- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/36069403
cross-posted from: https://lemy.lol/post/52477761
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/36069403
cross-posted from: https://lemy.lol/post/52477761
Just in case anyone was wondering why we don’t do that.
Couldn’t people say the same shit when regular cars were new and there was an accident?
“That’s why you’ll never see thousands of them going down a highway at 80 miles an hour.” -1920s idiot who needs to get their crystal ball checked.
Sure, a person might have said that. They’d have been right about the danger but wrong about our risk tolerance. It’s hard enough to keep people from becoming water balloons in a simple collision on the ground (though things have definitely improved in that regard over the past century). It’s also a much bigger problem to run out of fuel or have an engine failure in midair than on the ground in the vast majority of situations.
That’s why aircraft regulations require safety systems, redundancy.
There are safety systems, like parachutes, which can save ultralight aircraft even on total power loss.
Now imagine hundreds of them populating the skies over a densely populated city, just to carry a few hundred rich people around.
When you say it like that, it sounds better in some ways and worse in others.
You take the rough with the smooth
helicopters.
Yes, and how many helicopters fly regular passengers over your city?
There’s a reason these are speciality vehicles for speciality operations, and not a generic form of transport used all the time.
exactly. there are hundreds of them populating the sky, lugging a few hundred rich people (or their representatives) around.