PPRuNe Forums - Blackfly by Opener

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)

- - Blackfly by Opener (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/611217-blackfly-opener.html)

Blackfly by Opener

The latest attempt of a flying car, maybe the one to open the market:https://www.geekwire.com/2018/silico...ld-flying-car/

When I see the innovative ideas for flying cars, and think of the present regulatory standards for certified aircraft, FAR Part 23.143 comes to mind (my bold):

Quote:

Sec. 23.143

General.

(a) The airplane must be safely controllable and maneuverable during --
(1) Takeoff;
(2) Climb;
(3) Level flight;
(4) Dive; and
(5) Landing (power on and power off).

Quote:

“Safety has been our primary driving goal in the development of this new technology,” Opener CEO Marcus Leng said. “Opener will be introducing this innovation in a controlled and responsible manner.

Okay, but if it can't safely glide to a landing, and is too low for a parachute to arrest the descent, it's not as safe as a present day certified aircraft. If society changes their expectations, and removes or alters the requirement that an aircraft be safely landable power off, that's society's choice, but at present, that capability is still a requirement for certification and certification is required for commercial operation of aircraft.

I switch off at "no formal licensing"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Gittins (Post 10199567)

I switch off at "no formal licensing"

Maybe in the USA where you are not required to have licence or training on microlights but not in the UK.

I don't think "Surrey, UK" is in the USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers (Post 10199582)

I don't think "Surrey, UK" is in the USA

If you read the article, you will see it has been built and developed in the USA.

Excuse me. The use of "you" indicated to me that the remark was meant for the poster, who mentions Surrey for his location.

As the sentence was about the Blackfly, "which will require no formal licensing," I took it to mean there was no need to license the machine. I don't think even the Yanks are daft enough to have uncertified manned flying machines buzzing about, even if they are allowed to be controlled by people without formal training.

However I do appreciate chevvron's explanation, as for years I've wondered what "an unlicensed pilot" meant when seen in the FAA accident reports. I took it to mean some idiot who, had they not been deceased and the reason for the report, would have had the book thrown at them.

Thanks for sticking up for me Jan :-)

From another website, apparently these machines can operate without a permit or C of A, but only over water and max speed 6 mph.

Quote:

but only over water

Ah, so when it quits, and you're falling, its a splash, rather than a thud. A little less dangerous, I suppose....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilot DAR (Post 10200759)

Ah, so when it quits, and you're falling, its a splash, rather than a thud. A little less dangerous, I suppose....

until you drown or die of exposure....

However, perhaps we should now be starting to take the prospect of flying cars/taxis etc. a bit more seriously.

It's going to make the type of airspace GA normally inhabits a lot more crowded and probably more dangerous.

Why, no, if these thingies ever get certified they should be confined to the same airspace as the parcel delivery drones (which stand a fair chance of being first certificated), say max 500' AGL or so.