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 a single thread.
I'll never understand the eternal hype around "flying cars". Fuckers out here can hardly drive on a 2d road. Now you want to introduce a third axis on them?
I guarantee that if the general public gets their hands on a real "flying car", it'll take about 2 weeks before some drunk idiot commits a mini 9/11.
The only way flying cars should ever get implemented is if they are 100% automatic.
-
Create automatic taxi (impossible)
-
Create flying taxi (impossible)
Okay, new plan!
- Create automatic flying taxi (should be possible in the next 5-15 years)
Not saying it's a good idea, but a lot of the complexity surrounding automated driving is actually because you are confined to a 2D space and have to follow roads/road signs. When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects all you really need is a way to detect and avoid obstacles and some navigation logic. Landing is probably the most difficult part to automate.
Not super easy but it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)
When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects
You need to navigate between objects on an additional access. Also, manage speed and trajectory with a changing mass, as you exhaust fuel.
Not rocket science, but its close.
it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)
Commercial flight follows lanes of traffic with regular well-regulated flight paths.
One thing that gets helicopters and small engine aircraft pilots in trouble is that they don't have any of that.
-
The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft. And even more training for commercial pilots (i.e. paying passengers).
Nothing in this article suggests that pilots of this vehicle would have less training than pilots of other aircraft.
I worry a lot more about drunk drivers than drunk pilots.
The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft.
Apparently not if the mass and maximum speed are both low enough. The Jetson One (which has been taking preorders for at least a couple of years but still isn't shipping) says it won't require a license in the US.
It looks pretty impractical, produces an obnoxious amount of wind during landing and takeoff, and has a range of only 30km, but, still... it or things like it probably will actually be a reality for some rich people pretty soon.
The FAA regulates all vehicles in US airspace. You need an FAA certificate even to fly many handheld drones.
So either the FAA is going to catch up to them, or there is something in the fine print...
the model was intended to spend most of its time hovering between 5 and 20 feet off the ground
.. found it.
EDIT:
Actually, this vehicle is classed as an ultralight, which (TIL) do not require a pilot's certificate.
& you are correct about airspace being regulated. Just because an ultralight doesn't require a license doesn't mean you can just fly it anywhere with no training on how to get airspace clearance either. I imagine they will eventually develop something like an automated version of the LAANC clearance process for drone pilots, but it will take a while to develop the regulations for sure, if they even get that far.
That doesn’t make flying any less dangerous in general, and it’s already pretty dangerous as it is. Add to that a bunch of tiny little flying vehicles buzzing around, and it the odds of more mid-air collisions (and their result and ground crashes) rises significantly.
I don't see why this should be of more concern than someone designing an inexpensive new private fixed wing aircraft or small helo. Which happens all the time.
Also, flying is far less dangerous than pretty much any other form of travel. Would you also be concerned about a city that encouraged bicycles to "buzz around" the streets? Bicycle crashes are less dramatic than aircraft crashes, but they end up killing far more people.
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
Flying is safer, period.
In the US, there are only about ten fatalities per year on commercial aircraft. You are more likely to die of a lightning strike.
And if you only consider major airlines, in the last twenty years there has been exactly one passenger fatality in the US.
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.
Per capita means per unit of people. So by definition the group size does not matter.
You just explained how group size does matter
Right? Cool, now the road goes over your house! Along with the Amazon drones.
Drink idiots hit things in cars all the time.
Make the test to acquire your license actually difficult to the skill level required instead of the "you can take two left turns and park shitty, here's your license" level of difficulty that most states use for road vehicles.
Dog if you make one mistake you can kill so many more people than in a crash. This is a horrible idea.
So require more training and certification for use?
Are you guys all seriously hung up on the word "car" here and trying to imply that eVTOLs can't just come with its own infrastructure and pilot requirements independent of what we currently have?
It doesn't have to be like cars, where the skill level of the driver can be non existent and still pass licensing.
I just can't believe I'm in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.
The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.
I just have to double check to make sure I didn't fall into the wrong internet rabbit hole.
Im saying that it doesnt matter if the requirements are super high, it's still dangerous and I don't really see how the use cases are justifiable. It also doesn't scale well with a lot of people. You could easily just build rail or use a bus and make a bus lane.
I just can't believe I'm in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.
The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.
🤣
I got my driver's license when I was 18, after studying for the test and practicing for several months on a learner's permit.
Now I'm 40. I've never been retested. I have completely forgotten what's on the exam. I've developed a whole bunch of bad driving habits, particularly with the advent of smart phones. And nobody is going to challenge my license renewal so long as I can pass an eye exam every 10 years.