Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

DOT Exempts Maker of 'Flying Car' From Road Vehicle Safety Rules 142

Posted by Soulskill
from the great-now-i-can-text-and-flydrive dept.
Stirfry192 writes with news that Terrafugia, makers of a vehicle alternately called a 'flying car' or 'roadable aircraft,' have been granted a three-year exemption to federal motor vehicle safety rules in order to foster further development and innovation. "The DOT granted the three-year 'hardship' exemption because it bought the argument from Terrafugia that its attempt to comply with DOT regulations at the same time as Federal Aviation Administration rules would be prohibitively expensive. Terrafugia had argued that an exemption would allow it more time to research more appropriate solutions to the requirements at the same time as making the flying car a feasible project. The company, an MIT spin-off located in Woburn, Mass. intends to use motor-cycle tires and rims instead of tires usually used for regular cars. The purpose is to minimize the weight of the craft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOT Exempts Maker of 'Flying Car' From Road Vehicle Safety Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by retroworks (652802) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:21AM (#36670644) Homepage Journal
    Next thing you know, flying carseats will be exempted. This is a slippery slope.
    • by trum4n (982031)
      Could be good. Maybe they might pay enough attention to make national rules for the inspection of electric vehicles. I live in PA, and i'm going to pay 250$ for a mechanic to give me a sticker(PA enhanced inspection), when he told me, he literally makes up the rules.
      • Re:Bad Precedent (Score:5, Informative)

        by vlm (69642) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:48AM (#36670864)

        Could be good. Maybe they might pay enough attention to make national rules for the inspection of electric vehicles. I live in PA, ... when he told me, he literally makes up the rules.

        Move to a better state. In WI, you have to prove the car can keep up with traffic aka is not a low speed vehicle like a tractor, by exceeding 35 MPH or so in a straight line, and then prove your brakes work by going from 60 to 0 in less than X feet where X is frankly not terribly impressive (something like 250 feet? Even a SUV can do that). Also if your chassis, the VIN of your vehicle, is newer than 1996 and you live in an emissions testing county you have to have a visual inspection every two years to prove there's no IC engine in the car. They have no concern if you tow a trailer with a completely non-emissions controlled gas generator on it, they only care about the car itself.

        I have not checked the rules in some years, but this is how it was a decade or so ago. Exactly the same (non-emission) rules for any kit or custom car, not just electric. Can you keep up with traffic, can you stop safely, and can you not vomit pollution out the tailpipe?

        Convincing your car insurance company to insure you, you're legally required to buy, they are not legally required to sell, thats a whole nother ball game. I suspect if anyone successfully starts selling electric cars, GM/Ford/etc will buy the car insurance companies with instructions to never insure an electric car.

        • You recommend moving to a better state to escape oppressive statutes. In such a case, what's the best practice to find a job for both oneself and one's spouse or life partner, or to make sure that one's elderly parents are taken care of?
          • by vlm (69642)

            You recommend moving to a better state to escape oppressive statutes. In such a case, what's the best practice to find a job for both oneself and one's spouse or life partner, or to make sure that one's elderly parents are taken care of?

            Sounds like you live out west where you need a jetliner to go from one state to another. He lives out east where there are states smaller than the midwestern county I live in, I believe Rhode Island could easily fit in my county with room to spare.

            A crude analogy is on the east cost, state to state is a couple hours walk, in the upper midwest heartland state to state is a couple hours drive, and in the west and southwest state to state is an hours flight.

            So if you live out west, yeah that idea is a problem

        • Re:Bad Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)

          by qwijibo (101731) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @10:02AM (#36671472)

          I suspect that in general, the people who have the time and money to build kit/custom cars have the money to put up a bond to self-insure.

          I doubt any auto maker is big enough to lock electric cars out of the market by controlling insurance companies. There will always be someone who is willing to insure electric cars if there are enough of them on the road to make it profitable. Worst case scenario would be the electric car manufacturer also being the insurer. It may be a headache for early adopters, but the market will work it out.

        • by cayenne8 (626475)

          Move to a better state.

          Exactly....when I moved out of AR..they actually STOPPED requiring car inspections. That was nice to save a couple $$ and time out of a busy day wasted getting the car inspected.

          I have to get an inspection or 'brake tag' in LA now...but it is pretty easy...usually just roll up, show your headlights, windshield wipers and horn works and your outta there for $10 and 5 minutes of your time.

          I've been shocked to hear about other states...particularly CA and the like, where they actually

          • by geekoid (135745)

            A) It's not really that big od a problem in CA
            B) CA has over 4 times more cars on the road then in 1975, but less then half the pollution.

            So, yeah it's worth it. You 'rights' don't include poisoning the air.

            "Remember, in the US, you are a citizen of your state first....of the US second."
            It depends.
            If you really think that overly broad blanket statement is true, then you are a bonehead.

            • by vlm (69642)

              I think his point is "$10 and 5 minutes of your time" combined with a vast enforcement bureaucracy has a lot more to do with ripping people off and making money, than preventing the poisoning of the air.

              Also "pretty much ban any aftermarket add ons, especially if they are any part of the emissions line in the car (exhaust, engine mgmt chips, etc)" sounds a lot like you are legally forced to buy a stealership installed $1000 muffler system, rather than the otherwise identical aftermarket that only costs $150

          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            I've been shocked to hear about other states...particularly CA and the like, where they actually measure your exhaust levels.... Thankfully some states still have some freedoms

            Your freedom has limits when it creates pollution that I have to breathe (and vice versa).

            • by cayenne8 (626475)

              Your freedom has limits when it creates pollution that I have to breathe (and vice versa).

              So..stay in CA or whatever state has the strongest sniff tests for exhausts...and I'll stay in my state where I can modify my car pretty much as I please.

              Again....nice reason to have states rights. You don't like the rules here...move to another state.

              • by mattack2 (1165421)

                I wonder if your state has more people dying of pollution-caused reasons, which indirectly causes you to pay more taxes to take care of people who don't have insurance.

                Also, and I admit this is a relatively minor issue, pollution doesn't stop at state borders.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          He assumes the mechanic wasn't talking out of his ass.

      • by Bucc5062 (856482)

        I use to live in that state. I called it legalized extortion. On my last shakedown...erm...I mean inspection before I moved I wanted to ask the "mechanic" for the official inspection book. On the day I dropped the car off I reconsidered citing the fact that within a month I'd be living in another state.

        For the record, you can find the "official" requirements here. [pacode.com] Based on one clause I'd have to now put out $700+ to fix a very minor leak on the power steering that I currently maintain by checking fluids

        • by cgenman (325138)

          It's more a question of urban density. In an open area, a minor fluid leak isn't a big deal. It falls on some dirt or pavement, not a big deal. In downtown New York, where a stretch of road may have a car passing over it every two seconds, the occasional drippy car leads to gallons of slippery toxic chemicals being poured onto the road every day. Those chemicals can't dissipate due to being hemmed in by the surrounding buildings and the fact that everything around it is just as polluted. The same becom

        • Before they got rid of them last year, NJ's safety inspection was a bit of a joke. They never checked for things like dry rotted tires. A car with blown struts would pass if the springs were stiff enough. things like ripped CV boots were never checked. You would fail if your driver's side window didn't work however. Good riddance to that, now its just emissions which was always easy to pass in NJ assuming your car is remotely close to running correctly.
        • by hal2814 (725639)
          Which clause is that? I looked over the doc and the closest I can see is a fail for leaking hydraulic lines but those are specific to the braking system. Personally, I don't think such a fail would be unreasonable. You're leaking a toxic fluid unnecessarily. Get it fixed and shop mechanics while you're at it. Unless you have a particularly parts-expensive vehicle, $700 is a lot for a complete power steering pump replacement. A leak fix can usually be solved by replacing the hoses.
    • Airbags won't do too much anyway, but if they exempt seatbelts, then we'll see some carnage.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      It's all fun and games until someone stubs a toe.

  • by Cornwallis (1188489) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:28AM (#36670684)

    NRC Exempts Maker of 'Backyard Reactors' From Nuclear Safety Rules

  • by jonamous++ (1687704) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:29AM (#36670690)
    I think this is really cool but it seems impractical. Aircraft are very expensive to maintain and you'll need a pilot certificate to fly this. It's probably cheaper to have a car and rent a plane (or, depending on the cost of this thing, just buy a used 172). The usable load is very low, as well (hopefully that 330lbs number is in addition to fuel).

    I also look at this from the perspective of being a "dual-purpose" vehicle; most of which are mediocre. A common example might be a dual-sport motorcycle. It's not a great motorcycle and it's not a great dirtbike, but it can do both. Just from the looks (wings all folded up, blocking vision out of the rear windows, etc) this is not going to be a practical car. I guess we'll see how good of an airplane it will be. My question is, what problem does this solve? You drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then get out of the car and do your pre-flight? How is that different from getting out of your car and doing your pre-flight on your regular aircraft?

    Either way, this seems like a neat invention. I think they'll have trouble selling 200 of these, especially if they are priced similarly to normal small aircraft, but it would be really cool to see this thing in person.
    • by vlm (69642)

      My question is, what problem does this solve? You drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then get out of the car and do your pre-flight? How is that different from getting out of your car and doing your pre-flight on your regular aircraft?

      Before someone chimes in with the "don't have to pay for hanger space" argument, if you can't afford hanger space then you'll never afford the annual inspection labor and parts, so its all kinda irrelevant.

      Before someone chimes in with saving money by insuring only one vehicle, the likely cost of car insurance for a car as expensive as this the plane, probably exceeds the cost of buying a nice 4-door sedan every year...

      The one "win" for this, is the weather is almost never bad enough to strand car drivers f

      • by GooberToo (74388)

        Before someone chimes in with the "don't have to pay for hanger space" argument, if you can't afford hanger space then you'll never afford the annual inspection labor and parts, so its all kinda irrelevant.

        Not true at all. At some airports, hangar fees can be directly comparable to the price of the aircraft, assuming your aircraft isn't new. Your argument makes as much sense as saying, if you can't afford to buy two cars for yourself, you shouldn't bother to buy one.

        Hangar prices vary dramatically from area to area and especially airport to airport. A modest hanger which costs $75/mo at one place may cost $250/mo, and up, at another.

    • by Sinthet (2081954)

      I saw a prototype of these at MIT a few months back, and your point stands 100%. Really cool, but kinda impractical. My guess is that their client base is going to be limited to geeks with money, probably big money.

    • by bhtooefr (649901)

      Well, part of their problem is that they're actually NOT going for a class that requires a full pilot's license. They're going for the Light Sport Aircraft class (and have had to get exceptions from both the FAA and NHTSA due to that), which has much less stringent requirements for licensing, with the downside that there are more restrictions on when and how you can fly.

    • by sapphire wyvern (1153271) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:47AM (#36670858)

      This isn't a flying car. It's a driveable aircraft. I think the main problem it solves is that with a conventional light aircraft, you drive to the airport, pre-flight your aircraft, take off, fly to your destination, land... and then you're stuck. Many light aircraft airports don't have car hire facilities nearby, and they're often some way from any place you actually want to be. With the Terrafugia, you can at least in principal land the thing at an airfield and then drive it to your final destination (eg a hotel or tourist landmark or business or whatever).

      On the other hand I'm not sure how much I'd want to drive this thing on the road. Seems like it would be a great way to ruin your airplane. And, furthermore, you'd have to count on there being adequate garaging facilities at your destination; I don't think this vehicle would want to be outside in heavy weather.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        People leave planes outside through all kinds of nasty weather when they can't afford hangars or none are available; they strap them down to ground cleats and the process is called a tie-down. My local muni airport has both hangars and tie-downs available. Since this thing folds up into a car, though, it seems like it would be easy to cover. If you live near the airport then this means you don't need a hangar, just keep the thing at your house, covered. Lots of richie rich mofos live near airstrips. There's

        • by Deadstick (535032)

          Yes, you can leave an airplane outside in moderately bad weather...on an airport. Did you ever leave one in a parking lot?

          Look at the Terrafugia in the folded-up mode. Everything on its periphery is an aerodynamic surface of one kind or another, and by automotive standards these are absurdly fragile. One parking-lot ding will ground your quarter-million-dollar machine until it's been worked over by an aircraft repair shop at aircraft repair prices.

          rj

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Like I said, it lives at your house most of the time, and when you're traveling you can pay to park it someplace where it won't be leant upon by miscreants.

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        On the other hand I'm not sure how much I'd want to drive this thing on the road

        If we had the infrastructure for a vehicle like this, you wouldn't need to drive far. You might fly to school or work in the morning, and there might be an airstrip 1/2 kilometer away so you don't have to drive very far to get to the parking garage.

      • Taxi's or even Enterprise "we will pick you up" are almost always available. And with a bit of foresight you can preplan for them to meet you there.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        "Seems like it would be a great way to ruin your airplane."

          The rich folks who buy these curiosities aren't likely to drive them much.

    • Well, I guess the one difference is once you reach your destination you still have your means of travel. The one thing you overlooked is after you fly your plane to point B, you then either need to own a second car, or need to rent.

      It's not a huge benefit, but I can see someone who's hopping around states travelling a lot might get some use, yes it is still rather impractical

    • by WillAdams (45638)

      The difference is, when you land at your destination you don't have to rent a second car --- you just fold and secure the wings, then drive off the tarmace and onto the highway.

    • by cgenman (325138)

      It's a flying car. I was promised these in the 50's. Like jetpacks, laser guns, space colonies, and superheroes, it doesn't matter how practical or impractical they are: they're bred into our human souls.

      And I do know a lot of aid workers for whom the ability to drive to an airport, fly out, land at an airstrip in the middle of nowhere, and drive on would be very practical.

      But quite frankly, it could solve world hunger and it still wouldn't change the fact that building it is a moral imperative. It's a f

  • of completely hare-brained ideas that looked great in the cartoons I grew up with but are not currently feasible. Who knows? Maybe they'll make the darn thing work and not cost a mint!

    Don't let regulation stand in the way of Gravity; the later is a cruel master and an important teacher.

    • The Flying Car is one of those things that I see will take a while before technology really gets there and mature enough to be useful. But there are real benefits towards the flying car. Lets say a flying car will only be allowed to fly 50 ft in the air, and over existing roadways, and you need 15 clearance over the car. you can still triple the volume that our current roadways take.

      Yes once the kinks and technology gets out only the rich will afford the flying cars, then as production moves and more kink

    • by hedwards (940851)

      It can be made to work, the question is whether they can make it practical to own and operate. The airforce has had folding planes for decades, but I doubt that even if you were to strip the weapons and modify it for road use that it would be affordable.

  • so it's an aero-plane that transforms into an auto-mobile, but used motor-cycle tires... very inter-resting
  • I can't say I'm surprised by the windshield exemption. That's an aircraft vs. car issue. The two are designed completely differently (maintaining visibility vs. maintaining integrity).

    I am intrigued at the idea of commuting by air though. My employer often brings in people to discuss commuting options (as traffic is somewhat fickle here in Atlanta) and none of them would even discuss the potential of commuting via gyrocopter with me.
    • I am intrigued at the idea of commuting by air though. My employer often brings in people to discuss commuting options (as traffic is somewhat fickle here in Atlanta) and none of them would even discuss the potential of commuting via gyrocopter with me.

      I've read many times a comment that's particularly relevant here: there are enough idiots, mayhem and disasters on a 2 dimensional road network without adding a 3rd dimension into the picture.

      Flying cars (or drivable aircraft) for the average Joe Blow will ne

      • Oh, I don't doubt that one bit. I've seen more than my fair share of idiots on the road (here in Atlanta as well as when I used to live in South Florida). I'm inclined to agree that the reasons you stated above point to why flying cars just won't happen (outside of complete AI control) and that pilots will tend to avoid mediocre hybrids. I still want to buy a gyrocopter though. Commuting was going to be my ticket to justify it, but alas, it shall have to wait.
      • by SDF-7 (556604)

        You just don't want those danged Duke boys to keep going in the middle of that canyon jump, Sherrif Coltrane.

      • by cgenman (325138)

        Generally when you add a dimension, the likelyhood of intersecting lines goes down. Really the 3rd dimension should make everything easier and simpler, except for the fact that your 3 dimensions are Left, Right, and FALLING.

        Since we can build a flying network from the ground-up, we could define that all commuter fliers need to have HUDS delineating road boundaries, pointing out other fliers, and where autopilot is the norm. Add in decentralized navigation systems between fliers connecting intermittently w

    • Would they consider a Hoverbike, perhaps? http://www.hover-bike.com/index.html [hover-bike.com]
  • to comply with DOT regulations at the same time as Federal Aviation Administration rules would be prohibitively expensive

    That is why you won't have a flying car by 2015.

    • by bhtooefr (649901)

      See, what they're doing instead is getting the FAA and DOT to compromise.

      Of course, another way to go would be to not make a flying [b]car[/b], but rather a flying motorcycle of sorts - three wheels, and there's a hell of a lot less DOT regulations to deal with. And then, rather than go for a light sport aircraft, go for a normal airplane - that restricts who can fly it to a smaller set, but makes for a far, far better combination vehicle.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This will never work.

    No-one will submit to being groped by the TSA and have to take their shoes off before getting in their car to go to work each morning.

    • by wjsteele (255130)
      Since when does a General Aviation pilot get searched?

      Bill
      • by ballpoint (192660)

        That sometimes happens when you takeoff from a larger airport. You walk to your aircraft in the hangar and drop off your stuff, and then you must go to and pass security (not collecting $200) to get back to your aircraft. Bizarre.

  • The average driver will never see this on the road. It's a rich person's toy.
  • I like driving cars and flying airplanes. I don't want this vehicle...it's definitely not going to drive as well of a good car, doesn't have the useful load of even a Cessna 172, and leaves me asking, "what problem does this really solve?" it's not like you're going to be able to take off from freeways. So you drive to the airport, and take off there. Just like you do today...

    • by w_dragon (1802458)
      And when you land at a different airport you'll no longer have to figure out where to put your plane and pay a taxi to get you somewhere useful.
  • "Flying cars" or "roadable aircraft" have been designed and built many times in the past. There's always a lot of enthusiasm during the design phase, when public demonstrations are made, and colorful brochures are handed out. When it comes to actually buying one, though, the public, both flying and non-flying, always stay away in droves. I'd be very surprised if this one is any different.

    As others have pointed out, there are a lot of problems, both regulatory and practical, that make this a costly and dif

  • by Blymie (231220) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @09:05AM (#36671026)

    I bet there is another angle for this too.

    An aircraft that a semi-well off person can keep, in the same line as a bomb shelter.

    Tons of survival nuts would love to have a vehicle that, during a disaster of any sort, only needs a long enough stretch of space nearby to get them airborne. If WWIII, zombies, aliens, or whatever might scare the paranoid is coming, few people are going to care whether they take off from a well mowed lawn, or a straight stretch of nearby road. Regulations be damned, they'll be airborne.

    Many of these events don't leave enough time for someone to even get to an airport. However, a plane in your garage?

    • Tons of survival nuts would love to have a vehicle that, during a disaster of any sort, only needs a long enough stretch of space nearby to get them airborne.

      Good luck refueling when you land.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Most survival nuts will be dead in 90 to 120 days. I have not met ONE survival nut that has any clue at all about survival beyond a 90 day window. None have any clue about farming, animal husbandry, animal processing, engineering, building, Finding water or digging a well, hell only 2 I have talked to out of the 200 I chatted with about a research project even had a clue how to build a outhouse correctly.

      99% of all "survivalists" are just complete ravenous idiots looking for an excuse to have more guns an

      • by downhole (831621)

        Interesting research. I wouldn't consider myself to be a survivalist, but what I consider to be the most important thing about any survival plan is to define exactly what it is that you are trying to survive and how likely that actually is.

        I think I'm well prepared to survive a Hurricane, for example, which is a very realistic threat where I live - I've been through several already. In that case, what you're mostly preparing for is a week or two with no power and nothing shipped in from the outside, some li

      • by swillden (191260)

        how to build a outhouse correctly

        Okay, how DO you build an outhouse "correctly"? I built one a couple of weeks ago and it doesn't seem like there's very much to get wrong. Build a small shed with a bench at the back, cut a hole in the bench. Make sure you have decent ventilation -- some holes near the roof and floor covered with mosquito netting work well. Dig a good, deep hole and line the holes up. If you want to help the outhouse last, put it on some sort of a weatherproof base -- I used railroad ties.

        Seems pretty hard to get wro

  • By the time three years are up, Terrafugia will be out of money and out of business. But this still raises interesting questions ...

    In the unlikely event that Terrafugia doesn't go out of business, will aircraft/vehicles manufactured and sold without safety equipment be retrofitted? At whose expense?

    If Terrafugia goes out of business after delivering airplanes without safety equipment will the owners be prohibited from driving them?

    Terrafugia was granted a waiver (by the FAA) to the maximum gross weight reg

    • by Shotgun (30919)

      doing it in 1960 was hard. John Dyke meant for the Dyke Delta to be roadable. The final straw that made him give up was the requirement for windshield wipers. He settled for a towable design. The specs call for a max speed of 60mph in towable configuration.

      I don't think seatbelts were even required in cars in 1960. With today's standards, it seems impossible to me.

  • This is great news. Once we get the flying cars, the next step is...jet packs!

    I've been waiting since 1967.

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @09:32AM (#36671222)
    If the Terrafugia gets off the ground, what happens when you get in a minor fender-bender on the road? Will the FAA have to send an inspector to validate the airworthiness of the plane? Or will you get pilots saying - "yeah it looks OK to fly".
    • by Deadstick (535032)

      No FAA inspection will be needed: after a fender-bender; this thing will not be airworthy, period. ANY ground impact will damage one or more aerodynamic surfaces. You don't call the FAA: you pay an FAA-licensed aircraft mechanic to fix it, and then you pay an FAA-licensed airframe inspector to certify the repair. You might want to look up the hourly rates those people charge...

      rj

    • by couchslug (175151)

      As an aircraft mechanic, I wouldn't touch one of those. Too much liability for me.

  • We won't see this product get to market. Or at the very least, 99.999% of all Americans will never experience this product in person in the extremely unlikely event that it does somehow make it to market.

    It's nice to see someone working on the old flying car problem again, but we're just not going to see it happen.
  • Make it 3 wheeled and it's a motorcycle and does not have to obey ANY DOT automobile laws.

    • by Shotgun (30919)

      I think there is more to it than that; otherwise, I could fold up the wings on my Dyke Delta and taxi to the airport.

  • Flying cars won't be available to the masses for years, not until they are 100% automatic. Just wait until the first Muslim gets in one and crashes into some capitol building!
    • Just wait until the first Muslim gets in one and crashes into some capitol building!

      You mean like how they could rent or buy a Cessna today, and do the same thing?
      • by w_dragon (1802458)
        The Cessna might actually break some windows, these things are probably closer to the DA20 [wikimedia.org] in weight, so they may scratch the glass a bit if you fly them into a building,
  • The use of motorcycle wheels reminds me of the pothole problem when riding a motorcycle. It's not pretty. I'm certain that this "roadable" car has almost no suspension, little maneuverability, and poor road visibility. That's makes it worse than a motorcycle when hitting a pothole. There is no way to make a public road as smooth as the surfaces of an airport.

    • by Shotgun (30919)

      Typical light aircraft wheels are more like go-cart wheels. The recommended taxi speed is generally 10 to 20 mph. The instructors I've had say, "somewhere between a fast walk and a slow jog". They're always telling me to slow down, 'cause I'm wanting to minimize the $100/hr rental that I'm paying for taxiing.

  • And you thought city design in the US doesn't promote walking today...

  • What a horrible title but par for the course around here.

    From the horses mouth [terrafugia.com]:

    Traditional laminated automotive safety glass would add significant weight to the Transition® and could fracture in such a way as to obscure the vision of the pilot in the event of a bird impact. This exemption allows the use of polycarbonate materials that provide comparable protection to the occupants at significant weight-saving without shattering or crazing – improving the safety of the Transition®. In the exemption text, NHTSA states: “We further conclude that the granting of an exemption from these requirements would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.” In 2010, the Transition® was granted an additional 110 pounds allowance by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in a prior exemption action by the DOT.

    Also the full text of the exemption is here: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/06/29/2011-16222/terrafugia-inc-grant-of-application-for-temporary-exemption-from-certain-requirements-of-fmvss-no [federalregister.gov]

  • While the idea is kind of cool, I'm not sure that the argument "But it will cost us money to adhere to regulations!" should be a valid excuse.

    If an idea is not profitable, the solution is not to exempt it from everything until it _is_ profitable, it's to say "Well, that isn't profitable, feel free to try something else."

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...