Are Air Taxis Getting Closer? (aol.com) 75
Last week a headline in the Los Angeles Times proclaimed "Look! Up in the sky! It's an air taxi. They're coming to Los Angeles."
Even the British newspaper the Times took notice: Air taxis will be flying through the skies above Los Angeles in time for the summer Olympics of 2028 if city officials and entrepreneurs have their way.
A Silicon Valley company is the latest to claim that it is close to creating viable electric vehicles that can offer short hops above the traffic-choked streets for not much more than the cost of an Uber ride. Adam Goldstein, chief executive of Archer Aviation, told the Los Angeles Times that his vertical take-off aircraft, designed to travel 60 miles on a single charge at up to 150mph, would "completely change the way we live, the way we work", and could be flying within two years.
The Los Angeles Times cited estimates of $1 billion spent testing electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, known as eVTOL, just last year, and noted the "hundreds of companies competing" to build a new "transportation empire." And their opening paragraph paints the scene: Imagine avoiding that soul-crushing, hourlong slog — say from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. on a Tuesday morning. Instead, you hail a high-tech cab that will hop over the gridlock and get you there in nine minutes.... The promise of flying cars — for generations a Hollywood staple of a space-age future, from "The Jetsons" to "Blade Runner" — is finally becoming a reality, so much so that a Swedish company is already selling a single-passenger vehicle called Jetson 1. Los Angeles transportation officials are preparing for this new era and expect drone-like electric air taxis to be operational by the time the 2028 Summer Olympics roll around, if not far sooner....
While many detractors doubt that such travel will soon be viable, affordable or safe, the industry is working with cities to make the technology a reality in the next five years.
The Observer also noted that another eVTOL pioneer, Germany's Volocopter, plans to launch commercial service for its two-seat VoloCity aircraft in 2024 in Europe, with a four-seater by 2026. But are there possible downsides? In cities like New York, wealthy commuters are already taking helicopter rides on a regular basis, and complaints about helicopter noise have skyrocketed in recent years, prompting the city to introduce a bill last week to ban non-essential helicopter uses, such as sightseeing and short-distance travel, in parts of Manhattan.
eVTOLs are quieter than helicopters by design, but they are by no means silent.
Even the Los Angeles Times acknowledges "There are concerns about safety, quality of life and affordability." While a single air taxi may be relatively quiet, what happens when there is a constant stream of them coming in and out of a landing spot? Should there be nighttime restrictions on flights? Will this just be a means for the ultra-wealthy to buzz over poor neighborhoods to Dodger Stadium or Crypto.com Arena?
But the Times' article still drew angry letters to the editor, with one calling air taxis "a disaster waiting to happen." Instead of boosterism reporting and parroting industry marketing claims that these aircraft are some kind of a godsend, how about reporting on how many decibels these flying bubbles for the elite will blare onto the plebes below...? [T]he paper's naive reporting on the technology are disappointing.
They'd also called the Times' claim of $50-a-flight prices "fanciful" — and a second letter writer also expressed skepticism about that low estimated cost. "That reminds one of the outlandish initial promise we were given that the bullet train would cost $33 billion to build."
Even the British newspaper the Times took notice: Air taxis will be flying through the skies above Los Angeles in time for the summer Olympics of 2028 if city officials and entrepreneurs have their way.
A Silicon Valley company is the latest to claim that it is close to creating viable electric vehicles that can offer short hops above the traffic-choked streets for not much more than the cost of an Uber ride. Adam Goldstein, chief executive of Archer Aviation, told the Los Angeles Times that his vertical take-off aircraft, designed to travel 60 miles on a single charge at up to 150mph, would "completely change the way we live, the way we work", and could be flying within two years.
The Los Angeles Times cited estimates of $1 billion spent testing electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, known as eVTOL, just last year, and noted the "hundreds of companies competing" to build a new "transportation empire." And their opening paragraph paints the scene: Imagine avoiding that soul-crushing, hourlong slog — say from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. on a Tuesday morning. Instead, you hail a high-tech cab that will hop over the gridlock and get you there in nine minutes.... The promise of flying cars — for generations a Hollywood staple of a space-age future, from "The Jetsons" to "Blade Runner" — is finally becoming a reality, so much so that a Swedish company is already selling a single-passenger vehicle called Jetson 1. Los Angeles transportation officials are preparing for this new era and expect drone-like electric air taxis to be operational by the time the 2028 Summer Olympics roll around, if not far sooner....
While many detractors doubt that such travel will soon be viable, affordable or safe, the industry is working with cities to make the technology a reality in the next five years.
The Observer also noted that another eVTOL pioneer, Germany's Volocopter, plans to launch commercial service for its two-seat VoloCity aircraft in 2024 in Europe, with a four-seater by 2026. But are there possible downsides? In cities like New York, wealthy commuters are already taking helicopter rides on a regular basis, and complaints about helicopter noise have skyrocketed in recent years, prompting the city to introduce a bill last week to ban non-essential helicopter uses, such as sightseeing and short-distance travel, in parts of Manhattan.
eVTOLs are quieter than helicopters by design, but they are by no means silent.
Even the Los Angeles Times acknowledges "There are concerns about safety, quality of life and affordability." While a single air taxi may be relatively quiet, what happens when there is a constant stream of them coming in and out of a landing spot? Should there be nighttime restrictions on flights? Will this just be a means for the ultra-wealthy to buzz over poor neighborhoods to Dodger Stadium or Crypto.com Arena?
But the Times' article still drew angry letters to the editor, with one calling air taxis "a disaster waiting to happen." Instead of boosterism reporting and parroting industry marketing claims that these aircraft are some kind of a godsend, how about reporting on how many decibels these flying bubbles for the elite will blare onto the plebes below...? [T]he paper's naive reporting on the technology are disappointing.
They'd also called the Times' claim of $50-a-flight prices "fanciful" — and a second letter writer also expressed skepticism about that low estimated cost. "That reminds one of the outlandish initial promise we were given that the bullet train would cost $33 billion to build."
Mangled Bodies Falling From Sky (Score:3)
Surface dwellers will need a safety helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone posted that "It's Raining Men" and "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" are about the same subject, but from two different perspectives.
In the current case, both are equally apt.
Answer to the question: (Score:3)
No.
Basically air taxis will cause way more noise compared to ground vehicles. So on a prototype scale, sure, specially in restricted areas, but above peoples homes in suburbs: No.
Whenever you move a lot of air fast, you cause noise. Any "Air taxi" will thus need much larger rotors than today's helicopters to have lower noise than they have or alternatively the noise levels will go up a lot..
Re: (Score:2)
No way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Answer to the question: (Score:4, Interesting)
These craft are a very, very long way from being commercially viable because:
1. Being electrically powered they require recharging between flights and that is typically an hour-long process at beast. A conventional ICE or turbine-powered helicopter can be refueled in just a few short minutes. These craft only generate revenue when they are actually in the air so a duty cycle of just 25% for the eVTOL versus over 90% for the helicopter makes them far from viable when viewed from a commercial perspective. And before anyone says "battery swap" -- remember that you'll need at least four batteries per eVTOL with charging, storage, and other support infrastructure in place which futher hikes the capital and operating costs. What's more, "swappable" batteries require a heavier airframe which further reduces endurance and range.
2. For $500,000 you can buy a brand new 4-seat helicopter that can do what these eVTOL craft are claiming to do. The difference is that the helicopter is already available, has experienced (high-hours) pilots available and has a great service/maintenance/operations infrastructure network already in place. What's more, helicopters have the ability to autorotate in the event of a total power failure -- an electric multirotor does not - it will fall to the ground very quickly.
3. It would only take one single fatal crash to completely destroy the public's already tentative acceptance of this new form of aerial transport.
The bottom line is that we already have vertical take-off/landing craft capable of ferrying people around busy urban centres -- they're called helicopters. That there are only a very limited number of heli services actually in operation (despite their obvious commercial advantages over an eVTOL), it kind of proves that a less profitable service is unlikely to succeed.
Re: (Score:1)
1 and the first part of 2 are easily-solved implementation details, 3 hasn't stopped Tesla and the second part of 2 is disingenuous in its comparison "helicopters have the ability to autorotate in the event of a total power failure -- an electric multirotor does not"
Because a helicopter has one power source - its engine - so total power failure is a problem.
Whereas an electric multirotor should have multiple
Re: (Score:2)
An eVTOL still has a number of single points of failure -- such things can not be avoided when weight and cost are a consideration.
Also parts 1 and 2 are not so easily solved "implementation details". Unless we come up with a massive improvement in our battery technologies such that we can recharge in a few brief minutes then this will always be a consideration -- and remember, we've got a *much* larger industry (the automotive industry) which has been working on this problem for many years now -- without
Re: (Score:1)
The first part of 2 needs Electric VTOL Taxis to be available - duh, have pilots trained to fly them - duh, have maintenance work - duh. Again, implementation details.
So no, Electric VTOL Taxis won't be practical until there is an infrastructure for them to be practical in place. Duh.
Your new argument, that Electric VTOL Taxis will remain in the future because they were predicted by Popular Mechanics and Popular Science who also p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Answer to the question: (Score:2)
But are they easily solved implementation details, as you claimed? Many projects fail due to not overcoming the implementation details.
Re: (Score:2)
The Jetson vehicle has 8 motors and they claim it can fly if one goes out, also has a parachute. Recharge time is an hour. A single-seater, but it costs $92k and you don't need to hire a pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
"and you don't need to hire a pilot"
Who would you rather trust... a programmer sucking down pizza and coke while working in a dark room writing flight automation software -- or a real pilot whose life is also on the line every time he flies?
Remember the Boeing Max 8!
Re: (Score:2)
As a programmer myself, I have no problem with well-tested software. The 'air taxis' I've seen are like big multirotor drones, and flight software for that is very well established. But hey, nobody is going to make you ride in one. You can always just sit in the traffic jam if you prefer.
Most folks I've worked with have reasonably good eating habits and do their jobs in pleasantly lit rooms. Meanwhile a human pilot might be having a bad day or get distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Air taxis aren't military hardware, the problem is much simpler. You will board one at a landing pad and it will take you to another pad a few dozen miles away, probably through a dedicated corridor. Drones can already fly reliably from point A to B.
Maybe there will be a human monitor onboard initially for safety, but not for long. "street canyon effects" and other worst case scenarios can be avoided, just don't go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, be very careful about keeping your communication with Air Traffic Control to standard. Get that wrong and you can lose your pilot's license an awful lot quicker than you got it. You do know that there are existing laws about how to behave in the air, and they're not cover
Re: (Score:2)
You can fly several kinds of light aircraft without a pilot's license, and the Jetson 1 is one of them.
https://www.futureflight.aero/... [futureflight.aero]
"The aircraft is being produced under FAA Part 103 rules and, as such, owners do not need a pilot's license to fly it. Jetson says it provides a day of flight training to customers"
I expect the tech will eventually become autonomous enough to where the passenger(s) will merely select a destination. Small multi-rotor drones are already at that point.
The flaw with your response is in your own words. (Score:1)
The difference is that the helicopter is already available, has experienced (high-hours) pilots available
And that right there is the fundamental flaw in what you said, pilots needed. Air taxis are about non-piloted small craft that just go between A and B in a city as quickly as possible.
It would only take one single fatal crash to completely destroy the public's already tentative acceptance of this new form of aerial transport.
Considering how it is to drive across LA (I've done it a number of times) it wo
Re: (Score:2)
Air taxis will need fully qualified pilots, and will need to observe all the usual air traffic rules. Unlike the ground where normal traffic rules don't apply on private property, all airspace is governed by the relevant authority.
These companies are probably hoping to do an Uber and pretend that they are not airlines and their taxis are not aircraft, so not subject to the normal rules. The pilots won't be employees, they will be contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
And their insurance will bear the whole liability for any problems in the flight. Failure of the aircraft - pilots insurance, not manufacturer's liability. Sub-standard repairs or spare parts - pilot's insurance, not manufacturer's or service-company liability. Passenger removed seatbelt because "sovereign person" idiocy, liability for injuries shared jointly between law of gravity (which doesn't listen to "sovereign person" arguments) and pilot's insu
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Autonomous flight is very easy to implement in comparison to driving a car on complex urban streets. The rules are straightforward and the sensor requirements are a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous flight is very easy to implement in comparison to driving a car on complex urban streets. The rules are straightforward and the sensor requirements are a lot less.
The consequences of catastrophic failure (3 tons of material crashing vertically into a house) are a lot worse, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately -- no.
Flying cars have things like birds, drones, kites, turbulence and a raft of other factors to contend with that are not so easily handled by automated systems.
And remember... a faulty sensor on a car might, at worst, cause it to stop on a busy freeway. A sensor failure in a flying craft can be a whole lot more serious and involve quite a fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Planes have been flying and landing autonomously for decades now. In fact when there is bad weather commercial planes are REQUIRED to land autonomously. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also, what is it about birds, drones, kites, or turbulence do you think humans are better at handling? As for faulty sensors, planes are required to have fault detection and redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
They land at airports under strict control. They don't have to contend with idiots suddenly appearing from all angles.
As to humans handling it better, that's not really been tested since city skies aren't full of twats with James Bond helipacks dashing hither and thither. Perhaps there's a reason for that.
Re: (Score:2)
"planes are required to have fault detection and redundancy"
Tell that to Boeing and the designers of the Max 8.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying is still safer than any other form of transport. And yeah Boeing messed up. Automakers have messed up too. Humans mess up more than computers. Human error or deliberate actions have caused more air disasters than computer errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Planes have been flying and landing autonomously for decades now. In fact when there is bad weather commercial planes are REQUIRED to land autonomously.
Perhaps you forgot the part where 1) there are trained, license pilots on board and 2) those landings are at airports which have a great deal of equipment to ensure those landings are safe. Will that be the case of autonomous air taxis? No.
Also, what is it about birds, drones, kites, or turbulence do you think humans are better at handling? As for faulty sensors, planes are required to have fault detection and redundancy.
I dunno, maybe emergencies like Flight 1549 [wikipedia.org] which landed in a river.
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous flight is very easy to implement in comparison to driving a car on complex urban streets. The rules are straightforward and the sensor requirements are a lot less.
Er? I am not sure you are aware that there are things in the world like antennas, birds, utility poles, cell towers, etc. that make flying MORE complex than driving. And that does not account for buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for birds, none of the things you mention are in motion.
In which you missed the point. The point is we have all sorts of vertical stationary structures that could damage or be damaged by air taxi.
Autonomous cars on the other hand have to deal with other non-autonomous cars feet away from them that may move in an unexpected manner. AV's if they arrive will not be piloted by people. They will be strictly controlled by machines that are in constant contact with each other. I don't know if they will solve the other issues, but control I think is the least difficult.
Autonomous cars have crashed into stationary objects. Unless you want to embed sensors in all vertical structures, a much higher level of AI is going to be required that supersedes what exists in cars today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Birds are a major problem for all aircraft, large and small.
Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't lessen the problem. And it will be much worse in the "taxi" environments we're talking about.
These taxis will be dropping like an Egyptian plague.
Re: (Score:2)
Teslas crash into stationary objects. teslas don't use radar. Any sane company is going to rig air taxi with radar. Any sane auto company has rigged their cars with radar. And so we are left with birds, which could be a problem, but I suspect more for the bird than the taxi. I know birds get sucked into jets, but I don't recall a bird problem when I flew with my roommate single engine, and I've not heard of problems with helicopters. Although there may be, just not widely reported. I don't know.
Do you think your single experience is representative of all aviation? Let’s see: Flight 1549. Airports employing falconers to keep birds away, etc. and that’s is just birds. Your radar solution fails to address all the stationary structures that an air taxi's radar would never see. Things like structural cabling for towers, power, communication lines, etc. Mostly because your radar solution neglects the problem of sensitivity and purpose. Aircraft radar is designed for other planes at hundreds
Think differently (Score:3)
Imagine avoiding that soul-crushing, hourlong slog — say from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. on a Tuesday morning.
OK, how about thinking about the problem differently. L.A. has a lot of parallel streets. You could dedicate 1/3 of those to public transport, i.e. no cars, greener spaces with trees, bushes, flower beds, cafés with outdoor seating, etc., & then run (pretty much silent) trams down the middle. They'd carry way more people. At the suburb ends, they can connect with faster electric commuter trains (thus increasing the "commutable range" outside the city) & car parking, & perhaps even electric minibus services?
The result would be a cleaner, greener, quieter, less congested, more enjoyable to hang out in L.A. Also more attractive to visitors & shoppers, & easier for business people to get from A to B for extra serendipity to give the local economy that little extra 'pep.'
Once you have that kind of infrastructure in place in a few cities along the west coast you can start to seriously consider high speed rail (420kmph+) to move people more pleasantly, quietly, efficiently, & in larger numbers (than air-travel) over longer distances, instead of the "airport+TSA+cramped plane cabins" gauntlet that people currently have to run.
Re: Think differently (Score:2)
In fairness these could not be retrofitted to many cities like LA. Firstly the residents who park their cars on these streets would never go for it and second it would cause gridlock because the volume of vehicles that can travel through the city would be dramatically reduced.
VTOL drone aircraft have their problems but they impact existing modes of transport the least which is why they are these have such high interest.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the number of vehicles that matters. It's the number of passengers. Even a half full tram carries more than a dozen cars.
Re: (Score:2)
...the volume of vehicles that can travel through the city would be dramatically reduced.
Yes, it'd be reduced by 1/3 but no, it wouldn't cause gridlock, it'd greatly reduce the number of vehicles on the road, as Hognoxious quite rightly pointed out. More people would be able to move around more quickly because the system would be more efficient. Lots of cities are re-instating tram systems & they're very popular.
...or you can carry on trying to add more & more private single-person vehicles
Umm (Score:1)
That's right, mass transit would never work in a big city,
You've never taken mass transit in LA or NYC, have you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha ha ha!
Air Taxis are stupid (Score:2)
Maybe it can be used to steal investment money via friends who manage other people's money like retirement funds? Other than that, "air taxis" (hyped up helicopters) are a pretty dumb idea. The right way to do "air taxis" already exist in niche places like Vancouver for maybe a hundred years already with conventional aircraft. What we need are flying cars, you know, vehicles that can fit in a parking spot or at least can be fit on 95% of roads and don't require more than say a helipad area to land? Somethin
And then and then... (Score:2)
Coming in time for the 2078 Olympics in Los Angeles, the Rocket Taxi. Are you tired of those congested air taxi lanes soaking up your precious minutes? Get ready to slash your commute from 9 soul crushing minutes to a rocket fast 3! This burgeoning industry has already attracted over 1 trillion Yuan in investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that nutter still around and shllin' for Elon?
A list of cons (Score:2)
1) Higher energy requirements
2) Stricter weather operating conditions
3) Require landing zones so they're not direct site-to-site transportation
4) Short range
5) Higher risk
You won't see air taxis for plebs any time soon. You might see them as building-hoppers for CEOs whose companies can't quite swing a helicopter.
Re: (Score:2)
3) Require landing zones so they're not direct site-to-site transportation
4) Short range
5) Higher risk
You won't see air taxis for plebs any time soon. You might see them as building-hoppers for CEOs whose companies can't quite swing a helicopter.
3) Landing zones are baked into the concept. These are only flying between designated points in commercial areas where high traffic for potential customers is expected. One of the principal sites for service is in fact LAX. That this is promised "by the Olympics" should tip one off that major Olympic venue sites are going to have service zones. In a way this is more like bus service, not door-to-door.
4) 150 miles is a typical value, and 50 miles is a long trip across LA. This is for city travel, around the
Re: (Score:2)
6) High noise.
Cost (Score:2)
Regular taxis are expensive enough now. Even if these so-called air taxis are cheaper than booking an airplane ride on a Cesna, they certainly won't be any cheaper than a ground taxi. So most of us won't be buying too many of these air taxi rides. They'll be a niche mode of transportation far into the future, that only the well-off can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
In the right location, air taxi's are already cheaper then a regular taxi.
Vancouver harbour to Victoria harbour, $131 one way. Can't find a taxi price but the cheapest using public transport is about $51 round trip or using the dedicated bus, about $160 (fuel surcharge varies). The harbours are downtown. The ferry terminals are not and I'm pretty sure a taxi to the ferry terminal would not be cheap.
https://www.harbourair.com/pro... [harbourair.com]
https://www.tourbytransit.com/... [tourbytransit.com]
Another Potential Problem: Traffic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will have navigation systems that handle traffic flow. Plus it is 3D, there will be multilayer travel with predefined lanes.
God I hope not (Score:3)
Most definately (Score:2)
Confucius say (Score:2)
Confucius he say, that which flies through sky can fall out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Confucius he say, that which flies through sky can fall out of it.
Did he also remember to say, that which rolls on ground hits dogs, children and old ladies?
Dunno about air taxis, but air taxes are... (Score:1)
Dunno about air taxis, but air taxes are getting closer to becoming reality.
Bibliodroit (Score:1)
the bright side (Score:2)
Now you don't have to be a rich asshole... (Score:2)
Now you don't have to be a rich asshole to die like a rich asshole. I guess that's an opportunity for those of us who wanted to die like Kobe Bryant but never thought we'd find the money.
Same Article (Score:2)
When I was a very small kid in the 1950s and 1960s, i used to read this same article in Popular Mechanics magazine about once a year. They always had a Jetsons-like photo of smiling people in flying cars on the cover.
Yes, air taxis are coming... (Score:2)
In the event of engine failure... (Score:2)
I doubt it (Score:2)
To fly over people's heads, you need to be lighter than 250 grams.
Air Taxi ... (Score:2)
We have them already they are called Helicopters .... there are a few, but not many as they are hard to run at a profit, and the Electric version is likely to be more expensive to run
Most americans can't handle manual (Score:2)
$1 billion (Score:2)
The Los Angeles Times cited estimates of $1 billion spent testing electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft
If these multi-millionaire and billionaire VCs paid their taxes, they could have paid for much better public transport systems that will always be more efficient.
Hell, they could fund it themselves and charge fares for them. They'll probably make a loss, but not as much loss as throwing this money at nonsense, or paying the tax that they can't control how it will be distributed.
Pilot is the issue (Score:2)
The problem with air taxis is not the vehicles, we have helicopters already.
The issue is piloting the helicopters. Up until about 4 years ago, we did not have software we trusted to pilot a car, let alone an air-craft. It's not just take off and landing, although landing in particular is very important. When we have 1,000 taxis flying INSIDE city limits, likely below the tallest building, then air traffic control becomes much harder. Throw in birds, etc. and the problems become obvious.
Give us a dec