They can’t do computer based stabilization?
I'd imagine the reason a DJI drone's capabilities are so much greater than those of a helicopter carrying passengers is that the former can fall out of the sky every now and then and it's no big deal. The latter has to pass a whole lot of rigorous FAA (or equivalent) testing.
I havent seen a quad that can autorotate, a necessary emergency trick if you want to carry people. When the power fails on a quad it just falls. Traditional helos can actually glide to a controlled landing.
Admittedly it would be a pretty terrifying ride to the ground, but preferable to plummeting. There’s a lot of rotational energy in the aircraft though.
I think there’s probably significant scope for improvement in redundancy of these systems.
Autorotation is where helicopters get their speed/altitude restrictions when carrying passengers. They generally are not allowed to hover at low altitude because from there they cannot safely autorotate onto the ground. If drones want to carry people, or carry heavy things over people, then they will need to develop some sort of plan. Total engine failure should never result in the total loss of the aircraft.
This reminded me of another comment I read recently, and I was actually able to remember where I read it! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17723107
> Hi- I used to work in regulated pharma and I want to be clear: " The core problem is that the FDA-approved devices are optimized not for getting the best result, but for ensuring the manufacturer can't be blamed if something goes wrong" is a misleading statement. The reason everything is regulated is that sometimes things do go wrong, and it's necessary to have root cause attribution so the problem can be remedied and a fix deployed, and, if somebody did something illegal or dumb, they can be sanctioned.
(The quoted part of this comment, itself from a previous comment, is the part I found relevant, but I quoted the whole thing (reply and all) because I found the whole thing interesting.)
I think I can naively say with confidence that aviation and medical certification are very similarly rigorous.
So, it sounds to me that the autohover functionality you describe was perhaps the equivalent of Tesla "Autopilot" (which really amounts to auto-steer). The context of doing rescue lifesaving over sea is indeed very stringent, but at the same time, it's not going to be the end of the world if the helicopter moves around a bit, because it's in the open air. And if the situation is dire - strong crosswinds, or someone in critical condition - the pilot's training probably instructs them not to use it.
In this situation, letting the controls go for 2-3 seconds (as per the other comments here) is going to mean an unrecoverable crash, and perhaps a rotor blade might cut one of the cables and then you have 220kV waving everywhere, hitting other power lines, touching the ground..... no. You just find the best pilots that can hover Really Well™, and pay them metric stupid amounts of money so they don't go anywhere else.
Now I'm wondering if the pilots hold hovering competitions, in the same way people in the military frequently do target practice.
Yes. Have a read of "Rescue Pilot" by Jerry Grayson. It's a great read. He describes how they used to practise hovering with a single front wheel resting on the top of a particular coastal rock formation. It was a competition in the sense that one crew upped the ante by managing to balance their tail wheel on the rock, so the rest of the crews followed.
[1] https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/rescue-pilot-9781472918840/
Edit: Another link: http://rescuepilot.net/
Yet another book to add to the wishlist... I'm gonna need a job that gives me a bit of spare time, the pile is getting pretty big, haha.
The Vulcan bit leapt out at me; I've also read Vulcan 607! That book was purely technical; I would have appreciated an explanation about the political upheaval going on with the RAF at the time as well, I had absolutely no idea.
I had no idea hovering over sea is as complex as it is - of course everything underneath the helicopter is going up and down. So the helicopter needs to match that if it doesn't want to whomp onto the deck as it lands. Hah.
And so, in the same vein, hovering over a ship doing rescue operations is clearly going to preclude the use of the kind of autopilot described in the GGP comment.
I've been interested in the idea of flying since I was about 15, but I've been dragging my feet on getting involved for years (I'm 27 now) - if I love it, I'll be depressed I can't afford to dive right in, but if I hate it or can't get my head around the flight controls (I have poor hand-eye coordination, a lot of visual things don't "click" for me, and I can't keep an RC helicopter in the air), I'm not sure if I'd handle the let-down. Because of the expense involved I'm a bit on the fence about it.
Various health issues are why I didn't go the RAAF route a long time ago. (I'm not even sure what to name my condition - I've briefly described it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15005811 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17780498.)
At the end of the day, any mistake at 5 foot or 50 foot away is likely to be fatal!
More to the point, helicopters and power lines have both been around a lot longer than helicopter autohover technology, and aviation is an inherently conservative enterprise. Even if these sorts of repairs are being done using autohover today (I don't know) they were surely flown manually in the past.
UPDATE: I asked this question on /r/flying and got this response from an actual helicopter pilot:
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/998c8b/helicopter_p...
"In a low energy state like an OGE hover, and especially when doing dangerous work like utility (as in the video), live hoists, etc we are almost always handflying. You would be surprised at how few helicopters out there are even capable of auto-hovering. We have an IAHAAS system on the Pave Hawk which in theory can do things like auto hover, auto land, maintain radalt and baro altitudes, even fly zero vis approaches etc. but we don't trust it. I have personally seen it do some sketchy things like virtually departing us from controlled flight during a steady hover for literally no reason."
Cars with automatic transmission don't have a "backup manual transmission" for when the automatic transmission fails. The automatic transmission doesn't fail.
Actually, that is exactly what we're talking about. Why would you doubt it? You not only need to keep the helicopter oriented, you need to keep it in the same place, i.e. you need it to follow a zero-velocity trajectory. Why would you think that this is any different from a regular autopilot?
The kind of system I'm talking about here, on the other hand, is essentially a physical model of the three available controls and how they interact to move the aircraft (and thus predict how the aircraft will be moved); combined with actuator-sensors, accelerometers, and gyroscopes to read off how the aircraft is being affected by those controls (and thus correct the prediction)—enabling you to translate linear movement of a flight-stick to linear movement of the helicopter. It's a dynamic torque model feeding a control system, with a user-supplied reference point. You can make an ASIC that does that and put it through fuzz-testing for literally every potential input combination it'll ever receive.
Yes, said ASIC might physically fail (even after you've done an extensive burn-in test)—but, given the tolerances we have in making ruggedized solid-state electronics these days, vs. the tolerances we have in making mechanical systems, it'd be the least likely part in the control chain to fail.
It is true that state-of-the-art navigation systems operate the way you described. But airplanes have been flying for over 100 years, and there have been autopilots for nearly all of them (the earliest autopilot dates back to 1912). The vast majority of airplanes flying today do not have state-of-the-art systems.
Helicopters can also have advanced and full integrated routing systems that will complete an entire trip from A to B, just as fixed-wings can have a simplistic input-to-output linked autopilot that just aims to keep the plane level and with the same heading.
So yes, an advanced system is more complicated than a simple system, but both systems can fail. And since that is inevitable, it's usually better to have a complex system with redundancy that will tolerate failure, than a simple system with no backup that will lead to catastrophe.
Automatic transmissions fail all the time, and then the car stops moving. Ok for cars but serious problem for flight so these aircraft have multiple automatic and manual redundancies.
Helicopter autopilots are indeed full guidance systems like fixed wing aircraft, but they can hold the craft in hover position because it's just another flying position possible for helicopters, but it is still actively flying.
Other parts of the automatic transmission system fail, sure, but those parts are the same parts that are in a manual transmission. (Because, after all, in modern cars, a manual transmission's control system still ends up as signals sent to an electronic gearbox.)
So, like I said—in modern cars, where you've just got an electronic gearbox anyway, there's no sense in having both the ASIC issuing control-commands to the electronic gearbox, and a backup manual stick for issuing the same commands. If there's any fault in the system, it's far, far more likely to come from the stick's mechanism breaking down and issuing spurious commands, than from the ASIC breaking down and issuing spurious commands. And more likely than either is the gearbox getting messed up because it's sitting in a hot, dirty engine compartment.
In 2018, it is possible to have a car with an ECU that is 30 years old, and I happen to have one. Solder joints can go bad over time, and repairing the control unit is a thing that people do on cars like mine. If I was looking forwards regarding some other bit of electronics, I would probably worry about capacitors too.
Autopilot systems, however, are only as good as the people who program them. A helicopter, as mentioned elsewhere, is dynamically unstable and requires so many tiny inputs to maintain steady flight, let alone hovering. Just like in Teslas that 'nope' out of their Autopilot systems back to the driver milliseconds before a crash, a pilot has precious little time to retake control should the electronics fail.
Car ECU keeping your car moving in one dimension (forwards) - fairly safe to let a computer take over, minimal danger if it fails.
Autonomous technology keeping your car moving in two dimensions (forwards AND steering) - very complex, very little time to retake control in a failure scenario, very dangerous.
Autopilot keeping your helicopter moving in three dimensions - I think you get the idea by now :)
Either way, failure is not unique and can happen in either domain. There are plenty of examples of electronics failing and again it is strange to say that they don't. Silicon chips might not move but they are physical products that can overheat or short-circuit or just break.
Aircraft are much more critical than cars and the reason they have multiple completely redundant systems is precisely because things do fail all the time.
To be sure, it's not because they fail all the time, but to probabilistically address the risk that if Murphy does come knocking, consequences won't be immediately catastrophic.
I only meant to clarify that aircraft redundant systems exist because failure mode consequences would be catastrophic with unacceptably high probability otherwise; not simply because things in general fail all the time, as was asserted.
It's a subtle yet significant difference that other readers in passing may not recognize.
No, they don’t (so long as you are talking about stick-shift and not paddle shift).
That has more to do with aggregate risk management predominantly driven by predicted MTBF, failure mode analysis, and safety criticality levels.
Um, what kind of car do you drive?
And all those transmission repair shops are doing... what, exactly?
Until the technology is good enough for taking the pilot away, it's not a gain.
If that were true modern airlines wouldn't have autopilot.
And by the way, there's an ongoing discussion on airplane groups about all the new failure modes created by the autopilot-pilot interface. It creates plenty of problems.
Regarding drones, I suspect that you are at least partly right. There is a lot of interest already in drones as inspection platforms. Perhaps they will go farther as drones get more commercial aviation clearance.