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?

Most civil aviation regulators have a specific regulation which prohibits drones from carrying people. However I think all regulators are scrambling to keep up with rapidly evolving technology that is profoundly different from the basis of all regulation, that is a regulatory regime predicated on the fact that basically all aircraft that has some sort of flight authority and are flown by a pilot with some sort of permit or license, so the short answer was provided by tech guy. The long answer is regulators are going to have to deal with novel aeronautical devices whether they want to or not. It is interesting times......

EASA would consider this a powered lift aircraft:Unless it's under 600kg AUW, in which it would be non-EASA.

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.

I would classify it as a mincer.

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!

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 :E (which I think is super cool. It's definitely the future.)

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 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.

And if it were foot launched?

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.:rolleyes:

Cheers,
Grog

It's certainly no glider. Engine out performance? :uhoh:

It comes with a coffin ... auto-deployed.

Dangerous.....

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.

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

Actually, if drones are anything to go by, you can engineer a lot of redundancy if you have 6/8/10+ motor/prop combos. As these aircraft are mostly FBW by necessity (no human could balance the multiple power units), you can build in algorithms to cope with the loss of several power units. Even if you don’t have the thrust to stay up, it can be a controlled descent.

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.

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. :E