The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly with passengers, regardless of the form of the aircraft. Especially paying passengers.
Nothing in this article suggests that pilots of this vehicle would have less training than pilots of other aircraft.
gregorum@lemm.ee 9 months ago
That doesn’t make flying any less dangerous in general, and it’s already pretty dangerous as it is. Add to that a bunch of tiny little flying vehicles, buzzing around, and it becomes much more dangerous.
FlowVoid@midwest.social 9 months ago
I don’t see why this should be of more concern than someone designing an inexpensive new fixed wing aircraft or traditional helo. Which happens all the time.
gregorum@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
FlowVoid@midwest.social 9 months ago
Flying is safer, period.
In the US, there are only about ten fatalities per year on commercial aircraft. You are more likely to die of a lightning strike.
And if you only consider major airlines, in the last twenty years there have been only three passenger fatalities.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
Per capita means per unit of people. So by definition the group size does not matter.