyone remember 9/11?

I agree with @swc2001 , that the greater risk is intentional sabbotage and theft than anything else, but WHO CARES? So it would be on the backs of Amazon.com and their insurance carriers, and ultimately on the shoulders of the persons who use their service and purchase their products. The added costs to offset losses as he describes should never fall on the shoulders of anyone who doesn't purchase their products and use that service. That's what insurance is for. Liability, theft, damage, they're all insurable and should be insured for. Once the proper insurance is in place, let the drones fly.

I also agree that if I want to fly a drone, a model airplane, model helicopter, heck, even a kite, I shouldn't be encumbered by federal regulations, and I shouldn't have to be licensed and certified as a remote control pilot. My God, what have we become? Are we all so hell-bent on living in a sterile environment that we can't even enjoy a little recreation? Should we then have to license skydivers as "pilots" of their own flying apparatus, and have them in communication with a control tower during their "flight", and file "flight plans", and what if the control tower needs them to divert? Well, you can't really divert a dead fall all that much. Where does it all end?

What if my son decides to fly a kite, a simple little kite, and I have it on a string or thread and it's 500' in the air, and just happens to be in the path of an airplane that's landing nearby? If that kite should become sucked into the jet and cause it to fail, and the plane should suffer a loss of power on one side and have difficulty landing, resulting in a crash and loss of life, should my son (and I), be charged with wreckless endangerment or worse? Where does the word "accident" apply and where does it become no longer an accident, but instead a 'preventable act of irresponsibility'?

(edited; I was being facetious with the kite analogy as an example of the totally ridiculous to drive home a point, but I've been informed that in all liklihood the kite would be consumed and the plane wouldn't suffer damage. That's good to know.)

As for spying with clone-drones, there's no way of preventing that at this point. The acutal drones themselves have cameras on them so it would be simple for any cover operation to hack into the video feed and see what the flight controller at Amazon is seeing. And yes, they could easily create fake Amazon drones, fake packages and all, or even real packages with covert purposes. In the end, the Government can do whatever it damn well pleases and get away with it for at least a while, a good while in most cases, and in some completely undetected and never uncovered, at least in our lifetimes.

 

[FoxKat]

Sounds like you have it all figured out FoxKat, time to draw up some plans & file for a patent for this bad boy

S5 tap'n

Whatever you said FK, I'm ok with.....

Haha, you guys really DO think I'm a mad scientist or something.

OK, how about this, a simple circular ring around the outer edges of the propellers, like kids toys to accomplish the same lift and still protect from getting cut by the ends of the blades?

Oh, and look who sells it!!
Amazon.com UFO Propeller Toy - 6pk Toys Games

 

[FoxKat]

We've moved computer controlled gyroscopic travel from the first amazing one - the Segway - a two wheeled personal transport appliance, to the newest forray, a single wheeled scooter that not only travels forward and backward, and balances on the single wheel, but this wheel can actually travel sideways as well. There really isn't anything we can't do it seems...


By the way, this debuted 5 (yes I said FIVE) years ago.

I'm sure there is far more innovation for flight coming than we can begin to imagine.

 

[pc747]

What if my son decides to fly a kite, a simple little kite, and I have it on a string or thread and it's 500' in the air, and just happens to be in the path of an airplane that's landing nearby? If that kite should become sucked into the jet and cause it to fail, and the plane should suffer a loss of power on one side and have difficulty landing, resulting in a crash and loss of life, should my son (and I), be charged with wreckless endangerment or worse? Where does the word "accident" apply and where does it become no longer an accident, but instead a 'preventable act of irresponsibility'?

First your kite theory would never happen for many reasons. But we are not talking about a guy flying a toy airplane in the park as that has been going on for years. We are talking about businesses want to fly items remotely from one location to another. And not only are we talking one but more. To me it is a slippery slope and is why there needs to be regulations. Sorry but your kite hitting a jet will just cause damage to the kite but a drone hitting a plane during takeoffs/landings could cause bigger issues (you seen what a bird can do to a plane and bird strike are common). Without regulations you are going to have people flying in restricted areas that are restricted for a reason because it may cause interference with flight paths or ground communications. Again one drone airplane is not the issue it is when you have hundreds and thousands of drones all over the place. And the more crowded the airspace the more chance for accidents. Lastly, your point about what happened in France and other recent crashes, again that is why I again side with the FAA. Yes 9/11 was a major blow but there were things put in place to prevent another 9/11 attack. Every time there is a crash or an incident an investigation goes out and changes are made which is why US aviation continues to remain safe. I am not pro or anti government and I could write a book about some of the areas with the FAA I disagree with but I believe it is the job of the government to protect its citizens and why I side with the FAA on this point.

 

[FoxKat]

And @pc747 , I agree with you. I was being (highly) facetious regarding the kite. I should have made that clear...

I agree that there needs to be protected airspace to prevent unauthorized flight in the path of commercial, military, civilian or emergency aircraft, however these things will be flying at levels far below what most aircraft will be except during takeoff and landing. Only Helicopters would be IMHO at risk of this kind of collision due to their ability to land on fields, roads, rooftops, etc. So putting regulations in place to set a ceiling above which they cannot fly makes perfect sense.

Could you elaborate, since you are a pilot for us all, what the altitude is typically during takeoff and landing, when approaching but not yet over the airstrip? This would be highly helpful in determining what a safe ceiling for these drones is. It might be that they should be goverored to prevent flying above this specific threshold. Also, clearly you and I both don't want them to be flying anywhere near airports. So again my analogy was highly speculative and really more rhetoric than reality.

As for the 9/11 thing, I wasn't speaking regarding deliberate "attacks" as a comparison, I was speaking regarding an accident that could easily have resulted in (or could result in), the same level of devastation. It is entirely possible that a plane which loses control in one form or another, could potentially slam into a skyscraper and it would seem and appear as a terrorist attack if there were not radio communications. There is NOTHING that can be done to prevent something like that once the plane is out of control and if the control flaps and such are inoperable. It will take a trajectory that the laws of physics determines and if it so happens that a skyscraper is in that path of trajectory there is little if anythign that can be done to prevent it, short of sending a missle into it mid-air and destroying it, killing everyone on board, and showering the ground below with fragments that could potentially do massive damage and cause death as well.

That pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, that landed the plane in the Hudson River is an incredible hero. He will be remembered for that for generations to come, and his incredible heroism and bravery in the face of potential catastrophic devasation was awe inspiring. It still brings chills over my entire body when thinking about it. His poise and calm determination in which he handled that flying wrecking ball was to be learned from. I am not sure that most pilots could have handled it nearly as well as he. However he had ONE important thing going for him...he still had SOME control of the plane, the flaps were working, the elevators and the aileron *(spelling and proper names?), were working, and perhaps most of all, he was HELL BENT on saving that plane and all who were aboard while also minimizing or preventing any consequential damage to others.

Just another note... New reports state that the plane which was downed in the French mountains was deliberately crashed by the co-pilot. That is the most unfortunate and obviously the saddest news possible. God bless all aboard that plane and their families and the communities that suffered those losses.

 

[pc747]

determining what a safe ceiling for these drones is. It might be that they should be goverored to prevent flying above this specific threshold. Also, clearly you and I both don't want them to be flying anywhere near airports. So again my analogy was highly speculative and really more rhetoric than reality.

That is why I think the feds basically rejected the idea. The altitude restrictions are in place to keep planes from smacking each other and buildings. And especially with post 9/11 low flying aircraft around buildings create concerns. Obviously we are talking about larger aircraft for those restrictions. But for smaller drones they are going to have to be large enough to carry packages so it is not going to be some toy aircraft (most military drones are larger than people realize). Because of that you have to look at the restrictions of it regarding people and property. So the question is what altitude can you set aside for drone airspace that will not interfere with other other aircraft or risk causing harm to people/property. And can you regulate (control) the aircraft in that space and the people flying it and how much will it cost the tax payers to do so. I think the issue is no, the FAA do not have the means to control that area and ensure to the public that this can be done in a safe manner across the board. With the shortage in ATC and trying to keep aviation (and its interest) in a positive light along with government cut backs, the FAA is probably unable to handle a drone division. But I do think there needs to be an answer in black and white why or why not allow public drones that is written so the public can understand. I am not saying the FAA is right and Amazon is wrong and vice verse. My stance is more of is the risk worth it. If this was a hospital saying we are using drones to get aid and meds to the elderly or people unable to get around then I would support it because the means make sense. But because people want their toy right now vs waiting on the overnight or 2 day shipping yeah I am not about wanting to risk large drones hitting my car or house because someone does not want to drive to the store or just wait for overnight shipping for some toy that they will change their mind and want to ship it back.

 

[mountainbikermark]

A high tech, expensive piece of machinery being controlled by someone making $10 an hour through a temp service whose biggest qualification was they passed the drug test.
Amazon doesn't hire the most qualified folks on the planet.

 

[FoxKat]

I appreciate that, @mountainbikermark , however I would expect they would hire a reputable agency with qualified and trained pilots to do their "flying" for them, although most of the flying is completely automated from what I understand. The computer uses GPS and other methods of location awareness to control the flight and it's autopilot from beginning to end. IMHO, the less human interaction these drones have the better for just the reason you state.

In fact, it would be extremely difficult for them to hire individual pilots for every one of the drones, and would negate any potential savings using them by the salaries they'd have to pay. This is a fleet of computer controlled pickup and delivery autonomous drone carriers.

 

[pc747]

I appreciate that, @mountainbikermark , however I would expect they would hire a reputable agency with qualified and trained pilots to do their "flying" for them, although most of the flying is completely automated from what I understand. The computer uses GPS and other methods of location awareness to control the flight and it's autopilot from beginning to end. IMHO, the less human interaction these drones have the better for just the reason you state.

Hahahahahahaha

In order for amazon to make this enticing they have to price it where people will buy. Sorry but no respectable pilot, unless they are retired or desperate, is going to do that for pennies. To hire qualified pilots will mean either raising the amazon prime fee or slapping a high sticker price to deliver. Because if they want to keep the prices low then you are paying $10 to fly a drone. And good luck finding qualified guys at that fee. Like they say you get what you pay for.

 

[pc747]

By the way no disrespect meant foxkat.

 

[FoxKat]

Hahahahahahaha

In order for amazon to make this enticing they have to price it where people will buy. Sorry but no respectable pilot, unless they are retired or desperate, is going to do that for pennies. To hire qualified pilots will mean either raising the amazon prime fee or slapping a high sticker price to deliver. Because if they want to keep the prices low then you are paying $10 to fly a drone. And good luck finding qualified guys at that fee. Like they say you get what you pay for.

By the way no disrespect meant foxkat.

And no disrespect taken. Seriously, I believe it would be one or more retired pilots that would be paid quite nicely for their expertise, but to only oversee the virtually complely autonomous operations of the drones. Consider this... There could be dozens, even poossibly hundreds of them out in any one particular hour. There is no way they're going to hire a force of trained drone pilots to hand-fly all those drones. The key to the success of this is to be on autopilot from start to finish and only have qualified pilots there to take over just in case one decides to go rogue.

I really don't think these will be hand-flown, maybe a few for proof of concept, or when the landing areas are unique and require the fine-tuned work of a trained pilot to navigate, but I suspect it's going to be nothing more than a guy sitting in front of several large screens with literally dozens of windows each showing the forward facing camera views of the autonomous flights, and they're there only to make sure the flights go well.

They'd likely be timed so that no two drones are landing at the same time for each pilot, so s/he could take over manually if necessary. In fact, and in practice the drones could hover for extended periods of time in waiting if necessary until the pilot takes over control and lands them all manually if that were required. This way, again...one trained pilot could essentially pilot dozens, if not hundreds of drones per day. It takes maybe a minute to land one, so at 60 per hour, 6 hours, that's 360 drones landed in an 8-hour shift with 2 half-hour breaks and a one-hour lunch.