USAF looking for flying cars. No, seriously.


Ironhold
 Share

Recommended Posts

There have been flying cars since the 30s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterman_Arrowbile), but the FAA, using the "not safe" excuse (relative term being erroneously used as an absolute term), has, until recently, completely railroaded all attempts at marketing them (https://www.dmv.org/articles/the-faa-versus-flying-cars and https://www.wired.com/story/uber-flying-cars-faa-regulation/). Even now, they only let select, elite companies do it. If the FAA had not been bullying the private sector with the "not safe" mantra for 90 years, we would've had flying cars that were completely safe decades ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2020 at 9:53 PM, Br-Ahman said:

If the FAA had not been bullying the private sector with the "not safe" mantra for 90 years, we would've had flying cars that were completely safe decades ago.

I disagree with this thought.  There are no quiet autonomous flying cars out there right now.  The technology is not there yet.  All we have presently are different designs of cars that are just modified airplanes or helicopters and these are not easy to fly, very expensive and helicopters make a lot of noise.  Any future flying car is going to be very expensive for a while and the biggest problem is the flying experience one needs to control a helicopter or airplane.  You make mistakes with a helicopter or airplane and you die or other people die.  Flying is more more difficult than driving presently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

...no quiet autonomous flying cars... ...not easy to fly...expensive... You make mistakes with a helicopter or airplane and you die or other people die...

Like the FAA, you're (1) imposing unnecessary initial limitations/requirements and (2) erroneously using relative terms as if they're absolute: Quiet, autonomy/ease of use, affordability, safety, etc. (all relative terms) would have developed and improved to wonderful levels by now, if the FAA hadn't continually stomped out the emerging technology before it had a chance to develop or progress.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death.", not "Give me liberty, unless it increases my chances of harm or death."

Even today, whenever you drive your modern car, there is risk that you will get in an accident and be harmed or killed or that someone else will be harmed or killed. When cars were first invented, that risk was much higher, especially at comparable speeds. Someone who erroneously uses relative terms as absolute terms would even say that, back then, "cars weren't safe". Thank goodness the government didn't stamp out ground-based vehicle technology before it reached its current level of safety, affordability, ease of use, and noise levels. It's too bad that the FAA didn't follow that same tack.

The risks taken by earlier generations are what bring about the relative safety enjoyed by later generations.

Edited by Br-Ahman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Br-Ahman said:

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."

I'm not saying that the Federal Aviation Administration is not a faceless bureau that is overly strict and sometimes tyrannical because they are.  I am saying the technology for autonomous flying cars is not there yet.  A flying car is also going to need to be easier to control than an airplane or a helicopter.  They will not be common in my opinion for a long time either if they are invented because flying vehicles presently are very expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am saying the technology for autonomous flying cars is not there yet.  A flying car is also going to need to be easier to control than an airplane or a helicopter.  They will not be common in my opinion for a long time either if they are invented because flying vehicles presently are very expensive.

I'm saying that the basic technology has been there for 90 years and that the remaining technologies/improvements would've developed much more rapidly, if the government hadn't gotten in the way.

I agree that they won't be common for a long time, but the less the government gets in the way, the sooner that will be, by far. And thinking retroactively, the same is true: If the government hadn't gotten in the way in the first place--and discouraged their development for 80 years--they probably would've been relatively common, inexpensive, quiet, and safe by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share