Not by a long shot. That's a tethered toy, not a practical means of transportation. Darn. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Holmes <danielh@holmesonics.com>wrote:

Chuck, your jetpack is here...http://www.jetlev-flyer.com

Many of us do successfully operate vehicles in three dimensions and with excellent results.  Contrary to popular belief, only around half of aircraft accidents result in fatalities.  While somewhat higher than the equivalent automotive results, there are still many accidents that are very survivable.  The stakes are only slightly elevated in aircraft.  If the fan stops, it is very feasible to glide to a safe landing.    When folks ask me if it is safe, I always relate that I have only been involved in three fatal accidents, and the third time they never found my body.  Actually, my airplane has over 4,700 hours on the airframe and is still in excellent condition.  4,700 hours times 150 miles per hour yields 705,000 miles.  No accidents nor incidents.   I am very thankful that the bar to operate aircraft is much higher than that to operate a ground vehicle.  If people were subjected to the rigors of flight school for getting a drivers license, there would be far fewer licensed drivers on the roads.   Patrick will chime in too, I am certain. From: Daniel Holmes <danielh@holmesonics.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] The Future Many people can't properly operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions. Think of the issues with adding a third. Chuck, your jetpack is here...http://www.jetlev-flyer.com/ Dan On Mar 25, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave, I used to want one, until I realized that with flying cars, there won't be many fender-benders.  Almost all accidents will be aircraft crashes with the usual results.

You can't stop quickly, and your maneuvering options would be very limited in general, and in any kind of controlled traffic corridor especially.  I doubt that drivers would be allowed to fly over houses and buildings- they'd be restricted to "air roads".  So I'm thinking that even if the practical, affordable flying car were invented today (not those weird hybrids that are neither car nor airplane, and don't do either job very well), the masses would have to wait for a central control system that not only regulates the traffic in general, but the individual vehicles themselves.  To be safe, there would have to be many layers of redundancy in the control computers.  And/or all the cars themselves are networked.  Fully autonomous control will probably be limited to emergency-only situations.

No George Jetson for a while yet.  That's why I'd settle for a jet-pack with reasonable range, that didn't weigh 300 lbs.  :-) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:

...

Chuck,

All my daughter ever asks about is where is her flying car?

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

-- Daniel Holmes, danielh@holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".

Yes, Chuck, I never bought into the flying car for the same reasons you cite.  And, more stringent training requirements only cuts down on the licensed operators.  Rumor was that even as late as 5 years ago the FAA had a goal to get 25% of the pilots in Alaska to be licensed.  I don't think it is that bad, but many who fly in that state are unlicensed. Computer control is probably going to be a necessity if the number of cars on the roads gets a bunch larger also.  It will never work in the skies, IMHO. ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] The Future 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.

Ok, I've been mentioned a couple of time so I'll throw in a comment or two. I'd of chimed in earlier but I got to spend a very fun afternoon on fights taking several folks up for their first flights. I've decided to get into that in a pretty big way. Even had an article run: http://www.transcriptbulletin.com/view/full_story/21845505/article-Pilot-off... I think of it as my way of paying back the guy that gave me my first flight in a light aircraft when I was but a wee lad. But getting back to the topic at hand, I'm maybe a bit less pessimistic about flying cars. Or at least about getting more folks in the sky. Brent mentioned computers and that's almost certainly the way aviation (and everything else) is going. Just as I did not like the "intrusion" of computers into astronomy at first, I was no fan of them pushing their way into the air. But I've come around. Heck, come fly with me and you'll see my aircraft navigation device of choice is an iPad. And I've even got a computer on my parachute. It's to the point now where I can see aircraft that will fly themselves, maybe with a pilot and maybe without. And with all of the aircraft talking to one another the chances of collisions will be reduced. That's sort of already started in small aircraft. I now have a nifty little box in my plane that warns me when another aircraft is getting close. And another that tells me if I'm getting too close to a mountain or other sort of obstacle like a smoke stack or antenna. It doesn't take much imagination to imagine advanced boxes like that controlling the airplane rather than just telling the pilot there's a problem. We're not completely there yet. But the FAA has mandated that within a few years all aircraft be equipped with electronics that will tell other aircraft where they are. That wont be a complete fix as there's no mandate to have other boxes tell the pilot (or the airplane) about approaching aircraft. But all of that is already for sale. I'm just waiting for the prices to come down. Sure there will still be failures. But with backup systems the failures will be less common. And I really don't expect to see anywhere near as many flying machines as ground-bound vehicles. Ok, enough said. I'll just leave you with this TED talk that illustrates some of what I've said: http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html patrick On 25 Mar 2013, at 17:13, Brent Watson wrote:

Many of us do successfully operate vehicles in three dimensions and with excellent results. Contrary to popular belief, only around half of aircraft accidents result in fatalities. While somewhat higher than the equivalent automotive results, there are still many accidents that are very survivable. The stakes are only slightly elevated in aircraft. If the fan stops, it is very feasible to glide to a safe landing.

When folks ask me if it is safe, I always relate that I have only been involved in three fatal accidents, and the third time they never found my body. Actually, my airplane has over 4,700 hours on the airframe and is still in excellent condition. 4,700 hours times 150 miles per hour yields 705,000 miles. No accidents nor incidents.

I am very thankful that the bar to operate aircraft is much higher than that to operate a ground vehicle. If people were subjected to the rigors of flight school for getting a drivers license, there would be far fewer licensed drivers on the roads.

Patrick will chime in too, I am certain.

Sorry for this being posted so late in the discussion but I've been waiting for the author's permission to post his article here and that permission just arrived today. The article, appended below, is from the current issue of the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association magazine "AOPA Pilot". patrick p.s. In case this has not been posted here before here's one of my favorite aviation videos: "The Magic of First Flight" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e92_1362781929 On 25 Mar 2013, at 15:24, Chuck Hards wrote:

Dave, I used to want one, until I realized that with flying cars, there won't be many fender-benders. Almost all accidents will be aircraft crashes with the usual results.

You can't stop quickly, and your maneuvering options would be very limited in general, and in any kind of controlled traffic corridor especially. I doubt that drivers would be allowed to fly over houses and buildings- they'd be restricted to "air roads". So I'm thinking that even if the practical, affordable flying car were invented today (not those weird hybrids that are neither car nor airplane, and don't do either job very well), the masses would have to wait for a central control system that not only regulates the traffic in general, but the individual vehicles themselves. To be safe, there would have to be many layers of redundancy in the control computers. And/or all the cars themselves are networked. Fully autonomous control will probably be limited to emergency-only situations.

No George Jetson for a while yet. That's why I'd settle for a jet-pack with reasonable range, that didn't weigh 300 lbs. :-) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:

...

Chuck,

All my daughter ever asks about is where is her flying car?

Going pilotless Will automation and computers eliminate the crew? BY BARRY SCHIFF WHEN PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS and Trans World Airlines plied the world’s oceanic routes in the final evolution of propeller-driven airliners (using aircraft such as the Lockheed L–1649A Constellation and the Douglas DC–7C), the international cockpit crew consisted of five men: a captain, a first officer, a flight engineer, a navigator, and a radio operator (who communicated with ground stations in Morse code). The first of these to be phased out by advancing technology was the radio operator. The introduction of relatively easy-to-use HF (high-frequency) trans- ceivers relegated “Sparks” (as he was called) to the ash heap of history. The navigator (“Magellan”) used a sextant to measure the altitude (angular distance above the horizon) of the sun, moon, and stars to obtain lines of position. He was next to go. Early jetliners were equipped with Doppler navigation, specialized radar systems that determined aircraft track and ground- speed, which made the celestial navigator obsolete. Phasing out radio operators and navigators was under- standable and accepted by other crew members. The introduction of automated fuel, electrical, hydraulic, and environmental systems on the Boeing 767, however, resulted in a more controversial reduction of flight-deck manpower—removal of the flight engineer. Pilots argued that eliminating the third crewmember was cutting into muscle. The engineer was particularly valuable during emergencies. Without him, one pilot is left to concentrate on flying the airplane while the other must comply under pressure with the dictates of the appropriate checklist, something best handled by two (to ensure that mistakes are not made during critical and complex procedures). One pilot handling an emer- gency on his own can be a recipe for disaster, and there is little doubt that accidents have occurred because of crew overload. Many still believe that eliminating the flight engineer was misguided. Where is this discussion leading? Many are con- vinced that further automation and computerization will eliminate the co-pilot and, eventually, the captain. Think not? Think again. If a spaceship can be sent to Mars, execute an approach to a planet that is far more complex than an ILS, land safely, and deposit a remotely controlled rover, it would obviously be much less challenging to remotely control an airliner from takeoff to landing. Much of the equipment needed to accomplish this is already aboard the modern jetliner. On the other hand, a flight to Mars does not involve threading one’s way through a squall line, coping with wind shear, and dealing with myriad other challenging variables. The evolution of drone technology, however, provides growing and convincing evidence that pilots eventually will become relics of a bygone era. Pilots began to see the writing on the wall when the Boeing 767 entered service in 1982. We said with tongue in cheek that the lone airline pilot of the future would board the airplane but be prevented from entering the cockpit by a glass barrier. Mounted on the glass would be a fire ax and a placard stating, “Break glass in case of emergency.” The pilot would then take a seat in the cabin and keep himself occupied until after the airplane lands itself and is taxied remotely to the gate. Airline pilots enjoyed telling the story about how passengers would someday board an airliner, take their seats, and then hear over the public-address system, “Welcome aboard Flight 482 operating nonstop to New York. This is not your pilot. This airplane actually does not have a pilot. It is so technologically sophis- ticated that it does not need one. This is a recording. You have nothing to fear, however. This airplane is the safest and most reliable aircraft ever developed. Nothing can possibly go wrong...go wrong...go wrong... go wrong....” Sound exaggerated? It is not. One cargo carrier—it is thought to be FedEx—is seriously investigating the possibility of pilotless aircraft. (The notion of phasing out those pesky pilots is a management’s dream come true.) The formerly golden State of California has passed legislation paving the way for integrating driverless automobiles on state highways. In 2011 Nevada passed a similar law providing for driverless vehicles. Imagine the frustration of being stuck behind one of those ground-bound drones on a superhighway while it is operating at or below the speed limit. No one seems to know how a driverless automobile would respond to an impatient driver honking his horn. Will pilotless airplanes appear in the general aviation fleet? Count on it, which is why I might have to purchase an elderly Aeronca Champ that cannot possibly be flown remotely. I can only hope that it will remain legal to operate such archaic (and fun!) technology. AOPA WEB www.barryschiff.com

Hi Larry, Sorry but I did not see the gyrocopter video. But if you are thinking flying car try this: http://www.terrafugia.com patrick On 28 Mar 2013, at 11:56, Larry Holmes wrote:

Patrick, nice video. Did you see the link to the PAL-V gyrocopter that can go on the road? Do not know if it is yet legal on the streets, but a good looking unit. Gyros s/be less costly than some of the others shown. 73

On 3/27/2013 10:04 PM, Patrick Wiggins wrote:

...

Sorry for this being posted so late in the discussion but I've been waiting for the author's permission to post his article here and that permission just arrived today.

The article, appended below, is from the current issue of the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association magazine "AOPA Pilot".

patrick

p.s. In case this has not been posted here before here's one of my favorite aviation videos: "The Magic of First Flight" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e92_1362781929

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.

To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".