Interesting take on the oft-hyped but little-seen "Personal VTOL"

[Sean Franklin]

Apparently they ARE out there - in the fringes of legality, though

https://apple.news/A7efVpha3Tpmk20k59E8hmw

[B.Butler]

Apparently they ARE out there - in the fringes of legality, though

https://apple.news/A7efVpha3Tpmk20k59E8hmw

Apparently, I have "reached my monthly limit." Interesting, as I don't recall ever accessing that e-mag...besides, it's the 4th of said month!

[Sean Franklin]

Apparently, I have "reached my monthly limit." Interesting, as I don't recall ever accessing that e-mag...besides, it's the 4th of said month!

Hmm. It's part of "New York magazine" and I guess the limit is a nice round number :/

Title of the article is "The Flying Car Is Finally Here. It’s Slightly Illegal." You might be able to find a site where it can be read for free. I got mine on Apple News+.

It talks about how a couple of manufacturers (LIFT Hexa, Pivotal Blackfly & Helix) have put nominal "Floats" on their eVTOL craft in order to shoe-horn them into Part 103 (ultralight) with the watercraft weight exemption. Neither is intended to be landed on water, so it's clearly a loophole - and as the title says, "slightly illegal."

They're also not of course able to sell rides - but they "Rent" a craft for a 12 to 15 minute flight for $249, to get around the commercial limitation.

Scofflaws, or ahead of the curve / doing what they have to in light of out of date legislation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You decide.

Lift: https://evtol.news/lift-hexa/ (3rd party report; the official website seems to be crashing, probably due to the article)

Pivotal: https://pivotal.aero

[B.Butler]

They're also not of course able to sell rides - but they "Rent" a craft for a 12 to 15 minute flight for $249, to get around the commercial limitation.

Scofflaws,

An ancient and well-litigated dodge. "Of course I'm not 'carrying cargo or passengers for hire.'" "They paid me an admission charge to visit my airport and I offered a free ride!"

Everyone on the Titan submersible was a "crew member."

[Stephanie Belser]

Can't fly them to the airport as they can't enter controlled airspace, nor can they fly over congested areas.

I see these things as Moller Air Cars 2.0.

[Sean Franklin]

Can't fly them to the airport as they can't enter controlled airspace, nor can they fly over congested areas.

I see these things as Moller Air Cars 2.0.

One difference is - they actually fly!

[Dusty Rider]

Can't fly them to the airport as they can't enter controlled airspace, nor can they fly over congested areas.

I see these things as Moller Air Cars 2.0.

I'm sure the folks flying these things around know exactly what those restrictions mean. <g> It's only a matter of (seemingly little) time before the FAA misses the boat to get these under some type of regulation before we re-live the drone debacle.

[Sean Franklin]

...dodge... Everyone on the Titan submersible was a "crew member."

FWIW, the article also pointed out that there's no possibility (currently) of "30 minutes reserve fuel" - the TOTAL flight time is barely 30 minutes, best case scenario. There's no possible way to certify under 14CFR23... they're not "Homebuilt" so 14CFR21 doesn't work... they're certainly manned, so 14CFR48 is out... you "Could" consider them rotorcraft but 14CFR27 is ill-suited; plus the licensing requirements don't meet the needs of eVTOL at all. What to do, what to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

14CFR103 seems to be where they've landed, by default. It's far from perfect too but it gives everyone a reason to "Look the other way," I suppose.

[Stephanie Belser]

14CFR103 seems to be where they've landed, by default. It's far from perfect too but it gives everyone a reason to "Look the other way," I suppose.

Until they kill enough people, alow or aloft.

[Sean Franklin]

Until they kill enough people, alow or aloft.

I suspect "enough" is a pretty high number! NIH estimates 60 deaths per year from ultralights already. If the FAA starts cracking down on eVTOL rather than on part 103 in general, it would highlight the fact that they haven't done ANYTHING about eVTOL as of yet. And cracking down on part 103 overall, because of a (relatively) few deaths on the eVTOL side, would bring out a lot of resistance.

I'm not saying the eVTOL crowd made the right choice with the part 103 path. I'm just not sure what other path they COULD have chosen.

[Sean Franklin]

FAA is making progress: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...ule-announced/