back to article Boeing wants autonomous flying cabs in US airspace by 2030

Boeing's vision of future mainstream travel includes automated uncrewed passenger-carrying electric aircraft operating as taxis, and on Tuesday it released a detailed roadmap on how to get there by 2030. The concept of operations, or "ConOps," was undertaken as a joint venture with electric autonomous vertical take-off and …

  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Good news everbody

    Boeing persuaded the FAA that this is really just a new variant on the checker cab and so doesn't need any new certification or testing.

    And Andy Kaufman is certified as a mechanic for them

  2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    From the company that brought you crash-by-wire flight to save a sensor's cost and to lie to the regulators about the implications.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      maybe they learned their lesson on that last one?

      (then again...)

    2. ghp

      How hard can it be to learn not to pull back if you want to go up?

      Flightgear has a number of boeings (boo-ings?), I'll give them a try to see if they replicated that property.

  3. vtcodger Silver badge

    Maybe ...

    I skimmed the article, but it sounds like they are thinking controlled airspace on both ends. Given a decade, maybe that's doable. Realistically, can the vehicle be built? Probably. Can it travel safely from terminal to terminal -- say JFK to/from a few terminals in downtown Manhattan? Probably. Can it pick you up or drop you off at the curb in front of your apartment? Betcha not. Two problems -- first it'll probably need a ground footprint a lot bigger than a conventional taxi. Second, vehicle manufacturers are having trouble doing 100% safe navigation in two dimensions. Three dimensions is going to be harder. Probably a lot harder.

    After thought. Is any sane insurance company going to underwrite insurance policies for these things?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Maybe ...

      There are bunch of companies trailing this - some of which have actual aircraft operating.

      As you said, they don't replace taxis, they replace JFK-Manhattan helicopter service.

      Basically all are battery powered quad copters, should be cheaper, quieter, lower emission and vastly lower maintenance costs than a helicopter. Might be safer, just because just about anything is safer than a helicopter.

      Big problem is that the economics only work out if you are autonomous, helicopter pilots are expensive and cost you a passenger seat. However the FAA and other 3letter agencies are slightly nervous about having potentially remotely controllable 500kg-payload drones flying around Manhattan

      1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: Maybe ...

        No, they plan to start in small, controlled areas. The ultimate goal will be to replace rolling taxis with these things, and eventually replace cars with them. And, they're starting it right - from the corporate viewpoint. Automated from the start, so nobody can buy and fly their own and avoid paying the virtual pilot subscription cost. Although, considering how well the proles don't manage on a 2-dimensional plane, it's probably best to not let the. get a toe in on 3 dimensional control.

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Maybe ...

      vehicle manufacturers are having trouble doing 100% safe navigation in two dimensions. Three dimensions is going to be harder

      I'm not sure I agree there. There is less to hit in the sky, at least once you are above the trees and buildings. Even if you are only above the trees all the obstacles you would have to avoid like tall buildings and radio towers are very much fixed in place, so you wouldn't even need to have something that can "see" them on a preplanned route because they can't move or suddenly appear without warning.

      No road construction or detours in the sky, or stopped vehicles, or delays due to accidents.

      This is really one dimension vs three dimensions, since roads are closer to one dimensional than two - you might have a few lanes to choose from but you still have to stay within the tight boundaries of the pavement on either side.

      The big issue is the fact that if something goes wrong you lose that third dimension pretty quickly, but moving around in the 3D space with lot fewer obstacles is a much easier problem than moving around on a busy expressway.

      1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

        Navigating in 3D Space

        "they can't move or suddenly appear without warning."

        Ah, but other aircraft and drones can do so, popping out from behind buildings and whatnot.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: Navigating in 3D Space

          Those other aircraft will be flying under air traffic control like you are, and will have transponders to report their position like you will. Drones would be kept at a whole different altitude range than air taxis with people in them so they wouldn't normally be a concern. In a 3D space even if you are flying around randomly you are orders of magnitude less likely to hit another aircraft than you were on a road driving a car randomly.

          Having 3 full dimensions to move around in rather than let's call it 1.1 dimensions you have on the road - combined with a lot fewer air taxis than cars - makes it much less likely you will collide unless someone is deliberately trying to hit you.

          1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

            Re: Navigating in 3D Space

            "unless someone is deliberately trying to hit you"

            Didn't the Americans have some bad experiences with that very thing happening back on 9/11?

            1. DS999 Silver badge

              Re: Navigating in 3D Space

              The same thing can happen on the roads, that's why there are a lot more bollards about than there used to be.

          2. SonofRojBlake

            Re: Navigating in 3D Space

            I've legally flown an aircraft over 60 miles over the Uk without a transponder on multiple occasions. Just saying.

  4. imanidiot Silver badge

    Never going to happen.

    These things are going to be noisy as frig. Nobodies going to want to have hem taking of or landing anywhere nearby, nor live under flight corridors. On top of that electric flight by multicopter craft is just SUPER inefficient, it really doesn't add enough for anything to make it worthwhile. And it saddens me that supposedly smart people keep burning piles and piles of money on it.

  5. TimMaher Silver badge
    Alien

    SkyGrid

    That’s a worrying name. Reminds me of a film with Arnie the schwartz in it.

  6. Scene it all

    Not to mention the 8 whirling machete-like blades that are whirling at knee height all around these things. They would be a hazard to small children, animals, and the blind.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. chivo243 Silver badge
    Stop

    Jetson's you say?

    "Jane, how do you stop this crazy thing!" I won't even set foot in a Tesla, for a multitude of reasons, why would I step into a 3-d Tesla.

    Johnny Cab anyone??

  8. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge
    Coat

    ConOps - what a fitting name

    -> I'm putting on my ConMan (conversation manager) coat

  9. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

    Dead at inception?

    "... the US is going to need infrastructure on a massive scale"

    Yeah, well. Since the US is struggling to maintain its currently-existing infrastructure, it's unlikely that we will see a massive build-up of entirely new infrastructure.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Dead at inception?

      That's the reason for the popularity of these things, you don't need any if that communist infrastructure that other people use - these just need a pad+charger that you own and only your brand of magics flying car can use.

      It's as if you had private roads for each manufacturer

  10. steelpillow Silver badge
    Holmes

    There are ConOps, and then there are ConOps

    In my world these were called the ConOp, no "s" required. I have written a fair few.

    First the professional snark; no identification of stakeholder communities to be involved in the rollout. This project could hit the buffers at any time "because I was never informed and no way am I going to sanction this rubbish".

    Then the conceptual snarks;

    This blathers on about two or three vehicles per human ATC, i.e. pretty much what we do now but pilotless. Not exactly Urban Air Mobility capable of operating through the rush hour, is it now?

    Passengers, passengers. Why? The first applications will be unoccupied cargo drones. Correction, the first applications already are unoccupied cargo drones, mostly carrying medical supplies.

    Emergency provision. Can't recall if it was FAA or NASA, but somebody put a lot of work into this a few years back. Need a network of emergency landing sites so that wherever the drone is, in the event of power failure a dead-stick landing on one such can always be made. That's a LOT of emergency landing areas to provision. No mention in the ConOp(s), woopsie!

    etc. etc.

    Still at least the contracting author will have got paid for this. Just think, back in the day that might have been me!

  11. An_Old_Dog Silver badge
    FAIL

    Fuck Me in the Neck!!

    I can envision so many ways this could go horribly, horribly wrong, and I'm sure other people can, as well.

    I don't want, for example, a failing voltage regulator resulting in an on-board fire, loss of power, and a plummeting, multi-hundred-pound object smearing people on the ground and slinging blade fragments slicing through the area.

    And then there's "connecting via internet protocol (IP)-based communication." IP packets don't have delivery-time guarantees, despite any QoS priorities, and this will be a real-time system.

    What happens when some bad guys fire up a high-powered radio jammer?

    This is one of those highly-complex, "it is perfectly safe as long as everything goes just right" sorts of systems. <sarcasm>Of course there will be no errors or system exploits.</sarcasm>

    I've seen the results of a single-person, jet fighter, low-speed crash in a residential neighborhood.

  12. Blackjack Silver badge

    What a good timing!

    https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/flying-car-startup-kittyhawk-to-shut-down/

  13. Binraider Silver badge

    Potty. The energy requirements to do such a thing make absolutely no economic sense; to say nothing of airspace congestion issues that are already getting awkward enough because of drones.

    In a land where Fusion is up and working so there is power to spare by the bucket, maybe. But otherwise, no.

    1. Blackjack Silver badge

      "The energy requirements to do such a thing make absolutely no economic sense."

      You just described mining bitcoin.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like