Man-carrying multicopters - What should the CAA do?

[Mechta]

Over the last few days there seem to be a number of small man-carrying multicopters getting in the news. One, described as a 'hoverboard', had its distance record recognized by the Guinness Book of Records, whilst the other, described as a tri-rotor (despite having a push/pull motor arrangement on each arm) appeared on Gizmag.

Evidently motor, battery and stablizing gyro technology has reached the point at which these are going to be more and more common, so what do you think the CAA should do?



Stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
Create a category a bit like the foot-launched powered hang glider/paramotor or single seat de-regulated (SSDR) category.
Drown them in 'large' helicopter bureaucracy.
Something else.

No doubt plenty of people are going to hurt/kill themselves developing these things, but that happens with any new type of vehicle. What matters is the collateral damage in the process.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If they carry crew or pax, they are helicopters aren't they?

[Genghis the Engineer]

There's already a system for sub-ICAO gyroplanes and light helicopters. The certification standards could reasonably be adapted. For anything intended to do aerial work or carry passengers, that's the standard they should be applying.

For something single place - I'd set a weight limit similar to that for SSDR, and let people get on with it. It's pretty obvious to anybody that these devices are potentially very dangerous - therefore anybody wanting to fly one can reasonably be left to decide what risks they want to take, and to work out how to make it safe enough.

I can't see that a solo experimenter needs state interference or protection in this case.

G

[bartonflyer]

I think Darwin rather than the CAA will sort this one out!

[Mechta]

If they carry crew or pax, they are helicopters aren't they?

The on-line dictionary definition describes a helicopter thus:

helicopter
ˈhɛlɪkɒptə/
noun
noun: helicopter; plural noun: helicopters


1.
a type of aircraft which derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades.








With the current breed of multicopters (although there are bound to be exceptions), direction of motion is controlled by the relative speed of the rotors, as they have neither collective or cyclic pitch, so they are not helicopters in the dictionary sense.

[cattletruck]

I believe there already is already a law (at least in Oz) that only allows them to "perform" on private land to a height of 500'.

Stops these bozo's from meat bombing your pedestrian strip.

[9 lives]

As I expect that these machines have zero ability to enter autorotation following a loss of power, I suggest that they be restricted to operating altitudes from which a safe power off landing is possible = remains in ground effect.

I believe that some jurisdictions already permit ground effect [only] vehicles to operate without aviation oversight. I presume that this would be practically over water more than land.

[Mechta]

On the basis that the people who made the money out of the gold rushes of the 1800s were those who sold picks and shovels, the money will be made by developing a lightweight zero/zero* ballistic parachute.

Some multicopters appear to already have a degree of redundancy, so a motor can fail, yet the thing will remain airborne and stable. Full dual system redundancy (two independent batteries/speed controllers/gyro systems + enough thrust on one system to remain airborne) will be needed before the things can get down safely from the majority of failure modes.

I think I will spectate for now though...

*Works at zero feet and/or zero airspeed (usually applies to ejection seats).

[Dont Hang Up]

As I expect that these machines have zero ability to enter autorotation following a loss of power, I suggest that they be restricted to operating altitudes from which a safe power off landing is possible = remains in ground effect.

I believe that some jurisdictions already permit ground effect [only] vehicles to operate without aviation oversight. I presume that this would be practically over water more than land.

I am no expert, but the only one of these I know about has all rotors powered by individual motors and batteries, with redundancy for at least one failure.

The idea of "personal aviation for all" rears its head every few years with some weird and wonderful new machine built in someone's garage. These new machines may, just may, be the first step towards a realistic proposition (god help us! :rolleyes:)

[Crash one]

If these devices are flown by a pilot of some flavour then I can't see a problem. The pilot should have been taught air law, should know what is right or wrong?
It's the unmanned variety bought by Joe Numpty flown with no knowledge of the existence of air law, rules, flight safety, or whatever that are the problem.
People have killed themselves for decades experimenting with new ideas, end result, we survivors end up with 747s to take us anywhere and safe little aircraft to play with. Development is unfortunately sometimes expensive. But how else is progress made.
As new things are invented some regulatory outfit seem to insist on it having a designated category that "fits in".
If I were to invent an anti gravity, electromagnetic system that could take off from my backyard in silence, fly to orbit at Mach 3 circle the international space station and return without using any fuel, what would the "class" be?

[Romeo Tango]

I am aware of a man carrying, rather unconventional, rotorcraft that has been developed outside normal channels. My understanding is that the CAA are implying that they will be surprisingly reasonable, time will tell.

[Mechta]

If I were to invent an anti gravity, electromagnetic system that could take off from my backyard in silence, fly to orbit at Mach 3 circle the international space station and return without using any fuel, what would the "class" be?

Dead impressed, I should think. Their usual teachers do pretty boring stuff.:}

Since it goes into space, I would guess it would be a spacecraft. You have a good point though, as new technology comes along, legislation and categorization struggles to keep up. From what I recall, early commercial hovercraft captains were required to have an ATPL as well as a master mariner's ticket.

[9 lives]

The challenge to the regulator is that we public think that things should be safe and orderly, and we expect the regulator to put measures in place. This sure does bump up against innovation. For innovative things that fly, either keep it really close to the surface (ground effect machine), or get a flight authority. The regulator will give flight authority to some pretty innovative aircraft, but the limitations in the interest of public safety can get rather burdensome to anything beyond truly experimental flight testing.

It will be a departure from present thinking for the regulator to broadly accept an aircraft which cannot safely land power off - that is a basic premise of all aircraft flight authorities. One motor of umpteen stopping does not amount to power off - it's got to be able to land safely when no power is being developed. This was a real head scratcher for the efforts to civil certify tilt rotor aircraft....

I think these aircraft should be regulated into ground effect only, while we wait for the next level of innovation in reliability....

[Crash one]

Step turn, your last sentence just about sums it up. "Regulate them into ground effect". So much for progress.:ugh:
Landing power off is now possible with ballistic recovery systems so where is the problem there?

[9 lives]

I also said:

while we wait for the next level of innovation in reliability

If a ballistic recovery systems is that, let's talk... But, can the combination be met, where the flying machine can also carry that weight, and remain a stable platform for it's deployment through the altitude range proposed? If the flying machine is in the altitude range of 100 to 200 feet, and falling powerless, will a 'chute deploy effectively and quickly enough to assure safety?

I expect that this type of flying machine has about the same reserve of safety as a "jet pack", and those seem to have flown out of ground effect. But the starry eyed wannabe flier needs to understand the reality of falling to earth, and the risks. Some things lack design redundancy...

[2 sheds]

The on-line dictionary definition describes a helicopter thus:

Quote:
helicopter
ˈhɛlɪkɒptə/
noun
noun: helicopter; plural noun: helicopters
1.
a type of aircraft which derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades.

That might be the Common Man's definition, but the European Rules of the Air...

‘helicopter’ means a heavier-than-air aircraft supported in flight chiefly by the reactions of the air on one or more powerdriven rotors on substantially vertical axes;

2 s

[cockney steve]

Current battery and controller technology tends to reduce power-delivery as the reserve energy depletes,- thus the rotary-craft descends in a slow, progressive and controllable manner.
Should all batteries or all motor-feed cables simultaneously fail, or motors suddenly seize, all bets are off......but there again, should your Robinson main Rotor blade suddenly deteriorate to below specification- standard, I believe the scenario becomes somewhat similar!:}

[B] @ Mechta/B] If the UK runs true to form....1 followed by 2.......(because there will be so many about that their position would be totally untenable, should they attempt to slam the stable-door on a mass of stallions :hmm:)

[ChickenHouse]

Man-carrying multicopters - What should the CAA do? -> Call Johnny Dronehunter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXwQVFt8Ho)

[TheOddOne]

Clays are cheaper.

First time I've seen a silencer on a shotgun, ear defenders are cheaper.

They must have put a small explosive charge in the drones, pellets would just knock bits off.

TOO