Jake Brodsky
Sep 8, 2018 · 2 min read

Okay, that’s a lot of happy talk. Here’s a few realities to consider:

  1. WEATHER! We don’t always have bright sunny days. Fog, freezing rain, thunderstorms and the like will limit the utility of smaller aircraft much more so than a car.
  2. Traffic management! Have you heard what the aviation channels sound like in a busy city? It sounds like the air traffic controllers are auctioning off directions to various aircraft. If we want to automate and scale this up, then we’re going to need a new way to handle the traffic. This isn’t just some cheesy three dimensional math problem. You also have to allow for contingencies such as emergencies, wake turbulence, sudden diversions to other landing areas due to a problem at the intended landing area, priority for air ambulance and rescue work, and of course the ever present unmanned drones.
  3. Maintenance standards! When is a battery no longer flight-worthy? How do you monitor one? What happens if you hit a bird with a rotor? What sort of periodic checks and post incident checks should we make with these new machines?

The thing that most of the innovators do not respect is the sheer volume of accumulated experience at making existing aviation practices as safe as possible. A lot of that experience goes out the window when you make significant changes to the engines, airframes, and power sources. There will be horrible accidents as people learn new things and rediscover new varieties of older problems.

The bottom line is that this wonderful stuff won’t happen nearly as fast as most of you might want it to. You may be used to doing things at Silicon Valley speeds. But you’re playing with public safety here. There are no backups to restore from.

The ride ahead will be much more turbulent than most of you realize.

    Jake Brodsky

    Written by

    I am one of those right wing conservative, married white fathers. Happy, not angry; armed, not dangerous; educated, but always a student.