Most stuff that gets posted here is just horrible and bleak shit, so here's some catastrophically absurd libertarian brainworms instead.

And this is why I say we have a duty to make the cheap ones and fly them anyway. The laws which make this the case are equivalent to those which made people walk in front of early cars waving flags. Between our current fear of any risk, and the vested interests of the powers that be in existing transportation, the flying car will never happen until someone builds one anyway, and allows everyone else to follow in there footsteps.

  • VILenin [he/him]M
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    flying driverless cars are right around the corner.

    14 CFR Part 119.23, Part 121, Part 135 and FAA AC 91-37B, AC 120-12A, and FlyteNow Inc v. FAA would like to have a word

    Carrying paying passengers from point to point without an air carrier certificate is called ✨Illegal Air Charter✨

    Operating an aircraft (the operator need not pilot the aircraft) carrying passengers who cover or split, any costs, or provide any form of compensation (which includes pilot experience in and of itself or even having dinner paid for), without traveling for a common purpose, without an air carrier certificate is called ✨Illegal Air Charter✨

    Obtaining a certificate entails dropping six figures minimum, years of red tape, establishing rigorous inspection, maintenance, and training programs and, get this, having a pilot. In practice this amounts to dropping seven to eight figures on a yearly basis. What this also means is that your shitty startup is now just as expensive as, but more inconvenient and less safe than just chartering an airplane.

    Do these people know how many rules a commercial operator needs to follow? It’s an incredibly complex process that I highly doubt any Silicon Valley dipshit could wrap their smoothbrains around.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do these people know how many rules a commercial operator needs to follow?

      Techbros tend to just ignore rules or actively lobby to destroy those rules whenever they can. I'm glad air laws and regulations are strong as you say.

      • VILenin [he/him]M
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, they basically own the Bay Area municipal governments, but trying to fuck the FAA over is just not something you do. They hold all the cards and pissing them off will end your aviation hopes and dreams instantly.

        Techbros have also been having trouble finding people willing to work for them after the last startup got fined into bankruptcy and their pilots got their licenses revoked and careers ended. Some of those revocations were eventually reversed but they’ll still be answering “yes” to “has your certificate ever been revoked or suspended for any reason?” I don’t think I need to explain why this gets any job application you ever send in the future auto-rejected. You are gambling with your livelihood by working with these companies. Almost everyone has done the math in their heads and it’s not worth it.

        I’ve known some of the guys who work at the regional office overseeing the Bay Area. They have the same opinion on Silicon Valley techbros as your average Hexbear tankie. It’s like whack-a-mole with all the fly by night aviation startups here. Going after these startup dipshits is a favorite pastime for inspectors. What confuses me is what these techbro assholes think they can achieve by deliberately provoking those who have the unassailable authority to shut them down at any time, entirely at their discretion. All these startups are basically in a constant state of spitting in inspectors’ faces.

        I do have to emphasize the “unassailable authority” part. Even if these techbro clowns tried applying for an air carrier certificate, they probably wouldn’t get one just because of the enmity that exists between them and the inspectors. They don’t need a reason to deny your application.

        They like to brag about being “certified by the FAA”. The office does issue airworthiness certificates, but only a restricted version that basically limits you to circling over the Nevada dessert for 30 minutes at a time. These are issued not as an affirmation of the safety of the aircraft, but as a license for you to kill yourself, and only yourself in your death-contraption. The FAA doesn’t care if you jeopardize only your own safety. The issue is that these startups aren’t eccentric hobbyists, they’re targeting the general public. And doing so immediately puts you under the microscope. A certification isn’t an endorsement, and in this case, the FAA can’t stop you from getting yourself killed, so they basically have to issue the certificate. I wouldn’t really consider being allowed to annoy insects in the dessert with aircraft noise a stunning victory.

        And wrt the lobbying, they’re delusional if they think they can out-lobby the airlines, which have an interest in them continuing to get shut down.

        The process usually goes something like this:

        -Startup tries skirting the rules

        -Gets shut down by the FAA

        -Startup tries to challenge it in court

        -Loses, and faces additional ego-based punishment for pissing the judge off with their tired old bullshit

        -Investors flee and move onto the next illegal startup

        -FAA adds startup to their enforcement division trophy collection

        Rinse and repeat.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yours is the most bloomer post I've seen in a while. I truly feel happier having read it. Thank you.