I’m a qualified aircraft instrument technician. I worked on Boeing and Airbus aircraft. I am amazed by your technology. Well done. I am familiar with the very old Boeing 747 Super-B cockpit and the hundreds of gauges and instruments that it had. Subsequently Boeing and airbus have largely simplified their cockpits to be “glass cockpits” or displays. This is already a huge optimization and eliminates the flight engineer. Modern passenger aircraft use fly-by-wire in any case. They also use triple redundancy in their flight control systems, so to those who say “What happens when the flight computers fail?”, I say you’ve probably been flying on fly-by-wire passenger aircraft all your life. Are you now going to stop flying? This is simply another step towards reducing the pilot’s workload. Bare in mind that these systems are tested and retested and must be certified by the FAA. I would be more afraid of the particular airline that I entrust my life to when flying. Some of them have pretty dodgy aircraft maintenance practices and bad track records.
Intuitively, your statement seems to make sense. Yet, aviation has seen increasing reliance on computers and the general trend seems to one of increasing safety. If so, how do you reconcile the data with your statement?
@@TonyCanones Highly trained and experienced pilots are the keystone of safety, especially in advanced aircraft. Imagine what would have happened during the Miracle on the Hudson, Sioux City, Gimli Glider, Azores Glider, 737 Levee landing, etc etc if it was up to the computers and not the pilots
@TonyCanones on the more advanced aircraft, we actually do see pilots failing to keep up their basic flying skills. It's an actual issue the industry is contending with for airline pilots, and it's resolved by enforcing a proper training regimen that keeps skills sharp in the face of loss of automation. Or just when hand flying. The skies are as safe as they are not only because the planes are as automated as they are, but also because pilots stay sharp and skilled. Flying is a very difficult skill, and like all skills, not using it leads to you losing it, it's why the industry has mandatory training requirements that (for licenses like ATP) usually end up including simulators with emergency training.
For every uniquely skilled pilot that performs flawlessly in a unique emergency, there are doubtless many other accidents with tragic results. As AI matures it is far more likely that the overall level of expertise by computers will exceed, on the average, that of human capabilities within a short time. I suspect computers will drive cars more safely within a similarly short timespan as well, if they're not already so capable.
To a properly trained pilot, the actual flying of the aircraft isn’t the hard part, it becomes second nature. They’re trying to dummy-proof flying so that dummies can fly - HUGE MISTAKE. Just because you can do a thing doesn’t always mean you should.
So apparently you don’t get the gist of what’s happening here. In the future there will be no human pilots, as everything will be done by machines. Capeesh! Cheers 🥂
Oh BTW! I drive a Tesla, and it does most of the driving now, and the plan is for the car to be able to drive itself autonomously, so in a year or two my Tesla car will not require a driver. I will simply summon the car with my phone, and send it where I want it to go? So how long will it be before aircraft, all aircraft no longer require a pilot?
@@theodorehaskins3756I have a Tesla and I’m an airline pilot. FSD is great but it’s not going to be autonomous in 2 years. FSD v12 is smoother but it still requires multiple interventions. Airliners aren’t going to be flying themselves anytime soon either. There are too many variables and complexities involved. It may seem advantageous in some regards but if you had any idea about how many irregular operations/incidents occur daily because of equipment failures on aircraft you wouldn’t be so quick to wish for the elimination of the human factor.
@thegreenpickel Looking at this system it appears to be fly by wire. If it incorporates control law states like most Airbus and Boeing airliners do then I don’t think it’s an issue, especially if pilots are still trained on the most basic levels of the control systems. Modern aircraft can provide envelope protection, stability and a number of other benefits but the aircraft can still be flown if all the enhancements fail or are deactivated. I’ll add that I’m not a helicopter pilot though. They are an order of magnitude more difficult to fly than airplanes.
I have over 7,000 hours flying helicopters as PIC and probably around 15,000 flying in helicopters and there is absolutely no issue with using touchscreens in a helicopter. I don’t know what helicopters you have flown on but if they’re shaking so much you can’t use a touchscreen you may want to have the rotor tracked and balanced.
Systems in aviation need redundancy. The redundancy here is the requirement for a well qualified pilot who can take over when this “autopilot” system fails. This pilot needs to be able to maintain his competence of flying manually. A pilot with a weak experience will loose his capacity rapidly if he is always relying on automation.
It should be other way around, if pilot fails it shpuld land it with a button.. but where is it gonna land if engine quits? Not gonna find a suitable autorotation spot 100%.
Usually it only updates when you request it to do so from Settings. I've never had one do an update, blowing up whatever I was working on at the time. Unlike some other applications/OS's I've used.
The iPad is only used in their prototype, not the production model. The latter will include a control stick as the main flight control, or a flight-certified touchscreen if the pilot prefers, not an iPad.
Incredible and was the logical next step in aviation tech development. But, I would hope this is in addition to fully trained pilots being licenced as they always have been. When the lights go out, somone has to bring you home safely and if there is one thing we all have learned about computer systems, its that they WILL ALWAYS pack up just when you need them the most. Great to have a system that can reduce workload at certain times and I am sure it will evolve over time, but two things are important to remember: A human often out logics any computer in vital moments, and part of the entire reason people go flying, is the challenge and being able to master and 'feel' the aircraft in your hands. Take that away and its another form of dumbing down of the human experience. Flying will never be 100% without risk and that is how it should be. Keep the right people at the controls by thorough training and support. I can see this certainly has its place as an advanced auto pilot during say, rescue missions in bad weather or when the crew are being tasked with a complex observation job and situational awareness is compromised, but eaqually, that is why you train specialist crew members to carry out those tasks, while keeping a highly proficient pilot at the controls to team work with those people. By taking away the prime job of the pilot, all you do, is give them a ton of other things to focus on and when the computer has a little lie down in a dark corner, the pilot is already well outside the loop.....
Thanks everyone for the comments. To answer a few questions that we've seen pop up in the thread below: • SkyOS does not replace an "experienced pilot" or any pilot for that matter. It is an operating system that simplifies hovering, takeoff, landing, and greatly reduces task saturation and the overall workload for pilots in the cockpit. It has a demonstrated capability of ensuring pilots don't get behind the aircraft, and what's more, protecting them during all phases of flight. • Skyryse One is powered by SkyOS and will be certified by the FAA and begin deliveries in 2025. • While SkyOS greatly simplifies flying, it still requires a pilot with an understanding of pilotage, aeronautical decision making (ADM), cross-country flight procedures, FAA airspace regulations, and basic weather phenomena. • Skyryse One will require an FAA Rotorcraft PPL to fly, however we do anticipate, given the simplicity of the SkyOS flight controls, an expedited path to flight training. • Finally, what happens if the SkyOS computers were to fail in flight? SkyOS is a full authority, triply redundant fly-by-wire system that has a failure rate on par with most modern commercial airlines, which is roughly 1 out of 1,000,000,000.
I thought about this years ago. I am thankful you guys are making it happen. I wish I could be part of your team. I would make it my life’s work to be a pert of something this big…
Probably unlikely, but really not the sort of thing you want at 5000 ft. I was being a bit facetious. But electronic interfaces are here to stay. You still need to be able to fly the aircraft though. 🙂
have you sat in an airbus? after the A300 they have been totally fly by wire with no mechanical fail overs. you've just started flying the 1950's do you drive the 1950's?
No i have not been in an airbus yet but I think the concept is there I do like to think that there could be something like this in the future, it’s just weird for me since I have been learning the “old” way and it has been hard but it’s worth the hard work.
This is absolutely amazing, safe and beautiful but what happens if the pilots have to transition to another conventionally controlled aircraft? Also, what happens when the electronics fail and you have to be a stick n rudder pilot?
@@shahbazfawbush "The electronics are critical and will be designed to not fail" Yeah, the electronics are designed not to fail, just like every other part on an aircraft. But stuff still breaks sometimes.
My question is is there a different license to fly for example this Skyryse helicopter or should one still go through the rigorous training to get PPL or CPL helicopter before coming to get Skyryse helicopter?
I'll take a well trained pilot over software anyday. What happens when the software fails or decides to reboot midway through a flight. Please tell me you've got a reversionary mode that supports full analog controls?
@@EthanAnderson the same exact things happen today, more often than people would like to know. Thats not the point, the point is training and maintaining piloting skills is critical. Using an ipad as part of the critical control chain to fly a helicopter is very fragile technology. Aircraft systems already are highly advanced, and more important, tested under all conditions to be robust and reliable. You can create the same system using a $10 ESP32 chip, but making it into something you would trust lives with is a totally different matter.
100%. Getting a pilot license is so much more than just learning stick and rudder skills. Its judgement skills, weather, rules and regs, etc. crashes due to pilot error are largely because of bad decision making. This machine is still only as smart as the human operating it.
I see this development as a two edged sword. On the one hand it will make flying easier and possibly safer, on the other it can make pilots complacent and over reliant on automation. In an emergency I'd probably favour a well trained pilot over an automatic system.
Seriously. It's annoying. Technology is making things better and easier. The same doomsayers here would have been complaining (or were) about going from a analog cockpit to a glass cockpit.
Great idea but you should never get in the air with out the skills to get down safety letting computers do the hard lifting will just remove airmanship skills and that day your PC fails will end up bring a whole new meaning to PC crashing.
@@dkdanis1340 Think this is another fly by wire it is not way near autorotate landing hover these skills should never be dumbed to a button push doing that is fine if you're proficient at said skill, never as a replacement to skills.
@@TeachAManToAngle No I think the idea is great just needs to be used in the right way, Not like Goggle is used now a days to prop up peoples limited IQ.
@@spitfirekid1 I'm a total layman to heli flight but is the saying "flying a heli is like balancing yourself on a unicycle while juggling balls" correct in a sense?
FAA will only approve that if there’s backup systems…..like what if the primary flight control system fails? What if the hydraulic system fails?…..so, it’s all back to a well-trained pilot.
Flying is not hard. I learnt. And as soon as I had my minimum licence, I learnt aerobatics like Air Force training. That taught me flying skills only few ever learn because for some reason the majority of pilots do not want to be as good as they could be. Aerobatics is not stunt flying or sky larking, it is learning the skill of controlling an aircraft absolutely in the 3 dimensions. I would fly with an Air Force pilot flying an airliner by choice, if I had the choice. So many airline accidents are attributed to the fact the pilots do not have basic flying skills like a WW1 pilot in a biplane. Aerodynamics and flying skills are the same whatever the aircraft. Failure of computer systems are the biggest contributions to accidents than anything. The world needs smaller aircraft, more pilots and more shorter airfields, and better stick and rudder training for pilots. I think every airforce pilot in the world would support my point of view, and they are undoubtedly the best pilots.
😮 incredible. I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this was created. Thank you for making the skies a little bit safer… and probably licenses a bit easier to obtain. Next step… digitizing ATC so people who may have communication impairment can still fly. Using the radio is the primary thing holding me back from soloing 😣
This could’ve saved Kobe-R.I.P. in addition to better radar tech/object detection. Helicopters have been so unnecessarily sketchy & complicated for too long. This is the way forward.
Kobe’s chopper crashed into a mountain because it was flying in heavy fog. It should not have been flying at all. In fact local police helicopters were grounded for that very reason.
Mixed feelings here. Personally, I got into GA because I love the complex engagement and direct involvement in all aspects of managing an airplane. I can see benefits like auto-reverse parking in cars, driven by incompetent drivers, as an example. However, will it also lead to incompetent flyers assuming responsibility beyond their abilities? It's also a tremendous lot of faith in lines of code. It must be said however, that it's wonderful tech with obvious applications. Hopefully not too many difficult unintended consequences. A few thoughts from a pilot and software engineer... Dave
Am I a bad person for thinking that the art of flying is worth more than the safety of automated systems? It's probably a selfish attitude but nobody seems to be saying it and I think a lot of us think it. Very cool engineering by the way! Sorry to add to the cynical comments, I didn't expect such a bad reception when I scrolled down here.
Congressman Graves said “You don’t have to worry so much about actually flying the aircraft.” Then why fly? If as capable as advertised, nothing wrong with this technology but like anything, how and why it is applied needs close scrutiny. My opinion - all pilots should be well trained and qualified to fly the aircraft in which they’re certified. Having this technology as a safety/ backup system will be great. I’m very skeptical of it being the main method of regular flying. There was quite an increase in Light Sport Aircraft accidents because “glass” became very affordable and a lot of new, non- instrument rated pilots were relying on instruments for VFR flights. When those instruments failed, many of these folks crashed because they couldn’t look out the window and fly the aircraft. Great technology, be careful how it is sold and used.
Ahhh. Just like the 5dollar game controller controller submarine. I’ll wait a couple more 10-20years, before boarding this chopper.. u guys enjoy and have fun in the meanwhile!
With any aircraft,you need to be able to revert to mechanical back up and pilot skills in the event of computer malfunctions. With this,in the event of an electrical failure,you'd have no useable controls or pilot capable of using them. These guys have Boeings ethics!
_“having a computer that knows exactly how to fly just completely enhances general aviation to a level that we've never seen before”_ Until something *_BREAKS and you don’t know how to fly the helicopter!!!_* _“by putting a control system on board that doesn't allow you to make some of the mistakes that are so dangerous it's going to greatly change the safety of Aviation”_ If I remember correctly Airbus said the same thing about the A320-111 as the airplane flew it’s self into the trees at the end of the runway at the Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport during an air show.
Very interest developments but honestly this feels like irresponsible marketing. You should not detract from focus on flying the aircraft, and the complexity and high barrier for entry inherent in aviation IS one of the most important safety features.
Helicopters and airplanes are NOT massively complicated to operate. Almost anyone can be taught the muscle memory to fly. I am all for Tech providing accurate information to the pilot that sharpens and enhances the decision making process. Drones are great , they fly well and accurately . That being said... take a poll today of people that would be willing to fly ANYWHERE on any aircraft , WITHOUT a qualified Pilot on board at least with some type of control/over ride authority. I don't think you will get many pax agreeing to that.
I see such a disdain for automated systems but automated systems are the backbone of spaceflight. You get to a certain point in technical capability or mission profile that the weakest point is the person not the machine. Astronauts don't manually fly into space and B2 spirit bombers or the old F117 nighthawk CANNOT fly safely without automated systems. Flight is possible and maintained due to the machinery we've built. Have some reverence that it's that machinery that makes it possible
After taking flying lessons for a couple of years I can completely agree that a computer should be in charge of flying. The problem is most pilots have the "macho" attitude. There are a million ways to make mistakes while flying and only one correct way. The probability of making mistakes is big. And if you have a job, you cannot be flying every day, unless thats your job. If you stop flying for a couple of weeks, you are already rusty. Unless your dad teach you to fly at 8 years old, flying is not natural. I want a plane or helicopter that have 2 things. A google map to select the destination. and a go button. Thats all. The computer should make all the contacts to tower. The biggest surprise as a student pilot for me was all the back and forth with tower. they should just communicate with some-kind of text message protocol. and forget the voice. This way, a computer in the tower and a computer in the aircraft can talk all they want for a safe flight. Thank you moving aviation forward. It seems to be 100 years behind auto technology.
0:45 and 100% of pilot error accident s are avoidable by being a good pilot. Relying too much on fancy tech and instruments are what cause a ton of these kind of accidents. The bar for being a pilot should be higher, not lower
Start with this and you’ll have pilots with zero “mechanical sympathy” like most vehicle users today. Make it simpler but don’t undermine the required knowledge of your machine.
Alot of people are talking about redundancy of systems means having a competent pilot, other are tal The computer can't interpret the radio call from the tower that tells you to expedite the crossing of center line to enter left downwind for taxiway N. Can't interpret non standard holding instructions over a VOR radial. Can't interpret your IFR clearance and takeoff instructions. The barrier to flying is high for a reason. Hovering a helicopter is easy. 90% of aviation has nothing to do with the flight controls. The aviation world is not ready for this technology which enables idiocy.
“flying is unnecessarily complicated” you’ve just made it much more complicated, all you did was hide the complexity and ensure the pilot will not know about it
And it doesn’t matter because the FAA is still going to require anyone at the controls of even the simplest helicopter to go through flight school and learn to fly what you call over complicated helicopters. Being a pilot is more than manipulating the controls.
A Vietnam seasoned pilot? You do realize that there are no seasoned Vietnam pilots anymore? It's been 50 years since Vietnam. All those pilots are long retired or dead.
@@zombieshoot4318 Thanks for your comment! (It was a general appeal to the abilities of the pilots that flew back then. I flew twice with a pilot from that era and, imho, there is just no substitute for those attitudes and abilities.)
@@skyryseone Hey guys. Happy to see folks who’ll respond to some bad feedback. I’m a 20 year military pilot (Navy and Coast Guard) with over 6000 hours in 5 different versions of the H60. I also have 3000 hours instructing in Bell 206’s, which is my current job with the Navy in the Pensacola area.
Nice -- I doubt you'll be at Osh by chance? If so, you can swing by our booth and demo the simulator. No sweat if not a fit for you, but it'd be great to hear some hands-on feedback. Either way, thanks for watching.
Wish I could this year. I’ll continue to be on the lookout and definitely would love to engage. Always willing to dialogue. If I’m wrong, more than happy to admit it.
As only a "Private Helicopter Pilot" with only "dozens" of autotrotations under my belt, if the aircraft is still intact and flyable, and no one is hurt, it was a successful autorotation. If the aircraft is safely on the ground and no one is injured or "un-alive", then it was a good, though not as successful autorotation. I agree that basic, un-aided pilot skills will always be required, especially when all the bells & whistles fail.
Call me a hater but what exactly happens when something goes wrong? We saw what happened on the 737 max when the AOA sensor is knocked off, what happens in an aircraft that literally does not allow full manual controls? It's really impressive tech but I feel the reason aircraft are so complex is partially because it gives the pilot more control should something go wrong.
Best way to make a helicopter controls a childs play is to do what Russians are doing coaxial rotors such coaxial toy helicopters are so stable they can be flown even by 5 year olds. The controls on swash plate based helicopter with lag lead and rotor plane change all that complexity goes away by removing swash plate you have to change the hardware the software is much easier following a system that is stable in hover and elimiates tail rotor
I’m a qualified aircraft instrument technician. I worked on Boeing and Airbus aircraft. I am amazed by your technology. Well done. I am familiar with the very old Boeing 747 Super-B cockpit and the hundreds of gauges and instruments that it had. Subsequently Boeing and airbus have largely simplified their cockpits to be “glass cockpits” or displays. This is already a huge optimization and eliminates the flight engineer. Modern passenger aircraft use fly-by-wire in any case. They also use triple redundancy in their flight control systems, so to those who say “What happens when the flight computers fail?”, I say you’ve probably been flying on fly-by-wire passenger aircraft all your life. Are you now going to stop flying? This is simply another step towards reducing the pilot’s workload. Bare in mind that these systems are tested and retested and must be certified by the FAA. I would be more afraid of the particular airline that I entrust my life to when flying. Some of them have pretty dodgy aircraft maintenance practices and bad track records.
If you’re trying to dummy-proof flying, you’re only going to end up with dummies flying. When the computers fail, everybody is dead.
Intuitively, your statement seems to make sense. Yet, aviation has seen increasing reliance on computers and the general trend seems to one of increasing safety. If so, how do you reconcile the data with your statement?
@@TonyCanones Highly trained and experienced pilots are the keystone of safety, especially in advanced aircraft. Imagine what would have happened during the Miracle on the Hudson, Sioux City, Gimli Glider, Azores Glider, 737 Levee landing, etc etc if it was up to the computers and not the pilots
@TonyCanones on the more advanced aircraft, we actually do see pilots failing to keep up their basic flying skills. It's an actual issue the industry is contending with for airline pilots, and it's resolved by enforcing a proper training regimen that keeps skills sharp in the face of loss of automation. Or just when hand flying.
The skies are as safe as they are not only because the planes are as automated as they are, but also because pilots stay sharp and skilled. Flying is a very difficult skill, and like all skills, not using it leads to you losing it, it's why the industry has mandatory training requirements that (for licenses like ATP) usually end up including simulators with emergency training.
Famous last words
For every uniquely skilled pilot that performs flawlessly in a unique emergency, there are doubtless many other accidents with tragic results. As AI matures it is far more likely that the overall level of expertise by computers will exceed, on the average, that of human capabilities within a short time. I suspect computers will drive cars more safely within a similarly short timespan as well, if they're not already so capable.
The enjoyment of flying is actually flying the aircraft, not pushing sliders on a screen.
Call me biased, but a well-trained experienced human at the controls is the best safety feature ever.
i think the idea of this system is to rescue said human if they for example encounter medical issues
You are biased. 😂
I am a private pilot, love aviation my whole life, but hell… how it’s complicated!
i agree. one thing i know about electronics is. they can always fail the same as any mechanical device, i deal with both systems everyday
even the best humans have bad days
Biased
Anybody can fly a plane, its when you have a failure that makes the difference.
To a properly trained pilot, the actual flying of the aircraft isn’t the hard part, it becomes second nature.
They’re trying to dummy-proof flying so that dummies can fly - HUGE MISTAKE.
Just because you can do a thing doesn’t always mean you should.
Dummies can’t think too far ahead nor think about possible exigencies. That’s why they’re dummies.
Brings a new meaning to the words "fool proof" 😊
When you showed the clip of it flying on its own, my immediate thought was "but can it autorotate" and the very next clip shows just that. Amazing!
NOT. Used to fly OH 58s hands and foot free for hundred + miles for the fun of it... Go ARMY
Flying an aircraft isn't THAT complicated. It does take training and practice however.
Is it really a good idea to lower the barrier to entry for aviation?
So apparently you don’t get the gist of what’s happening here. In the future there will be no human pilots, as everything will be done by machines. Capeesh! Cheers 🥂
Oh BTW! I drive a Tesla, and it does most of the driving now, and the plan is for the car to be able to drive itself autonomously, so in a year or two my Tesla car will not require a driver. I will simply summon the car with my phone, and send it where I want it to go?
So how long will it be before aircraft, all aircraft no longer require a pilot?
@@theodorehaskins3756I have a Tesla and I’m an airline pilot. FSD is great but it’s not going to be autonomous in 2 years. FSD v12 is smoother but it still requires multiple interventions. Airliners aren’t going to be flying themselves anytime soon either. There are too many variables and complexities involved. It may seem advantageous in some regards but if you had any idea about how many irregular operations/incidents occur daily because of equipment failures on aircraft you wouldn’t be so quick to wish for the elimination of the human factor.
@thegreenpickel Looking at this system it appears to be fly by wire. If it incorporates control law states like most Airbus and Boeing airliners do then I don’t think it’s an issue, especially if pilots are still trained on the most basic levels of the control systems. Modern aircraft can provide envelope protection, stability and a number of other benefits but the aircraft can still be flown if all the enhancements fail or are deactivated.
I’ll add that I’m not a helicopter pilot though. They are an order of magnitude more difficult to fly than airplanes.
@@skyserf So why do you assume I do not have a background in aviation?
Why do they use touchscreen in such a shaky environment ?? You need push buttons and physical controls, an helicopter is always shaking like hell !
Everything gotta be futuristic you know. Even if that’s inconvenient. That’s the way it is 🗿
Good point. I was thinking about sticky fingers and gloves. Oh, also reflection from the sun.
Seriously? An helicopter?
that is not true at all they do shake and carry on at startup and landing at times but certainly not in normal flight
I have over 7,000 hours flying helicopters as PIC and probably around 15,000 flying in helicopters and there is absolutely no issue with using touchscreens in a helicopter. I don’t know what helicopters you have flown on but if they’re shaking so much you can’t use a touchscreen you may want to have the rotor tracked and balanced.
Systems in aviation need redundancy. The redundancy here is the requirement for a well qualified pilot who can take over when this “autopilot” system fails. This pilot needs to be able to maintain his competence of flying manually. A pilot with a weak experience will loose his capacity rapidly if he is always relying on automation.
It should be other way around, if pilot fails it shpuld land it with a button.. but where is it gonna land if engine quits? Not gonna find a suitable autorotation spot 100%.
@@alexvbyev A well trained Pilot with common sense , Machines fail
So basically you will learn how to fly because you need to for the license but then forget everything because of the aircraft
what happens if the ipad decided to update, what then.
Usually it only updates when you request it to do so from Settings. I've never had one do an update, blowing up whatever I was working on at the time. Unlike some other applications/OS's I've used.
I used to fly Pipelines with iPads, if those are genuine Apple Products this company needs to quit while they are ahead.
The iPad is only used in their prototype, not the production model. The latter will include a control stick as the main flight control, or a flight-certified touchscreen if the pilot prefers, not an iPad.
I can see using this as an Enhanced flight mode for licensed pilots. It would dramatically reduce the workload.
Incredible and was the logical next step in aviation tech development. But, I would hope this is in addition to fully trained pilots being licenced as they always have been. When the lights go out, somone has to bring you home safely and if there is one thing we all have learned about computer systems, its that they WILL ALWAYS pack up just when you need them the most. Great to have a system that can reduce workload at certain times and I am sure it will evolve over time, but two things are important to remember: A human often out logics any computer in vital moments, and part of the entire reason people go flying, is the challenge and being able to master and 'feel' the aircraft in your hands. Take that away and its another form of dumbing down of the human experience. Flying will never be 100% without risk and that is how it should be. Keep the right people at the controls by thorough training and support. I can see this certainly has its place as an advanced auto pilot during say, rescue missions in bad weather or when the crew are being tasked with a complex observation job and situational awareness is compromised, but eaqually, that is why you train specialist crew members to carry out those tasks, while keeping a highly proficient pilot at the controls to team work with those people. By taking away the prime job of the pilot, all you do, is give them a ton of other things to focus on and when the computer has a little lie down in a dark corner, the pilot is already well outside the loop.....
“Oceangate Titan” of the skies.
Fax
Great comment
The best thing to revolutionize general aviation will be to make it cheap enough that pilots can afford to be more proficient.
Thanks everyone for the comments. To answer a few questions that we've seen pop up in the thread below:
• SkyOS does not replace an "experienced pilot" or any pilot for that matter. It is an operating system that simplifies hovering, takeoff, landing, and greatly reduces task saturation and the overall workload for pilots in the cockpit. It has a demonstrated capability of ensuring pilots don't get behind the aircraft, and what's more, protecting them during all phases of flight.
• Skyryse One is powered by SkyOS and will be certified by the FAA and begin deliveries in 2025.
• While SkyOS greatly simplifies flying, it still requires a pilot with an understanding of pilotage, aeronautical decision making (ADM), cross-country flight procedures, FAA airspace regulations, and basic weather phenomena.
• Skyryse One will require an FAA Rotorcraft PPL to fly, however we do anticipate, given the simplicity of the SkyOS flight controls, an expedited path to flight training.
• Finally, what happens if the SkyOS computers were to fail in flight? SkyOS is a full authority, triply redundant fly-by-wire system that has a failure rate on par with most modern commercial airlines, which is roughly 1 out of 1,000,000,000.
Why have a pilot at all? It seems like AI is more than capable to fly an air vehicle better than any human. we see it in drones everyday.
@@st-hf2ik Maybe because people want to fly from point A to point B?
I love it! I've always believed that aviation could use more minimalism in its operations. This is a huge leap forward! Huge props to you guys. 😊
Flight is simple but unforgiving. Human element should never be detracted from
I thought about this years ago. I am thankful you guys are making it happen. I wish I could be part of your team. I would make it my life’s work to be a pert of something this big…
It’s all fun and games until “This accessory is incompatible.” Or “Please update your subscription.”
You have a point. It's sad that we've become used to corporate entities using evry opportunity to rip off their customers.
Probably unlikely, but really not the sort of thing you want at 5000 ft. I was being a bit facetious. But electronic interfaces are here to stay.
You still need to be able to fly the aircraft though. 🙂
Just started flying a Piper Seminole and yeah it’s hard but I’ll take that any day over this, gotta learn the basics I don’t think in could trust this
have you sat in an airbus? after the A300 they have been totally fly by wire with no mechanical fail overs. you've just started flying the 1950's do you drive the 1950's?
@@philkennedy8683 I think some people don't realize just how much of every single modern airplane is automated.
No i have not been in an airbus yet but I think the concept is there I do like to think that there could be something like this in the future, it’s just weird for me since I have been learning the “old” way and it has been hard but it’s worth the hard work.
What happens when the sceens go blue during flight?
you just unplug it and plug it back in.
The pilot continues flying with the stick and looking out the window.
Great speaking with the crew at airventure a week ago!!!!!!!!
Great meeting you, as well. Thanks for spending the time to come by our booth.
Great work!
Is it FAA certified?
Lol 😅😆😆
We expect FAA certification for the Skyryse One in 2025.
Once properly greased, FAA will certify.
FAA frowns upon innovation
This is absolutely amazing, safe and beautiful but what happens if the pilots have to transition to another conventionally controlled aircraft? Also, what happens when the electronics fail and you have to be a stick n rudder pilot?
We’ll likely have to be certified for both flight conditions.
The electronics are critical and will be designed to not fail. Your argument is like saying what if the engine fails? Well then you are in trouble....
@@shahbazfawbush "The electronics are critical and will be designed to not fail" Yeah, the electronics are designed not to fail, just like every other part on an aircraft. But stuff still breaks sometimes.
If you think it is too complicated to pilot an aircraft, of any kind, you have no business being in the cockpit in the first place...
What could possibly be more fun. Oh yeah a system update or exception thingy. 🤔
My question is is there a different license to fly for example this Skyryse helicopter or should one still go through the rigorous training to get PPL or CPL helicopter before coming to get Skyryse helicopter?
I'll take a well trained pilot over software anyday. What happens when the software fails or decides to reboot midway through a flight. Please tell me you've got a reversionary mode that supports full analog controls?
The first lunar lander had a computer to land it all the way, it failed half way down and Neil Armstrong had to go manual.
The Apollo computer had less memory than a handheld calculator. Just getting it to work for most of the intended use was a near miracle.
So we shouldn't use technology today because of something that happened 50 years ago? Seriously?
@@EthanAnderson the same exact things happen today, more often than people would like to know. Thats not the point, the point is training and maintaining piloting skills is critical. Using an ipad as part of the critical control chain to fly a helicopter is very fragile technology. Aircraft systems already are highly advanced, and more important, tested under all conditions to be robust and reliable. You can create the same system using a $10 ESP32 chip, but making it into something you would trust lives with is a totally different matter.
100%. Getting a pilot license is so much more than just learning stick and rudder skills. Its judgement skills, weather, rules and regs, etc. crashes due to pilot error are largely because of bad decision making. This machine is still only as smart as the human operating it.
I see this development as a two edged sword. On the one hand it will make flying easier and possibly safer, on the other it can make pilots complacent and over reliant on automation. In an emergency I'd probably favour a well trained pilot over an automatic system.
Awesome bring it on..
Brilliant. Despite so many doomsayers in the comments. At least Skyryse is tackling an obvious issue.
Seriously. It's annoying. Technology is making things better and easier. The same doomsayers here would have been complaining (or were) about going from a analog cockpit to a glass cockpit.
What happens when part of the control system fails? I'm old enough to remember 737MAX when an AoA sensor failed.
That's why planes are complex, so if a failure happens you should be able to remedy it with a backup system.
Absolutely amazing... Huzzah!!
Great idea but you should never get in the air with out the skills to get down safety letting computers do the hard lifting will just remove airmanship skills and that day your PC fails will end up bring a whole new meaning to PC crashing.
Commercial planes have been fly by wire for decades and they never failed.
@@dkdanis1340 Think this is another fly by wire it is not way near autorotate landing hover these skills should never be dumbed to a button push doing that is fine if you're proficient at said skill, never as a replacement to skills.
@@historickeepernever say never.
@@TeachAManToAngle No I think the idea is great just needs to be used in the right way, Not like Goggle is used now a days to prop up peoples limited IQ.
@@dkdanis1340I think you think fly by wire means something other than what it actually is.
Awesome. I’ve flown the R22 and it can be a handful. I’d fly this is a heartbeat.
light helis and planes are skittish to fly so or so. literally every fart can change its direction.
@@tomast9034 great comment! So true. The smallest airplane I’ve flown is a Cessna 150; the largest is the Beach 18. Worlds apart in stability!
@@spitfirekid1 I'm a total layman to heli flight but is the saying "flying a heli is like balancing yourself on a unicycle while juggling balls" correct in a sense?
@@vivaselementum I haven’t tried that but I bet that is close!
@@vivaselementum at speed its like a plane, hard is the transition from forward/backward flight to hover...but who knows iam just an armchair pilot :D
Can it fix ejecting flying doors, sudden critical altitude changes, on certain commercial planes? Asking for a client. :)
Subscription based heated seats?
This is giving me Ocean Gate vibes…
All fine and dandy, but will the pilot be able to handle the situation when systems break and become inop while airborne?
Hot Take: flying should be complex. The gauntlet should be narrow.
FAA will only approve that if there’s backup systems…..like what if the primary flight control system fails? What if the hydraulic system fails?…..so, it’s all back to a well-trained pilot.
How can you do autorotation after engine failure if is fly by wire
Give me a pilot at the contols anyday, boeing has proved that automation is not fool proof
With as much love I have for Boeing you're right
Flying is not hard. I learnt. And as soon as I had my minimum licence, I learnt aerobatics like Air Force training. That taught me flying skills only few ever learn because for some reason the majority of pilots do not want to be as good as they could be. Aerobatics is not stunt flying or sky larking, it is learning the skill of controlling an aircraft absolutely in the 3 dimensions. I would fly with an Air Force pilot flying an airliner by choice, if I had the choice. So many airline accidents are attributed to the fact the pilots do not have basic flying skills like a WW1 pilot in a biplane. Aerodynamics and flying skills are the same whatever the aircraft. Failure of computer systems are the biggest contributions to accidents than anything. The world needs smaller aircraft, more pilots and more shorter airfields, and better stick and rudder training for pilots.
I think every airforce pilot in the world would support my point of view, and they are undoubtedly the best pilots.
😮 incredible. I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this was created. Thank you for making the skies a little bit safer… and probably licenses a bit easier to obtain. Next step… digitizing ATC so people who may have communication impairment can still fly. Using the radio is the primary thing holding me back from soloing 😣
This could’ve saved Kobe-R.I.P. in addition to better radar tech/object detection.
Helicopters have been so unnecessarily sketchy & complicated for too long. This is the way forward.
Kobe’s chopper crashed into a mountain because it was flying in heavy fog. It should not have been flying at all. In fact local police helicopters were grounded for that very reason.
Exactly. Unfortunately, that was completely bad human decision-making. Not lack of ability.
When things go wrong, things get complicated. If you’re not ready for it, don’t get in the cockpit.
Mixed feelings here. Personally, I got into GA because I love the complex engagement and direct involvement in all aspects of managing an airplane. I can see benefits like auto-reverse parking in cars, driven by incompetent drivers, as an example. However, will it also lead to incompetent flyers assuming responsibility beyond their abilities? It's also a tremendous lot of faith in lines of code.
It must be said however, that it's wonderful tech with obvious applications. Hopefully not too many difficult unintended consequences. A few thoughts from a pilot and software engineer... Dave
Perfect! you are the future
What could go wrong?😮
This is amazing. I failed my a320 sim during my recurrent and i've been unemployed since.
Am I a bad person for thinking that the art of flying is worth more than the safety of automated systems? It's probably a selfish attitude but nobody seems to be saying it and I think a lot of us think it.
Very cool engineering by the way! Sorry to add to the cynical comments, I didn't expect such a bad reception when I scrolled down here.
Congressman Graves said “You don’t have to worry so much about actually flying the aircraft.” Then why fly? If as capable as advertised, nothing wrong with this technology but like anything, how and why it is applied needs close scrutiny. My opinion - all pilots should be well trained and qualified to fly the aircraft in which they’re certified. Having this technology as a safety/ backup system will be great. I’m very skeptical of it being the main method of regular flying. There was quite an increase in Light Sport Aircraft accidents because “glass” became very affordable and a lot of new, non- instrument rated pilots were relying on instruments for VFR flights. When those instruments failed, many of these folks crashed because they couldn’t look out the window and fly the aircraft. Great technology, be careful how it is sold and used.
Ahhh. Just like the 5dollar game controller controller submarine. I’ll wait a couple more 10-20years, before boarding this chopper.. u guys enjoy and have fun in the meanwhile!
Would love to have one.
Hi Arthur-if you’d like to connect with us, you can visit our site to learn more about ownership or just follow our updates on the Skyryse One.
@@skyryseone
Thanks. I work 6 1/2 days a week and broke on Mondays.
Many problems present themselves where machines simply cannot replicate human intuition and experience.
With any aircraft,you need to be able to revert to mechanical back up and pilot skills in the event of computer malfunctions.
With this,in the event of an electrical failure,you'd have no useable controls or pilot capable of using them.
These guys have Boeings ethics!
_“having a computer that knows exactly how to fly just completely enhances general aviation to a level that we've never seen before”_
Until something *_BREAKS and you don’t know how to fly the helicopter!!!_*
_“by putting a control system on board that doesn't allow you to make some of the mistakes that are so dangerous it's going to greatly change the safety of Aviation”_
If I remember correctly Airbus said the same thing about the A320-111 as the airplane flew it’s self into the trees at the end of the runway at the Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport during an air show.
Imagine if it is on all aircraft and all you need is a private pilot certificate to fly any type
Skyryse One is our first production aircraft powered by our SkyOS, which is a universal flight management system for any aircraft.
Now the type endorsement for each helicopter makes so much more sense😅
Very interest developments but honestly this feels like irresponsible marketing. You should not detract from focus on flying the aircraft, and the complexity and high barrier for entry inherent in aviation IS one of the most important safety features.
Helicopters and airplanes are NOT massively complicated to operate. Almost anyone can be taught the muscle memory to fly. I am all for Tech providing accurate information to the pilot that sharpens and enhances the decision making process. Drones are great , they fly well and accurately . That being said... take a poll today of people that would be willing to fly ANYWHERE on any aircraft , WITHOUT a qualified Pilot on board at least with some type of control/over ride authority. I don't think you will get many pax agreeing to that.
Anyone remember when boing added auto pitch without telling anyone? Yeah, you start selling this “not complex” helicopters, people start dying.
I see such a disdain for automated systems but automated systems are the backbone of spaceflight. You get to a certain point in technical capability or mission profile that the weakest point is the person not the machine. Astronauts don't manually fly into space and B2 spirit bombers or the old F117 nighthawk CANNOT fly safely without automated systems.
Flight is possible and maintained due to the machinery we've built. Have some reverence that it's that machinery that makes it possible
Brilliant!
After taking flying lessons for a couple of years I can completely agree that a computer should be in charge of flying. The problem is most pilots have the "macho" attitude. There are a million ways to make mistakes while flying and only one correct way. The probability of making mistakes is big. And if you have a job, you cannot be flying every day, unless thats your job. If you stop flying for a couple of weeks, you are already rusty. Unless your dad teach you to fly at 8 years old, flying is not natural. I want a plane or helicopter that have 2 things. A google map to select the destination. and a go button. Thats all. The computer should make all the contacts to tower. The biggest surprise as a student pilot for me was all the back and forth with tower. they should just communicate with some-kind of text message protocol. and forget the voice. This way, a computer in the tower and a computer in the aircraft can talk all they want for a safe flight. Thank you moving aviation forward. It seems to be 100 years behind auto technology.
You’re the Tesla of aviation. That is not a compliment.
0:45 and 100% of pilot error accident s are avoidable by being a good pilot. Relying too much on fancy tech and instruments are what cause a ton of these kind of accidents. The bar for being a pilot should be higher, not lower
Epic
Simply beautifully brilliant
Finally !
Touch screens for critical settings? 😦
Start with this and you’ll have pilots with zero “mechanical sympathy” like most vehicle users today. Make it simpler but don’t undermine the required knowledge of your machine.
A drop of moisture on the touch screen will mean death lol
Alot of people are talking about redundancy of systems means having a competent pilot, other are tal The computer can't interpret the radio call from the tower that tells you to expedite the crossing of center line to enter left downwind for taxiway N. Can't interpret non standard holding instructions over a VOR radial. Can't interpret your IFR clearance and takeoff instructions. The barrier to flying is high for a reason. Hovering a helicopter is easy. 90% of aviation has nothing to do with the flight controls. The aviation world is not ready for this technology which enables idiocy.
Combine this with augmented reality for navigation...
Thank you skyryse you are the best
I want to see a video with the ceo pulling the mixture at 500 feet and seeing how that auto rotate goes not over an airfield
Was that John Hamm?
The real hang up is the cost to flying, solve that and Ill be impressed.
thats why i stick to msfs and dcs ....arma is also decent.
“flying is unnecessarily complicated” you’ve just made it much more complicated, all you did was hide the complexity and ensure the pilot will not know about it
They're so confident in their autopilot they're wearing helmets.
And it doesn’t matter because the FAA is still going to require anyone at the controls of even the simplest helicopter to go through flight school and learn to fly what you call over complicated helicopters. Being a pilot is more than manipulating the controls.
Just a thought, I think I would rather have a Vietnam seasoned pilot at the helm… automation sure seems nice though…
A Vietnam seasoned pilot? You do realize that there are no seasoned Vietnam pilots anymore? It's been 50 years since Vietnam. All those pilots are long retired or dead.
@@zombieshoot4318 Thanks for your comment! (It was a general appeal to the abilities of the pilots that flew back then. I flew twice with a pilot from that era and, imho, there is just no substitute for those attitudes and abilities.)
Is it cheaper? I don't think so.
When it cuts out, just unplug it and it will probably reboot in a minute or two
Its insane that autopilot for helicopter was not a thing.
As a professional helicopter pilot, I can unequivocally say I would NEVER set foot in this machine. Hard pass.
@@mikeallert8930 Hey Mike-what do you currently fly?
@@skyryseone Hey guys. Happy to see folks who’ll respond to some bad feedback. I’m a 20 year military pilot (Navy and Coast Guard) with over 6000 hours in 5 different versions of the H60. I also have 3000 hours instructing in Bell 206’s, which is my current job with the Navy in the Pensacola area.
Nice -- I doubt you'll be at Osh by chance? If so, you can swing by our booth and demo the simulator. No sweat if not a fit for you, but it'd be great to hear some hands-on feedback. Either way, thanks for watching.
Wish I could this year. I’ll continue to be on the lookout and definitely would love to engage. Always willing to dialogue. If I’m wrong, more than happy to admit it.
Myea. Everyone will say how great this is, until the first one crashes!
I’d like to point out, from a person with 1000’s of autorotations under his belt, that it counted as an autorotation but it wasn’t a real good one.
As only a "Private Helicopter Pilot" with only "dozens" of autotrotations under my belt, if the aircraft is still intact and flyable, and no one is hurt, it was a successful autorotation. If the aircraft is safely on the ground and no one is injured or "un-alive", then it was a good, though not as successful autorotation. I agree that basic, un-aided pilot skills will always be required, especially when all the bells & whistles fail.
Call me a hater but what exactly happens when something goes wrong? We saw what happened on the 737 max when the AOA sensor is knocked off, what happens in an aircraft that literally does not allow full manual controls? It's really impressive tech but I feel the reason aircraft are so complex is partially because it gives the pilot more control should something go wrong.
Great news...it's a helicopter.
Best way to make a helicopter controls a childs play is to do what Russians are doing coaxial rotors such coaxial toy helicopters are so stable they can be flown even by 5 year olds. The controls on swash plate based helicopter with lag lead and rotor plane change all that complexity goes away by removing swash plate you have to change the hardware the software is much easier following a system that is stable in hover and elimiates tail rotor
So instead of a simple all mechanical design now the helicopter is even more complex with all the computers and sensors on board.