Ozebusdriver

The video you posted did not appear to have a person on board!

However this move by Uber actually undermines CASA's authority and ability to regulate. That will never be allowed, ever. Just have a look at the whole Glen Buckley saga. That was a similar move to franchise out an AOC and move control from CASA to another authority. CASA won't stand for it.

The other issue for CASA is if Uber are allowed to do what they did in cars then it opens the door in aviation for everybody else to do it. Now I think that would be amazing for the industry and will be a massive economic boom for GA, however CASA do not want to be in that situation where they lose control of regulating the industry. So it is never ever ever ever going to happen. Ever. At any cost.

Cars and Planes are regulated in a totally different manner. Just look at the CAR 206. A tradie can drive around in a van all day long with all manner of equipment and supplies in the back. The same tradie jumps in an aeroplane he needs to get an AOC.

Hahaha!...loved the statement...”its always tomorrow in Australia.”
Yeah we in Oz GA know all about that !
CAsA and yesterday’s men are not into common sense and new ideas

I know it is a dummy in there...but .CAN carry a human...which is the end game if ever an authority other than a former iron curtain country allows it.
For this little black duck there is noooo way I would even fly in an Uber with the designs they have..let alone that thing. But, it shows which way technology can go. look at some of the scifi flicks with aliens making a beachhead on the US coast and some of the flying contraptions that resemble lunar landers with high pressure stabiliser jets...all good when the gear is ticking over but will hang in the sky exactly the way bricks do if things go quiet.

Of course not - they are fixed-pitch.

PDR

Weird. When I posted the above comment, while this thread was under R&N, there were no responsive posts showing up (for me).

I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this is preposterous -- and would be a bad idea even if it were not.

This will be my part time job.

I think most sane people know that this concept is about as feasible as living on Mars anytime soon!
a
Apart from the fanciful technical stuff Insurance Co's would be shaking their heads!

Every approved landing area would also need a development approval from the appropriate local council. Anyone who has been through that process knows how easy and timely that process is?

Wunwing

Good to see a mention of CAR 206, Neville. Thats the reg supposed to be changed 30 years ago , and in the passing decades always just "talk" about removing it because it is 'ultra vires' the Act and unlawful.
And in the past the idiot screechers and sqwarkers of CAsA having a rave in the Senate telling them .." we are a safety regulator , NOT a commercial regulator". BS tru. Pull the other one.
206 denies you the right to free trade and thus earn a living...just because an aircraft is involved.
Bureaucrats rule OK !

Possibly Uber are going to challenge this assertion by CAR 206. They are notoriously libertarian and have shown no regard for any established law in any country they operate in and not afraid of a law suit.

If they don't do that I can't see how it will ever work legally. I assume Uber expect the operator to contract to them and somehow operate in a Monopsony. Problem for Uber there is that nothing is stopping the operator going off on their own as they control the AOC and just need a reservation system.

Uber Elevate sale set to put plans for 1000 Melbourne flying taxis on ice

Uber's sale of its aviation division has raised questions about its plans for up to 1000 commercial flying taxis in Melbourne from 2023.

classic. It's almost like Uber's realized it was going to get infinitely more difficult to keep this charade up as they got closer to a self imposed delivery date. So they found a way of moving the problem
elsewhere so they won't be under the spotlight when it never happens.

I like the way it says the SALE of the division, however in the next paragraph is says they PAID Joby $75m to take it over !!

Sale - really!!!!!!!!!

When I receive something in return (Usually payment of some kind) I have sold something

When I get nothing in return I have given it away

When I pay someone to take it away the idea of it having been sold doesn't enter my consciousness.

This is certainly a very novel interpretation of the act of selling. I guess it might help stop the shareholders getting too upset.

Really, no surprise here.