Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

piper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 237 posts

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#181

Post by jonplackett »

carleverett wrote: post #96
jonplackett wrote: post #85

Question: A private jet is obviously bad for the environment, but how does a propeller plane compare carbon-wise to driving a car the same distance?

Not good. A Cessna 172 cruises at 140 mph and burns 8.5 gph of 100LL fuel, the equivalent of 16.5 mpg, and this is at cruise speed, not accounting for taxi, run-up, and flying the pattern during a normal flight. Not to mention we're still burning lead in most propeller aircraft as well. Fortunately this isn't a very popular way of getting around.

It’s interesting that it’s not insanely bad. I assumed it would be maybe 2-10X worse but it’s in a similar ballpark.

Would a full on private jet be way worse?

Would these planes carry a fair few people than a car? If so what’s it like taking passenger numbers into account?

I guess super-rich folk probably would be happy to fly just themselves in a big private jet and also be travelling waaaay further than they ever would in a car so it’s probably a silly comparison anyway

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#182

Post by crooked-v »

ianhawes wrote: post #107
cyberferret wrote: post #44

Maybe a coincidence, but Cirrus Aircraft announced their SafeReturn Emergency Autoland on their Vision Jet series today as well [0]. Looks pretty impressive. A passenger can just press one button on the roof behind the pilot, and the aircraft will send a distress signal, re-route and autoland the aircraft at the nearest airport (including terrain and weather avoidance) and also convert all screens on board to inform…

FWIW Cirrus also has a Cirrus Airframe Parachute System that is standard in all models.

The autoland system will even give passengers instructions on how to activate CAPS if there are no airports in range it knows how to land at.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#183

Post by AWildC182 »

outworlder wrote: post #175
AWildC182 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gyro powered steam gauges are all but gone from aviation. The GA fleet is even shedding them at a promising rate. MEMS based independent systems with backup power are solid state and far more reliable than a janky vacuum pump driven by the engine running a couple clockwork instruments.

I don't see how that's relevant. _They can and will still fail_ What happens then they do?

You have more than one independent system. A typical glass panel install will have a primary ADAHRS (air data attitude and heading reference system which contains a MEMS magnetometer, gyro, accelerator, pitot static pressure transducers, and processor) and a secondary ADAHRS both connected to the primary flight displays. Should one fail, you have a fallback for your PFD. As a backup, were you would normally have a vacuum gyro, you have a small glass panel (the garmin offering is the G5) which contains it's own built in ADAHRS and battery and will continue running even with the entire aircraft electrical system disabled.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#184

Post by korethr »

joshvm wrote: post #42
eternalny1 wrote: post #24

This is a seriously impressive bit of software engineering. It seems as simple as "push a button" to the layman but what happens when: There is a thunderstorm between the airport and the runway The nearest runway is closed due to a blizzard There is a mountain between the normal 3-degree glide-slope and the runway, an "offset approach" There is a 40-knot crosswind You have an engine out That's just a few, I'm a comme…

> During all phases of flight it communicates with passengers and appropriate air traffic control facilities regarding the new flight plan route and estimated time until landing. Which would suggest that if you need to be vectored to a runway, the aircraft can negotiate that with ATC automatically (and perhaps ATC can advise which is the most appropriate diversion?) This in the situation where the pilot is incapacita…

I did some searching and found some demo videos. In this video, part of the announcement is audible: https://youtu.be/IcVuubU4BTU?t=90

Starting at 1:30, "NOVEMBER SIX HOTEL LIMA, POSSIBLE PILOT INCAPACITATION, SIXTEEN MILES WEST OF KILO CHARLIE LIMA--" at this point the voiceover talks over the announcement, and I have trouble making it out, but I'm pretty sure I hear a "...LANDING ON RUNWAY..." in there as well. For those of you that don't know pilot jargon, that's the plane's registration number (N6HL), the situation, location relative to the nearest airport (KCL-something), and what I'm pretty is a declaration of intent to land on a specified runway.

So, your guess is correct, what the system does is announce its status and intentions and let ATC clear the way.

Other comments have speculated about uncontrolled fields, but I think that's less likely to be an issue. Per the demo video, the auto-land feature requires a GPS approach with altitude guidance published. If a field can't afford a staffed tower, would it be able to afford to have a published GPS approach with altitude guidance? My intuition says no, but as I'm not a pilot, I could be wrong about that. On possible scenario I could see is that the tower isn't 24x7, and so the field is uncontrolled at night. Perhaps such a field would have a GPS approach published, and if the auto-land selected that field, it would be up to any pilots in the area to be aware of the announcement and get out of the way. AFAIK, having one of your radios monitoring the emergency band is considered best practice, so other pilots in the area should be able to hear the emergency announcement and react appropriately.

But at this point, I'm speculating as well. For all I know, the auto land only selects airports known to have a manned tower at the time of activation.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#185

Post by cornellwright »

briandear wrote: post #150
nabla9 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's to be used only in the event that the pilot is incapacitated. Because it's an emergency feature engaged by a passenger or automatically, it probably can't manage all complex situations. It may be just good weather emergency landing. Check fuel and wind, steer to nearest emergency airport and land. Best effort is better than no effort and dying. > There is a mountain between the normal 3-degree glide-slope and th…

Almost airport with runways long enough to land G3000 equipped airplanes will have a published approach. What will be interesting though is how this system handles circle to land approaches.

My guess is it would choose a different approach or airport rather than circling if the winds are too unfavorable.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#186

Post by appstorelottery »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #156
appstorelottery wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a case for better GA trining. Expecting engine failure on takeoff, building the counterintuitive pitch-down reflex to avoid stall, and so on. Knowing your minimum maneuverable speed (and marking it on your air speed indicator). Expecting something to go wrong is the key mindset. A GA death happens roughly once a week for the reasons you outline. Emergency situations are not time to learn new skills, you…

All of that was covered, to the point of automatic reflex, during my Private Pilot training. I'm pretty sure it was standard, and not just my Instructor.

Private training varies, I have a friend that didn’t build that reflex properly until training for instrument cert. If you ask lots of private pilots - what’s more important: constant awareness of minimum maneuverable speed, or stall recovery - I expect most will answer stall recovery. Commercial pilots will answer the opposite. It’s a different mindset that’s been driven by commercial airlines. My point is GA training can be improved, and it’s not hard - just a change in mindset towards risk and preparedness.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#187

Post by appstorelottery »

bdamm wrote: post #166
appstorelottery wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a case for better GA trining. Expecting engine failure on takeoff, building the counterintuitive pitch-down reflex to avoid stall, and so on. Knowing your minimum maneuverable speed (and marking it on your air speed indicator). Expecting something to go wrong is the key mindset. A GA death happens roughly once a week for the reasons you outline. Emergency situations are not time to learn new skills, you…

That's true, but, we also accept a certain risk as GA pilots being non-commercial. The risk we accept is translated into a larger GA industry that makes flying as a hobby "affordable" to mere mortals (read: wealthy non-millonaires and not career pilots.) We can require more training for GA, but the training burden is already pretty high, and the GA industry is still shrinking last time I checked. Boosting safety requ…

I’m not talking about making training harder - just changing the mindset of GA pilots. I wrote more in a reply below if you’re interested.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#188

Post by ceejayoz »

guidoism wrote: post #177
DuskStar wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 20mph vertical impact into someone's roof really isn't the worst of outcomes.

I'm not sure 20mph is correct. The POH says it's the equivalent of being dropped from 10 feet. It's not something I want to experience but it doesn't really sound that bad.

> The POH says it's the equivalent of being dropped from 10 feet.

A fall of 10 feet puts you at ~17 mph when you hit. 20mph is a good approximation.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#189

Post by segmondy »

AWildC182 wrote: post #144
jonplackett wrote: post #85

Question: A private jet is obviously bad for the environment, but how does a propeller plane compare carbon-wise to driving a car the same distance?

Piston engines are more efficient than turboprops which are more efficient than turbofan/turbojet engines. Newer piston engines are by far the most efficient option but are not used frequently as the piston fleet is very old. To compare to a car, just using vehicle efficiency (not per passenger) a typical cessna is in the realm of a full size SUV in terms of carbon footprint. Both are about 10-15 mpg. The aircraft in…

But planes fly in straighter lines and will use less distance to get to their destination compared to cars. So you can't really use mpg. Best will be to measure gallons used per hour.

Re: Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability

#190

Post by dsfyu404ed »

guidoism wrote: post #180
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The insurance companies apparently want pilots to pull the CAPS rather than try to dead stick it. Well of course they do. CAPS does a pretty good job putting an upper bound on the worst case result. They don't care if you screw your plane up because that's a known cost and you'll pay it back through premiums if you keep flying. Dead sticking it has a very good chance of being no more expensive than a normal landing…

If I had something like Xavion to help with the approach I would probably choose the dead stick approach but really, how often have any of us ever really dead sticked it? I haven't. We pull the power to idle, but that's not the same as a propeller windmilling. That propeller is a huge brake and we aren't used to it. I for one prefer five nines of survival probability to something much smaller. What are the dead stick…

Anecdotal story:

I know of a skydive place that does or at least used to regularly (like once or twice a week) dead stick it in a C182 because they would fly with the bare minimum of fuel (when you're flying up and down all day even a little extra weight costs a lot of money).

Post reply on HN