What would this be classified as?
Thread Starter
What would this be classified as?
Just wondering what this would likely be classified as once the development is sorted. Microlight, micro-helicopter? Or would the authorities just run away screaming?
EASA would consider this a powered lift aircraft:
Unless it's under 600kg AUW, in which it would be non-EASA.
‘Powered-lift aircraft’ means any aircraft deriving vertical lift and in flight propulsion/lift from variable geometry rotors or engines/propulsive devices attached to or contained within the fuselage or wings.
It looks like it broadly fits the powered lift category but the essential problem for the regulator is how do you assess its fitness for flight. What criteria do you use to determine airworthiness ? The same problem applies to the pilot, how do you determine that they have adequate skills to fly safely ?
When one of these crashes into somebodies house you know fingers are going to be immediately pointed at the regulator. Ironically the certification oversight issues that contributed to the 737 MAX fiasco are in comparison easy to fix.
When one of these crashes into somebodies house you know fingers are going to be immediately pointed at the regulator. Ironically the certification oversight issues that contributed to the 737 MAX fiasco are in comparison easy to fix.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: 57 North
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the video blurb it says: "Being able to move through the air so effortlessly without vibrations or noise".
Well I'm half deaf and I thought it pretty noisy. So what would this be classified as? A public nuisance, IMO.
Aircraft with wings are elegant. These are the polar opposite of elegant. I don't like them at all!
Well I'm half deaf and I thought it pretty noisy. So what would this be classified as? A public nuisance, IMO.
Aircraft with wings are elegant. These are the polar opposite of elegant. I don't like them at all!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: with bosun Blue Sky and the jenny haniver "Hot Stuff"
Posts: 106
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it would count as an SSDR?
In Britain at least -
The only caveat is that SSDR refers explicitly to landplanes, amphibians and floatplanes, but I think it would be simple to change to a generic term like "flying machine" to cover the contraption in the video above 
(which I think is super cool. It's definitely the future.)
In Britain at least -
A single seat microlight (SSDR) is now defined as an aircraft which:
a) Is designed to carry one person;
b) Has a maximum take-off mass of no more than:
i. 300 kg for a single seat landplane (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane of which
51% was built by an amateur, or non-profit making association of amateurs, for
their own purposes and without any commercial objective, in respect of which a
Permit to Fly issued by the CAA was in force prior to 1 January 2003); or
ii. 315 kg for a single seat landplane equipped with an airframe mounted total
recovering parachute system; or
iii. 330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane; and
c) Has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not
exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed.
a) Is designed to carry one person;
b) Has a maximum take-off mass of no more than:
i. 300 kg for a single seat landplane (or 390 kg for a single seat landplane of which
51% was built by an amateur, or non-profit making association of amateurs, for
their own purposes and without any commercial objective, in respect of which a
Permit to Fly issued by the CAA was in force prior to 1 January 2003); or
ii. 315 kg for a single seat landplane equipped with an airframe mounted total
recovering parachute system; or
iii. 330 kg for a single seat amphibian or floatplane; and
c) Has a stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration not
exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed.
(which I think is super cool. It's definitely the future.)Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all this strange hype on flying drones, I still hope anything carrying people will fall under the pilot license regime!
It is proven, it works and it keeps the extreme idiots and incapable ones in cars on the ground ...
It is proven, it works and it keeps the extreme idiots and incapable ones in cars on the ground ...
It will be classified as whatever it is certified for. It is for the requester to state in what category certification is sought, then it is for authorities to grant said certification, or not. So perhaps the question had better be "what could this be certified as?". The answer to that must depend on national regulations, seeing the contraption is most likely sub-ICAO.
In France it might stand a fair chance as an ultralight helicopter, and perhaps in more countries. No idea about the UK, though. SSDR sounds like a possibility.
In France it might stand a fair chance as an ultralight helicopter, and perhaps in more countries. No idea about the UK, though. SSDR sounds like a possibility.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how this aircraft would be classified in Italy, where it lives, but in the U.S., it would be generally classed as a rotorcraft-helicopter. I'm sure that other sub classes would be applied, such as ultra light, multi-engine (motor?), land, etc., but I have no idea as to its ultimate classification. Whatever class it would fit into, the subject helicopter appears to have been well designed and well built; however, I think that I'd come up with a better method of securing the transmitter than just a neck strap. The pilot would be in a bit of a pickle if he dropped his transmitter.
It looks like the control system is typical of R/C (Radio-Controlled) multi-rotor "drones", only applied to a much larger, man-carrying aircraft. If that is the case, the programming would include such automatic features as "return to home", auto stability etc., which would enhance safety. The control system, being "fly-by-wireless", could be susceptible to sophisticated jamming techniques
Regardless of its possible classification, it looks like a lot of fun, requiring little more skill than driving the average automobile. Finally, a "flying car" for "Everyman"! I foresee swarms of these craft clogging our highways, byways and skyways in the near future ... it could be entertaining.
Cheers,
Grog
It looks like the control system is typical of R/C (Radio-Controlled) multi-rotor "drones", only applied to a much larger, man-carrying aircraft. If that is the case, the programming would include such automatic features as "return to home", auto stability etc., which would enhance safety. The control system, being "fly-by-wireless", could be susceptible to sophisticated jamming techniques
Regardless of its possible classification, it looks like a lot of fun, requiring little more skill than driving the average automobile. Finally, a "flying car" for "Everyman"! I foresee swarms of these craft clogging our highways, byways and skyways in the near future ... it could be entertaining.
Cheers,
Grog
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
What would this be classified as?
Bloody dangerous (I suppose the proper term is high risk) .... fine until one of the engines stops or one of the propellers falls off. At least most "proper" flying machines can be safely landed after an engine failure.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If management is making the risk assessment, highest risk would be from ingesting a fly, mitigated by turning your face the other direction, hence passed.
Radio controlled man carrying multi rotor helicopter
If you were really worried you could fit a BRS (or parasail)...
Well, not a drone because someone is sitting in it flying. EVM's..Electric VTOL Multi-rotor's...
I wouldn't be too quick to knock the technology. Fifteen years or so, advanced versions of these could easily be the norm.
I wouldn't be too quick to knock the technology. Fifteen years or so, advanced versions of these could easily be the norm.
Unless I have missed something, "drones" became so prevalent and presumably potentially dangerous that the AAIB were made responsible for looking at the reasons so many crashed. Having read some of the reports, "redundancy," "reliability and "safety" are not words that jump off the pages.
I think FullWings has the best idea huge (expensive) redundancy or a BRS. Even better two of them.
I think FullWings has the best idea huge (expensive) redundancy or a BRS. Even better two of them.