[Shivatron]

> ... it could be a fantastic tool for an affordable, fast commute.

I understand the attraction to owning your own plane and buzzing merrily above the wheel-bound masses below on the daily, but I have to think it's a bad idea (avgas or electric). I think of all the times I've overslept, needed to be at the office unexpectedly, forgot to put some air in the car tires, should get that warning light looked at, etc... phrases that are usually at the start of an NTSB report.

The beauty of airlines and charters is that you're paying them, at least in part, to tell you "no, we're not flying right now." Turns out it can be hard to do for yourself when your job depends on it.

[prostoalex]

I think the grand idea is that with improvements to battery density and weight this will spill into commercial aviation market.

Small electric planes with lower per-hour operating costs are also a game-changer for flight schools and their students. Cheaper pilot licenses should translate into increased supply of qualified labor and lower the costs of starting/operating an airline.

[r00fus]

I am guessing the EV trainer companies have already addressed - but it's not clear to me:

How similar are EV airplanes and ICE powered ones? Aren't there a number of factors that vary from motive power and availability to weight/form factor that make training on an EV not sufficient to training on "the real thing"?

[bdamm]

EV airplanes are simpler to fly than a gas powered one, so it could be great for a new student who mostly wants to focus on the actual flying and not so much on how to manage the engine. The current market leader, Pipistrel, is selling an EV airplane that is the same airframe as their gas trainer. So the path for students to transition from the EV plane (local airport circuits and learning landing and takeoff) to cross country (flying long distance, learning judgement about weather, understanding navigation, managing the engine, human factors) is no issue in terms of actual airplane controls and familiarity.

[FabHK]

One thing to add is that jet engines are quite different from piston engines with propellers. So, whether you learn in a Cessna 152 and then step up to Airbus/Boeing, or learn in an electric aircraft and then step up, is probably not a dramatic difference.

[redis_mlc]

Note: the article is about an ultralight, which is not really an airplane based on what most people think of: it can only have one seat, cannot be used for commercial activity or flight training. It's for hobby-use only.

> I think the grand idea is that with improvements to battery density and weight this will spill into commercial aviation market.

That's a pipe dream for 2 reasons:

1) battery density is still a small fraction of fuels

2) thus small trainers are about the weight limit you'll see for electric aircraft. There is no path for airliners to propel with batteries.

3) Most of the small electric airplanes have been destroyed in battery fires. So aviation-grade batteries will be needed, and anything certified will be very expensive.

> Small electric planes with lower per-hour operating costs are also a game-changer for flight schools and their students.

"lower per-hour operating costs" would be nice, but fuel is not the dominant cost for flight training, and is not a game changer. In addition, most of the small electric planes you have read about were destroyed in battery fires, killing the pilots.

> Cheaper pilot licenses should translate into increased supply of qualified labor and lower the costs of starting/operating an airline.

No, you're not going to see cheaper pilot licenses (unless you personally open some kind of flight school as a charity), and in the US, the 1,500 hour rule means operating an airline will be expensive. Almost all of the US "regionals" have already shutdown due to a shortage of ATP holders.

It gets old reading aviation news on HN because the fanbois can't separate SciFi from reality. Aviation is an expensive, regulated industry, and will only become more that way.

So let me explain what the game changers are ...

For amateur non-IFR practise and commuting, combining a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot license ($10,000+) with an electric LSA (under 1,320 pounds) plane and free tie-down would be a game-changer for non-commercial use.

(There's no affordable airport access in the Bay Area since tie-downs start at $500/month, and hangars at $1,000/month. No municipality will let you "take off and land" on your driveway in any urban area.)

Otherwise, you're looking at ultralights (under 254 pounds), which is not what most people consider a safe way to commute, but you could trailer. There is one all-metal ultralight, the Hummel, that looks like an airplane, so it is possible to build one for ICE. (See below why that doesn't include electric.)

https://flyhummel.com/ultra-cruiser/

Note that ultralight weights don't include fuel or pax, so it's that weight plus fuel. (LSAs gross weight is 1320 pounds, so that includes fuel and pax.) However, batteries would subtract from the empty weight, making those categories useless!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft

What I described above is non-experimental US aviation. If you're clever, there are workarounds using experimental aircraft that can help with the weight limits. However, you can't do any commercial activities, and insurance may not be available for carrying passengers.

So instead of the SciFi nonsense, please follow the above to create a reality-based plan, instead of "Gee-whiz, I can't wait for electric airliners!"

[vvanders]

Yeah, as I've heard it described from other private pilots is that you should never have a hard requirement be in place X at Y time.

In other words you should always be willing(and able) to cancel a flight under any circumstances or areas of caution.

[toss1]

Indeed!

Checklists are key, but the pilot must be willing & able to take appropriate action when a checklist item fails or cannot be completed -- i.e., stand down & cancel, instead of "it should be fine...".

That failure to cancel is two of the three items usually needed for a crash (the failure itself and the bad pilot decision).

[as-j]

The saying pilots generally have is "If you have time to spare, go by air"

Ok, going 40mi you have only so much weather than can go wrong, but I've had friends trapped at an airport due to weather, leave their plane and drive/fly commercial home. It's a fun hobby though. :D

[mattmaroon]

I've known people who commute this way. You have to of course have a backup plan or be able to work from home if the weather is poor. You just have a plane and a car. And there are parts of the US where you'll be able to fly 90+% of the time if you're only going a short distance and not too picky on timing.

It's definitely not practical for most but it would be great. And not having much of a precheck would be really nice.