Sounds nice, but good luck with the noise pollution. Start and landing still requires to move a lot of air downwards in order to make the vehicle float.
I'm a researcher working on exactly this problem. We are actively working on new technologies that will allow these air taxis to operate safely. The current concept is that there will be many "vertiports" scattered around a metro area, so you will have to walk/ground-Uber to a vertiport, take the air taxi to the vertiport nearest your destination and walk/ground-Uber to your destination. This is not a last-mile technology, and never will be within the currently planned regulatory framework.
Why not just an airplane ridesharing project? Uber is all about getting around legislative lockin, and the private airline industry is quite locked down legislatively. And, I believe there would be great amount of value for individuals to catch local hops, especially those who work in the city but want to live a fair distance away. I don't know why this hasn't been done yet.
Because the FAA has very strict rules on cost-sharing limits for Part 91 (roughly "private") aviation and very strict operating rules for Part 135 (roughly "charter") and Part 121 (roughly "airline").
Under Part 91, even if you could get around the "common purpose" concern, the rules are such that no profit could realistically ever be made. (Insert snarky ride-sharing economics joke here.)
The FAA has shut down several operations who were tiptoeing around the rules. Having a single regulatory body that pays attention to this across the country makes it harder to make an end-run.
Could you expand more on this? Would an airplane ridesharing service effectively constitute an "airline" legally and fall under all the same rules as e.g. Delta?
Ridesharing like flights would be considered on-demand/non-scheduled charter operations and would fall under Part 135. (Delta is a Part 121 air carrier).
There are stricter pilot, airplane, and maintenance requirements than what Part 91 (private) is required to do.
The general philosophy seems to be "the less you know about the operation, the more oversight the FAA will provide". My family choosing to get into our airplane knows a lot more about the pilot and aircraft and risks than Jane buying an airline ticket or Joe tapping on an app for a ride. You don't have to be nearly as concerned about getting onto a Delta flight, because Delta is much more heavily regulated as they "hold out to the public" for scheduled air carrier operations.
In terms of what that means for an Uber-for-airplanes situation, there's no way in hell that I would put my pilot certificate at risk by signing up to run clearly illegal charters in my airplane. Even when some other pilots would volunteer to run that risk, the FAA would not have a hard time doing a targetted "ramp inspection" to verify compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations. These ops have been pretty consistently shut down in the past and I don't see that as likely to change in the future. If I decided I wanted to go Part 135 (or Uber got an operating certificate to which I could add my airplane), the compliance burden will likely make it unattractive to me to sign up [because I already have a busy life and even if I were to fly for this entity, it would likely be less than 25 hours per year]. If Uber gets its own cert and runs its own fleet, they could get the compliance burden to be manageable (by running each airplane more hours annually) but then need a metric crap-ton of capital to buy the fleet.
I once talked to a guy who got a Part 135 certificate at a Class Bravo airport.
Him: "Yeah, I got the first 135 cert in 30 years at this airport."
Me: "How'd you do that?"
Him: "Oh, I work for the federal govt."
All you need to know is that the FAA considers all operators to be the "same level of safety", whether 91, 135 or 121. Since 121 means scheduled airline, you can do the math on how much that would cost and how much paperwork is involved.
This does exist. It's called BlackBird. I think there's a couple other attempts at this market as well. It's been a bit controversial and there have been some discussions of how legal it is but it seems to still be up and running.
I think the illegal-per-FAA 'Uber with pilots' part got shut down and now they just link their scheduling system with regular part 135/charter operations.
Interesting. Looks like that news is about a month old. They had been trying to get away with that idea of you rent the plane and then you hire a pilot theory for long enough that I thought maybe they’d get away with it.
I don't think any of the various proposed UAM vehicles are pure tilt-rotors like the osprey. They pretty much all incorporate multiple motors with at least some of those motors dedicated purely to providing vertical lift.
Lilium's [1] aircraft has multiple rotors but tilts all of them when transitioning into horizontal flight. From what I understand, [2] is an actual video of a flying prototype, not just a good render video. The Coming 2025 at the end of the video sounds scarily late, though.
That's definitely one I hadn't seen before. Unfortunately I'm not sure if I'm allowed to be specific, but I have direct experience with another vehicle that makes me skeptical that that thing will gain regulatory approval.
I worked at a startup that wanted to do electric airplanes. While designing a plane is really hard, getting the right approvals to go from experimental to production is even harder. I would be really impressed if they managed to get the proper paperwork done.
You're right, but for what it's worth the government is investing a lot of money into making this happen. I'd estimate that there are at least 100 researchers and engineers working on technology to enable this (while making sure it's safe) right now.
I think aerial ride share should take the scooter model... with little “cockpits” distributed around a city that you open with an app, then call an Uber/Lyft/etc drone that picks it up (without landing, via a cable, to reduce space/noise/wind issues) and takes you away!
I can't imagine how they can solve the last mile problem. Unless you rebuild a city around this mode of transportation, the number of landing spots is going to be very limited, and there may not be one near me.
If I wanted to walk from my starting point to a pickup location, get a ride, and walk some more from the drop off location to my destination, then I almost might as well take a bus.
Sure, it gets around traffic, but I'd bet that in a lot of cases, waiting in traffic takes less time than the additional walking. (The exception would be for longer trips.)
The only way I can see this working is if the experience/utility of this mode of transport is so vastly superior that everybody decides it is actually worth it to rebuild a city around it.
The linked article about the FAA being receptive to the idea and not needing new regulation is the really exciting news here IMO.
The regulatory hurdles and details like pilot and airline laws are no joke and easily an industry killer. But the FAA seems to actually being helpful to industry is really great and surprising.
Note they list the 6 companies involved deep in the regulatory process, not just Uber, which include a Chinese one and various heavy transport vehicles.
Well, looks like Peter Thiel might finally get his wish.
Wouldn't he wish for their competitor, Lyft (which he funded) to win this market?
Sounds nice, but good luck with the noise pollution. Start and landing still requires to move a lot of air downwards in order to make the vehicle float.
They can make a flying car, but they can't offer a map of legal pickup and drop off locations for their car drivers and users.
Presumably they will have to solve this problem for the aircraft, can't have those landing willy nilly in bike lanes and crosswalks.
Presumably they will have to solve this problem for the aircraft, can't have those landing willy nilly in bike lanes and crosswalks.
That's Uber we're talking about. I don't think they giva a fuck as long as it's not bad for business.
I do believe, however, that they can't just apply their brand of "regulatory arbitrage" when it comes to airspace usage.
Around here you're dicking with federal regulators and the military. Not a bunch of city government yokels that you can strongarm into submission.
The FAA gives a lot of fucks. They certainly aren't going to get away with their past shenanigans with when they move into the air.
I'm a researcher working on exactly this problem. We are actively working on new technologies that will allow these air taxis to operate safely. The current concept is that there will be many "vertiports" scattered around a metro area, so you will have to walk/ground-Uber to a vertiport, take the air taxi to the vertiport nearest your destination and walk/ground-Uber to your destination. This is not a last-mile technology, and never will be within the currently planned regulatory framework.
Why not just an airplane ridesharing project? Uber is all about getting around legislative lockin, and the private airline industry is quite locked down legislatively. And, I believe there would be great amount of value for individuals to catch local hops, especially those who work in the city but want to live a fair distance away. I don't know why this hasn't been done yet.
Because the FAA has very strict rules on cost-sharing limits for Part 91 (roughly "private") aviation and very strict operating rules for Part 135 (roughly "charter") and Part 121 (roughly "airline").
Under Part 91, even if you could get around the "common purpose" concern, the rules are such that no profit could realistically ever be made. (Insert snarky ride-sharing economics joke here.)
The FAA has shut down several operations who were tiptoeing around the rules. Having a single regulatory body that pays attention to this across the country makes it harder to make an end-run.
Could you expand more on this? Would an airplane ridesharing service effectively constitute an "airline" legally and fall under all the same rules as e.g. Delta?
Ridesharing like flights would be considered on-demand/non-scheduled charter operations and would fall under Part 135. (Delta is a Part 121 air carrier).
Start here: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certificat...
There are stricter pilot, airplane, and maintenance requirements than what Part 91 (private) is required to do.
The general philosophy seems to be "the less you know about the operation, the more oversight the FAA will provide". My family choosing to get into our airplane knows a lot more about the pilot and aircraft and risks than Jane buying an airline ticket or Joe tapping on an app for a ride. You don't have to be nearly as concerned about getting onto a Delta flight, because Delta is much more heavily regulated as they "hold out to the public" for scheduled air carrier operations.
In terms of what that means for an Uber-for-airplanes situation, there's no way in hell that I would put my pilot certificate at risk by signing up to run clearly illegal charters in my airplane. Even when some other pilots would volunteer to run that risk, the FAA would not have a hard time doing a targetted "ramp inspection" to verify compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations. These ops have been pretty consistently shut down in the past and I don't see that as likely to change in the future. If I decided I wanted to go Part 135 (or Uber got an operating certificate to which I could add my airplane), the compliance burden will likely make it unattractive to me to sign up [because I already have a busy life and even if I were to fly for this entity, it would likely be less than 25 hours per year]. If Uber gets its own cert and runs its own fleet, they could get the compliance burden to be manageable (by running each airplane more hours annually) but then need a metric crap-ton of capital to buy the fleet.
It's even worse than what sokoloff said above.
I once talked to a guy who got a Part 135 certificate at a Class Bravo airport.
Him: "Yeah, I got the first 135 cert in 30 years at this airport."
Me: "How'd you do that?"
Him: "Oh, I work for the federal govt."
All you need to know is that the FAA considers all operators to be the "same level of safety", whether 91, 135 or 121. Since 121 means scheduled airline, you can do the math on how much that would cost and how much paperwork is involved.
This does exist. It's called BlackBird. I think there's a couple other attempts at this market as well. It's been a bit controversial and there have been some discussions of how legal it is but it seems to still be up and running.
I think the illegal-per-FAA 'Uber with pilots' part got shut down and now they just link their scheduling system with regular part 135/charter operations.
Interesting. Looks like that news is about a month old. They had been trying to get away with that idea of you rent the plane and then you hire a pilot theory for long enough that I thought maybe they’d get away with it.
What does “rideshare” even mean anymore?
It means it's a taxi, but with an app.
It's bizarre how people can get away with completely redefining words, especially when it's the cynical creation of a euphemism.
the military still has issues w/ VSTOL (looking at you Osprey). the thought of uber providing electric ospreys is kind of terrifying
I don't think any of the various proposed UAM vehicles are pure tilt-rotors like the osprey. They pretty much all incorporate multiple motors with at least some of those motors dedicated purely to providing vertical lift.
Lilium's [1] aircraft has multiple rotors but tilts all of them when transitioning into horizontal flight. From what I understand, [2] is an actual video of a flying prototype, not just a good render video. The Coming 2025 at the end of the video sounds scarily late, though.
[1] https://lilium.com/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjAJWrraTKs
That's definitely one I hadn't seen before. Unfortunately I'm not sure if I'm allowed to be specific, but I have direct experience with another vehicle that makes me skeptical that that thing will gain regulatory approval.
I worked at a startup that wanted to do electric airplanes. While designing a plane is really hard, getting the right approvals to go from experimental to production is even harder. I would be really impressed if they managed to get the proper paperwork done.
That didn't stop them from entering the taxi business
I think ubers traditional mo doesn’t apply to airspace and FAA regulations. At least I hope so.
You're right, but for what it's worth the government is investing a lot of money into making this happen. I'd estimate that there are at least 100 researchers and engineers working on technology to enable this (while making sure it's safe) right now.
I think aerial ride share should take the scooter model... with little “cockpits” distributed around a city that you open with an app, then call an Uber/Lyft/etc drone that picks it up (without landing, via a cable, to reduce space/noise/wind issues) and takes you away!
I can't imagine how they can solve the last mile problem. Unless you rebuild a city around this mode of transportation, the number of landing spots is going to be very limited, and there may not be one near me.
If I wanted to walk from my starting point to a pickup location, get a ride, and walk some more from the drop off location to my destination, then I almost might as well take a bus.
Sure, it gets around traffic, but I'd bet that in a lot of cases, waiting in traffic takes less time than the additional walking. (The exception would be for longer trips.)
The only way I can see this working is if the experience/utility of this mode of transport is so vastly superior that everybody decides it is actually worth it to rebuild a city around it.
The linked article about the FAA being receptive to the idea and not needing new regulation is the really exciting news here IMO.
The regulatory hurdles and details like pilot and airline laws are no joke and easily an industry killer. But the FAA seems to actually being helpful to industry is really great and surprising.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/14/six-urban-air-mobil...
Note they list the 6 companies involved deep in the regulatory process, not just Uber, which include a Chinese one and various heavy transport vehicles.