So, everyone can "drive" it, it would fly above and land into cities…
Regulating this is going to be fun.
Regulating this is going to be fun.
This is the part about the "flying car" that literally everyone gets wrong. If we are talking USA, ask the FAA if everyone can fly. There is the Class 3 flight physical that is required to fly as a PPL pilot... it is very, very thorough. If you can't pass that, there is a massive and growing sport class of flyers who are not full PPL's but still require pretty expensive training to get certified... and you are quite limited in size and scope.
In short, there is not going to be a massive "flying car" moment in this country unless they are autonomous or remotely piloted by ultra qualified people.
> We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone.
Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. I'm also seeing a beautiful rendering of those things flying over a dense city lower than some rooftops, and a landing pad with people standing on them, just after one craft took off.
They're gonna need one hell of a lobbying force to pull that off. Or a couple decades proving this stuff is mighty safe.
They explicitly say that the "for everyone" part isn't everyone can fly (or afford to own) one, just that you will be able to hail them via a smartphone app and they'll come to you where you need them, because building suitable landing sites will be relatively inexpensive and attractive to property owners.
FAA and EASA are increasingly looking at performance based, rather than narrow implementation based certification. I agree that the regulatory hurdles are monumental, but they're not insurmountable.
It's described as an air taxi, it references guidance to the pilot; there's no indication that it is self-flying. So, AFAICT, it would be flown by people licensed under whatever regime there is for pilots in the jurisdictions it operates in.
> Regulating this is going to be fun.
It's basically a faster, quieter helicopter taxi. It's not a particularly novel regulatory problem.
No way that'll happen under current regulations of the crushing majority of western countries.
The implied statement that I take from what they are pitching is "I can request my pickup and destination" vs. having to head to the airport where I pick up a fixed route flight. That form of personalization.
The sheer strain this would put on air traffic controllers is unworkable, unless they change how air traffic control is made —'cause there's no way the air above cities is currently uncontrolled, and going through those zones take up at least 30 seconds worth of air controller's attention and talking. (Source: last time I got on a small plane for hobby purpose, we flew close to my city at some point.)
Automation will most likely force a reworking of the ATC network in the near future. For example, if delivery drones really do take of at scale updates will be needed.
We're not there yet.
That said, what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter? It it cheaper? Faster? The site is certainly not telling this.
From the homepage:
"Access inner cities with less noise than a motorbike"
That's a huge difference.
Aside from not being easily bookable, helicopter rentals today are quite expensive (hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour, depending on the helicopter, origin, and destination).