Originally Posted by
mickjoebill
A remote test flight, apparently not above 100 feet, on "private" property of a fly-by-wire craft, backed by ESA and funded by the founder of Skype is not far fetched. Especially since they were test flying several scale models throughout 2016, videos of which are on u tube.
But if it is an air vehicle of significant size and mass (larger than the germa large RC model rules would cover) it would still require the airfield and surrounding area to be notam'd - it should be easy enough to find that notam to add some substance to the claims.
The thing is just a drone on steroids so remote control is embedded in its DNA.
They plan for it to be autonomous, so there is less to be converted.
Stunning! I must try that as a safety case argument:
"Certification, design standards compliance and range airspace sanitation/segregation not required because remote control has been embedded in the vehicle DNA".
Yep, I can see the airworthiness authorities signing off on that!
But it would be very silly of lillium to further mislead the public by making the statements quoted above if they were not true.
Making unsupported and expansive claims to attract inward investment is hardly a novel practice.
PDR