4 ms·

If it's a taxi service, is there a chance that +90 minutes for security and baggage could be avoided to make the door to door time more comparable?

imtringued 2y ago
You still need to make sure that no one except the pilot can take over the controls and that nobody is secretly loading up the VTOL with bombs in their luggage with the intention to crash it into the side of a glass skyscraper. Then there is the safety of the passengers. If you and the pilot are the only ones in the aircraft, there is not much risk to yourself, but if the pilot dies, then the aircraft must land autonomously. If there is a group of passengers, then a terrorist could take the passengers hostage. So you still need to check for weapons and explosives. The only case where you could get rid of security is with a fully autonomous aircraft that carries no luggage and only a single person.
- vernon99 2y ago
  This is a weird assumption, see my comment above - there already exist a bunch of airplanes operating in the US with no TSA. Also, what’s the point of bombing small airplanes? Why not to bomb a bus instead? The impact would be larger.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - addicted 2y ago
    Americans have a massive blind spot to anything that happens as a result of driving a vehicle. 40k+ deaths/year and unlike the rest of the developed world, its increasing, and you can barely even start a conversation about better managing the size of the cars that are sold these days.
    - dingnuts 2y ago
      you're kidding, right? everyone I know both online and IRL complains constantly about how big cars have gotten as a result of the CAFE regulations
- chgs 2y ago
  It’s not too expensive to buy your own small aircraft
vernon99 2y ago
This is already the case with a bunch of small plane airlines. They are also reasonably priced (compared to chartering). I personally love JetSuiteX (JSX) and the experience is truly incredible, with just 5 minutes to board the plane from entering the hangar. No TSA, no BS. There are a few more with similar service, but as far as I know, JSX was the one that found the loophole in the regulations that allowed them to run their operations this way legally. Proliferation of small aircraft cheap to operate will make this model ubiquitous. Edit: typos
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> is there a chance that +90 minutes for security and baggage could be avoided to make the door to door time more comparable? Blade in New York flies through high-security corridors. Check-in is like a minute. (Counterpoint: I regularly show up to my small-town airport fifteen minutes before boarding is scheduled to start, although that precludes being able to check a bag.) That said: you can’t easily take out a building with a helicopter. That may not be true with a tankful of 700-bar hydrogen.
- thot_experiment 2y ago
  I'm betting the hydrogen is actually a lot safer than a tank full of jet A. (not to defend using hydrogen, which in these applications seems to be a meme perpetuated by politicians/oil companies)
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Since you are already betting, how much will you bet with me?
    - thot_experiment 2y ago
      Define the bet and how we're going to test it, but I'll stand by my statement. Jet A is probably worse for buildings than high pressure hydrogen in an impact.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        Jet A probably is worse for buildings, but compressed hydrogen gas seems a lot worse for the people on the plane and people near the plane when it is on the ground. Methane, ethane or propane also seems worse for the same reason, namely, they need to be at very high pressures for the tank to be small enough to be economical on an airplane.

imtringued 2y ago

You still need to make sure that no one except the pilot can take over the controls and that nobody is secretly loading up the VTOL with bombs in their luggage with the intention to crash it into the side of a glass skyscraper. Then there is the safety of the passengers. If you and the pilot are the only ones in the aircraft, there is not much risk to yourself, but if the pilot dies, then the aircraft must land autonomously. If there is a group of passengers, then a terrorist could take the passengers hostage. So you still need to check for weapons and explosives. The only case where you could get rid of security is with a fully autonomous aircraft that carries no luggage and only a single person.

vernon99 2y ago
This is a weird assumption, see my comment above - there already exist a bunch of airplanes operating in the US with no TSA. Also, what’s the point of bombing small airplanes? Why not to bomb a bus instead? The impact would be larger.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- addicted 2y ago
  Americans have a massive blind spot to anything that happens as a result of driving a vehicle. 40k+ deaths/year and unlike the rest of the developed world, its increasing, and you can barely even start a conversation about better managing the size of the cars that are sold these days.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    you're kidding, right? everyone I know both online and IRL complains constantly about how big cars have gotten as a result of the CAFE regulations
chgs 2y ago
It’s not too expensive to buy your own small aircraft

vernon99 2y ago

This is already the case with a bunch of small plane airlines. They are also reasonably priced (compared to chartering). I personally love JetSuiteX (JSX) and the experience is truly incredible, with just 5 minutes to board the plane from entering the hangar. No TSA, no BS. There are a few more with similar service, but as far as I know, JSX was the one that found the loophole in the regulations that allowed them to run their operations this way legally. Proliferation of small aircraft cheap to operate will make this model ubiquitous. Edit: typos

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> is there a chance that +90 minutes for security and baggage could be avoided to make the door to door time more comparable? Blade in New York flies through high-security corridors. Check-in is like a minute. (Counterpoint: I regularly show up to my small-town airport fifteen minutes before boarding is scheduled to start, although that precludes being able to check a bag.) That said: you can’t easily take out a building with a helicopter. That may not be true with a tankful of 700-bar hydrogen.

thot_experiment 2y ago
I'm betting the hydrogen is actually a lot safer than a tank full of jet A. (not to defend using hydrogen, which in these applications seems to be a meme perpetuated by politicians/oil companies)
- hollerith 2y ago
  Since you are already betting, how much will you bet with me?
  - thot_experiment 2y ago
    Define the bet and how we're going to test it, but I'll stand by my statement. Jet A is probably worse for buildings than high pressure hydrogen in an impact.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Jet A probably is worse for buildings, but compressed hydrogen gas seems a lot worse for the people on the plane and people near the plane when it is on the ground. Methane, ethane or propane also seems worse for the same reason, namely, they need to be at very high pressures for the tank to be small enough to be economical on an airplane.