AP News: Hundreds of flying taxis to be made in Ohio, home of the Wright brothers and astronaut legends
AP News: Hundreds of flying taxis to be made in Ohio, home of the Wright brothers and astronaut legends
The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight will soon manufacture cutting-edge electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Large commercial aircraft with 2 trained pilots, air traffic control, a full flight crew, autopilot, and millions of dollars of advanced avionics.
These are not the same type of aircraft, nor are they the same caliber of pilots that will be flying them with 10,000+ hours of experience flying those types of craft. And there won’t be air traffic control to back them up, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Edit: I suppose there will be ATC? But that opens a different can of worms and adds a huge burden to an already overtaxed system.
Major airlines have two pilots and expensive avionics. But "commercial aircraft" refers to all aircraft with paying passengers, including Cessnas with a single pilot that take a few passengers sightseeing. As I said, fatalities are extremely rare in any of these flights.
And all pilots are guided by air traffic control, from major airliners to solo private pilots. Air traffic control is meant to prevent mid-air collisions, an air traffic control system that ignored small aircraft would be pointless.
And with that many more tiny little craft flying around, the risk increases. How do you not understand that?
The risk increases with any aircraft, the size is irrelevant. You might as well complain whenever Boeing builds a new airplane. And they build hundreds each year.
Fortunately, ATC regulates the number of aircraft - of any size - that can safely fly in a particular section of airspace.
So you admit I’m right, but you’re still arguing against me and then throw a false equivalence in to top it off. How the hell does that make any sense? Lmao
I'm arguing that building these planes is no worse than building any other plane.
And there is nothing to suggest that air travel is currently unsafe due to congestion, if anything air travel is decreased from previous years.
Yeah, it’s very clear that your argument is a false equivalence because you’re ignoring the massive differences between the different types of planes and the different safety records between them. And there’s lots of things to suggest that, you’re just ignoring them.
Not to mention this article and this whole discussion is about increasing the most dangerous form of air travel.
It must be very convenient for you to constantly ignore every part of the discussion that doesn’t align with your narrative, and then act as if you’d never heard it before.
And yet you keep ignoring the fact that all forms of commercial aviation have an excellent safety record.
That means that if you add up annual US fatalities in the small 2-4 passenger planes that you are irrationally worried about, plus slightly larger planes of 4-10 passengers that you are irrationally worried about, plus charter planes of 5-50 passengers, plus regional carriers, plus major airliners, plus any other air passengers you can imagine ..
... the grand total would be about ten deaths per year on average. All those different planes put together, still less dangerous than lightning.
And now you want me to believe that this excellent multi-decade safety record would magically be upended by building more aircraft, even though we are already building more aircraft - of all types - and have been for decades.
“Excellent safety record” is a relative term, and only one compared to cars. But we’re not comparing anything here to driving, I’m just pointing out that the small aircraft are relatively dangerous, and adding a whole lot more of them to the skies increases the danger even further, and that’s something that you’re continuing to ignore.
It’s an absurd argument to make, as you are, that any any number of these vehicles would be safe, yet you continue to make it. You’re completely departed from reality, as you continue to conflate all commercial aircraft with small aircraft, and to continue to insist that these tiny aircraft with no safety record behind them whatsoever Would be safe let alone to insist that they would not increase the danger inherently.
Just stop with this ridiculous nonsense. these are new, untested, experimental aircraft, and they have no safety record whatsoever. so any numbers that you may quote are meaningless.
“Excellent safety record” is a relative term
Small commercial aircraft have an excellent safety record relative to every other commercial form of transportation.
you continue to conflate all commercial aircraft with small aircraft
Do you really need to have it explained to you how private aircraft have nothing to do with this conversation? LMAO.
We are discussing small commercial aircraft here. And small commercial aircraft have an excellent safety record relative to every other form of commercial transportation.
to continue to insist that these tiny aircraft
It must be very convenient for you to ignore FAA safety testing for commercial aircraft.
adding a whole lot more of them to the skies
Another uninformed opinion. If the FAA thinks they are safe, then I believe they are safe.
I am certainly not valuing your opinion over theirs, since you are incapable of even distinguishing commercial aircraft from private aircraft.
any number of these vehicles would be safe
I trust the FAA to determine whether the skies are too congested, not you. They are guided by evidence, not reactionary pessimism.
Its not an “opinion” but that adding a bunch of these new, experimental craft increases risk, it’s a fact which you continue to ignore while you keep using false equivalencies and straw men while performing mental gymnastics to argue in circles.
The truth is, there is no safety record, establish for these vehicles, because they haven’t been flown like this before. Keep living in your fantasy because that’s all your argument is and nothing you say can change that.