# Now We Don't Need Pilots



## Kirkhill

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/03/23/dp14-hawk/?comp%3D1199477489291%26rank%3D0



> Army Eyes Dual-Rotor Drone for Casualty-Evacuation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonfly Pictures Inc.'S DP14 Hawk UAS is part of a U.S. Army effort to one day use drones to evacuate wounded soldiers from the battlefield. Photo: U.S. Army.
> 
> POSTED BY: MATT COX MARCH 23, 2017
> Dragonfly Pictures Inc.’s DP14 Hawk, a dual-rotor unmanned aerial system, could play a role in a U.S. Army effort to one day use drones to evacuate wounded soldiers from the battlefield.
> 
> The DP14 Hawk, which resembles a miniature CH-47 Chinook helicopter, can carry 430 pounds in its six-foot by 20-inch cargo space for about 2.4 hours.
> 
> It has a cruising speed of about 82 miles per hour and is capable of flying in crosswinds up to 46 mph.
> 
> The DP14 Hawk uses onboard LIDAR, or 3D laser scanning, and advanced algorithms to self-navigate in complex, restricted environments, according to DPI’s website. This includes advanced intelligence for path planning, course corrections, perception, obstacle avoidance, and landing-site selection.
> 
> “These cutting-edge capabilities allow the Hawk to fly intelligent autonomous, NLOS, nap-of-earth missions and dynamically adapt to changes in flight conditions and terrain,” according to DPI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DP14 is part of a U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, or USAMRMC, effort to look at alternatives to evacuating casualties in what the Army and Marine Corps calls Multidomain Battlefield, a operational concept designed to prepare the joint force to operate in the domains of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
> 
> In the future, commanders will employ unmanned systems as force multipliers in mobility- or resource-constrained or denied environments. Future multipurpose unmanned system platforms could assist in medical operations in such environments, Gary R. Gilbert, program manager of the USAMRMC Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center’s Medical Intelligent Systems.
> 
> “The growing planned use of unmanned systems and robotics on the future battlefield affords both great opportunities for medical force multipliers as well as significant operational medicine and medical research challenges,” Gilbert said in a recent Army press release.
> 
> The TATRC team is developing a UAS research platform that is much smaller than traditionally piloted vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. It has the potential to provide some unique capability for medical logistics compared with larger aircraft. Because of the increased mobility of the smaller aircraft, for example, it requires a much smaller landing zone footprint, which increases the number of available landing zones in difficult terrain.
> 
> TATRC is currently testing this UAS research platform to address operational gaps in future medical mission areas and to mature the capability of using UAS for emergency medical resupply and casualty evacuation.
> 
> “We are partnering with the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory and Dragonfly Pictures Inc. to test this system,” said Gilbert. “With funding from the Defense Health Agency Joint Program Committee for Combat Casualty Care, we are currently initiating a research project to provide a cost-effective UAS research platform for the operational testing and evaluation of emerging enroute care and medical resupply technologies.”



I've being irritating the Naval types about them not getting with the programme on manning levels.  Now I get to do it with Air Force types.

Up to now I have been confident that nobody would want to get into an aircraft unless it had a reasonably functioning pilot on board willing to go down in flames with the passengers.  Now I am not so sure.

I can see this progressing from the insentient (food and ammo) to the insensible (the unconscious) to the non-sensical (idiots wanting to get a better view of the battlespace regardless of personal risk).

Colonel, your Uber-Drone is waiting for you!


----------



## Loachman

Is there a robodoctor built in as well? If not, who looks after the casualty? Life-saving treatment is given to wounded people during transport. Many would not survive without it.

This would only be good for transporting corpses.


----------



## Kirkhill

If it makes you feel any better.... I don't plan on getting into anything that flies that doesn't have a driver.

As to robodoctor?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Loachman said:
			
		

> This would only be good for transporting corpses.



So . . . a corpseter

While first glance would elicit a WTF with regard to in-flight continuing care, there has been consideration of those factors in looking at use of unmanned aerial casevac vehicles,

Safe Ride Standards for Casualty Evacuation Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles


> RTO-TR-HFM-184
> 
> The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has dramatically increased in recent years, and they are now being developed and used for many purposes beyond the ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Reconnaissance) functions for which they are most well known. Since studies are now underway in the use of these vehicles for logistics purposes, the question has arisen as to whether they could be used for Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC). The HFM-184 Task Group has carefully considered operational, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of this question, and has determined that the use of UAVs for casualty evacuation can be justified and may be potentially beneficial for the casualty under carefully-defined circumstances. The RTG, initially sceptical, now considers that UAVs in the casualty evacuation role are a potentially viable modality, the development of which should be encouraged.
> 
> 
> Published  12/27/2012
> Author(s)  Multiple
> STOPublicationType  Technical Report RDP
> Publication Reference  RTO-TR-HFM-184
> DOI  10.14339/RTO-TR-HFM-184
> ISBN  ISBN 978-92-837-0174-3
> STOPublisher  RTO
> Access  Open Access
> STOKeywords  aeromedical evacuation


 Link to the full report is at the above link.


----------



## George Wallace

Nothing new, really.  The USA has been brainstorming these ideas for years now.  I remember seeing a video of a robot medical APC with robotics inside to treat casualties being transported from the Front to Medical facilities.

One source of info is:  https://www.backintheusa.us/news2.php?title2=UnmannedAmbulances

Another project is the Airmule

Medical robotics are already in development.

Glimpses of future battlefield medicine – the proliferation of robotic surgeons and unmanned vehicles and technologies gives various examples of how the thought processes are towards use of robotics on the future battlefields for casualty extraction.

If you really want to question to use of robotics in medicine and battlefield extraction, it is easy to find numerous examples of what things are being dreamt up, and what is actually already in use.


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way Loachman, how much medical assistance were you rendering when you were flying these?


----------



## ModlrMike

Prhaps this can be merged with

http://navy.ca/forums/threads/125435.0.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NO drone needs a pilot, that's what makes it a DRONE.   rly:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Time to go buy shares in any company producing EMP weapons.   :nod:


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> By the way Loachman, how much medical assistance were you rendering when you were flying these?



None, but that that was the best that could be done with helicopters at the time and still represented a significant advance in casualty treatment.

The machine shown at the start of this thread reverts to the level of care available sixty-seven years ago.

And the poor guy entombed within can't even see where he's going.


----------



## mariomike

Urban ( non-military ) use of drones in severe traffic congestion.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXjlxR7fhE


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Every time I see a quadcopter "ultra-modern" concept drone or remotely piloted vehicle, I am reminded of my youth!

In 1960, a Belgian comic book writer created a villain (Zorglub), who travelled around in his own designed air vehicle called a Zorglmobile. Here is the design he came up with, you tell me how prescient he was:


----------



## mariomike

Jetsons!  

A typical suburban 21st Century family.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> None, but that that was the best that could be done with helicopters at the time and still represented a significant advance in casualty treatment.
> 
> The machine shown at the start of this thread reverts to the level of care available sixty-seven years ago.
> 
> And the poor guy entombed within can't even see where he's going.



Seen.  

And, all kidding aside, I find it an interesting question.  If I were wounded and could be stabilized by the medic on the ground, either conscious or unconscious, what would work best?  Head back to the rear as quickly as possible in the CQ's vehicle after he dropped off a load of water and ammunition or wait another 15 minutes for a proper dust-off to be organized?

Honestly I don't know that answer, I am going to guess that the response would be situational, including depending on available resources, number and severity of casualties.  

And, yeah, I really don't like the "flying coffin" concept of no windows.


----------



## Loachman

There's a National Geographic DVD set entitled "Inside Combat Rescue". I highly recommend it. Watch that, and then tell me when you think those guys can be replaced with automated systems.

"Pedros" are an extremely professional, dedicated, motivated, and effective bunch. One of my functions during my last tour was to monitor medevac missions, and these guys were an absolute delight. Their US Army counterparts did good work, too, but sucked when it came to passing critical information so I constantly had to hound them.

We can cobble together a modest, short-term medevac capability, but we are generally limited to Vietnam-style casevac, We can provide transport only, and have no attached medical staff for casualty care, and obviously the casualty's unit cannot afford to provide one of theirs for the ride either. Every Griffon flies with a half-litter kit, with which we can stack three litter casualties, and one litter at all times.

I've flown in a bunch of different environments, including urban (mainly while flying Police helicopters), and I've done the UAV thing in theatre. I try really, really hard not to be close-minded, but I will remain sceptical about over-automation for a long, long time based upon my experience. There are more hazards in urban environments than the average ground-bound mortal could ever conceive without throwing a bunch of flying Amazon delivery droids into the mix. Watching the concept-video of mariomike's "ambulance drone" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXjlxR7fhE flying along city streets just gave me chills. One cable, or an oncoming Amazon droid, and there is going to be an instant requirement for a bigger fleet of these things than anybody can afford. A Pilot's situational awareness and ability to react to changes, especially subtle-yet-critical ones, is severely limited when not in the actual aircraft. Finding a convenient place to land "anywhere" is not as easy as it sounds, either. The number of hazards increases as altitude decreases, and traffic can lock up for a long way around a crash site. And a single operator trying to control more than one machine at a time? I would not want to be him, or anybody in or beneath his charges.


----------



## Kirkhill

Points all taken.

The reason I keep putting this stuff up is not that I think that the world will change tomorrow but because tomorrow won't look like today as new capabilities come on line, chipping away at the old and creating new challenges.  A continuation of my mantra of "horses for courses".  If a problem arises and the textbook solution is not available somebody will do "the other thing".

And that chipping away process, well as we both know, twenty years comes and goes pretty fast when you get to the back end of it.

And thanks for the heads up on "Inside Combat Rescue".


----------



## Loachman

I've merged mariomike's thread with this one, as there are enough similarities. The only difference is that nobody is likely to be shooting at the civilian version (as much, at least) while the military version would not likely have to dodge as many Amazon delivery droids.


----------



## Loachman

Yes, technology will continue to improve, but some limitations will be persistent. Dreaming is also fun, but some people need to have their kite strings reeled in a bit as well.

I'm still waiting for the flying cars that we were promised in the 1960s.


----------



## Kirkhill

Moller's still trying 

http://moller.com/

But I think this guy has got them beat.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/15/14906164/flyboard-air-hoverboard-france-ban-franky-zapata


And in addition to overhead power cables and comms wires, buildings and Amazon Drones, there are bureaucrats, for good and for ill.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> I've merged mariomike's thread with this one, as there are enough similarities.



I was not sure. So, to be on the safe side, I posted it in the Emergency Services forum.

Personally, I think it would be pretty lonely working without a partner. And, who would help you lift?

But, it would be a cost saving for the taxpayers on salaries.


----------



## Loachman

If a safe and effective autonomous vehicle could be built, then a safe and effective lifting assistant should be a whole big bunch simpler.

But don't count on any real cost savings. Sperwer - the French-built UAV that we had in Afghanistan - was the most expensive aircraft in the whole CF fleet to operate, all costs included, per flying hour, even with a wingspan of only thirteen feet and a little Rotax snowmobile engine. No, it probably did not have to be, but it was.

We trained a whole new Flight, from scratch, every six months. That added to the cost considerably, but was really the only practical way at the time. It was also maintenance-heavy - a recovery without damage was unusual - and the loss rate was high. We wrote off six on my Roto (including one during the work-up period), at $2.5 million each, for various reasons and came very close to losing a few more, and previous Rotos had higher loss rates. We were concerned that our preceding Roto wasn't going to leave us any by the time that we got there.

We probably could have bought a small fleet of D-Model Kiowas or any of several similar machines on the market and operated them for less, with the added benefit of carrying reasonable armament. There is nothing more frustrating than watching juicy targets for hours and not being able to shoot them, and I'd rather be able to shoot them myself than guide somebody else in to do it for me.

UAVs are not cheap if one wants them to carry payloads of more than a few pounds, carry out complex tasks, and operate at any useful distance from an operator, and they are far less capable and flexible than manned machines. Control and video signals require line-of-sight between AV and Ground Control Station (GCS). That means either very tall directional antennae for the GCS and/or increased operating altitude for the AV or satellites. The tall antenna may be practical in major urban areas, but operating altitudes will be restricted by normal aviation requirements, and once the AV drops below rooftops to land, signals in both directions will be lost. Landing a large UAV autonomously in an urban environment at an accident scene, where situations can change rapidly, does not strike me as a good idea.

They sometimes decide to do odd things as well - like rudely wander off. I almost lost an AV one night early in my tour. The tracking symbol froze on the monitor and we had no idea when, exactly (probably no more than thirty seconds), that had occurred or how far the thing had flown. It is very, very difficult to navigate solely by the narrow view afforded by a camera (IR in that case) over terrain with almost no distinguishing landmarks. Afghan "countryside" or Canadian urban areas would not be much different for that purpose.


----------



## mariomike

The ambulance drone in Reply #10 costs $1,000,000. 

I suppose mass production could reduce that.

It transports one patient and one paramedic. Solo, without a partner. 
By cutting the crew salaries and benefits in half, the savings could be significant.

I could see it showing a profit in a city with a high call volume.  

The transport paramedic would require help at the scene.  I never worked without my partner, so I can only guess how that would be.

In severe traffic congestion, response time and patient transport time to hospital would decrease. 

Therefore, Unit Hour Utilization ( UHU = the number of transports divided by the total number of unit hours in the measurement interval ) would increase.
The higher the UHU, the more effective and efficient the system is considered to be.

Increase in UHU and decrease in salaries and benefits? I could see the taxpayers liking it.

I would hate to work on something like that without a partner.

Like I said above,



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> So, to be on the safe side, I posted it in the Emergency Services forum.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mariomike said:
			
		

> Urban ( non-military ) use of drones in severe traffic congestion.
> 
> Video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXjlxR7fhE



I've said this before, you keep ignoring.

If a aerospace vehicle has a pilot, it is not a drone.  Drone's are pre-programmed before launch, fly a pre-programmed flight profile, with no pilot interaction.  If is has a pilot, or requires a pilot, it is a RPA/UAS/UAV/etc, but not a drone.  Pretty simple concept, if you don't disregard reality.


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If a aerospace vehicle has a pilot, it is not a drone.  Drone's are pre-programmed before launch, fly a pre-programmed flight profile, with no pilot interaction.  If is has a pilot, or requires a pilot, it is a RPA/UAS/UAV/etc, but not a drone.



In emergency services, they are commonly known as drones.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YQ_ZWNimBaeC8QevuIzIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22ambulance+drone%22&*&spf=64

"An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS); which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. The flight of UAVs may operate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator, or fully or intermittently autonomously, by onboard computers."
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf

Which is why I posted in the Emergency Services forum, rather than Rotorheads. But, my post was moved here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mariomike said:
			
		

> In emergency services, they are commonly known as drones.
> https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YQ_ZWNimBaeC8QevuIzIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22ambulance+drone%22&*&spf=64
> 
> "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS); which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. The flight of UAVs may operate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator, or fully or intermittently autonomously, by onboard computers."
> http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf



Some emergency services refer to APCs as *tanks* too.  There still not tanks.  I now there is a lot of folks who call things like a Reaper or a BAMS-D a _drone_, but it is being flown and sensors operated in a GCS somewhere.  I know, a pet peeve of mine, just like people calling APCs *tanks* irked me when I was in a green DEU.



> Which is why I posted in the Emergency Services forum, rather than Rotorheads. But, my post was moved here.



Ya, kind of annoying eh?

Back to the topic...

Has anyone considered the fact the enemy isn't likely going to just let you fly these things around and not try to disrupt your automated little plan?

How would you counter a GPS jamming environment for a true drone UAS?  What about the use of tactical EMP weapons?


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I now there is a lot of folks who call things like a Reaper or a BAMS-D a _drone_, but it is being flown and sensors operated in a GCS somewhere.



Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words they can understand.
Even if technically incorrect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mariomike said:
			
		

> Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words.



Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion.  

http://army.ca/forums/threads/123553.0.html

Also for reference:  

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+should+ems+communicate+with+the+public&*&spf=64

and

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+should+ems+communicate+with+the+public+toronto+ontario&*&spf=373



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Back to the topic...
> 
> Has anyone considered the fact the enemy isn't likely going to just let you fly these things around and not try to disrupt your automated little plan?
> 
> How would you counter a GPS jamming environment for a true drone UAS?  What about the use of tactical EMP weapons?


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion.



I posted in the emergency services forum. 

It was moved to ROTORHEADs.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I've merged mariomike's thread with this one, as there are enough similarities.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words.
> 
> 
> 
> Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion.
Click to expand...


...or the fact that it's an ambulance drone that doesn't need to communicate directly with dispatch does relate a bit to the merged topic.  Perhaps enough similarity that we can try keeping it here for now.

Back to Chris' original query:  I figure that somewhere back towards the introduction of the autopilot, there were white silk scarf wearing aviators (I'm mentally picture Lord Flashheart* at the moment) talking down the capability and why there will never be an aircraft that can fly itself.  More people than they know themselves have probably touched down in a CAT 3C autopiloted aircraft, and not guessed that the plane landed fully automated and was even taxiing in to the gate entirely on its own.  Supervised, yes, but one day, it won't be.

I don't have an issue for example travelling in a TOTALLY automated light rail shuttle (I'm thinking at the very least of the little ones at LHR's T3 as an example).  It's only a matter of time before automated travel is STATISTICALLY safer than pilot-flown (and crashed) aircraft.  Whether its the milambudrone in Chris' first post, or hitching a ride with an already autonomous USMC K-Max helidrone, there will be a time when it is simply accepted for what it is.

If humans were infallible and never misjudged things aviation, then sure, there might never be a compelling case for automation.  We all know that _homo sapiens_ are but a wee bit less than perfect, though.

If it was me and there were no MH-60 Pave Hawk for hours and a trip in MILAMBUDRONE was the best chance to get to help fast, frig it....I'd be IN! ;D

Regards
G2G


* - Lord Flashheart...WOOF, WOOF!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

And, the whole EMP, GPS-jammer counter-UAS system that the enemy is sure to have (they exist now...)...thoughts on how that will unfold?


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect EITS but how much of your old Lockheed Electra's kit, or even a CF-18's kit, would survive a concerted EMP attack?   Recognizing the difficulty of answering that question in a non-secure environment.

Having said that, the whole modern universe is at risk with electronic warfare.  Personally I think that GPS has reached the end of its useful life militarily. It can be jammed, spoofed or shot down. The replacement has to be some combination of knowing exactly where that mountain top is on the horizon, which is possible thanks to the surveying legacy GPS has given us, and where I am relative to your Aurora.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, that's my point.  [Regardless of what year the Aurora rolled off the line ('79, '80 maybe) the kit inside it isn't that old.  (Historical fact...the Aurora was never a P3 or Electra on the inside...it was a Viking at birth  ;D, but all of that is long gone)]    

What aircraft, or systems, would survive EMP?  What system will replace GPS...is there one?  When will it be operational?

GPS jamming is fairly significant on todays 3 dimensional battlespace.  You're saying we need to replace it, and maybe we do.  I am saying, its what we have to use now so lets talk reality.  Otherwise, we can dismiss any weapon or countermeasure out there because we know we are going to have *shields* a la the Starship Enterprise any day now.'

If you are going to plan these things flying around, GPS guided as the article says if not flown by UAV pilot, then you have to have a backup for that.  Think of how easy it would be for a terrorist in NYC, lets say, to start blanking out GPS signals over XX part of the city, with these UAS air ambulances flying around and then into tall buildings, with glass and debris raining down on the people walking around below.

When you talk about a system, etc it is often helpful to think of that system from the enemy standpoint; *_how can I use this against them, how can I make this fail when they need it the most_?*

Caps & Lims;  You have to look at the Lims.  Military and civilian uses in this day at age.  The Twin Towers weren't true military targets, yet they were targets and were taken down.  The enemy doesn't limit his list of targets to military ones because he isn't for a military success.  You dump billions, maybe more, across a country into UAV emerg services, across all the US, lets say.  How many do I have to take out in *your* cities, that cause death and fear, before the whole thing is a waste of money because no one will use it or the civil/political masters of the day won't rely on them because a few were taken out?

Now, I've bled oodles of money out of your *whatever level of government* and left you with technologically advanced paper weights.  Everyone assumes these UASs, even ones intended for civie use, are going to be fine and dandy.  The enemy will use anything if given the chance.

Someone has to play the Devils Advocate.


----------



## Loachman

Or, two minutes from landing at (military combat scenario) a pre-programmed GPS location, an IED explodes leaving a massive crater or (civilian urban scenario) a panicked crowd surges across it and has nowhere to go, what does the drone (yes, correct use of the term in this case) do?

We are a long way from building an artificial brain with enough flexibility to react to rapidly changing complex situations. We have yet to build either a UAV or a GCS (Ground Control Station) that provides any semblance of peripheral vision that will permit operating in close-in complex situations. Maybe someday. Not tomorrow. And they won't be cheap.

And UAVs suffer mishaps too, either due to the same human factors that affect both onboard and offboard crews (coupled, in the case of the latter, severely reduced situational awareness) or equipment shortfalls. What happens when an autonomous machine encounters a situation not envisaged by its designer?

Automated short-distance rail transit systems are comparatively simple. Automated full-sized trains weighing up to 25000 tons being hauled by two or more 200-ton locomotives across thousands of kilometres of mainly single-track mainline (requiring meets at passing sidings) through three-dimensional urban and wilderness terrain and subject to washouts, landslides, weather, and a host of other lesser factors, are not.

Automated aircraft departing from and arriving at known locations that can be reasonably guaranteed as clear and safe and following specific routes are relatively simple too. Police, ambulance, and most military aircraft operations are not so simple.

I'd not want to be a passenger on any autonomous aircraft unless my life absolutely depended upon it.

Ever.


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> I'd not want to be a passenger on any autonomous aircraft unless my life absolutely depended upon it.



Ummmm, isn't that the aspect being discussed specifically?  MILAMBUDRONE ???


----------



## Loachman

Yes, but the initial "helicorpster" concept posted had no capacity for patient care so I do not count that one as viable. I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely _not_ want to be the attendant.

At least the patient only has to risk his or her life once per round trip, and the second half of the round trip would be the safer one - leaving the scene of mayhem, chaos, and unknown hazards for a known and hazard-free dronopad.

I'll wait for the transporter beams, thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, but the initial "helicorpster" concept posted had no capacity for patient care so I do not count that one as viable. I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely _not_ want to be the attendant.
> 
> At least the patient only has to risk his or her life once per round trip, and the second half of the round trip would be the safer one - leaving the scene of mayhem, chaos, and unknown hazards for a known and hazard-free dronopad.
> 
> I'll wait for the transporter beams, thanks.



Your grandchildren will appreciate your caution...  Half a mo' though!  Will you be around to have children?   >

With respect to pilots sitting on their hands while the plane is automatically landed - Thank god the door to the cockpit is locked and I can't see her sweat.   Ultimately I want to know that somebody that understands the situation is sharing my fate.


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or the fact that it's an ambulance drone that doesn't need to communicate directly with dispatch does relate a bit to the merged topic.  Perhaps enough similarity that we can try keeping it here for now.





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely _not_ want to be the attendant.



Neither would I.

I don't care so much if it's on land, on water ( we have a Marine division ) or in the air. It's the working alone part that would bother me. 

An average Unit hour Utilization ( UhU ) of .5 is generally considered an urban paramedic's physical and mental breaking point. 
_And that's with a partner._  

My _guess_ is that HQ would try to double the UhU with "ambulance drones" ( sorry, call them what you will ). I like "Corpster"  ;D
They probably could too, because they can avoid the severe traffic congestion that is delaying street response and transport times.

To justify the cost, my guess is that HQ would be trying to prove that they were saving twice as many lives at half the cost in wages and benefits.

A one wo/man ambulance would probably be a dream come true for some of them.


----------



## Loachman

mariomike said:
			
		

> My _guess_ is that HQ would try to double the UhU with "ambulance drones" ( sorry, call them what you will ). I like "Corpster"  ;D



If it has no human operator, onboard or off, and therefore operates autonomously, it is correctly called a drone.

For comparison purposes, how much does a regular ambulance cost?


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> For comparison purposes, how much does a regular ambulance cost?



I wouldn't know. But, it's expensive to ride in them. 

"A ride in an ambulance in Winnipeg sits at $522."
http://globalnews.ca/news/2914642/the-cost-to-ride-a-winnipeg-ambulance-how-far-will-your-external-coverage-go/


----------



## Loachman

Maybe there's a new line for Uber.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> Maybe there's a new line for Uber.



At least they can find you.

You can order Uber - or a pizza - with an app on your cellphone. 

70 to 80 percent of 9-1-1 calls are now made from wireless devices. The chances of getting a mobile caller’s location correct varies widely -- from 10 percent to 95 percent, depending on the caller’s distance from a cell tower. 

They say that by 2021 our emergency services will be able to find you on your cell phone  ( 4 out of 5 times ).


----------



## Kirkhill

I see that I am being told that Google Maps is going to be broadcasting my location - unless I find the hidden switch buried in the menus to turn it off.

Perhaps the correct app would be a Beacon icon that I could keep next to my Phone icon so that I could broadcast my location easily when I wanted to.

Would that reduce the response time?


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I see that I am being told that Google Maps is going to be broadcasting my location - unless I find the hidden switch buried in the menus to turn it off.



So does Facebook and Domino pizza.


----------



## Kirkhill

mariomike said:
			
		

> So does Facebook and Domino pizza.



How's a guy supposed to get away from the wife and kids?


----------



## Loachman

And ISIS kidnappers and the NSA and...


----------



## Kirkhill

A model of the EHang 184 autonomous aerial vehicle is displayed at the World Government Summit 2017 in Dubai’s Madinat Jumeirah on February 13, 2017. (Stringer/AFP/Getty Images)

http://www.realclearlife.com/cars/dubai-will-debut-passenger-carrying-drones-summer/

"Dubai Will Debut Passenger-Carrying Drones This Summer

Drones could be ferrying tourists around the skies of Dubai as early as this summer, according to the city’s transportation authority.
After debuting a year ago, the Ehang 184 could be introduced as early as July in a milestone for the transportation industry. The autonomous flying taxi project is part of a plan by the city to have 25 percent of its transportation be self-driving by 2030.

Capable of carrying one passenger, the electric drone travels on a pre-programmed course, selected by the passenger and approved by a flight control center, at approximately 60 miles per hour. Chinese drone manufacturer Ehang has built the autonomous taxi, which travels 1,000 feet in the air, has a maximum flight time of 30 minutes, and recharges in two hours.

The announcement was made after the Ehang 184 was successfully tested in Dubai. It comes on the heels of another futuristic transport concept announced in November. Hyperloop One is planned to connect Abu Dhabi with Dubai. Watch a test flight below."

https://youtu.be/I_XLExB_wyc

Just another opportunity to make Loachman's day.   >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I know it's a test rig, but eventually they will have to encase the blades and that as I recall will increase the risk of "ring state vortexes"


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to my last.

Apparently there is a "But".

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/the-army-adds-the-dronebuster-to-its-set-of-anti-drone-tools



> The Army is adding the 'Dronebuster' to its set of anti-drone tools
> By: Todd South, April 23, 2017 (Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Vito Bryant)
> 
> The newest tool in the Army’s counter-drone arsenal is the "Dronebuster," a 5-pound radar gun-like device that soldiers can use to jam weaponized commercial drones while at remote forward operating bases or on foot patrol.
> 
> The Army’s Rapid Equipping Force bought 50 of the devices this month, and they should be delivered in the coming weeks, according to Clay Wild, vice president of marketing for Radio Hill Technologies, a Portland, Oregon-based technology startup.
> 
> The device starts at $30,000, depending on accessories, uses five custom antennae and a “technique generator” that uses less than 10 percent of the battery power to create the jamming signal. The power-saving method allows for a smaller device than some competitors, Wild said. ...



More at link.


----------

