5 ms·

As long as there's the FAA involved, flying cars are a stupid idea. They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming an

As long as there's the FAA involved, flying cars are a stupid idea. They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of worms. I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor. There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep at top of mind. Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne. >But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly autonomous commuter plane. The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.

BurningFrog 10y ago
Flying cars would be a product for the world market. The FAA only controls a small part of that airspace.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people, approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first week of ownership due to lack of proper training (which was subsequently provided in advance of delivery IIRC). We're talking airplanes here. Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.
  - bencollier49 10y ago
    The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.
      - NegativeK 10y ago
        You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle." I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control, personally. Road or air.
        6stringmerc 10y ago
        That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't share that approach. Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong; moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the human brain and synapses.
        tim333 10y ago
        We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a computer could quite likely do a safer job.
- serge2k 10y ago
  you think other countries regulatory agencies are going to be kinder?
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Actually, they will. Not necessarily "kinder" but certainly more "lax" in my opinion. The thirst for pilots in expanding markets - notably Asia - is forecasted to exceed the number of pilots working globally at the present. In order to fulfill this need, qualifications will conceivably be relaxed.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Flying cars would be a product for the world market. The FAA only controls a small part of that airspace.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people, approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first week of ownership due to lack of proper training (which was subsequently provided in advance of delivery IIRC). We're talking airplanes here. Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.
- bencollier49 10y ago
  The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.
    - NegativeK 10y ago
      You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle." I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control, personally. Road or air.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't share that approach. Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong; moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the human brain and synapses.
        tim333 10y ago
        We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a computer could quite likely do a safer job.
serge2k 10y ago
you think other countries regulatory agencies are going to be kinder?
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Actually, they will. Not necessarily "kinder" but certainly more "lax" in my opinion. The thirst for pilots in expanding markets - notably Asia - is forecasted to exceed the number of pilots working globally at the present. In order to fulfill this need, qualifications will conceivably be relaxed.