Category Archives: Industry

Passenger Drones in Dubai?

Posted on by

So, an IMechE article popped into my email account today – link here

Dubai’s Roads and Transport Agency have announced that drones are going to be transporting passengers by July – the aim is to assist in reducing traffic congestion.

The vehicle in question is the Chinese-developed EHang 184 – revealed at CES in Las Vegas last year – Wired reported widespread belief, at the time, that the company were overconfident and that the idea could be mainly promotion for a more straightforward drone. However, the craft has recently been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority in Dubai.

The Specs of the EHang 184 as shown on their website. http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

The Specs of the EHang 184 as shown on their website.
http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs/

It bears close resemblance to the quad-copter small scale drones and the propellers fold inwards for parking. The 184 can carry a single passenger and a small compartment for luggage. As you would expect – it is controlled from a remote command centre and it is reported that it will be using the 4G network.

The system is reported to have ‘fail safe’ systems meaning that if anything does go wrong – it should seek to land in the nearest safe spot – this alongside the encryption of communication should start to answer some of the ethical and safety issues that are ever present in discussions on Unmanned Vehicles.

If this is the case, then how far away are we from Unmanned Flying Taxis in the UK?

Unfortunately, for fans for Autonomous Flight, it’s unlikely to be the near future. First and foremost, any vehicle would have to be certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and by the UK Civil Aviation Authority – which agencies are responsible might change post-Brexit, but the same process would need to be followed currently.

The vehicle would need to meet the safety requirements, similar to manned aircraft currently – however, even when the vehicle is approved from a safety and certification point of view, it would still need to be integrated into the UK airspace – making other airspace users aware, whether it needs to communicate with Air Traffic Control (likely yes!), as well as the more complex issues of integration with the general public – will it be able to land at any site, only approved sites etc…

There are more questions (as usual!) than answers… however the EHang 184 is not the only development plan out there – Airbus, Uber, Zee.Zero and many other companies are working on plans for pilot-less flying vehicles.

Sources:

IMechE Article

Wired

EHang 184

RAeS Local Branch Lecture – The Design of Small Rocket Motors

Posted on by

The Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Cosford branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society held their monthly lecture meeting at RAF Museum Cosford tonight, with a talk by one of Staffordshire University’s own, Group Captain Peter Mountain, one of the Senior Lecturers in the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Sciences. His topic? ‘The Design of Small Rocket Motors‘.

 

Small Rockets – as shown by this sub orbital solid fuel rocket.

 
Peter presented to a crowd of around 60 people, mostly branch members and visitors for an hour, introducing them to the world of rocket science. He started by setting out his own background and how his career in the RAF had led to the teaching of rocket design – through the path of calculation and reverse engineering during the Cold War to find out the scope of the threat Russian and Chinese rockets posed.

He then regaled the audience with tales of lunchtime, napkin based calculation sessions to see if the Air Show sales pitch was based in reality. Having warmed his audience up, it was time to break out some background theory and calculations to explain the principles of solid rockets and the calculations required to successfully design the system as well as some of the issues that might be encountered along the way. 

It was then a chance for the audience to bring their questions to Peter, which they did – he handled them well and elaborated; pulling other Staffordshire University attendees, Automotive Senior Lecturer Debi Roberts and MSc student and Branch Student Rep Robert Kameny into the discussion too. The lecture was well received by the branch, who thanked Peter for such an interesting talk.

Challenger Disaster: 30 Years On

Posted on by

Aeronautics isn’t just about the Civil and Military Aircraft that fly all over the world on a daily basis – although this tends to be our main focus, it’s also about any situation where flight is achieved and this can include WIG (Wing in Ground Effect) Aircraft and more importantly for this blog entry – Space.

Space, to paraphrase Star Trek, is one of the ‘final frontier{s}’ of human experience. Only the depths of the oceans have been explored less. It is one of the least hospitable places for human life to attempt to explore. This means those who seek to answer the questions of the wider human race by exploring space – put their lives in great danger, relying on the designs of engineers to keep them safe.

30 years ago today, on the 28th January 1986, one of the most well known of all space related disasters occurred. The NASA Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger broke apart just 73 seconds into its initial lift-off from the Kennedy Space Centre as part of a six day mission STS-51-L. All seven crew members died in the disaster, although the exact timing of their deaths following the initial incident is unclear.

The Challenger flight 51-l crew" by NASA - Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

The Challenger flight 51-l crew by NASA – Licensed under Public Domain via Commons.

Subsequent investigations pointed to the disintegration of the launch vehicle beginning after an O-ring seal in the right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed during lift-off – this caused a breach in the joint of the SRB it sealed. From this, pressurised burning gas from within the solid rocket motor could reach the outside and damage the external fuel tank and field joints. Separation occurred, leading to structural failure of the external tank. At this point aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter. Fragments from the incident descended to the Atlantic Ocean floor where they were recovered after a lengthy search and rescue operation.

Booster Rocket Breach by NASA - Licensed under Public Domain via Commons

Booster Rocket Breach by NASA – Licensed under Public Domain via Commons

Investigations into the disaster followed and the Rogers Commission was established to report to President Reagan on the causes of the disaster on Challenger’s 10th mission. The commission discovered the O-ring failure and following further study, attributed it to a design flaw, as it could be too easily compromised by a range of factors, one of which was low temperatures and cold weather. Further, it determined the ‘contributing causes’ that led to such an accident being possible. That both NASA and the contractor, Morton Thiokol, failed to respond adequately to the design flaw. That the launch decision making process was also seriously flawed and that the risk from the design issues was known but that there were no checks and balances to protect from such a decision being made. The disaster lead to the grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for a period of around 3 years. During this time, changes had to be implemented; safety measures, SRB redesigns and new policies on decision making were all part of this process.

Although these changes were made by NASA following the incident, it is often argued that the changes in the management structure and culture have not been deep or long lasting – an argument levelled at NASA once again following the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Columbia broke up over Texas and Louisiana on re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere following damage caused by foam insulation breaking off the external tank. Investigations led to the conclusion that NASA had failed to learn lessons from the Challenger disaster and that the same “Flawed decision making process” (Columbia Accident Investigation Board; CAIB) still existed.

So 30 years on, what can we still learn from the Challenger disaster? It is commonly used as a case study in engineering – looking at safety in engineering, ethics, whistle-blowing, communications and group decision-making. The engineer who warned about the effect on the O-rings, Roger Boisjoly, was, prior to his death in 2012, a speaker on workplace ethics and is held as an example of honesty and integrity. As engineers, by studying the disaster and the various complications around the event – we can improve our own understanding of safety, management and ethics within our field.

Aviation Nightmare? The Rise of Affordable Drones.

Posted on by

Drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are very much one of the current must have accessories, whether as an interested amateur, or one of the many companies looking to make use of the obvious benefits of drones. The price of drones has been falling steadily – a look at the numbers and range of drones available shows this. From under £20 you can now have access to any number of flying drones and the more you have to spend – the larger, more capable drone you can have.

Dangerous games?! Or useful tool?! Regulation can play a huge part in which side UAVs end up on.

Dangerous games?! Or useful tool?! Regulation can play a huge part in which side Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) end up on.

But what are the implications of the increasing accessibility of UAVs/drones?

What are the dangers?

What precautions can we take to prevent accidents? 

We are very much operating in a world of relative ignorance at the moment – whether as aviation professionals, or as members of the public – we have mostly avoided any major incidents with drones so far. However, left unchecked, we are in danger of an accident waiting to happen.

How serious could this problem be though? The obvious issue is aircraft to aircraft accidents, however, there is also the risk of the drones being used as weapons of terror or assassination before we even consider how they might be used to monitor or spy on people.

Sticking to the obvious aircraft to aircraft risks for the moment, the risk to an airliner from a drone depend upon many factors, any collision between the two types of aircraft is bound to result in damage to both aircraft. The extent of any damage to the airliner will depend on the size of the drone and the location of the strike. Velocity, direction and what part of the flight the aircraft is in can also contribute to the potential damage. Accidents could range from the relatively minor though costly or inconvenient, through to the usually non-fatal but expensive loss of an engine, right through to potentially catastrophic if serious damage is caused to control surfaces, stablisers, tail or cockpit by a larger drone. Smaller drones will be likely to cause damage similar to a bird strike – usually not enough to bring down an aircraft. However as larger drones become easier to access, this could change.

Given their size drones tend to be invisible to air traffic control and radar – this means that they can’t be monitored by these people. This doesn’t mean they are unregulated though, in the US the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sets the rules on both amateur and commercial drone activity, while in the UK it is the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) who regulate drone activities.

The rules for amateur flight are relatively basic and very much common sense, below follows a rough translation;

  • Stay below 400 ft
  • Keep clear of surrounding obstacles
  • Keep a visual line of sight; direct, unaided visual contact
  • Remain clear of manned aircraft operations
  • No flight near people or properties
  • Must not be more than 55 lb (approx. 25 kg) in the US or 20 kg in the UK
  • Must not be flown in a careless or reckless manner
  • Not within Airport traffic zones or regulated airspace – this depends upon specific regulation and detail

This then changes if the drone is flown on a commercial basis. At this point some form of licencing or permission is needed and this means meeting requirements in terms of airworthiness, flight permissions and pilot licencing. This is known (in the US at least) as Civil Operations.

The final type of drone operation is known (again, in the US) as Public or Governmental Operations – these are limited by federal statue and are considered and determined – depending on the situation, by the FAA, for a Certificate of Authorization. The regulations, conditions and limitations are designed to ensure a level of safety equivalent to manned aircraft flight. The most common uses will be law enforcement, fire fighting, disaster relief, search and rescue and other government operations.

So we can see that, assuming Civil and Public Operations acting within their regulations, it is the general public drones that are potentially the biggest safety threat. There are hobbyists that have been flying RC aircraft and helicopters for years, at recognised sites, under strict regulation – these are not the concern as they are highly likely to understand the need for regulation and guidelines on their flights. It is the general public that is the worry, while there are guidelines and regulations in place – how many people buying drones are aware of them? And how many people, amongst the general public (where hobby drone use can include estate agents to farmers, using them for various tasks) just don’t see their drone as a potential danger?

Ultimately, it may well come down to the users being aware of the regulations, using common sense and policing themselves. It is the mindset that needs changing, we can regulate, make technical fixes and enforce complex rules on airspace all we like – it will not change a thing, without raising awareness and encouraging common sense among the general public.

Listen to the Aviation Week podcast that triggered this blog post Here

Blue Plaque unveiled for local Aviation Pioneer – J D North

Posted on by

On the 25th July 2015, Staffordshire University Lecturer, Debi Roberts, was one of the specially invited guests alongside members of the Boulton Paul Association, the Bridgnorth Civic Society and the Bridgnorth Mayor and Mayoress to attend the unveiling of a Blue Plaque on the former Bridgnorth home of aviation pioneer John Dudley North CBE, former Managing Director and Chief Engineer of Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd. She was invited as part of her work to promote the local history of aviation in Staffordshire and the Midlands, as well as her links to the Boulton Paul company through two generations of her family.

The plaque installed at Eversley House

The plaque installed at Eversley House

John Dudley North was born in January 1893 and educated at Bedford School, following the death of his father, he was unable to attend University and instead took up an apprenticeship within marine engineering. His obvious interest in aeronautics and man’s desire to fly led to him transferring to an aeronautical apprenticeship at Hendon under Horatio Barber, he then headed to the factory of Claude Graham White. He rose rapidly to become Chief Designer and Chief Engineer. Following time at Austin, he moved to Boulton & Paul at Norwich to set up the Aeronautical Department. He then formed a consortium to buy the division when it was sold in 1934.

In 1936 the renamed Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd moved to Pendeford, Wolverhampton and North took up residence at Eversley House, Bridgnorth. He lived there until his death in January 1968, remaining a crucial and integral part of BPA and the aviation industry thoughout this time.

Boulton Paul Association members with the Mayor at the unveiling.

Boulton Paul Association members with the Mayor at the unveiling.

The Mayor spoke of North’s work as a lifetime advocate of improved air safety and his dedication to improvements in aircraft design before unveiling the plaque and then posed for photographs with the Boulton Paul Association members (Left to Right in the image above), Jack Holmes (Chief Engineer), Les Whitehouse (Archivist), Joyce Dunworth (widow of former BPA test pilot, Geoff Dunworth) and Cyril Plimmer (Chairman). An archive display of North’s life (collated by Association Archivist Les Whitehouse) was presented alongside light refreshments from the current owners of Eversley, Mr and Mrs John Murphy.