Boeing Claims It Will Be Ready for Pilotless Air-Taxi Flights by End of Decade.

[PatMiles]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2024/07/23/boeing-claims-it-will-be-ready-for-pilotless-air-taxi-flights-by-end-of-decade/

Boeing-owned Wisk Aero is making strides towards introducing autonomous air-taxis, with plans to commence passenger flights “later in the decade” as it collaborates with U.S. regulators for necessary approvals.
Reuters reports that Wisk Aero, a subsidiary of Boeing, is at the forefront of developing electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, aiming to revolutionize urban transportation with its autonomous air-taxis. The company’s CEO, Brian Yutko, announced at the Farnborough Airshow that Wisk is currently in the process of testing and producing components for their aircraft, with hopes to conduct test flights by the end of this year.

The air-taxi industry has seen a surge in companies developing eVTOL aircraft in recent years, all promising to provide an eco-friendly alternative for travel in congested urban areas. However, the sector faces significant challenges, both technological and regulatory. One of the primary hurdles is the development of batteries powerful enough to enable multiple trips on a single charge, a crucial factor for operational efficiency and economic viability.

Wisk’s approach stands out in the industry due to its focus on fully autonomous four-seater aircraft with a projected range of 90 miles. This strategy diverges from other major air-taxi manufacturers who are developing piloted models. Wisk argues that their autonomous approach will lead to cost savings for operators by eliminating pilot expenses.

Despite the company’s optimism, industry analysts remain skeptical about the timeline for certification and widespread adoption of autonomous air-taxis. A report by Bain suggests that full autonomous passenger flights may not be realized until the late 2030s. The report also highlights potential competition from autonomous ground vehicles, which could impact the air-taxi market.

Regulatory hurdles present another significant challenge for Wisk and similar companies. Convincing regulators and the public of the safety of these aircraft is crucial, particularly for autonomous models. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will play a pivotal role in the approval process, and Wisk is actively working with the regulator to secure the necessary certifications.
The economic viability of air-taxi services is another area of focus. Mattia Celli, one of the authors of the Bain report, emphasizes the importance of maximizing passenger occupancy and avoiding empty return trips for operator profitability. These factors will be critical in determining the success of air-taxi services in the competitive urban mobility landscape.

Wisk’s journey began as a joint venture between Boeing and Kitty Hawk Corp before becoming a fully-owned subsidiary of Boeing last year. This backing from one of the world’s largest aerospace companies provides Wisk with significant resources and expertise as it navigates the complex path to bringing autonomous air-taxis to market.

Even as Boeing boasts of its pilotless air-taxi plans, it continues to have trouble building and maintaining traditional human-flown aircraft. The company recently pleaded guilty to fraud charges over the crashes of its infamous 737 MAX airliner.


BWA HA HA HA HA HA...

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Haven't they been doing this already? Track record seems to imply.

Leaders of the Industry, right there.

 

[BoilerUP]

I have absolutely less than zero concern about pilotless aircraft over the next 20-30 years beyond demonstrators.

It is hard enough for a car to operate autonomously in two axes, why does anybody think that an aircraft could safely and reliable do so in three highly dynamic axes?

Even if you chuck autonomous out the window in lieu of remote piloted, there's still SIGNIFICANT real-world operational concerns - to say nothing of datalink security. Bad actor hacking, Crowdstrike issues, datalink NO COMM issues, etc etc etc...all concerns. Plus regulatory concerns and public acceptance - plenty of people hate crewed helicopers already but we're gonna have drones buzzing all around like Ubers? GTFOOH.

Somebody get back to me when Uncle Sugar with its practically limitless pockets and liability protection starts utilizing autonomous aircraft with human payloads.

 

[Kickin45]

 

[Steel+Killer]

Boeing can't even get manned aircraft right. I sure as fuck wouldn't be the first guinea pigs on anything not manned from them.

 

[308pirate]

It is hard enough for a car to operate autonomously in two axes, why does anybody think that an aircraft could safely and reliable do so in three highly dynamic axes?

Tell me you know absolutely nothing about flying without telling me you know absolutely nothing about flying. It's actually easier for an aircraft to operate autonomously than it is for anything on a road. I don't have time to explain how and why.

Even if you chuck autonomous out the window in lieu of remote piloted, there's still SIGNIFICANT real-world operational concerns - to say nothing of datalink security. Bad actor hacking, Crowdstrike issues, datalink NO COMM issues, etc etc etc...all concerns. Plus regulatory concerns and public acceptance - plenty of people hate crewed helicopers already but we're gonna have drones buzzing all around like Ubers? GTFOOH.

The operational concerns you list have already been solved or on the way to being solved. NIMBYs are a problem though, you're right about them.

Somebody get back to me when Uncle Sugar with its practically limitless pockets and liability protection starts utilizing autonomous aircraft with human payloads.

It will happen sooner than you think, at least for non-combat roles.

 

[supercorndogs]

I thought Boilerup was a pilot?

 

[BoilerUP]

I thought Boilerup was a pilot?

I am...my 8000+ hours and multiple type ratings including in autoland-capable aircraft say I might have some casual knowledge about the topic at hand.

But hey, some dude on a message board decided to bump a 5 month old thread to try and own me.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well. He is an engineer.

 

[KYAggie]

My take on this based on my experience of flying heavies since 1997 is that you might be able to overcome the hurtles mentioned by BoilerUP, but you can’t overcome them 100% of the time and those times they rear their ugly heads, everyone one on that ride will die. Will the public accept that? I don’t think so. You might see single pilot operations to some extent by the end of the decade, but it’s going to be a long time, if ever, that you see pilotless. At least half a dozen times a year the words, “Autopilot off, I have control”, come out of my mouth because the automation is doing something wrong like turning the wrong way into parallel runway traffic while intercepting a localizer, etc. I know the technology they are using is “brand new”, but you will never convince me it’s fool proof enough to not have a human. I see and experience too many automation mistakes not to mention GPS outages and no com situations to make it viable, probably ever.

 

[Crewdog135]

My take on this based on my experience of flying heavies since 1997 is that you might be able to overcome the hurtles mentioned by BoilerUP, but you can’t overcome them 100% of the time and those times they rear their ugly heads, everyone one on that ride will die. Will the public accept that? I don’t think so. You might see subtle pilot operations to some extent by the end of the decade, but it’s going to be a long time, if ever, that you see pilotless. At least half a dozen times a year the words, “Autopilot off, I have control”, come out of my mouth because the automation is doing something wrong like turning the wrong way into parallel runway traffic while intercepting a localizer, etc. I know the technology they are using is “brand new”, but you will never convince me it’s fool proof enough to not have a human. I see and experience too many automation mistakes not to mention GPS outages and no com situations to make it viable, probably ever.

Yeah, I'll second this. One nice solar flare, and you've got a bunch of whiz-bangs running into houses, buildings, power lines, and hillsides. That's not to mention GPS map shifts, high wind gusts, birds, or party balloons (yeah, I've seen them all). I always tell people I don't get paid for what I do everyday. I get paid for what I CAN do on a bad day. And there's even more to be said about experience and airmanship that solves a problem long before it becomes a problem, which happens more frequently than the travelling public realizes.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Yeah, they can ride on them for a while first

 

[OREGUN]

I only got my first transport category type rating in 2007 but I second what @KYAggie and @BoilerUP have to say. We are a LOOOONG way, imho, from the flying public getting on even a single pilot aircraft let alone an autonomous aircraft. I tend to agree that the data security that @BoilerUP mentions is actually a fairly large threat that the current network infrastructure (regarding aircraft datalink, pilot-controller data comms and gps nav) is ill-prepared to mitigate.

I am fairly convinced however, that single pilot cargo ops are in the near future on even long haul overnight freight like UPS and FedEx. Imagine if you will, a modern cargo aircraft designed with a hybrid cockpit that facilitates single pilot operations with a remote supervisor…similar to a drone operator. You could have one “pilot-monitoring” sitting in a booth in Memphis watching a dozen aircraft anywhere in the world. Half the number of pilots required, half the big salaries, half the overnight accommodations, half the complicated rest and duty issues. And let’s face it, the public barely cares if a cargo aircraft full of Amazon boxes goes down. This seems plausible in the next few decades. People riding around cities on pilotless air taxis? Not so much.

 

[cas6969]

Who are they going to blame the crashes on?

 

[NoDopes]

Who are they going to blame the crashes on?

Trump

 

[Franko]

Private sector cybersecurity is run on the model of "we need just enough of it so that the C-Suite doesn't go to jail when shit happens". That approach isn't going to work with internet accessible flying bombs.

 

[KYAggie]

And let’s face it, the public barely cares if a cargo aircraft full of Amazon boxes goes down.

Just as long as it’s doesn’t land on a house or apartment building. Look up UPS flight 6 crash. 747 on fire with the control cables melted crashed just a few hundred feet from a neighborhood. Only two fatalities. Or look up pictures from a UPS DC8 that caught fire and landed in PHL seconds before the tail burned off. I wonder how it would have been received if it had come apart over Philadelphia? But it didn’t, so you are right, no one cares. Lithium batteries are a bitch once they start burning.

 

[Makinchips208]

Trump

Bush

 

[Maser]

 

[BoilerUP]

I am fairly convinced however, that single pilot cargo ops are in the near future on even long haul overnight freight like UPS and FedEx.

While I would agree single pilot/remote/autonomous operations will come to cargo operations first...it ain't gonna happen in the next few decades for all the reasons I mentioned in my first post on this thread.

Cargo fleets tend to be older than passenger fleets because they fly fewer hours and cycles. UPS and FDX both are taking delivery of new 767s and have recently gotten new 747-8/777 respectively, and fly also fly old A300, MD11, 757s. The cost of fleet modernization would be IMMENSE, take years upon years, and the cost/benefit of some remote second-in-command STC assuming it got approved in a post Germanwings/737MAX environment would be tenuous. Then physical and data security again comes into play and who gets to override whom - the remote pilot or the actual pilot?

As somebody who flew single pilot Part 23 jets at FL450 earlier in my career, I fly with WAY too many ops limiting MELs on my aircraft now that would preclude reliable single pilot operations, to say nothing of autoland restrictions at a great many airports we operate to. Duty limits and fatigue rules? Way too permissive today and fatigue calls would occur all the time, vastly hampering reliability of service which is what the express carriers rely upon for their business model. As pilots we rely on having somebody there to help us 'gut it out', that ain't happening when the PIC is the only person there because Otto Pilot won't be able to talk cars/sports/guns/women/whatever to keep us awake. SMS and FRMS would be burning red hot trying to mitigate these concerns.

Also - can you imagine dropping a single-piloted widebody into downtown Louisville on approach to SDF? What about short of a runway in Memphis? Indy? Miami? Chicago? JFK? LAX? Philly? Cincy? Atlanta? Dallas? SFO? Seattle? What would that do to the public, and more importantly, the beauacrats and politicians who approved such a thing?

I believe reduced crew operations permitting two crewmembers to fly somewhere between 8-10hr of scheduled block without an IRO is the next thing coming, but again I don't see it "near future". Hell it took years just to get iPads approved as EFBs!

But I've been wrong before...

 

[KYAggie]

While I would agree single pilot/remote/autonomous operations will come to cargo operations first...it ain't gonna happen in the next few decades for all the reasons I mentioned in my first post on this thread.

Cargo fleets tend to be older than passenger fleets because they fly fewer hours and cycles. UPS and FDX both are taking delivery of new 767s and have recently gotten new 747-8/777 respectively, and fly also fly old A300, MD11, 757s. The cost of fleet modernization would be IMMENSE, take years upon years, and the cost/benefit of some remote second-in-command STC assuming it got approved in a post Germanwings/737MAX environment would be tenuous. Then physical and data security again comes into play and who gets to override whom - the remote pilot or the actual pilot?

As somebody who flew single pilot Part 23 jets at FL450 earlier in my career, I fly with WAY too many ops limiting MELs on my aircraft now that would preclude reliable single pilot operations, to say nothing of autoland restrictions at a great many airports we operate to. Duty limits and fatigue rules? Way too permissive today and fatigue calls would occur all the time, vastly hampering reliability of service which is what the express carriers rely upon for their business model. As pilots we rely on having somebody there to help us 'gut it out', that ain't happening when the PIC is the only person there because Otto Pilot won't be able to talk cars/sports/guns/women/whatever to keep us awake. SMS and FRMS would be burning red hot trying to mitigate these concerns.

Also - can you imagine dropping a single-piloted widebody into downtown Louisville on approach to SDF? What about short of a runway in Memphis? Indy? Miami? Chicago? JFK? LAX? Philly? Cincy? Atlanta? Dallas? SFO? Seattle? What would that do to the public, and more importantly, the beauacrats and politicians who approved such a thing?

I believe reduced crew operations permitting two crewmembers to fly somewhere between 8-10hr of scheduled block without an IRO is the next thing coming, but again I don't see it "near future". Hell it took years just to get iPads approved as EFBs!

But I've been wrong before...

Exactly! The technology may exist and it may work on a perfect day, but that’s not the environment we operate in. It’s going to be a long time before it happens, if ever.

 

[The D]

Yeah, I'll second this. One nice solar flare, and you've got a bunch of whiz-bangs running into houses, buildings, power lines, and hillsides. That's not to mention GPS map shifts, high wind gusts, birds, or party balloons (yeah, I've seen them all). I always tell people I don't get paid for what I do everyday. I get paid for what I CAN do on a bad day. And there's even more to be said about experience and airmanship that solves a problem long before it becomes a problem, which happens more frequently than the travelling public realizes.

Will the AI systems that run the autonomous flights be vaccinated? I’ll go if they are. Safe and effective, and all

 

[hlee]

I wonder what Kobe Bryant would think about a pilotless vertical take off taxi service…

 

[sirhrmechanic]

They aren’t ready for piloted aircraft on taxiways…. Much less human carrying drones!

I trust Boeing’s shit these days less than Wisconsin vote counting!!

Sirhr

 

[lariat]

I know a little something about this tech. The nomenclature being used is UAM- Urban Air Mobility. The name tells you the intentions and where with is headed. Players involved include NASA and obviously the FAA. There are various models in states of readiness and review, with dedicated airfields to test it around the US.

Many of the taxis have a human pilot in the taxi in case something goes wrong, which is necessary and wise. The intention is to de-congest the roadways and move into the 3D space. It is a serious challenge, especially when you consider two major considerations: airports and drone delivery of packages which is rolling out, albeit slowly. Part of the intention is to use GPS and 5G for navigation, along with utilizing weather stations on buildings to determine microclimates that are present around buildings, etc. which would affect flight.

And yes, there was/is talk about using both building rooftops and ground level loading of passengers. A lot of discussion surrounds flying from city centers to airports for drop off. The number required for "everyday taxi" - we aren't there yet. IMO, we need to dip our toes into this with initial flights before going full Star Wars.

Rest assured, this is coming.

 

[lariat]

They aren’t ready for piloted aircraft on taxiways…. Much less human carrying drones!

I trust Boeing’s shit these days less than Wisconsin vote counting!!

Sirhr

Human (patient)-carrying drones are already being tentatively deployed on the battlefield for the wounded, and there are HUGE investments being made in this arena. Models include both rotor and jet propulsion. There are two main models being developed: one where a medic is on board and one where the patient(s) are rolled in alone. The end goal is to place someone in, hook them up so that the receiving facility can monitor vitals and get there much faster than would otherwise be possible. We are in the very beginning stages of this. Once the procedures are in place, swarming evac will be in place and it will be used not only for casualties but also small teams. The natural progression will be for insertion so as to shorten flight time and reduce the risk of an entire team being killed with one aircraft being brought down. And we want this technology; it frees up resources and gets the patient to a higher standard of care faster. Eventually (not super soon), this will be used in civilian environments.

The other side of this is resupply using parent drones to release smaller cargo drones for whatever - ammo, water, comms, etc. After that there will be an initiative for drones that are released from a larger drone to re-unite with it or have it be used as an asset to augment teams on the ground. DARPA has already come out a while back that they successfully retrieved a drone back inside the cargo bay of a c-130 underway at altitude. There is a real logical progression going on here.

On a side note: why would we need this casualty care tech if the battlefield was going to be taken over completely by AI and battlebots? The question answers itself.

 

[BoilerUP]

Joby certainly seems to be the furthest along in the UAM space, with BETA trailing them.

I'm just not sold on the operating economics of these things, should they ever actually be certified by the FAA and approved to do their stated mission.

I'm sure horse salesmen said the same thing about the motorized carriage.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Human (patient)-carrying drones are already being tentatively deployed on the battlefield for the wounded, and there are HUGE investments being made in this arena. Models include both rotor and jet propulsion. There are two main models being developed: one where a medic is on board and one where the patient(s) are rolled in alone. The end goal is to place someone in, hook them up so that the receiving facility can monitor vitals and get there much faster than would otherwise be possible. We are in the very beginning stages of this. Once the procedures are in place, swarming evac will be in place and it will be used not only for casualties but also small teams. The natural progression will be for insertion so as to shorten insertion time and reduce the risk of an entire team being killed with one aircraft being brought down. And we want this technology; it frees up resources and gets the patient to a higher standard of care faster. Eventually (not super soon), this will be used in civilian environments.

On a side note: why would we need this tech if the battlefield was going to be taken over completely by AI and battlebots? The question answers itself.

I have no issue with self piloted aircraft and the future of drone technology. I have a big issue with them being built by a company that puts DEI before engineering and whose motto is now “planes and shit.”

 

[anon]

And when gps spoofing hardware becomes as ubiquitous as cell jamming hardware?

GPSJAM GPS/GNSS Interference Map

Maps showing daily possible GPS interference.

gpsjam.org

 

[lariat]

And when gps spoofing hardware becomes as ubiquitous as cell jamming hardware?

GPSJAM GPS/GNSS Interference Map

Maps showing daily possible GPS interference.

gpsjam.org

This is the forever cat and mouse game. That risk is never going away. We are in a permanent technology loop with respect to this, but it will not stop the progression of the technology. This is yet another reason spies need to be dealt with severely.

 

[Makinchips208]

China is apparently way ahead of US in this area. Allegedly. And this could all be Chinese propaganda, so have a little salt with it.

‘Flying Cars’ Are Part of China’s New Economic Growth Plan

China is targeting a new economic growth driver by opening up the skies to drones and helicopters.

www.sixthtone.com

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

I wish they would just put in the high speed rail. I want to jump on a train in Nashville and get off in Dallas 2 hours later, and without making it to 40k ft, wasting 4 hours getting in and out, having to wonder if I forgot to take my 4oz toothpaste tube out, getting pat downs by people with downs, and getting mouth fucked if your bag weighs 53lbs. I could handle a few extra hours on a long trip, because you lose them anyways dealing with TSA and airport bullshit.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

I wish they would just put in the high speed rail. I want to jump on a train in Nashville and get off in Dallas 2 hours later, and without making it to 40k ft, wasting 4 hours getting in and out, having to wonder if I forgot to take my 4oz toothpaste tube out, getting pat downs by people with downs, and getting mouth fucked if your bag weighs 53lbs. I could handle a few extra hours on a long trip, because you lose them anyways dealing with TSA and airport bullshit.

I love train travel, too! The TGV is awesome. And Northeast to DC and points in between is great by rail. Even if slow.

Problem, as always, is that EU has very strong abilities to take property, create rights-of-way and enact eminent domain. In the US... not so much. And then come the NIMBY types and the "I don't want fast trains in my town" dickheads will all lawyer up and fuck things up for years.

Can't do anything in America any more with the bunny-huggers, the lawyers, the eco-terrorists, the NIMBY's, the NIYBY's, the Greens, the Commies, the Far Right Mountain folks... whatever. Don't even get us started on the airline industry lobbyists and the car industry lobbyists and probably the Camel-train lobbyists... will all scream that it will infringe on their slice of the pie... instead of recognizing that when the pie gets bigger, there is more pie for everyone. Economics 101.

Once upon a time we could build trans-continental railroads... Hoover Dams... Giant bridges. Alaska Highways in months... today it takes 2 years to pave 0.4 miles of already-paved-roads in any town in America. Because of fucktards.

Sirhr

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

I love train travel, too! The TGV is awesome. And Northeast to DC and points in between is great by rail. Even if slow.

Problem, as always, is that EU has very strong abilities to take property, create rights-of-way and enact eminent domain. In the US... not so much. And then come the NIMBY types and the "I don't want fast trains in my town" dickheads will all lawyer up and fuck things up for years.

Can't do anything in America any more with the bunny-huggers, the lawyers, the eco-terrorists, the NIMBY's, the NIYBY's, the Greens, the Commies, the Far Right Mountain folks... whatever. Don't even get us started on the airline industry lobbyists and the car industry lobbyists and probably the Camel-train lobbyists... will all scream that it will infringe on their slice of the pie... instead of recognizing that when the pie gets bigger, there is more pie for everyone. Economics 101.

Once upon a time we could build trans-continental railroads... Hoover Dams... Giant bridges. Alaska Highways in months... today it takes 2 years to pave 0.4 miles of already-paved-roads in any town in America. Because of fucktards.

Sirhr

Good points all. Everyone is in the NIMBY crowd when they want to take a piece of your ground with imminent domain.