1 monthIf it’s a flying CAR, how come it has to be towed to and from it’s designated take off and landing sites? The whole point of a flying car is that you can go from ground travel to air travel without much effort.
This isn’t a expensive flying car. It’s a cheap aircraft that an inexperienced and untrained pilot is going to be allowed to fly if they can cough up $200k.
- WanderingThoughts@europe.pubEnglish1 month
There is no legal definition for a flying car, so they can use the term if they want. It’s like the term AI that gets thrown around a lot, but actually people mean an LLM, but technically even a checkers program is in the AI category.
The USA industry term is a “roadable aircraft” and legal is also moving to that term. In Europe the legal term is FlyDrive vehicle. And the thing in the article is an SC-VTOL (special condition) in Europe and powered-lift aircraft in USA.
- 1 month
Buyers don’t need a pilot’s license to operate the aircraft, though they must complete training and take an FAA knowledge test.
That’s absolutely fucking insane. How did the FAA approve this? The only saving grace here is that the $200k price tag means few, if any, will be sold to random idiots who want a flying car.
- cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish1 month
It’s an ultralight. You don’t need a pilots license to fly one in the US. You can even build one yourself if you want to. You don’t even need any inspection or airworthiness certificate. Since they can’t legally be flown over populated areas, it’s unlikely for anyone except the pilot to get injured or killed.
- 1 month
There are lots of fairly standard high end cars that go for more money than that. So the potential is quite high for these to sell well
- 1 month
That’s horrifying to think about. Most people seem to barely be able to handle 2 dimensions while driving a car.
- AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
A high end luxury car has a lot more utility than this thing. This is more like a $200k atv or snowmobile (ie, a very expensive toy)
- 1 month
That seems to make sense and maybe most people will think that and this will stay niche. However I can see a legitimate use case of skipping traffic in a large city which gives significant utility. Also many people own expensive toys like toyhaulers and Canam Mavericks which come out over $200k in total. What I’m saying is I really won’t be surprised if these get incredibly popular.
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
It also means the people operating them will have a high threshold for consequences and maybe not care so much about the community.
- 1 month
Because anything and everything about this administration is for sale.
- MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
The only thing I consider to be a flying car is when the technology is completely different from what we have now.
Tired of these plane/copter/drone-type vehicles that they claim are also cars.
We need Star Wars/Fifth Element/Back to the Future II/Blade Runner-type vehicles.
- 1 month
In practice that is zero - you are not allowed to take off unless you have enough fuel to fly for an hour after landing. flying is safe in large part because of hard learned rules like this.
- kcuf@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
I’ve never seen a rule requiring any specific fuel reserve except for when filing IFR where you need enough fuel to get to your destination, and alternate, and still have 45 minutes of fuel.
- Trilogy3452@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed—
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.
(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.
- kcuf@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
I had not heard that, thank you for sharing. I just go by IFR standards or better for my personal limits, so this never came up.
- 1 month
Note that those are minimums. The pilots I know try to be well above the minimums as a personal rule. Landing without fuel is something they practice in the simulator, not something they ever want to try in real world conditions.
- kcuf@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
Ya absolutely, I never want a fuel exhaustion event. Always put more in than necessary
- 1 month
that depends on the pilot. it doesn’t apply to bold pilots. There are bold pilots and old pilots - but no old and bold pilots.
These should be banned in cities immediately. The danger here seems insane.
- 1 month
As someone posted elsewhere, this is an ultralight aircraft and is therefore forbidden from flying over populated areas.
Oh that’s good news. However their stated business model is in cities so I expect heavy lobbying to lift that ban to start. It could be worthwhile to have layered bans at different levels of government to provide protection in case one layer gets paid off.
- antbricks@lemmy.todayEnglish1 month
While your cynicism is well-deserved in the US, Urban Air Mobility is an area of regulatory development. EASA and FAA are both actively working in this area, and VTOL and eVTOL aircraft have their own existing pilot certifications for both manned and remote flights. Lobbying has had very limited success with FAA and EASA, and they remain some of the most heavily regulated organizations.
The idea that these vehicles will ever be adequately safe, quiet, or efficient is very dubious. Any regulatory agency that isn’t outright rejecting them at this point should be viewed with suspicion.
If I’m ever proven wrong then great but I don’t see that happening for decades at minimum.
- antbricks@lemmy.todayEnglish24 days
A passenger car crashed through the window of my local grocery store a few months ago. I think people see small aircraft as this great threat, but forget that cars have been quite capably killing people for over a century. They aren’t very safe, quiet, or efficient anyway, so I’m happy to see other technology getting taken seriously.
This is exactly what terrifies me though. Cars are already incredibly dangerous. Now make them 5x as fast and more difficult to control, and allow them to go anywhere and imagine the carnage.
- antbricks@lemmy.todayEnglish23 days
The current regulations do consider density (people, buildings) when designating flight restrictions. Heavier small aircraft have to avoid certain areas because of the extra risk. This kind of single-passenger aircraft is way lighter than a car and wouldn’t be allowed over urban and residential areas, for example. I agree that CHANGES to the existing regulations could potentially add risk, but currently we’re ok and those changes happen slowly and are evidence-based. FAA and EASA don’t use the public as a testing area. It’s not as dystopian as the media might make you think. HTH.
Their privacy policy is stupid. Here’s an archive link, so you can avoid la time.
- cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish1 month
People will die, rather quickly, and that will be the end of it.
- Etterra@discuss.onlineEnglish1 month
I can’t wait until some influencer is half way from LA to Vegas when the low battery dummy light comes on.
- renard_roux@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
Looking at some of those photos, I guess ‘vertical’ is also applied, at least partially, to the vehicles orientation 😳
- dev_null@lemmy.mlEnglish1 month
Scott Manley has a video on this company and flew it himself, he was quite impressed.
