logoalt Hacker News

xnxyesterday at 10:52 PM8 repliesview on HN

Flying taxis make a lot of sense for very specific areas (e.g. Manhattan) and applications (e.g. mountain rescue).


Replies

tyreyesterday at 11:28 PM

Ain’t no way you want flying taxis in Manhattan. If two collide or one fails, you could kill dozens of people.

Maaaaybe instead of the tunnels and bridges, to increase throughput during rush hours, but even then we’re trying to have fewer vehicles in Manhattan, not more.

Also, I cannot imagine what it would be like to go through an intersection during the winter. You would be hit with a wall of cross-cutting wind tunneling down 50 blocks that no airborne device is going to handle well. Absolute nightmare.

show 1 reply
exsometyesterday at 11:22 PM

I’m not an expert by any means, but one of the major impediments I would imagine to flying taxis carrying people is safety; there’s a _lot_ that has to be done before people board an airplane in terms of checks, paperwork, planning, etc.

The dream of “order a flying taxi on your phone and it takes you wherever you want in five minutes” isn’t really compatible with aviation safety culture (at least at the pilot level in the US). That’s not to say it can’t be done, but you probably need a lot of really good PR people to figure out how to say “we want to remove the safety controls from this so we can make money with it” and have people buy it.

show 1 reply
notatoadtoday at 12:28 AM

i don't think mountain rescue is asking for a better vehicle. traditional helicopters work.

flying taxi startups, drone companies, jetpack companies, and all the other fantastical flying startyps keep trying to say they have applications in mountain rescue, but i'm pretty sure that's providing a lot more benefit to the flying taxi startup's pitch deck than it is to any mountain rescue operation.

show 1 reply
ph4rsikalyesterday at 10:55 PM

China calls it the low-altitude economy, and besides human transportation there is a lot that can be done. Personally, I believe that propeller-driven devices are too dangerous and noisy, but there might be innovations coming out of China that Europe can't

show 1 reply
ErroneousBoshtoday at 4:10 PM

They make no sense at all.

You can't fly within 500 feet of any person, vehicle, or structure.

At 500 feet, literally any failure of the aircraft means you die about seven seconds later.

aziaziaziyesterday at 11:11 PM

What attribute should they have to make them more suited than helicopters? Silence ? Energy efficiency ? No landing pad ?

show 1 reply
rpcope1today at 2:15 AM

> any kind of outdoor rescue

You know we have these things called "helicopters", right?

show 1 reply
andrepdtoday at 1:12 AM

> Flying taxis make a lot of sense for very specific areas (e.g. Manhattan)

The things people will do to not build bike paths.

show 1 reply