by Martin Brock (Posted Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:09 am)
I don't know what constitutes a very good paper, but this one sounds like pseudoscience to me. I've jumped out of airplanes hundreds of times, and I well remember the difference between my first jump, my fiftieth and my 200th. Perceived control over a situation increases with increasing exposure. I also have hundreds of thousands of air miles. I don't feel any fear in a plane.
When I see a plane flying over head, even a small plane flying low, I stop and stare up in wonder. The experience is exhilarating, not terrifying. I've never once imagined a plane falling out of the sky on me, and I don't know anyone who has. Aerophobia exists, but everyone I know loves to fly. People go to airshows to be entertained.
I don't need to sell it. People will stand in line for a safe, easy to fly, affordable flying vehicle without any prodding from me.
And the question is: which new laws go into place? You seem to think that established authorities in this area would be quick to regulate flying cars out of existence, but in fact, the regulators have dreamed of flying cars for a century.
No. As traffic increases, flyers will want increased traffic control, and much of it will be automated. The vehicles will have GPS and radar and inter-vehicle communication devices, all the stuff that self-driving cars have now. When you're anywhere near a mid-air collision, every vehicle knows it, stops and hovers, because everyone in every vehicle wants his vehicle to avoid a mid-air collision. You don't even need a regulatory requirement for this purpose. When the volume of traffic makes this feature remotely necessary, you won't be able to sell a flying car without it. It's strictly a technical problem. If it can be done, it will be done.
But the civilian drones are increasing anyway. The market for UAVs, particularly multicopters, is growing rapidly. Timmy's flying car will fly at a much lower altitude than passenger airliners and far from airports. Controlling the traffic is not rocket science, and everyone involved wants it controlled, so you're grossly exaggerating the resistance.
I think you don't know half of what you think you know about it. Again, the German government itself is sponsoring the development of this vehicle, and it's obviously designed to be a personal air vehicle. It's a two seater with no cargo space.
Even if the U.S. tried to ban practical flying cars, other states would not ban them. In that scenario, I'd move out of this country in a heartbeat, and so would countless millions of people. Only literal chains could keep me here knowing that flying cars have finally arrived somewhere else, and I'd {!#%@} on the flag of "the land of the free and home of the brave" on my way out. The U.S. would hardly have a pilot or engineer left. It wouldn't just be stuck in the automobile age. It would lose that too.
Read Main Topic
Daedalus wrote:There is a very good paper on the perception of risk, which unfortunately I can't find right now. In essence it explains why people have no trouble strapping on a ton of car when 50K a year are injured or killed, but practically {!#%@} themselves blind at the mere thought of flying. In essence it was a matter of:
Actual Risk / Degree of Perceived Control Over Situation * Horror Factor.
I don't know what constitutes a very good paper, but this one sounds like pseudoscience to me. I've jumped out of airplanes hundreds of times, and I well remember the difference between my first jump, my fiftieth and my 200th. Perceived control over a situation increases with increasing exposure. I also have hundreds of thousands of air miles. I don't feel any fear in a plane.
Since any viable flying "car" is going to have to be autonomous to be practical, the same factors are at play. More, you're adding the fear of being on the ground, and something falling out of the sky and killing you horribly.
When I see a plane flying over head, even a small plane flying low, I stop and stare up in wonder. The experience is exhilarating, not terrifying. I've never once imagined a plane falling out of the sky on me, and I don't know anyone who has. Aerophobia exists, but everyone I know loves to fly. People go to airshows to be entertained.
Good luck selling that to the public. Good luck trying to reason with them by analogy to automobiles, which are incredibly unsafe.
I don't need to sell it. People will stand in line for a safe, easy to fly, affordable flying vehicle without any prodding from me.
As for ultralight laws, that's a bit like biodiesel... true and great until it actually becomes widely accepted. The moment this becomes a matter of mainstream transportation and not the occasional hobbyist, new laws and systems MUST go into place.
And the question is: which new laws go into place? You seem to think that established authorities in this area would be quick to regulate flying cars out of existence, but in fact, the regulators have dreamed of flying cars for a century.
Sure, at first the skies can, within reason, be a bit like early roads... ad hoc. It won't take long however before that stops, or you risk midair collisions.
No. As traffic increases, flyers will want increased traffic control, and much of it will be automated. The vehicles will have GPS and radar and inter-vehicle communication devices, all the stuff that self-driving cars have now. When you're anywhere near a mid-air collision, every vehicle knows it, stops and hovers, because everyone in every vehicle wants his vehicle to avoid a mid-air collision. You don't even need a regulatory requirement for this purpose. When the volume of traffic makes this feature remotely necessary, you won't be able to sell a flying car without it. It's strictly a technical problem. If it can be done, it will be done.
By the way, the FAA is already gagging on the NGATS and struggling to even think of how to do with small civilian drones... never mind mom, dad, and little Timmy driving through the friendly skies.
But the civilian drones are increasing anyway. The market for UAVs, particularly multicopters, is growing rapidly. Timmy's flying car will fly at a much lower altitude than passenger airliners and far from airports. Controlling the traffic is not rocket science, and everyone involved wants it controlled, so you're grossly exaggerating the resistance.
I think you need to actually learn a bit more about this to be honest... you seem uncharacteristically optimistic.
I think you don't know half of what you think you know about it. Again, the German government itself is sponsoring the development of this vehicle, and it's obviously designed to be a personal air vehicle. It's a two seater with no cargo space.
Even if the U.S. tried to ban practical flying cars, other states would not ban them. In that scenario, I'd move out of this country in a heartbeat, and so would countless millions of people. Only literal chains could keep me here knowing that flying cars have finally arrived somewhere else, and I'd {!#%@} on the flag of "the land of the free and home of the brave" on my way out. The U.S. would hardly have a pilot or engineer left. It wouldn't just be stuck in the automobile age. It would lose that too.
Read Main Topic