Pretty fun experience. And if commercial airplanes ever start using this sort of launching technology, I imagine the takeoff would feel a lot smoother.
"Flying cars" made sense to me until I started flying. Now I think "driving airplanes" is the more appropriate phrase for what might be in the realm of possibility.
For example: here's how you'd prepare to visit distant relatives with each vehicle:
Car: load up however much weight you want, turn the keys and start driving. Low on gas? Just turn off at the next exit. Weather looks bad? Just drive slowly and carefully and you'll be fine.
Airplane: visually inspect your vehicle, be careful distributing limited weight around the cabin, get a weather briefing and accept that many days you just can't fly, break out your slide rule (literally!) and plot a course between waypoints, with calculations accounting for wind deflection, magnetic variation, fuel burn, and various other factors. And don't forget to plan out refueling stops and emergency airfields too. Then run through your checklist and (once you get permission from the tower, if any) take off.
I never appreciated how user-friendly modern cars are until flying. And air travelers are spoiled by all-weather jetliners piloted by the pros.
Couldn't most of that be done by computer? Weight sensors in the wheels can determine weight and balance, the computer can evaluate the weather and plot the course taking into account all of the factors you noted, including refueling stops and emergency airfields, and it can even run through the checklist for you.
About the only part of that it can't do is the visual inspection.
Sure, if you trust the correctness of the computer's software with your life and the lives of any passengers. There are popular apps now that do some of what you suggest, especially trip planning.
I've seen enough bugs in my day job to want to at least verify the computer's work and have backup instruments, even if just my own senses. Aerospace software is known for relatively low bug counts[1] but also causing fatal crashes[2].
I trust my car controls to be correct and if they aren't I can brake to a stop if anything else seems off. (Unless of course the brakes stop working!) But since you have to take off to fly, you might not realize you can't control the plane until it's already at dangerous speeds.[3]
3: Amazing story about an airliner that took off not knowing its controls had been reversed (a maintenance mistake). Pilots declared "MAYDAY plane is completely uncontrollable we plan to ditch" but eventually figured out how to fly the reversed controls and landed it safely—super impressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIc8Rr-cKd8
I think most of that is done automatically by computers in the case of airline jets. For single engine aircraft it's mostly DIY. Though with the jets the pilots get many hours of training on what to do if the various systems / computers go wrong.
Believe it or not, weight and balance calculations are not automatic even in the most advanced airliners. The airlines have algorithms they use which spit out numbers that are provided to the pilots, which they enter into the aircraft's computer. These numbers are vitally important, and on one flight I was on we had actually taken the runway but had to taxi back off because Delta was too slow at getting the numbers calculated.
Not that your general point is wrong, but I don't think "flying cars" are intended to replace airliners. They're supposed to be for travel within a city. Complicated calculations for route planning and refueling seem much less relevant for that case.
How much weight do you think it would realistically take to alter flight in a plane of this size? For instance, if both the pilot and passenger weighed e.g. 200lbs and sat toward the left of the plane, would that considerably (or perhaps even just perceptibly) impact flight? Same for some of the other variables, is there an appreciable different for things like magnetic variation? Wind, of course, seems reasonable - the others I've heard less about. I don't fly, and have never been in a small engine craft.
Fore and aft weight distribution matters a lot in terms of how the airplane flies. Side to side not as much. (Most single-engine airplanes have more moment arm of fuel weight change in the wings than moment arm of two people sitting on the left side of the airplane.)
Fore and aft changes in center of gravity affect how far the center of mass is from the tail control surfaces and the amount of negative lift the tail has to contribute. I can feel the difference when my (fairly small framed) family moves around in the back cabin.
Aft weight distribution makes the airplane far more sensitive in pitch, reduces drag from the tail negative lift, which slightly increases climb rate and/or forward speed for a given power setting.
Not sure about the plane from the original post; it looks pretty hefty. And lateral weight is so close to the center of mass that it's unlikely to have much effect. What's more of a concern is having a bunch of weight far from the plane's center of mass, where the weight tries to lever the plane end over end, increasing the risk of a stall. I heard about a crash where the pilot's seat adjuster didn't lock, so when he took off his seat slid all the way back (just a few inches) but that was enough to cause a crash. Could theoretically happen to any size plane, but matters more with little light planes like those in general aviation.
I have no idea if "Spirit Airlines weight distribution issue" actually happened, but it's funny so I'll share: https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4
Magnetic variation in my area is +20° (west) off true north. So if I want to follow longitude line true north I need to fly such that the compass reads 20° NEN. And don't forget to account for the hunks of metal inside the airplane, which can affect the compass differently depending on your heading.
Same, I'd hate to see a novice try to land on a narrow 2000' runway hemmed in by tall trees and a "snotty" 7+ kt crosswind component pushing the plane around.
Lucky they were in Florida with working radios and gas in the tank to reach an accommodating runway. None of that should detract from the emergency pilot's excellent handling of the situation though—bravo!
[edit] Apparently there was a significant crosswind:
The weather at Palm Beach International Airport on the 10’th at 15:53 GMT was: Winds, from the North-Northeast at 11 knots, gusting up to 17 knots. Visibility 10 statute miles. Clouds, some scattered ones at 4,200 and 4,600 feet above the airport ground level. Temperature 26 Celsius, dew point 15 Celsius.
Yes, to be clear I'm not saying that anyone would be able to do this, just keeping cool enough to do anything decent (including talking on the radio) was already a huge achievement.
My point was just that this is feasible a lot of the time with some good radio help .
Speaking of bad UX choices, the FAA is constantly dropping one or two or more digits from numbers like altitudes, runway lengths, heading, timestamps, etc. For example, "the runway from 180° is 5200 feet long" becomes "RWY18 52" which I suppose you get used to, but it's just begging for mixups.
As a student pilot, this drives me nuts. The volume of abbreviations, especially in NOTAMS, METARs, etc, is a bit obscene.
What’s wonderful too is that the abbreviations are often based on non English words as well, so they aren’t intuitive. As an example, instead of typing “mist” in a METAR it is “BR” based on the French word brume.
It still matters since most communication is over the radio, and in many areas it’s highly congested.
When there are 50 pilots on the radio and things are moving fast there isn’t time to slow down and spell things out, and doing so can actually be more dangerous when extraneous stuff ends up on the radio and is misinterpreted.
AIUI it is a holdover from the days when such reports were sent by telegraph/teletype, and saving characters mattered. The abbreviations became standard convention and changing them now would be more disruptive than teaching new pilots how to decipher them.
Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Lompoc. That looks like class echo airspace in which a radio is not required. Apparently the airport's control tower only operates part time. Still, with nearby population centers, restricted air over military bases, possible gliders and skydivers in the area, even oil wells relatively close, it looks like a particularly foolish place to turn an aircraft into an unguided missile by jumping out of it.
Ok I'm surprised. I don't think anyone here in Europe flies without a radio. If only just to monitor local traffic. Most of the flying club members even carried backup portables. I didn't proceed to my full license so I never did. But I did have lots of ham radios on which I could receive (not transmit) the airband if needed.
Same goes for operating a car. How many accidents are caused by distracted driving?
The good news is that medication may mitigates the symptoms so you can focus on driving or flying safely.
The bad news is the FAA says you can't use the medication while flying nor can you have an active diagnosis. So if you have ever been diagnosed with ADHD, even as a child, your only option is to go through an expensive testing process to prove you don't have ADHD anymore. Or some people just lie. Easiest and most dangerous approach is to never be diagnosed in the first place.
The FAA is rewarded for caution, not inclusivity. But they are making changes, like very recently making exceptions to allow diabetics to be pilots: https://www.diabetes.org/resources/know-your-rights/discrimi.... Just know that a diagnosis can never been deleted.
Also related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_carriage