[golwengaud]

Setting the legalities aside, flying any of these without the training behind a pilot's license sounds like a great way to have some fun, right up until you have a really bad day. Maybe you can skip the license---I haven't looked at those regs myself---but you can't skip the skills.

(I'd also want to take a hard look at the design, parts, and maintenance before I flew something like this---but I don't really have the training or experience to do that. I know some people who I might trust to do it for me, but I think they all have A&P certificates. Again, maybe you can take shortcuts & skip the expensive, highly trained mechanic, but that shortcut may not take you where you want to go.)

[jillesvangurp]

Flying the plane is the easy part. What makes getting a pilots license hard and expensive is all the complex rules and regulations you have to know about and the complex engine operation that you have to be proficient in to fly safely. And what makes keeping a license expensive is the requirement to stay current, which means flying a certain amount of hours. Which is not cheap.

In my opinion, general aviation is due for a little disruption. Basically current cost, rules, training and practices are appropriate for planes that are half a century old, have a combustion engine, and require a lot of micro managing to fly safely, and regular and expensive inspections to keep airworthy.

The electrical drones and more or less autonomous planes currently being designed by dozens of companies are very different in nature. Cheaper to manufacture (less moving parts). Cheaper to operate (less maintenance, electricity is cheap). Fly by wire; you just point them in the right direction and they go there. They are orders of magnitude easier to deal with for pilots. Less buttons, dials, switches, etc. Some of these things can operate without a pilot even.

There are going to be a lot of experimental planes with electrical engines and a small enough battery that you might even operate them without a license. It will take a while for these to get very cheap as the high end batteries with > 500 wh/kg still are a combination of very hard to get and expensive. But they are getting to market. At least two companies have announced they are shipping such batteries this year. One of them is CATL. Better batteries might follow in a few years. But 500wh/kg is good enough to improve ranges quite a bit of currently already flying planes. And it also enables smaller form factors. Electrically propelled para gliders already exist, for example.

It will take a while but the rules are likely going to have to be adjusted for these new types of planes. And since they are much cheaper to operate, there will also be a lot of pressure for the current ATC system to be modernized to keep up with the growing number of planes.

[_ea1k]

+1 - They are simpler and slower, but not really safe without adequate training. Best to get quite a bit of it, though it wouldn't need to be as extensive as a private pilot course.

[AdrianB1]

They are the only thing an old pilot can continue to fly after they can no longer pass a strict medical check. For this purpose, they are perfect. For random people trying to fly without training they are a natural selection tool.

[CobaltFire]

Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous.

Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft.

[golwengaud]

> Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft.

Interesting! How so?

> Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous.

What do you have in mind?

Quite a lot of what worries me when I fly involves misjudging the combination of weather with the aircraft's capabilities & my capabilities. Time under the care of a good instructor helps a whole lot with that judgement: you get to see a whole bunch of conditions that are beyond your capabilities & struggle with them, without endangering yourself or the aircraft. And (e.g.) winds variable 13-23, 3G12 on runway 09 is not so trivial, even if your aircraft has a 15kt crosswind limitation.

Or---I fly gliders, and I've had it drummed into my head that you never ever fly between trees when you're landing in some random field, because there may be a power line and power lines are a great way to kill yourself.

There are a thousand things like this, that are more about environment & pilot than aircraft.

(FWIW I've flown power in the past, but mostly fly gliders now; still newish. Maybe that skews my perceptions a bit; glider pilots are pretty willing to fly in windy or gusty conditions, in search of ridge or wave lift, so it's not so uncommon that I'm standing there asking myself "sure, the much more experienced pilots are fine to fly in this, but am I fine?" This is really hard! I'm really grateful to my instructors for giving me knowledge & experience with which to make that decision, and for giving me good training to fall back on if I misjudge!)

[CobaltFire]

To stay under the Part 103 weight requirements you are almost certain to need a small, air cooled, two stroke engine. Even the best of these fall FAR short of both the TBO and reported MTBF numbers. As an example, offhand the Rotax 582s were a 200hr TBO and were known for cutting out in flight if abused or not maintained very well.

As for them being less lethal, that comes down to the listed operating areas and the limits imposed by the construction of them. In reality they are just less lethal to non-involved bystanders; they will still kill their pilots quite easily.

[joshuahaglund]

Part 103 aircraft must have a stall speed under 25 knots and a top powered speed of 55 knots in level flight. I don't fly but I imagine aircraft designed for lower speeds could be more survivable in a crash. Also you need less runway to land

[nullfield]

Well, one of the planes mentioned somewhere has a full-frame parachute, so as a worst-case kinda thing, maybe you have a bumpy landing?

It’s like other things you can do but maybe shouldn’t do, where you’re making questionable life decisions if you know nothing and still opt out of training. …though the people opting out are probably the ones who lack the self-awareness to note the questionable nature of that choice.

[wkat4242]

Yeah gliding is great. I started at 15 before I was even allowed to take driving lessons.

I did some GA motor flying lessons since but never really liked it. It's so incredibly noisy and do procedural. Gliding is much more seat of the pants and it's a sport to stay up as long as possible.

Also the low speeds and air brakes/spoilers make landing a breeze even out of field.

If I pick up flying again (I moved recently so I couldn't stay in the club) it'll be gliding for sure.

[sokoloff]

> even if your aircraft has a 15kt crosswind limitation

Aircraft are certified with a demonstrated crosswind component, which is not a limitation.