2 ms·
I mean, they probably do that. But the point is: even if politicians DO push that and even if the rules and regulations are written down - doesn’t mean that th
by looping__lui 6y ago
I mean, they probably do that.
But the point is: even if politicians DO push that and even if the rules and regulations are written down - doesn’t mean that they will be granted a certification.
I mean, funnily enough, they don’t yet even KNOW what they will have to adhere to and achieve and start burning through 300MM USD in investor money...
Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, Cirrus and Piper have dozens of years of experience and KNOW how to get planes certified - and yet they essentially “re-use older certifications”...
Fun times when they get told they need two ballistic parachutes or they need at least 30 min safety backup for hover flight (e.g., each Cessna pilot has to make sure he has 30+min fuel reserve). Your engineers will commit suicide when you surprise them with “oh there was this ask...”
And then the weather - I mean, seriously, there are super strict rules about visual minimas for flights in the US and Europe. If you go instrument rated things get even more complex and bureaucratic. Not to mention that instrument flight is PROHIBITED in Germany below 2000+ft in uncontrolled airspace...
Ah, and I want to see that flying electric lawn-mower make his way across the Alps with 50kts headwind, freezing temperatures at cruising altitude. Pilots landing in Innsbruck need special training for “Foehn” Approaches and when the heavy winds roll over the city and airport you can hear the pilots pushing full throttle in final to counter the 2000+ft/min downwash.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago> e.g., each Cessna pilot has to make sure he has 30+min fuel reserve Well, this is pretty much standard practice! Edit: Ah I misunderstood your comment. So yes it is standard. However I could see this not applying to these guys, because with vertical landing capability they should be able to support field landings with really minimal risk.
- gibolt 6y agoVTOL and several other major capability differences really should change the certification process. Current certifications a designed around certain engineering constraints. Nearly all existing planes operate with the same basic parts, thanks to the fuel. This dictates the possible drivetrains. Reduced complexity can lead to drastic reconsideration. While I don't expect change to be super fast, regulation tends to move faster than normal when major disruption starts showing up in practice (drones, self-driving vehicles, ...)
- nradov 6y agoThere is already a certification process for helicopters and autogyros, so VTOL capability alone is no reason for a different certification process. Helicopters require a 20 minute fuel reserve in VFR conditions and 30 minutes in IFR conditions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.151 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.151
- GekkePrutser 6y agoYes but these are automated, so they could be programmed to stay within X minutes of backup landing sites at all times, and altitudes to reach them easily.
- nradov 6y agoNo there will be a human pilot in control. It's going to be many years before fully automated aircraft are allowed to carry human civilian passengers through regular airspace.
- looping__lui 6y agoRegarding the 30min safety: Yes, that is absolutely necessary... But I wonder how much 30min in safety will cost Lilium in actual range...
- cameldrv 6y agoHelicopters in the U.S. only need a 20 minute reserve, at least for VFR.