Skyryse Luna: Retrofitted autopilot to any helicopter? (R44 in video)
aa777888 - I have flown with no SAS or AP (Army Gazelle), SAS only (RAF Gazelle),2 (Bell 412), 3 (AS 365) and 4 axis (Sea King 3A, AW 139) APs so I am reasonably aware of the limitations and advantages of each.
I would be interested to see how HeliSAS gets you to a 3 dimensional point in space hands off since it would need an altimeter feed and the ability to switch automatically from ALT hold to a VS mode for climbs and descents since I am pretty sure there isn't an ALTA (altitude acquire mode) in HeliSAS.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.
Have you actually flown with the HeliSAS system in a helicopter to have all its capabilities demonstrated?
I would be interested to see how HeliSAS gets you to a 3 dimensional point in space hands off since it would need an altimeter feed and the ability to switch automatically from ALT hold to a VS mode for climbs and descents since I am pretty sure there isn't an ALTA (altitude acquire mode) in HeliSAS.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.
Have you actually flown with the HeliSAS system in a helicopter to have all its capabilities demonstrated?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I would be interested to see how HeliSAS gets you to a 3 dimensional point in space hands off since it would need an altimeter feed and the ability to switch automatically from ALT hold to a VS mode for climbs and descents since I am pretty sure there isn't an ALTA (altitude acquire mode) in HeliSAS.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.
Have you actually flown with the HeliSAS system in a helicopter to have all its capabilities demonstrated?
Read the POH. Watch the video if you haven't already. It's quite a capable SAS and autopilot.
Read the POH and it seems, as I suspected, that you have to have a lot of extra kit in order to use the autopilot capabilities - just fitting the SAS alone (actuators and control panel) won't give you any upper modes.
So you need a WAAS GPS with ARINC connections hardwired in so you can use your GPS steering; you need a NAV receiver if you want to fly to VORs or fly ILS; you need at least a mechanical gyro to give you attitude information (ideally an EFIS with AHRS); you need an HSI linked to AHRS for NAV mode; and you need an air data computer (ADC) for airspeed and altitude signals.
Do you have all of that already on your Clipper? You will just get SAS if you have this installed without all the other sensors fitted (which has got to be better than an unstabilised helicopter) .
What training do they provide for those who purchase this kit? and at what cost?
There are so many ways to kill or frighten yourself getting lost in AP modes if you haven't had the appropriate training - ask any pilot who has used 2 or 3 axis APs in anger.
My other question is why would you want to fly holds and approaches in a non-IFR certified aircraft?
The HeliSAS is no better or worse than many other APs, they are just marketing it strongly in the light single owners market.
Just having SAS, even with the limited AP that the other gizmos give you, won't prevent the leans or complete disorientation following IIMC - unless you are a properly trained instrument rated pilot it will just take you longer to die.
My concern is that owners will buy this (expensive) add-on thinking it is a magic bullet for safe operations in poor weather and we will just see more statistics.
So you need a WAAS GPS with ARINC connections hardwired in so you can use your GPS steering; you need a NAV receiver if you want to fly to VORs or fly ILS; you need at least a mechanical gyro to give you attitude information (ideally an EFIS with AHRS); you need an HSI linked to AHRS for NAV mode; and you need an air data computer (ADC) for airspeed and altitude signals.
Do you have all of that already on your Clipper? You will just get SAS if you have this installed without all the other sensors fitted (which has got to be better than an unstabilised helicopter) .
What training do they provide for those who purchase this kit? and at what cost?
There are so many ways to kill or frighten yourself getting lost in AP modes if you haven't had the appropriate training - ask any pilot who has used 2 or 3 axis APs in anger.
My other question is why would you want to fly holds and approaches in a non-IFR certified aircraft?
The HeliSAS is no better or worse than many other APs, they are just marketing it strongly in the light single owners market.
Just having SAS, even with the limited AP that the other gizmos give you, won't prevent the leans or complete disorientation following IIMC - unless you are a properly trained instrument rated pilot it will just take you longer to die.
My concern is that owners will buy this (expensive) add-on thinking it is a magic bullet for safe operations in poor weather and we will just see more statistics.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more or less additional kit required than any other autopilot. And, as I mentioned previously, those who are buying them tend to have already bought a top of the line Garmin panel first, so no fuss, no muss for those well-heeled folks.
I have crap all on the Clipper
I said I'd love one of these, and by inference all the necessary trimmings, but I sure don't want to pay for it before I win the lottery or something like that! Why stop there? I'd really love a full-on SPIFR machine, say a 429. Not going to happen for me unless that aforementioned lottery is a big one!
Couldn't say why anyone would want to fly holds or approaches right now in the target market. And such training is not considered a special subject in the US. There is no "autopilot endorsement", just like there is no "EFIS endorsement".
AFAIK we have yet to see a HeliSAS related incident. No doubt there will be one some day. But I suspect the vast majority of their usage is to a) make VFR cross country more pleasurable, b) add a layer of safety (double edge sword there--more safety at the price of more complexity), and c) the SAS functionality. Not cheat your way through weather you shouldn't be in.
I have crap all on the Clipper
I said I'd love one of these, and by inference all the necessary trimmings, but I sure don't want to pay for it before I win the lottery or something like that! Why stop there? I'd really love a full-on SPIFR machine, say a 429. Not going to happen for me unless that aforementioned lottery is a big one!Couldn't say why anyone would want to fly holds or approaches right now in the target market. And such training is not considered a special subject in the US. There is no "autopilot endorsement", just like there is no "EFIS endorsement".
AFAIK we have yet to see a HeliSAS related incident. No doubt there will be one some day. But I suspect the vast majority of their usage is to a) make VFR cross country more pleasurable, b) add a layer of safety (double edge sword there--more safety at the price of more complexity), and c) the SAS functionality. Not cheat your way through weather you shouldn't be in.
Last edited by aa777888; 5th Jan 2020 at 09:40.
so back to your question in #2
it is only a SAS unless you add all the extra kit required to give it some upper mode AP functions and even then it is just a 2-axis AP.
If it was my money I wouldn't bother with all the extras and just reap the benefits of having stability augmentation.
However, I suspect that those with sufficient disposable income will want all the toys, whether or not they know how to use them.
How is this different or better than any existing, fully coupled, 4-axis helicopter autopilot system?
If it was my money I wouldn't bother with all the extras and just reap the benefits of having stability augmentation.
However, I suspect that those with sufficient disposable income will want all the toys, whether or not they know how to use them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
so back to your question in #2 it is only a SAS unless you add all the extra kit required to give it some upper mode AP functions and even then it is just a 2-axis AP.
So let's go back to the original question: how is the Skyryse Luna any different or better than a 4-axis, fully coupled, autopilot, such as you might already find in a sophisticated medium twin right now, today?
how is the Skyryse Luna any different or better than a 4-axis, fully coupled, autopilot, such as you might already find in a sophisticated medium twin right now, today?
But it looks like they claim to have full 4-axis authority, working via a voice command system.
Yes, aa777888, I did mix up the two systems - doh!
However, as AC points out there is little detailed information available outside the various press releases but this one says
The ground sensors are a new element not in normal APs, nor the information on low flying birds and drones (not sure how they will do that unless they have a very good radar in the vicinity).
It will require full 4 -axis capability plus SAR- type upper modes for trans up and down and would clearly have to operate from purpose built HLS with the ground sensors to achieve the planned capability.
The voice activation sounds trendy but I suspect the reality will be a GPS route wi-fi'd or bluetoothed from a ground station into the aircraft.
The upshot is that it is obviously still a work in progress and the use of a light SE helicopter just a cheap tool to prove the system for bigger (maybe twin) aircraft. Since many still have doubts about autonomous cars and the algorithms that make their safety decisions (do you save the pedestrian or the people in the car type of thing) we are probably a long way from airborne, autonomous Uber.
However, as AC points out there is little detailed information available outside the various press releases but this one says
Each component of the system works in triplicate with airline-grade, fail-operational technology to ensure that automation functions remain operational at all times, even in the presence of equipment failures,” the company told the website.
Using a suite of sensors, Skyrise’s autonomous technology will help steer, stabilize, and direct the Luna, while monitoring other flight data. Meanwhile, take-off and landing are aided by ground-based sensors in the helipad that will communicate with the Luna and alert it to weather changes and low-flying objects like drones and birds. The tech won’t just be for autonomous flight, either. The company envisions it also being used to aid piloted vehicles by acting as a sort of “cruise control” and taking over aspects of flying.
Using a suite of sensors, Skyrise’s autonomous technology will help steer, stabilize, and direct the Luna, while monitoring other flight data. Meanwhile, take-off and landing are aided by ground-based sensors in the helipad that will communicate with the Luna and alert it to weather changes and low-flying objects like drones and birds. The tech won’t just be for autonomous flight, either. The company envisions it also being used to aid piloted vehicles by acting as a sort of “cruise control” and taking over aspects of flying.
It will require full 4 -axis capability plus SAR- type upper modes for trans up and down and would clearly have to operate from purpose built HLS with the ground sensors to achieve the planned capability.
The voice activation sounds trendy but I suspect the reality will be a GPS route wi-fi'd or bluetoothed from a ground station into the aircraft.
The upshot is that it is obviously still a work in progress and the use of a light SE helicopter just a cheap tool to prove the system for bigger (maybe twin) aircraft. Since many still have doubts about autonomous cars and the algorithms that make their safety decisions (do you save the pedestrian or the people in the car type of thing) we are probably a long way from airborne, autonomous Uber.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Since many still have doubts about autonomous cars and the algorithms that make their safety decisions (do you save the pedestrian or the people in the car type of thing) we are probably a long way from airborne, autonomous Uber.
We are closer than you think to a light version of autonomous air service.
It is unlikely that you will see pilotless airliners in a hurry, there is a greater probability that automation will dispense with multi-crew requirements, or mundane tasks (automated scenic tours)
Why pay for people when you can have someone remotely being another pair of eyes.
It is just a matter of time until automation changes the landscape of most industries, aviation included.
True, but any technical issues in a car would leave you stuck by the side of the road (unless the brakes fail) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?
) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?
It always comes down to probability and liability.
The 525 can already enter autorotation automatically, with sufficient development and testing, an autonmous system could recognise and manage most emergencies, at least well enough to make actuaries happy.
The question is, where is the crossover point when a computer becomes less risky than a person.
Eventually technology becomes so complex that it is probably safer to take a person out of the equation.
Interesting times.
We can debate the merits, but with the billions of dollars going into R&D and prototypes, it is coming.
The 525 can already enter autorotation automatically, with sufficient development and testing, an autonmous system could recognise and manage most emergencies, at least well enough to make actuaries happy.
The question is, where is the crossover point when a computer becomes less risky than a person.
Eventually technology becomes so complex that it is probably safer to take a person out of the equation.
Interesting times.
We can debate the merits, but with the billions of dollars going into R&D and prototypes, it is coming.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
True, but any technical issues in a car would leave you stuck by the side of the road (unless the brakes fail) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?
) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?If MAX MCAS would have “autonomously” recognized and corrected the faulty sensor.
Then there would have a lot less pain and fuzz in the Aviation world.
SLB - 
and the Air France crash into the Atlantic probably wouldn't have happened (notwithstanding poor actions by the crew)
and the Air France crash into the Atlantic probably wouldn't have happened (notwithstanding poor actions by the crew)
Don't confuse automation and augmentation with fully autonomous systems. If you bolt on some tech that no one knows about, then the MCAS outcome shouldn't be a surprise.
New gen systems that are designed to work differently and to remove the human element (Air France) are a completely different beast.
Any tech is only as good as it's design(ers), QA and redundancy.
New gen systems that are designed to work differently and to remove the human element (Air France) are a completely different beast.
Any tech is only as good as it's design(ers), QA and redundancy.
So how far do you go with redundancy since that is the issue with sensors?
Duplex is the norm for IFR certification ISTR, 2 x pitotstatic systems, 2 x ADC, 2 x NAV, 2 channel AP etc etc.
And that duplex has human back-up so another level of redundancy - how many levels will an autonomous helicopter taxi need?
Can you make your sensors environment-proof?
I am interested to know where industry has actually got with the blue-sky thinking on autonomy.
Duplex is the norm for IFR certification ISTR, 2 x pitotstatic systems, 2 x ADC, 2 x NAV, 2 channel AP etc etc.
And that duplex has human back-up so another level of redundancy - how many levels will an autonomous helicopter taxi need?
Can you make your sensors environment-proof?
I am interested to know where industry has actually got with the blue-sky thinking on autonomy.
