A revolutionary way to fly a helicopter (and soon planes?)

MountainDude

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
872
Display Name

Display name:
MountainDude
I hope this approach works for helis and planes of the future.
It's painful to think that, as a private plane pilot, I have to spend months and $20K to become a helicopter pilot, when I can learn to fly a DJI drone in minutes (and have never crashed it).
 
I hope this approach works for helis and planes of the future.
It's painful to think that, as a private plane pilot, I have to spend months and $20K to become a helicopter pilot, when I can learn to fly a DJI drone in minutes (and have never crashed it).

an aside: wrt crashing a drone, there are those who have . . .
 
I hope this approach works for helis and planes of the future.
Its not really revolutionary in the big picture as there are existing similar systems now flying in helicopters. Perhaps look into the Jetson 1 as it will give you exactly what you're looking for with no pilot cert required to boot.
 
My first copy of the DJI mini 2 had a AHRS issue. It’d zoom off randomly but still responding to controls. I figure if I didn’t know how to fly RC heli Id have lost it a few times before I asked for a replacement.

Automation will not remove the training requirement. It might make it harder actually depending on regulations and available redundancy.

An Airbus is pretty computerized and my instructor when he moved from Q400s to the airbus struggled with the systems and training for them. He still say the plane make him feel like an idiot at times.
 
Meh. This, Next-Gen, and self-driving autos are just software engineers' quest to eliminate the need for pilots and drivers. Just 'cause you CAN do sumthin'... :rolleyes1:
 
Meh. This, Next-Gen, and self-driving autos are just software engineers' quest to eliminate the need for pilots and drivers. Just 'cause you CAN do sumthin'... :rolleyes1:

"software engineers' quest to eliminate"

haha - still waiting for software engineers to advance the state-of-the-art to really have safe autonomous vehicles out there...
 
This, Next-Gen, and self-driving autos are just software engineers' quest to eliminate the need for pilots and drivers.
To be fair, software engineers seem to be on a quest to eliminate themselves these days.
 
I’m glad I lived in an age where you have to do things for yourself. I’m a software developer and I still enjoy writing my own automation for things, but using someone else’s that does things in a way I would not is not fun for me. Boring.
 
We are on the road to eliminating the pilot but this ain’t it. They keep pushing the complexity of flying an helicopter. Yeah, your first few hours you’re gonna suck but most people solo within 10 hrs. You’re not gonna save much money with this thing. There’s still a lot of non flying learning (aero, mech, wx, ATC, etc) involved.

Intuitive? Well I see a lot of people staring down at a iPad. I don’t have to look down at the controls while flying. What happens when it fails? Is it going to keep the aircraft within limits all the time? Meaning, will it know that the pilot is flying into a confined area outside its OGE capability? Will it allow the aircraft to land with a tailwind outside of its limits? Slopes? There are so many flight profiles where a pilot’s experience matters.

So they demonstrated an auto to the the ground to a taxiway. What does it do when the engine fails in a rural area? Does it automatically choose the best field for the conditions? If you have to take that auto to the trees, does it know when to flare and cushion? Because I can tell you, if it’s using a RADALT for those things, they work fine over flat terrain. However, over uneven terrain or over trees, that altitude on the RADALT will be bouncing all over the place. If it’s LiDAR, I still wouldn’t trust it.

The vids they show are very canned scenarios. Helicopter flying is far more dynamic than basic A to B flying. I’m sure it works great for runway to runway but what about the guy slinging Xmas trees? Or cherry drying? What about flying NOE? If I’m flying a rotor disk away from another aircraft in formation, what happens if my finger slips on the iPad? What if I need to bank sharply to avoid birds? If I swipe to an auto hover, does it know how to respond to dynamic roll over?

There are some operations where I’d trust hands on flying vs a finger on an iPad.

 
We are on the road to eliminating the pilot but this ain’t it.

There are some operations where I’d trust hands on flying vs a finger on an iPad.


Outstanding synopsis. Think "self driving" Tesla ramming a police car. Just think if they put wings and a prop on them.

Autonomous rotorcraft have a mission, and can do useful work for sure. However you can't replace the brain, eyeballs, and hand capabilities for maximum utility. Not this century, I would expect.
 
The vids they show are very canned scenarios. Helicopter flying is far more dynamic than basic A to B flying. I’m sure it works great for runway to runway but what about the guy slinging Xmas trees? Or cherry drying? What about flying NOE? If I’m flying a rotor disk away from another aircraft in formation, what happens if my finger slips on the iPad? What if I need to bank sharply to avoid birds? If I swipe to an auto hover, does it know how to respond to dynamic roll over?

There are some operations where I’d trust hands on flying vs a finger on an iPad.

You're thinking at the marathon runner stage and they're still clearly in the crawl/walk stage. Maybe let them get some more flight time with it and experience doing more complex flight operations before jumping straight to the most complex ones?
 
You're thinking at the marathon runner stage and they're still clearly in the crawl/walk stage. Maybe let them get some more flight time with it and experience doing more complex flight operations before jumping straight to the most complex ones?
But like @Bell206 stated, there are already AP systems in place on helicopters similar to this. Just in my local program we have an H-135 with full axis AP. It can hover by itself.

Flying a helicopter is no different than driving a car…stick shift. It ain’t that difficult. All they've done is remove the flight controls from cyclic, collective and pedals to an iPad. That’s not revolutionary.
 
I've had the misfortune of having 3 engine failures in single engine helicopters (one at night) and one engine failure in a twin engine helicopter. As Velocity173 alluded to, a computer would not have seen the wires when I was in the flare in the auto but I damn sure did..
 
I've had the misfortune of having 3 engine failures in single engine helicopters (one at night) and one engine failure in a twin engine helicopter. As Velocity173 alluded to, a computer would not have seen the wires when I was in the flare in the auto but I damn sure did..
Jeez man, you’re unlucky. 5,000 + hrs for me and not an engine hiccup. Perhaps it’s time for me to get out of SE ops though. ;)
 
You're thinking at the marathon runner stage and they're still clearly in the crawl/walk stage. Maybe let them get some more flight time with it and experience doing more complex flight operations before jumping straight to the most complex ones?
For some context, the Bell 525 which will be the 1st civil production helicopter with FBW controls/glass cockpit has been flying for almost 10 years. It has been going through certification for the past 4 years and since the integration of FBW/computers is so complex, special regulatory conditions have been required. And the use of a single control hyped by Skyryse was pioneered by Sikorsky years ago but the idea was dropped by Bell for the 525 as it was not intuitive to the industry as a whole and went with 2 separate FBW controls in the cockpit. Plus the 525 can also automatically enter into autorotation when it senses a dual engine failure.

While I think Skyryse and their OS will find their way eventually, they will be at the crawl/walk stage for quite some time especially when they attempt its certification. The making it fly portion has been the easiest part for years.
 
Last edited:
But like @Bell206 stated, there are already AP systems in place on helicopters similar to this. Just in my local program we have an H-135 with full axis AP. It can hover by itself.

Flying a helicopter is no different than driving a car…stick shift. It ain’t that difficult. All they've done is remove the flight controls from cyclic, collective and pedals to an iPad. That’s not revolutionary.
I am curious why it takes a minimum of 20 (dual) + 10 (solo) hrs to get a heli rating after you get your fixed wing PPL, if you say it's not that difficult? That is the scenario I am comparing to drones, which take minutes to master.
 
I am curious why it takes a minimum of 20 (dual) + 10 (solo) hrs to get a heli rating after you get your fixed wing PPL, if you say it's not that difficult? That is the scenario I am comparing to drones, which take minutes to master.

Those are part 61 requirements.
 
I am curious why it takes a minimum of 20 (dual) + 10 (solo) hrs to get a heli rating after you get your fixed wing PPL, if you say it's not that difficult? That is the scenario I am comparing to drones, which take minutes to master.
Just regulatory BS. Also, never said flying RW was easier than FW. It’s a completely different type of flying that requires a different mindset. That’ll take a little time to master.

Everyone hears about how hard it is to fly a helicopter but for the most part that’s nonsense. Kinda like when the TW guys brag about how hard it is to fly TW vs a trike. Yes, we’re all familiar of seeing vids with students completely out of control the first time flying a helicopter. I was as well and I already had my FW PPL. But, revisit them in 5 hrs and guarantee the “hover button” has clicked in their head.

So this (Skyryse) system is really only saving a few hours in flight training before the hands on flying starts to become second nature. I haven’t seen them do anything complex with this system either. No slopes, quick stops, rapid pedal turns, etc. And how will it react to complex aero phenomenon like LTE or SWP?

It’s like the Army’s fully autonomous UH-60. Yeah, it can do basic A to B flying but a multiship air assault? Nope, that’s way too fluid for a self flying vehicle right now. Will we get there? Sure, I’ll be retired by then but eventually it’ll happen. But, for the most part, the missions that helicopters do that set them apart from airplanes are best done hands on.
 
Something else I was thinking about. Last week during my 293 ride we did hydraulics off. If you have an iPad with no conventional controls, what’s moving the pistons with hyd inop? Electric servos? Well I just did hyd off last week and we actually turn the AP off during that because the servos can’t handle the load. Just the collective alone, I can almost lift myself (I’m light) off the seat trying to descend. So, if you just had an iPad for controls, you’d be screwed in a hyd inop scenario.
 
Jeez man, you’re unlucky. 5,000 + hrs for me and not an engine hiccup. Perhaps it’s time for me to get out of SE ops though. ;)
The engine failures all came within my first 750 hours. I still say that if I was not doing primary instruction at the time and literally 30-40 autos a day, it would have turned out differently.

I was flying EMS in a A109E when I had my last one (2007) and it was more of a "let's take this thing off line before it burns up" type of response.

Been fortunate every since.
 
Back in "The Day" (e.g., Vietnam) folks were surprised to see that brand new students in both fixed wing and rotary wing training soloed at 8-10 hours. As I recall, as a Warrant Officer Candidate, if you took more than 12 hours to solo, you were back to humpin' a "ruck" in the boonies.
 
I think it has to do with the irregular nature of civilian training as opposed to the steady feeding through a firehose nature of military flight training. Allowances must be made. Have a friend who soloed a 369 recently after 20+ hours, but his hours were widely scattered. Once a week, sometimes more, sometimes less.
 
I think it has to do with the irregular nature of civilian training as opposed to the steady feeding through a firehose nature of military flight training. Allowances must be made. Have a friend who soloed a 369 recently after 20+ hours, but his hours were widely scattered. Once a week, sometimes more, sometimes less.
Let's not forget the insurance aspect of this.

It was once a badge of honor (in my mind) to solo a guy in only a few hours. Now, I have seen a shift to getting all of the dual requirements done and then solo the person. The minimum total time is still the same.

When I did my add on commercial helicopter rating years ago, I had about 5 hours of dual and then soloed. Wound up with 15 dual and 35 solo for a total of 50 hours when I took the commercial helicopter checkride.
 
Regarding time to solo, the Robinson SFAR is also a contributor for many folks in civilian training.
 
Interesting tech.

But, remember, Kobe was killed in a helicopter with a [disengaged] four-axis, fully integrated, IFR-rated autopilot.

Human factors still rule.
 
The CFI system is the problem. when I was a student pilot of the 7 of the 8 cfi's I flew with not ONE ofthe 7 EVER,NEVER EVER mentioned the PTS or ACS except the last one who was NOT a 1500hour jabrony but a lifelong CFI
So no, learning to fly isn't hard but a crappy CFI makes is way harder than it should be.
 
The CFI system is the problem. when I was a student pilot of the 7 of the 8 cfi's I flew with not ONE ofthe 7 EVER,NEVER EVER mentioned the PTS or ACS except the last one who was NOT a 1500hour jabrony but a lifelong CFI
So no, learning to fly isn't hard but a crappy CFI makes is way harder than it should be.

And yet, if you had only read the various FAA publications that mentioned the PTS/ACS numerous times as well as their purpose. :rolleyes: Or did you need an Instructor to spoon feed it to you?

From the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge:

Practical Test The FAA has developed PTS for FAA pilot certificates and associated ratings. [Figure 1-25] In 2015, the FAA began transitioning to the ACS approach. The ACS is essentially an “enhanced” version of the PTS. It adds task specific knowledge and risk management elements to each PTS Area of Operation and Task. The result is a holistic, integrated presentation of specific knowledge, skills, and risk management elements and performance metrics for eachArea of Operation and Task The ACS evaluation program will eventually replace the PTS program for evaluating and certifying pilots. The practical tests are administered by FAA ASIs and DPEs. Title 14 CFR part 61 specifies the areas of operation in which knowledge and skill must be demonstrated by the applicant. Since the FAA requires all practical tests be conducted in accordance with the appropriate PTS and the policies set forthin the Introduction section of the PTS book. The pilot applicant should become familiar with this book during training. The PTS book is a testing document and not intended to be a training syllabus. An appropriately-rated flight instructor is responsible for training the pilot applicant to acceptable standards in all subject matter areas, procedures, and maneuvers. Descriptions of tasks and information on how to perform maneuvers and procedures are contained in reference and teaching documents such as this handbook. A list of reference documents is contained in the Introduction section of each PTS book. Copies may obtained by:• Downloading from the FAA website at www.faa.gov• Purchasing print copies from the GPO, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or via their official online book store at www.access.gpo.govThe flight proficiency maneuvers listed in 14 CFR part 61are the standard skill requirements for certification. They are outlined in the PTS as “areas of operation.” These are phases of the practical test arranged in a logical sequence within the standard. They begin with preflight preparation and end with postflight procedures.
 
Back
Top