
Uber’s Aerial Rideshare Project ‘Entering the Next Phase’ - prostoalex
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/22/ubers-aerial-rideshare-project-entering-next-phase/
======
wffurr
They can make a flying car, but they can't offer a map of legal pickup and
drop off locations for their car drivers and users.

Presumably they will have to solve this problem for the aircraft, can't have
those landing willy nilly in bike lanes and crosswalks.

~~~
CaptainZapp
_Presumably they will have to solve this problem for the aircraft, can 't have
those landing willy nilly in bike lanes and crosswalks._

That's Uber we're talking about. I don't think they giva a fuck as long as
it's not bad for business.

I do believe, however, that they can't just apply their brand of "regulatory
arbitrage" when it comes to airspace usage.

Around here you're dicking with federal regulators and the military. Not a
bunch of city government yokels that you can strongarm into submission.

~~~
0xffff2
The FAA gives a lot of fucks. They certainly aren't going to get away with
their past shenanigans with when they move into the air.

------
dmix
The linked article about the FAA being receptive to the idea and not needing
new regulation is the really exciting news here IMO.

The regulatory hurdles and details like pilot and airline laws are no joke and
easily an industry killer. But the FAA seems to actually being helpful to
industry is really great and surprising.

[https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/14/six-urban-air-
mobil...](https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/01/14/six-urban-air-mobility-
aircraft-well-along-type-certification-faas-merkle-says/)

Note they list the 6 companies involved deep in the regulatory process, not
just Uber, which include a Chinese one and various heavy transport vehicles.

------
adrianmonk
I can't imagine how they can solve the last mile problem. Unless you rebuild a
city around this mode of transportation, the number of landing spots is going
to be very limited, and there may not be one near me.

If I wanted to walk from my starting point to a pickup location, get a ride,
and walk some more from the drop off location to my destination, then I almost
might as well take a bus.

Sure, it gets around traffic, but I'd bet that in a lot of cases, waiting in
traffic takes less time than the additional walking. (The exception would be
for longer trips.)

The only way I can see this working is if the experience/utility of this mode
of transport is so vastly superior that everybody decides it is actually worth
it to rebuild a city around it.

------
C14L
Sounds nice, but good luck with the noise pollution. Start and landing still
requires to move a lot of air downwards in order to make the vehicle float.

------
zhoujianfu
I think aerial ride share should take the scooter model... with little
“cockpits” distributed around a city that you open with an app, then call an
Uber/Lyft/etc drone that picks it up (without landing, via a cable, to reduce
space/noise/wind issues) and takes you away!

------
Apocryphon
Well, looks like Peter Thiel might finally get his wish.

~~~
AlchemistCamp
Wouldn't he wish for their competitor, Lyft (which he funded) to win this
market?

------
djohnston
the military still has issues w/ VSTOL (looking at you Osprey). the thought of
uber providing electric ospreys is kind of terrifying

~~~
0xffff2
I don't think any of the various proposed UAM vehicles are pure tilt-rotors
like the osprey. They pretty much all incorporate multiple motors with at
least some of those motors dedicated purely to providing vertical lift.

~~~
_Microft
Lilium's [1] aircraft has multiple rotors but tilts all of them when
transitioning into horizontal flight. From what I understand, [2] is an actual
video of a flying prototype, not just a good render video. The _Coming 2025_
at the end of the video sounds scarily late, though.

[1] [https://lilium.com/](https://lilium.com/)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjAJWrraTKs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjAJWrraTKs)

~~~
0xffff2
That's definitely one I hadn't seen before. Unfortunately I'm not sure if I'm
allowed to be specific, but I have direct experience with another vehicle that
makes me skeptical that that thing will gain regulatory approval.

------
monadic2
What does “rideshare” even mean anymore?

~~~
TillE
It means it's a taxi, but with an app.

It's bizarre how people can get away with completely redefining words,
especially when it's the cynical creation of a euphemism.

------
yters
Why not just an airplane ridesharing project? Uber is all about getting around
legislative lockin, and the private airline industry is quite locked down
legislatively. And, I believe there would be great amount of value for
individuals to catch local hops, especially those who work in the city but
want to live a fair distance away. I don't know why this hasn't been done yet.

~~~
sokoloff
Because the FAA has very strict rules on cost-sharing limits for Part 91
(roughly "private") aviation and very strict operating rules for Part 135
(roughly "charter") and Part 121 (roughly "airline").

Under Part 91, even if you could get around the "common purpose" concern, the
rules are such that no profit could realistically ever be made. (Insert snarky
ride-sharing economics joke here.)

The FAA has shut down several operations who were tiptoeing around the rules.
Having a single regulatory body that pays attention to this across the country
makes it harder to make an end-run.

~~~
nexuist
Could you expand more on this? Would an airplane ridesharing service
effectively constitute an "airline" legally and fall under all the same rules
as e.g. Delta?

~~~
sokoloff
Ridesharing like flights would be considered on-demand/non-scheduled charter
operations and would fall under Part 135. (Delta is a Part 121 air carrier).

Start here:
[https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certificat...](https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/135_certification/cert_process/)

There are stricter pilot, airplane, and maintenance requirements than what
Part 91 (private) is required to do.

The general philosophy seems to be "the less you know about the operation, the
more oversight the FAA will provide". My family choosing to get into our
airplane knows a lot more about the pilot and aircraft and risks than Jane
buying an airline ticket or Joe tapping on an app for a ride. You don't have
to be nearly as concerned about getting onto a Delta flight, because Delta is
much more heavily regulated as they "hold out to the public" for scheduled air
carrier operations.

In terms of what that means for an Uber-for-airplanes situation, there's no
way in hell that I would put my pilot certificate at risk by signing up to run
clearly illegal charters in my airplane. Even when some other pilots would
volunteer to run that risk, the FAA would not have a hard time doing a
targetted "ramp inspection" to verify compliance with applicable Federal
Aviation Regulations. These ops have been pretty consistently shut down in the
past and I don't see that as likely to change in the future. If I decided I
wanted to go Part 135 (or Uber got an operating certificate to which I could
add my airplane), the compliance burden will likely make it unattractive to me
to sign up [because I already have a busy life and even if I were to fly for
this entity, it would likely be less than 25 hours per year]. If Uber gets its
own cert and runs its own fleet, they could get the compliance burden to be
manageable (by running each airplane more hours annually) but then need a
metric crap-ton of capital to buy the fleet.

~~~
redis_mlc
It's even worse than what sokoloff said above.

I once talked to a guy who got a Part 135 certificate at a Class Bravo
airport.

Him: "Yeah, I got the first 135 cert in 30 years at this airport."

Me: "How'd you do that?"

Him: "Oh, I work for the federal govt."

All you need to know is that the FAA considers all operators to be the "same
level of safety", whether 91, 135 or 121. Since 121 means scheduled airline,
you can do the math on how much that would cost and how much paperwork is
involved.

------
syntaxing
I worked at a startup that wanted to do electric airplanes. While designing a
plane is really hard, getting the right approvals to go from experimental to
production is even harder. I would be really impressed if they managed to get
the proper paperwork done.

~~~
staplers
That didn't stop them from entering the taxi business

~~~
quaa55
I think ubers traditional mo doesn’t apply to airspace and FAA regulations. At
least I hope so.

