private aviation for everybody?

[Skybird]

Sounds like a fascinating idea, but remembering how many mad men I say driving like crazy every day, I nevertheless have doubts that this could be anything else than just an extremely bad idea. Putting an azz who drives 180 km/h on the Autobahn and approaches your car to less than a meter with signalling lights behind the controls of an electric glider is not something that really gives you any peace of mind at all. If I would have a word in it, I estimate that around 5% of all car drivers and 20-25% of all bike riders in Germany would see their driving licences taken away immediately.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7384788.stm

[NealT]

In order to do it, the flying part would have to be automatic - no human intervention.

[Platapus]

Most drivers in my area have a hard time navigating in two dimensions, no less three.

I remember getting my license back in the 8o's. There was a lot to learn and keep in your head. Frankly I don't think too many average drivers could handle the studies.

[OneToughHerring]

Well a lot of people already have either helicopter or airplane pilots licences. With a helicopter one is not so restricted to airports although I wouldn't recommend landing on ones gf's backyard as Prince William did. Anybody here have a airplane or helicopter pilots licence?

[CCIP]

Most drivers in my area have a hard time navigating in two dimensions, no less three.

I remember getting my license back in the 8o's. There was a lot to learn and keep in your head. Frankly I don't think too many average drivers could handle the studies.

I think as the article suggests, flying these things will NOT actually be like piloting - it's supposed to be heavily computer-assisted, and less complicated than driving a car.

In 20 years from now, I could see that happening. Realistically speaking, we already have capable-enough autopilot AI, just that it needs to be proved more reliable.

[August]

...just that it needs to be proved more reliable.

Yeah, reliability is far more important for an aircraft than any ground vehicle.

[CCIP]

No reason a very light aircraft can't be made relatively fool-proof. I assume getting a license on these would not be at all like getting a pilot's license. I wonder what it would take to train the average commuter to simply learn how to land this in case of emergency - I don't assume they would need much in the way of other manual piloting skills. Not that this one's a simple one.

I guess this may also be high time to bring back the idea of recovery parachutes. If we are talking about what's basically electric-powered light gliders, no reason they couldn't pack a parachute and maybe an emergency cushion to bring it down relatively safely (or at least in a way that' survivable for the occupants). Especially assuming these things are made of light composite materials and electric-powered, this would actually also reduce a lot of risks both in the air and on the ground - not much chance this thing would catch fire or explode even in the worst circumstances. On the other hand I wonder how these things would cope with weather - I don't imagine these things would be very fit to deal with the climate in many parts of the world on a daily-commute basis.

[CaptHawkeye]

I don't care if these cars are computer assisted. It's an invitation for disaster. Plenty of light aircraft like the Cessna 172 I trained in come with AUTOPILOT and even TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) and even more of them come with GPS. They don't keep accidents from happening. More often than not they create an aura of over confidence and lead to people getting killed. You should see the statistics on crashes caused by icing on aircraft equipped with de-ice systems.

Most light aircraft pilots end up getting killed by bad weather or flight into instrument conditions. In other words, a private pilot can more or less be a dead man walking as soon as he steps in the plane if he made the decision to fly on a bad day in the first place. These are light aircraft, sunny day or nothing. The kind of light sport aircraft the article mentions are even worse because rarely can they be certified for IFR conditions.

Also, I love it whenever someone says "aircraft never get into traffic jams like cars do". Have these people ever actually flown an aircraft? Airports around where I live get jammed up the ass with people in the pattern all the time. It's not uncommon for controllers to tell me and others to circle the airfield 2 or 3 more times after i've entered the pattern because a faster aircraft showed up.

I guess this may also be high time to bring back the idea of recovery parachutes. If we are talking about what's basically electric-powered light gliders, no reason they couldn't pack a parachute and maybe an emergency cushion to bring it down relatively safely (or at least in a way that' survivable for the occupants).

And their have been plenty of instances where those things have either gotten people killed, or did nothing to alleviate their situation. Did you know that the parachute can only be deployed at a specific airspeed? Too fast and you'll tear the chute right off of the aircraft and put yourself in a stall at the same time, too slow and it won't deploy.

Applying to ultralight aircraft (if that is indeed what the article is talking about, bear in mind light sport and ultra light are two different categories.) seems ok. The problem is that ultralights are terrible for anything other than sightseeing. So, not good for the average motorist. Even the Cessna 172 can only carry around 2-3 people at once and maybe a bag in the back.

[CaptHawkeye]

Too bad your austin mini would still be too heavy and thus handle like a brick? :)

[Steel_Tomb]

Not a good idea, the airspace is congested beyond belief as it is, and unless such aircraft were VSTOL capable it just wouldn't be feasable.

Although I wouldn't complain about getting my PPL, would be freaking awesome!