They could enforce a rule that the pilot must have appropriate certificates and ratings to fly a manned aircraft of similar size. Perhaps enforce a minimum of Single-Engine Land, Instrument Airplane, and a Commercial ticket.

For something larger (predator size) mandate that the pilot have an ATP. They could also mandate that the operator be located at the departure or arrival airport during operation and force them to get flight following or fly on an instrument plan. Give them N-Numbers and allow controllers to violate the pilot based on their actions.

I read: "such things exist for ultralights and small planes now" and instantly thought "The Cirrus isn't a small plane..."

I think that would be interesting. Car gets a dent and then I get rear ended. :)

Paper charts are replaced quite often. I know international flights get a big stack of paper freshly printed with every flight along with their normal paper wares (charts, etc).

Where are you getting Jet-A for $3/gal? KACY has Jet-A for over $6/gal and KPTW has it for about $5.40.

We're still using VORs and, to a limited extent, NDBs. I'm not sure about other flight schools, but I had to learn VORs and that's what they want you to demonstrate on the test. :) A lot of instrument approaches still use VORs, too.

We get the same thing in aviation. You have the folks that regularly use pilotage (visual landmarks checked against a sectional map) and dead reckoning (course calculation, etc) who have a GPS there just for situational awareness (e.g., ensure that they don't wander into a Class Bravo or Class Charlie airspace without permission).

Then you have the guys who have no idea what a VOR is for and probably couldn't find where they were using a sectional, and they just use the "Direct To" button on their GPS to get to where they are going.

Everyone has to learn method 1 to get their ticket, but not everyone keeps current with it and people end up forgetting/being out of pratice/getting lazy and using #2. I would feel very nervous relying entirely on a GPS for aviation navigation.

This is not true, actually. Regulation E covers both credit and debit cards. If you report the fraud within two days of discovering the fraudulent activity, you can be liable for up to $50 (some banks, like mine, offer zero liability). If you wait longer, you could be liable for up to $500. The big difference is that a credit card charge is typically reversed during the Regulation E claim investigation, while a debit card transaction is left there during the investigation. Many banks will give you a provisional credit during the investigation (debit card) but I do not believe they are obligated to do so. Investigations can take a while, so if your money is tied up due to a Reg-E claim, you could be screwed.

Isn't that what the original AC did? Pigeonhole republicans into the belief-sets that he listed, while ignoring a well-known exception to the rights that the democratic party "likes"?

I pointed out that the argument was somewhat hypocritical. I'm somewhat liberal and looking at both sides, the democrats get mad that republicans want to dump on their right to [gay marriage, abortion, etc] and the republicans get mad that democrats want to dump on their right to buy guns. If people are picking and choosing which rights they want to protect and which they want to get rid of, you can't get mad when the other guy does the same thing.

Don't want a gun? Don't get one.. wait.. right? Oh, it only works on things you like. Sorry.

$500 over what period of time? A week?

+1, Parent, wish I had mod points. For thousands of years, there has always been an end-of-the-world crisis. The human species is quite resilient and innovative when motivated properly. :)

Oh, man. That sounds like a huge pain in the neck.

Why did you get re-scanned between connections? Usually I arrive at a gate in the secure area, and walk (or run) to another gate, still within the secure area.

I think this is really cool but it seems impractical. Aircraft are very expensive to maintain and you'll need a pilot certificate to fly this. It's probably cheaper to have a car and rent a plane (or, depending on the cost of this thing, just buy a used 172). The usable load is very low, as well (hopefully that 330lbs number is in addition to fuel).

I also look at this from the perspective of being a "dual-purpose" vehicle; most of which are mediocre. A common example might be a dual-sport motorcycle. It's not a great motorcycle and it's not a great dirtbike, but it can do both. Just from the looks (wings all folded up, blocking vision out of the rear windows, etc) this is not going to be a practical car. I guess we'll see how good of an airplane it will be. My question is, what problem does this solve? You drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then get out of the car and do your pre-flight? How is that different from getting out of your car and doing your pre-flight on your regular aircraft?

Either way, this seems like a neat invention. I think they'll have trouble selling 200 of these, especially if they are priced similarly to normal small aircraft, but it would be really cool to see this thing in person.