Aviation's Electric Future

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

For today’s blog, I was about to write that hardly a week goes by that we don’t report on some new electric aircraft initiative. Then I was suddenly seized by the impulse to, you know, actually check to see if that statement is correct.

As is so often true of generalities, it’s not correct. Actually, we publish something on electric aircraft about every three days. During the preceding 30 days, nine of the 72 news stories we’ve published had to do with drones or electric aircraft. That’s more than 12 percent and it’s closer to 15 percent if you include all the related drone stories that aren’t specifically about electric aircraft.

Our reporting has revealed that some big players are getting involved in electric aviation—Boeing, Airbus, General Electric, Siemens, to name a few. This, coupled with the sheer volume of stories, understandably gives the impression that critical mass is upon us and viable electric aircraft will arrive “sooner than you think” as the converted acolytes like to say. I’ll leave it to you to decide if sooner is next year or the next decade or just sooner than later.

For this blog, I’ll offer this: All this coverage portends the leading edge of a revolution in flight, the dimensions are which aren’t discernible at the moment. Based on conversations with and emails from readers, I’m convinced that many are too bogged down in doubts about battery capacity and unnatural fears of drone swarming to understand the shape shifting that’s on the aviation horizon due to a fundamental leap in the ease of learning to fly. Never mind rules and regulations, aeronautical decision making, airspace, cost, or the rest of it, just how the barriers to learn to levitate off the surface are, potentially, about to be knocked down.

Take a look at this video. I’ll wait. The takeaway is this. When the guy is throwing water balloons, bricks and radios at the drone, what’s the operator doing? Nothing. Thanks to GPS-augmented flight stability, it just occupies the same point in space, returning to that point if disturbed. No operator input required in the same way I can park my DJI Phantom at 50 feet while I fish around for batteries for the camera.

If you question if this is scalable, here’s your answer. This appeared in our news feed last week. To be sure, it’s overhyped as a flying car, a concept the industry and the media just can’t seem to let go of and this particular iteration of it may be a dead end. Its endurance and range are too limited to be of much practical use, but that misses the point. The technological underpinnings are conceptually identical to the small drones: stabilized autoflight that the pilot merely displaces to go where he wants to go. One lever for throttle, one for lateral movement or the like. I don’t know specifically how the BlackFly is configured, but that's got to be close. It’s not that it has envelope protection as an option, but that it’s based on envelope protection.

So can anyone fly such a thing? Probably not, but vastly more people can fly it than can or would be willing to master a fixed-wing airplane or conventional helicopter. This particular aircraft is intended as an ultralight, so no certificate or medical required. The ultralight weight limit stunts payload and thus capability and appeal so, at least for the BlackFly, this is likely to limit it to the FAR 103-intended recreational use.

Advancing battery technology will improve endurance, but the commercial viability of such a thing lies in the nexus between price and perceived value. Will enough buyers materialize to spend, say, $150,000, for a novelty vehicle to hop out of their (rural) yard and spin around the fields and pastures to constitute a viable business? No one can answer this yet, although we know precious few are willing to spend that much for a light sport airplane, requiring as it does a certificate, an airport, probably a hangar and significant training. It matters not a whit if the BlackFly itself represents the breakthrough; the technology that animates it already does. There will be others of its ilk. The BlackFly, by the way, is scheduled to appear at AirVenture.

Our flood of electric aircraft coverage has revealed another trend: a necessary impatience with the glacial pace of battery improvement. Although the urban mobility crowd, spearheaded by Uber Elevate, is clinging to pure electric designs, we’re seeing more hybrid proposals, which I see as an open admission that electric propulsion, for all its benefits, isn’t keeping up with what designers imagine to be the use cases. But even at that, hybrids have their limits, too. The SureFly VTOL, which will also be at AirVenture, is a hybrid, but with only a 400-pound useful load and a 70-mile range. As range extension goes, that doesn’t leave me gasping for breath.

And just at Farnborough this week, Rolls-Royce revealed its design for a six-propulsor electric hybrid with a 435-mile range and payload for four or five passengers. It uses a turbine engine to drive a generator with batteries for surge power needed at takeoff. Rolls says it will fly in the early 2020s. If their numbers are realistic, that strikes me as intercity urban mobility sort of range, provided the noise the thing makes doesn’t crump the idea before it gets off the ground. Rolls says its using low noise technology of some kind and that will be a must.

So will demonstrating to regulators that a single motor/prop failure is remote enough not to require exceptional mitigation. But why wouldn’t this be doable? Thousands of single-rotor helicopters have been certified and although a helo can autorotate, the rotor has to actually be there to do it. Rare is the accident when the rotor spins off into space. Why should it be any different with rotors powered by electricity? Or that are smaller?

As we prep for the trek to AirVenture, 2018 marks the first year when there’s likely to be significant numbers of electric aircraft on display, based on what we've heard so far. While these are still in the demo phase, with the exception of Pipistrel’s Alpha Electro, it’s shortsighted to believe that will always be the case. If it were, we would still be traveling cross country looking up the buttholes of oxen.

Comments (30)

If the FAA had been around when the Wright brothers first flew, we WOULD still be traveling cross country looking up the buttholes of oxen.

You've noted the key point: access. When would-be aviators no longer need a license or a medical; when they simply can tell their vehicle where they want to go; THEN GA participation will explode.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 17, 2018 3:41 PM    Report this comment

As usual, Paul, you are, as the British say, "spot on". With all the frenzy surrounding electric flight, it is difficult to see where the hype ends and reality sets in. As with any disruptive concept, different technologies must mature and merge before the final innovation arrives. Prior to that, it is just an idea. Whether we have moved beyond the idea stage in electric flight remains to be seen, but multiple technologies are getting close. Full stability control, or envelope protection, is mature and ready to go. We old timers may pooh-pooh the idea of autonomous (i.e. point and fly) flying machines, but we seem willing to accept envelope protection and programmed flight plans in the latest autopilot offerings, so who knows? As you mention, battery technology seems to be the dragging anchor, but hybrid designs are a way around that limitation. If all this makes it more attractive to younger people to embrace flying, consider it a good thing. However, in the end, it will all come down to price versus value. Henry Ford understood that when he created everyman's automobile. Before that, they were just rich men's toys. Sound familiar?

Posted by: John McNamee | July 17, 2018 3:52 PM    Report this comment

60 miles is the first magic number I reckon. That gets you across most metropolises or out to islands or semi-rural destinations. And probably in a 1/3 or a 1/4 of the time. When combined with redundancy that is a transformative phenomenon. Add in a dial-a-ride functionality so you're not buying the machine outright and there is a ready, wide market. If that is already possible with current battery tech then any debate is basically over. Batteries and other electricity generating means are already improving more quickly as the market is being grown.

Posted by: Cosmo Adsett | July 17, 2018 7:59 PM    Report this comment

Hybrid technology may extend range for electric aircraft but there is the inherent loss of efficiency. The engine may be optimized to 50% efficiency, then sending the power to the motor 5% or so loss of energy and finally, the electric motor with another 10 +% efficiency loss. Throw in some batteries and there is a loss of efficiency vs a piston internal combustion engine.
Then there is the weight factor. Heavier wiring, batteries, engine and motor plus the requisite structure to support the weight. Every design is a compromise. Fly an A36 Bonanza, fill the tanks or fill the seats. You can't do both. Build a hybrid, you can fly some distance or you can carry passengers. At the current state of the art, you can't do both.
As designs improve the trade off of weight vs endurance will improve. We are going in the electric direction for some aircraft, like or not. So, buckle up and enjoy the ride. Just keep your wallet secured from the snake oil salesmen out there.

Posted by: Leo LeBoeuf | July 17, 2018 8:05 PM    Report this comment

The visibility and weird bathtub-ness of the BlackFly are just odd. But after watching a video of the Ehang 184, forget self driving cars, I would rather buy an electric quad copter to commute 20 miles as the crow flies than battle the Freeway. And the Terrafugia is toast. It needs an airport.

That said, the ATC issues are frightening. And China is dominating this space.

Posted by: Timothy Southgate | July 17, 2018 9:45 PM    Report this comment

The ATC issues are frightening ONLY if we insist on doing collision-avoidance and traffic-expediting the way we have done it for the last 100 years. Oh, wait - that's what NEXTGEN is.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 18, 2018 3:40 AM    Report this comment

Ultimately, I think you can segregate us 'old guys' in aviation to the young people moving around the planet with a smart phone sticking out of their faces while they bump into things. Just the other day some texting moron hit a power pole down the block and darn near killed themselves and almost shut down the neighborhood grid. So any discussion of such vehicles necessarily has to involve the WHY do we need them and WHO will potentially be interested and capable of buying one ... not just is the technology finally mature enough to make it feasible or if the boys in DC will ever allow it.

As a registered card carrying member of the former group ... stability augmented electric flight carries no interest for me whatever. IF it comes to that -- count me done. For me, part of the allure of GA flight is that I have to master SO many mental and psychomotor skills in order to keep myself consuming O2 vs pushing up grass in the boneyard. Flying around in a vehicle like you describe is not flying; it's being a passenger suggesting to an intelligent machine that I'd like to do something. At some point, VR or internet based conferences could suffice to get your 'jollies.' Me ... I'll just keep soldiering on watching the big fan out front cooling me and breathing carbon monoxide as a byproduct.

Will battery energy density, electric power, autonomous flight, bureaucratic oversight and regulation plus social interest ever come together simultaneously -- as you opine -- to make the idea reality for some? Probably. After all, I can remember comics of the 50's showing dark cities with hovering people movers darkening the sky. In much the same way as Dick Tracy had an iPhone equivalent on his wrist, these things may well possibly become reality. But like the flying car idea ... I question ... WHY? I do not see them as the savior of GA at all. It won't be long at all before we start bemoaning the high cost of people moving vehicles as exceeding the promised price ... in much the same way as the $80K cost and usefulness of an LSA never really happened or caught on.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | July 18, 2018 3:41 AM    Report this comment

"It won't be long at all before we start bemoaning the high cost of people moving vehicles as exceeding the promised price ... in much the same way as the $80K cost and usefulness of an LSA never really happened or caught on."
Not true Larry. You just have to stop building the LSA when you reach the $80K break point.
It's a piece of cake. :)

Posted by: Tom Cooke | July 18, 2018 5:43 AM    Report this comment

"As a registered card carrying member of the former group ... stability augmented electric flight carries no interest for me whatever. IF it comes to that -- count me done."

There were/are similar sentiments when Formula One went from the technology in the 60s and earlier of essentially bombs on wheels with no driver protection to the current state of driver cocoons on wheels. In many ways, modern F1 cars are much easier to drive fast than the older ones and are much safer, but it's no less exciting and difficult.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it goes along the same lines. If you want a challenge, why not fly some of the earliest airplanes that had terrible adverse yaw and gyroscopic tendencies (like the Camel)? Technology and design improves and things get easier for the person controlling that vehicle. Stability augmentation is just the next step. And the need for ADM isn't going away, nor is systems knowledge.

But I do get the point of the challenge being the thrill. I'm about 1/3rd through transitioning to helicopters, and it's the most challenging yet most rewarding flying I've done yet. But even if I were to fly a fully-stabilized helicopter, it would still be fun because of the capabilities of the vehicle. And there's still something to be said of the view one gets from the air without being attached to a single point on the ground. I also don't think "conventional" aircraft will go away, at least not for quite a while, so there will still be the opportunity to fly "real" aircraft.

Switching topics, I'm looking forward to attending Oshkosh this year and hope to meet at least some of you in person!

Posted by: Gary Baluha | July 18, 2018 8:11 AM    Report this comment

While I don't disagree in principal with your racing comparison, Gary, I don't see augmented electric flight as evolutionary ... I see it as revolutionary. I'd maybe say it'd be like race cars without tires sliding along on cushions of air, like LCAC's. I know pilots who bemoan Airbus' because they are SO automated vs Boeing airplanes, too. And, of course, tail wheel pilots don't think milk stool pilots are 'real,' either. :-) In the end, it's what you've become accustomed to or like and the human resistance to change gets more pronounced as you pile the decades on, I guess.

I just sold one of my airplanes (PA28) to a guy who is younger than I but has the 'fever.' I saw myself as hoarding the thing and decided to let him have it. The airplane has been restored to perfection and is an Oshkosh award contender, I think. Sad to see it go but I see myself as helping GA by letting it go. I'll use some of the loot to restore my other airplane to similar perfection, I guess. I just can't see myself as getting excited by an electric anything.

I, too, took helicopter lessons about 25 years ago and would agree ... a lot harder to make the transition than ya think ... especially in an R22. I hated that teetering control yoke design.

I've been trapped in Ohio as a caregiver for the last month and am escaping back to Wisconsin today. I'm SO looking forward to my ~38th Oshkosh. We oughta maybe have an Avweb bloggers meet up somewhere. In fact, Avweb ... what do you think ?? The Avweb trailer?

Posted by: Larry Stencel | July 18, 2018 9:04 AM    Report this comment

"In the end, it's what you've become accustomed to or like and the human resistance to change gets more pronounced as you pile the decades on, I guess."

Very true.

"We oughta maybe have an Avweb bloggers meet up somewhere. In fact, Avweb ... what do you think ??"

I second that idea!

(I just need to find the right weather window to actually make it there... If there is to be a meet-up, Wed or Thrs would be best to make sure I'm actually able to get there)

Posted by: Gary Baluha | July 18, 2018 9:13 AM    Report this comment

Chairlifts? Phooee! Everybody knows that REAL men CLIMB the mountain, with their skis on their backs! ;-)

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 18, 2018 11:34 AM    Report this comment

The problem is not the physical capabilities of these aircraft. The issue is the legal issues which make them useless. If I could get a Black Fly or similar tomorrow, it would be useful until the government came to put me in jail. Contrary to your piece here, Paul, it could be useful to commute if everywhere people commuted wasn't under class B restrictions.

It's not an airplane replacement. You don't put it in a hangar miles from your home, spend half an hour prepping to fly, fly it to somewhere half an hour or further from where you want to be, and then drive somewhere. (I'll certainly agree these things are not going to be the joy to fly long term you find with traditional aircraft, but that's unfortunately becoming the main use of piston planes because travel usage is suffering a death of a thousand cuts).

Like I keep trying to beat into people's heads, the problem is restricted airspace and land grabs. We overly restrict airspace on behalf of the public who are a vicious and ignorant majority that think airline travel should be the only legal use of our skies because it's the only way they use it. The current Class B regime is an overly burdensome taking of the majority of the world's most valuable airspace. Land grabs push all airports away from where people want to land because that suits developers and most airline users.

The complete opposite approach is applied on the road where drivers want commercial vehicles banned from using the common roadways. We don't apply heavy restrictions to protect busses full of passengers from amateur drivers, force usage of mass transit to go near government buildings, or turn over all the public parking spaces to monopolies. Can you imagine the howls of rage if we did?

I'll hop off the soapbox with one parting shot. AOPA was supposed to stop us from getting here and they have no serious plans to push back. I quit being a member last year.

Posted by: Eric Warren | July 18, 2018 11:50 AM    Report this comment

Long before you even begin to worry about Class B restrictions, you have to get past Part 103's constraints on operating over congested areas. You're not going to go charging into suburban anywhere until that's addressed.

This is a two-bladed axe. As infant technology, these things can be developed, sold and flown under the minimal requirement of ultralight rules. Amp it up to heavier aircraft and/or practical daylight and night ops, which you'd want for a commuting vehicle at least moderately capable, and they'll be much more expensive to certify and sell.

There's a benefit to gaining some experience and operational history under ultralight rules, then move up the food chain. And a risk, too. Without the demonstrated capability, maybe it just never reaches critical economic mass. I doubt that will happen, though.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | July 18, 2018 1:48 PM    Report this comment

In hindsight the pathway of change is always easy to see ("After all, who would ever want or need a COMPUTER in their home, for God's sake??")

At the same time, it's still hard for me to path out a way to socially accommodate jillions of significantly sized air vehicles buzzing at low altitude on random paths above heavily populated city/suburban areas. Seems it would take a major paradigm shift in what people will accept.

I suppose, though, a lot of people from the past would look at some things accepted in today's society and think "how can people accept that stufft?"

Posted by: John Wilson | July 18, 2018 2:29 PM    Report this comment

The current airspace restrictions will have no justification vis a vis autonomous vehicles. Why not? Because computers don't break rules. Ever.

By and large, individuals won't own these things. They'll be operated by Part-135-like companies that will provide transportation-as-a-service. Automobiles are headed that way, too - in urban areas. Out in the sticks, there's just not enough density-of-demand to attract commercial operators.

I don't buy the whole Jetsons intra-city thing. I do expect small, on-demand aerial vehicles to gobble up a significant fraction of airliner business, by providing nearly-point-to-point travel between sites that are up to 1,200 nautical miles apart. An on-demand push-button VTOL Vision Jet, so to speak.

I also expect the FAA to absolutely freak out at the thought of letting these things provide separation by "working things out" among themselves (and traditional traffic) utilizing (gasp!) LTE technology. That's right - cell-phone text messages shared by and among robots. No need for ATC to get involved. Really.

Favorite YARS-ism: Nothing is a good idea until it's THEIR idea.
Just as surely as even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn, sooner or later the FAA will have a good idea.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 18, 2018 2:34 PM    Report this comment

I was trying to eat lunch and read your piece. I got to "buttholes of oxen." and stopped eating.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | July 18, 2018 3:03 PM    Report this comment

No one can make a certified aircraft of this type because the cert rules were made in a fashion which no regulation should ever be allowed to be. If safety is a goal, then safety should be demonstrated. Instead, we have rules which say you have to do it a way we allow, and then additionally show safety. That's nuts.

I love how things have shifted over just the past few years from you can't make these things practical to you can't allow them or too many will fill the sky. Which is it people?

What the alphabets really better be doing is making sure the rules for these things don't get into a new category where they get a pass on freedoms still not allowed to classic plane operation, build, and maintenance. The whole process needs mending, not patched for the new thing.

Lastly, computers do make mistakes. Predator safety is abysmal, and it's not because they are getting shot down.

Posted by: Eric Warren | July 19, 2018 12:08 AM    Report this comment

Computers do NOT "make mistakes." They execute their code - period. Vitally, they don't "get creative" and try to invent solutions. People do that, often with disasterous results. Further, the Predator is not an autonomous vehicle. It is a remotely-piloted vehicle. Adequate for distant warfare, perhaps, but wholely inappropriate for passenger-carrying civil aircraft.
Another "YARSism:" The very best implementation of a flawed concept is itself fatally flawed.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 19, 2018 7:44 AM    Report this comment

I think the comment about "computers make mistakes" was meant more as "computers don't always function as intended". They are programmed and built by imperfect humans, so as such they are themselves imperfect. And the more complex the computer and software gets, the more likely that there is a bug that hasn't been found yet.

Posted by: Gary Baluha | July 19, 2018 9:15 AM    Report this comment

As a guy who bought his first plane with money made filling datacenters with Unix boxes, I'm going to pass on the computers making mistakes rabbit hole.

The point is that predators have a terrible problem of failures not induced by violence or operator error. I think we can agree on that, and I think it makes a point about allowing different separation rules for autonomous aircraft.

Posted by: Eric Warren | July 19, 2018 9:30 AM    Report this comment

Again, Predators are NOT autonomous aircraft. Consequently, their operational history has no bearing on the operation of actual autonomous aircraft.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 19, 2018 11:17 AM    Report this comment

You aren't making any argument yet which isn't semantic. I don't know what you are really thinking, but based on your computer argument I'm thinking this will end with some twisted "No true Scotsman" around autonomous. Also, saying autopilot failures in the past have no bearing on autonomous autopilot failures in the future isn't a great argument either unless you also include some good evidence on why that wouldn't be so.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that an autonomous aircraft can more reliably fly a vector than a human pilot, but I don't get the same conclusions from that which you do. I still believe a knowledgeable pilot on board is a better back up than a parachute, and there is no absolute prohibition on having both.

Posted by: Eric Warren | July 19, 2018 12:27 PM    Report this comment

Across the board, military RPAS/UAS systems have high accident rates. Or high numbers, at least, since we can't calculate rates because we don't have accurate hours or even mission stats. Some UAS are autonomous in certain missions.

Tom, with all due respect, I've been covering this field for six years now, and the people in the midst of it don't espouse your unalloyed claim of autonomous infallibility, not in aircraft, not in ground vehicles, not in marine. That's because machines don't make these machines, people do and people will always overlook variables in the instruction sets met to guide these machines. People are part of the system; they're in the loop. The machines don't exist independent of the people who build them.

You may believe the perfectly infallible computer has been invented or can be, but pardon me if I'm skeptical of the claim.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | July 19, 2018 12:45 PM    Report this comment

Truly autonomous machines have almost nothing in common with "autopilots."
Autopilots are designed to assist human pilots with some specific list of tasks. A true (Scottsman?) autonomous aircraft would be designed to operate with the complete absence of real-time human control/interference. The concept isn't difficult, but it's both widely mis-understood and wildly objectionable to many/most human pilots.

Hardware fails. Code is not perfect, even if/when it's completely bug-free. And yet, we casually rely on computerized systems in modern aircraft - so-called "fly-by-wire" technology. Are we fools? No. Some of us just don't have a problem admitting that there are many things that well-designed machines can do far better than the most-skilled human ever could hope to do.

We stand at the threshhold of being able to include "flying aircraft" in that category. "Infallibility" isn't the appropriate standard or expectation - it's certainly not mine. But a properly-designed autonomous aircraft control system will provide an order-of-magnitude improvement in performance and safety, versus that which is attainable with human pilots and ATC personnel.

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | July 19, 2018 1:55 PM    Report this comment

If you can get batteries to loose weight the longer you fly, you may have something.
Until then, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | July 19, 2018 7:20 PM    Report this comment

True Predators are not autonomous vehicles but they use almost state of the art electronics and systems. When these systems do fail, then things can go awry. Having been involved in many spacecraft and missions, the question comes down to how redundant? Then after that is what levels of cross strapping are required to improve the probability of mission success. As we know, redundancy raises cost, weight, reduces payload and in itself increases complexity.

Computers execute code but there are times when that execution does not go as planned for various and sometimes unknown reasons. Having autonomous vehicles provide their own separation, is another case of everything having to work as planned to achieve the desired outcome. As anyone who has had to build, test and deploy a complex system knows, the devil is in the details. Getting the details of autonomous flight worked out will unleash lots of little devils trying to crash the system.

The last part of the formula is the public perception of the systems, especially after an injurious or deadly incident. Then the press will spectacularize and politicians will bloviate. Finally, the politicians will draft adverse legislation all in the name of safety i.e. The Colgan crash effect on ATP requirements.

It will be interesting to see what the future will bring.

Posted by: Leo LeBoeuf | July 19, 2018 8:34 PM    Report this comment

Autonomous aircraft have exactly the same autopilot functionality as regular aircraft. The autonomy is replacing the management layer provided by a human with code. You still have servos and sensors.

A predator has failsafe modes for many circumstances which allow it to continue, hold, or return. A predator set to a course acts EXACTLY the same as an autonomous vehicle. And, they often fail to maintain the course, and the things crash.

Once again, instead of reverting to autonomous is different or better, perhaps you could tell us exactly how this is so, what does an autonomous vehicle have that a present generation predator not have that helps it deal with sensor failures or processor failures or OS failures or other system lock ups?

Posted by: Eric Warren | July 20, 2018 2:11 AM    Report this comment

RE: automated airspace

On the one hand, air traffic management is a pretty complex system. Automating that, then automating the air traffic as well at least in part, could easily result in an unexpected failure. Systems fail in unexpected ways all the time, and it would need to be fail-safe in many respects, which is difficult to do with aircraft.

However it should be possible to physically model the whole system. Set up few a mile square area with a few mock airports and many drones, remotely piloted aircraft, traffic control and communication systems as similar as possible to the real proposed system, and see how fragile the system is. Test it with weather events and diversions, sudden closed runways, non-conforming aircraft, intermittent comms failures, mechanical emergencies, whatever.

I'd love to see the results after several months of continuous testing.

Posted by: Gareth Allen | July 22, 2018 1:54 AM    Report this comment

The wonderful ways technology is changing the traffic pattern.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | July 22, 2018 10:18 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?


Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration