Can Personal Aircraft Beat Gridlock?

D'uh...

If enough do this you will be stacking waiting to land...Then you still have to get from the landing strip to your destination.

It's ok for the very wealthy who have a landing strip at home and work...Oh hang on that's exactly how it is at the moment!

There are enough idiots on the road who can barely drive...imagine them in the air!

Must go and dust off my jet pack.

And how about all the Lohans and Hiltons trying to put there make-up on while texting there friends. I wonder what the fine will be for Flying Under the Influence?

Fender benders gotta be a lot worse up there than on the L.A. freeways.

BTW Del, Do you hit this place on your time off, or do you work 7 days like me??

LOL..

Look at my biography and weep..I work a 3 day week!

Must go and dust off my jet pack.

I admire your openness. I occasionally "dust off my jetpack" too, and now that you have broken the ice, I feel more comfortable talking about such things.

LMAO

The date on the PM cover is 1951.

The Taylor Aerocar was designed in 1949.

Autogyros were touted as "personal transport" in the late 1920's

The Pinto Plane? Seventies, of course!! By the way, it crashed. FAA report says "poor workmanship."

What's that? 70 years of "The Flying Personal Transport is Just Around the Corner??"

Maybe I'm just skeptical-- but the past 70 years of failed attempts tell me this ain't gonna happen! Heres a couple of reasons why:

1. (Actually reasons 1 thru n) The American Trial Lawyers' Association. They killed general aviation, and, they'll never let this go!

2. The FAA will get involved. We will all be dead before they get rules in place.

3. Drivers are so stupid now that I want Jersey barriers on ALL 2-lane streets-- in case one of those idiots is in an oncoming car. We will need technology to hang Jersey barriers in the air.

4. The batteries will weigh too much. They'll never let us increase our carbon footprint, so-- batteries.

I presume they will be fitted with LARGE air bags for soft crash landings? and vertical multi car pile ups could be a challenge for the paramedics

Do you suppose we could tap the politicians for hot air? No shortage but it's not free, we have paid for it over and over. Maybe we could get some real work out of it. Say 20 miles to the campaign promise. Hey I can dream can't I?

At what point does a problem involving two linear dimensions and time become a problem with three linear dimensions and time?

And will it get the British Airmen back to Blighty before Herr Flick discovers their hide-away? Ooooh! Flashing knobs!!

What about safety distance?

Planes have to leave minutes between each other. The results of not respecting this are horrible.

The greenest way to drive is to stay at home. Don't beleave all the other stuff.

The air is already congested with the normal traffic. Not everyone is that smart that they can drive safely, imagine all those with a plane.

The only way I can make any sense of this whatsoever, is if the solution to gridlock is seen as population reduction. In a town like Atlanta, with hundreds of thousands of aircraft in the sky simultaneously, there are some real opportunities for rapid population reduction. But, would we get the sustained population reduction we're looking for? I fear that after just a day or two of carnage, people will lose their enthusiasm for commuting.

An unintended consequence may be that population would actually increase! If you consider that it may take a crew of ten to clean up after just one crash, you can imagine that cleanup crews will have to be brought in from far and wide.

I wonder if we shouldn't simply promote more smoking, and let the tobacco companies get back to controlling population in the time-honored way.

Perhaps this should be filed under "Needs More Thought."

No, personal aircraft will not beat commuting gridlock as we know it. It will only move gridlock to a new dimension.

Personal aircraft can help beat major airline gridlock by taking over flights of 300 to 1000 miles. Even though the aircraft are only 100-200 mph, you beat the congestion around major airports by flying into smaller airports. And you travel faster than the interstate speed limits.

Yes, you're right. I'd favor seeing projects aimed at making that sort of usage more practical, for more people. Often, even with current technology, a small plane can use less fuel than a car, by travelling in a straight line. A trip I used to take occasionally would take 2 hours by slow, small single, and about 8 hours with a car, along a much longer route.

Work on making small planes all-weather-capable and affordable (am I dreaming) with lowered pilot workload would seem more realistic than working to put thousands of them in the air around major cities.

"...Can Personal Aircraft Beat Gridlock? ..."

No, only top-quality, top-priority public transportation, with dedicated civil infrastructure, is able to do it.

Be it in the air or on the ground.

It will also benefit us in so many other related areas.

- urban and rural pollution levels

- global fuel consumption: availability and pricing

- You name the rest