Pod-me up, Scotty-Part 2!(Glass 1/2 full)

I was fortunate to receive several comments, ideas and feedback on this blog.Thank you!!

I have included a transcript of some extraordinary feedback that I received from a senior expert in the aviation industry, Mr. Daniel Newman who currently serves in various capacities at Boeing.

".............The idea makes a lot of sense in some ways, but it is not as easy as envisioned as there are serious issues of which proponents are often unaware, that make it harder (although not impossible).  Perhaps the most significant issue is safety and airworthiness, which are the basis for aviation regulatory requirements.  Any part of an aircraft or its payload must meet the appropriate regulations, including any removable component or system.

If a pod is considered cargo, and loaded ONTO an approved (certified) aircraft, then the aircraft onto which it is loaded must be certified as airworthy without that ‘payload’, and the payload must meet all regulations for cargo, including tie down, mass stability (e.g. sloshing and CG movement).  A pod carried inside an aircraft could be like an air cargo container.  Or it could be carried below like a slung payload (see ‘helicopter external lift’), or it could be ‘snubbed’ firmly up against the aircraft structure (see ’CH-54 Skycrane’).  But in all of these cases, especially the external lift, the cargo is consider expendable and might be jettisoned if it is required to save the aircraft.  This would not be true for an occupied ‘payload’.  I don't believe that there are any rules for an occupied payload, so it would then be considered a part of the aircraft.

 And if a pod were not considered a payload, but a part of the aircraft when attached, then the aircraft certification would have to include this component or system.  This is not such a large issue for the design and required airworthiness approval (certification), but it would put a burden on the pods as each and every pod would have to undergo the same oversight and inspections as does the aircraft.  Any pods available for future use would have to be inspected regularly (at some interval) to remain airworthy.  This inspection is not hard, but far more than is required for ground vehicles, and so it does put a burden on the system that must be accounted and afforded (for the aircraft and for every module whether in use or just awaiting use).  Imagine a minor fender bender with a module while on the road.  It would not be able to be used for air transport again until it undergoes an inspection (and repair) to ensure it is safe and airworthy.

Moreover, any new ‘pod’ designs must undergo an airworthiness review before being approved for use, so it is not so easy to just add functionality as you do when adding a scanner or 3D printer to your home network.  And so to date, aviation has had very very few modular systems even when there are many different uses/missions by the same customer.  It is far more common to design (and certify) the aircraft for all uses at once, and keep all hardware installed at all times.  This increases the cost and burden of acquiring and maintaining the aircraft, but has proven more achievable and affordable than modularity.

Watching the video, I add ...

- a fender-bender might now occur while loading a pod. What if not aligned? What is the tolorance?

- the pod is hanging. Will the public be comfortable? Were the attachments on the pod inspected recently? Does rain or snow or leaves have an impact?

- such a huge cost to avoid walking 30 feet! ... and losing the freedom to run errands on the way

- they didn't show picking up other passengers after her, and dropping off before her

- how long did they wait at the vertiport for the aircraft?

- what if no ground vehicle at the vertiport?

- how far is the vertipirt from the origin and the destination? How much of the traffic is really avoided?

I am not against it, but I insist on telling the entire story and accounting for all the issues."