Brent: I was waiting for the pilots to chime-in. Dave's comment was tongue-in-cheek, but with a big chunk of truth in it. We're imagining *flying cars*, not civil aviation here. Imagine the airspace above the Wasatch front with 200,000 flying vehicles in it at any given time, tens of thousands in close quarters along major routes that I imagine parallel existing ground routes. It's not the same thing as Skypark or even SL Int'l. Even with rigorous training on-par with private pilot requirements, the sheer vehicle density would make the environment unsafe without massive computer control. Yes, you can argue that more intense training would reduce the number of operators, but then we're not talking about a true "flying car", but a more personal take on the small private plane. The cultural idea of a true "flying car" is just that, a vehicle for the masses, not a BD-5 that hovers into your driveway. I would argue that civil aviation is statistically safe in large measure to the scarcity of small planes in relation to the population-at-large, something that driving accidents can't claim. Larry: I referred to past iterations of "flying cars". Even the ones now being sold are poor cars and poor airplanes. They are rolling and flying freaks, and not the true expression of what we think of as a "flying car". So, there's my 3 cents. It's a joke, people, not anything even remotely on the horizon and not a reflection on anybody's aviation interest.