What are the Manned Drone Issues?

[ozzyair]

Any Manned Drone ideas ?

I believe the future is coming where public can sit on drone and fly around and yet, no guidance and regulations is in place.

Any body can share on what need to be looked in to with regards to regulatory, design, policy and other operational issues ?

Design features ?
Reliability issues ?
Manned / Pilot training ?
Collision issues ?
Emergency situations? parachute recovery?
Flying area ?
any other ideas ?

[TheOddOne]

By definition, a drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle. Therefore if someone is sitting in it, then it is something else. However, the point is taken that the new vehicle concept is of an autonomous vehicle, i.e. one in which the occupant has no influence over the flightpath, so perhaps these questions are valid.

TOO

[PA28181]

The only true part of the above is "the future is coming"

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this...

[cyclic35]

By definition, a drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle. Therefore if someone is sitting in it, then it is something else. However, the point is taken that the new vehicle concept is of an autonomous vehicle, i.e. one in which the occupant has no influence over the flightpath, so perhaps these questions are valid.

TOO

You make a good point OddOne.

After a Google search, found these links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_drone

BBC - Future - Would you fly in a pilotless airliner? (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160912-would-you-fly-in-a-pilotless-airliner)

[Photonic]

Assuming we're talking about a scaled-up multi rotor concept like the ones Airbus and others have been showing, then I think the biggest design and regulatory issue will be noise abatement.

Scaling up a conventional drone to carry two pax will not be a quiet vehicle. It will be as annoying to anyone on the ground as a helicopter, and helicopters are only allowed to operate freely in urban and suburban areas at very low altitude and landing permission for police or HEMS flights.

There are other issues like safety, liability, legality of overflight of private property, etc. But the main one is that anything based on current technology will be too damned loud for anything but protected flight corridors and restricted launch/landing areas, which limits the usefulness. The entire fantasy of the "flying car" is predicated on free flight, but it won't work like that.

[ChickenHouse]

The major issue is liability and responsibility. No concept in history ever survived freeing a thinking being carried by something of the responsibility to intervene misbehavior. Even further, in all proven concepts a "higher skilled" being always has the responsibility to react in case of malfunctions - be it machine or men, example: if somebody with ATPL is on right seat and something happens due to a PPL malfunction, every judge will ask nasty questions, or 2nd example: if somebody with a Royal Yacht Master is on board of a boat and something happens, the same judge is going to ask the same nasty questions. As long as there is no principal decision to accept a mechanical/electronic device as intellectual superior to mankind, this issue will not be solved. Add: and if it is solved that way, it is no longer my world. Pax carriage solved that problem by locked doors to the cockpit, but after Germanwings this ain't look like a viable option.

[Photonic]

@Chickenhouse:
The liability issues will be ironed out, well before any of these things become practical, because the same issues arise with autonomous road vehicles. There will be a framework of laws, regulations, and insurance that won't be that difficult to apply to private autonomous aerial vehicles.

Autonomous cars will be quiet though, and these things won't be quiet. Not as long as pushing air from a rotor is the lift mechanism. That's why I think noise is the main barrier to seeing this happen.

It will limit Amazon (and others) working on drone deliveries too. I can handle seeing Fedex and UPS trucks making daily deliveries to other houses in my neighborhood. They don't disturb the peace. But a daily squadron of delivery drones, making the kind of racket you would need to deliver some of these heavier packages? That's something else again. You can bet there will be resistance to it. The technology just doesn't scale up without serious noise as a side effect.

[ozzyair]

@Chickenhouse:

. . . . But a daily squadron of delivery drones, making the kind of racket you would need to deliver some of these heavier packages? That's something else again. You can bet there will be resistance to it. The technology just doesn't scale up without serious noise as a side effect.

I like it, I think some input about noise is one of the concern, in addition to legal and regulatory issue

The major issue is liability and responsibility. No concept in history ever survived freeing a thinking being carried by something of the responsibility to intervene misbehavior. Even further, in all proven concepts a "higher skilled" being always has the responsibility to react in case of malfunctions - be it machine or men, example: if somebody with ATPL is on right seat and something happens due to a PPL malfunction, every judge will ask nasty questions, or 2nd example: if somebody with a Royal Yacht Master is on board of a boat and something happens, the same judge is going to ask the same nasty questions. As long as there is no principal decision to accept a mechanical/electronic device as intellectual superior to mankind, this issue will not be solved. Add: and if it is solved that way, it is no longer my world. Pax carriage solved that problem by locked doors to the cockpit, but after Germanwings this ain't look like a viable option.


So indirectly the passenger shall be trained or license to fly this device and ideally it has to be provided with emergency flight control recovery and or parachute balistic recovery in emergency mode (engine motor failures)

[Maoraigh1]

Do some airports have unmanned pax carrying shuttle transport? Denver?
The small professional drones I've seen don't make much noise.
But this transport system cannot be energy efficient compared to an electric vehicle.
And wind will affect it in some areas.
Will it operate at a height where a balistic parachute can work?
The whole concept is as ridiculous as the Rev. Wright is said to have considered his sons idea of human carrying flying machines.

[ozzyair]

Understand the terminology of drone ideally called something else however ICAO have not yet define proper terminology as the only document doc 10019 is RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) which specifically written for unmanned. Once it is manned then can be called aircraft or ornihopter etc, to eye catch reader, I intentioally name it manned drone, or may be something else once the ICAO or other regulatory authority agreed on new terminology. The idea is to identify various aspects especially when it is Remotely controlled within VLOS (visual line of sight).or C2Link (command and Control) equipped. which operate BVLOS (beyond visual line of sight). I am concern on reliability, controllability if something goes wrong at least have to be overidden by pilot on initial design phase or under experimental category either (fixedwing or rotary wing design concept CS23/CS27) , the issue is certification specification or requirement that is not in place to protect public on safety aspects.

[BEagle]

Even more alarming is that Boeing is looking at unmanned airliners: Boeing wants to build a self-flying plane - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-boeing-studies-pilotless-planes-as-it-ponders-next-jetliner-2017-6?r=US&IR=T)

Perhaps safer than flying with a couple of AF447 idiots up front, but can anyone really expect the great unwashed to be happy to travel in an unmanned airliner?

And when some people carrying drone has been booked by a suicide bomber?

This utter nonsense needs to be firmly blocked!

[Maoraigh1]

Is this June AAIB Bulletin the first to have a Drone Accident Report? With Crew and Pax number Not Applicable.