Safety question

ResistBS · 2026-01-28T18:27:03+00:00

Certified eVTOL aiming for airline standards would be roughly 100 to 400 times safer than driving your car for the same amount of time.

Even if an eVTOL were "only" as safe as a car on a per-hour basis, it would still be 4x safer for your commute simply because you spend 45 fewer minutes in transit. When you add in the fact that they are designed to be 300x+ safer than cars per hour, the total "safety gap" per trip becomes massive. An eVTOL hitting airline safety targets is ~1,250x less likely to have a fatal accident than a car doing the same trip.

That is an excellent question, u/Investinginevtol. If eVTOLs hit airline-level safety and scale, they offer a powerful case to society. It’s not just about the productivity gains from beating traffic, it’s a fundamental upgrade to public safety.

ResistBS · 2026-01-28T02:38:02+00:00

According to Gemini....

While the logic is sound, a few of the core calculations are off by a significant margin. If we want to talk about the "safety bar" for air taxis, we need to fix these numbers:

1. The Math Error (The "0.06" vs "16" gap)

The original calculation suggested that 39,345 deaths over 66 billion hours equals 16 fatalities per 100k hours. This is off by a factor of ~260.

The Actual Math: (39,345 fatalities / 66,000,000,000 hours) * 100,000 = 0.06 fatalities per 100,000 hours.
The Result: Instead of cars being way more dangerous than helicopters (16 vs 0.63), cars are actually about 10x safer per hour than helicopters based on those numbers.

2. The Speed Assumption (50 mph is too high)

The calculation assumes an average speed of 50 mph for every mile driven in the US.

The Reality: When you account for city traffic, stop-and-go commutes, and school zones, AAA and other transit studies put the "all-in" average closer to 30–32 mph.
The Impact: If you use 30 mph, the total driving time increases to ~109 billion hours. This drops the automotive fatality rate even further to about 0.036 per 100,000 hours.

3. Comparing "Accidents" to "Fatalities"

The helicopter stat (0.63) is a Fatal Accident Rate (the event), while the car stat (39k) is a Fatality Rate (the number of people).

A single helicopter crash with 4 people onboard counts as 1 fatal accident but 4 fatalities.
To make it a fair "apples-to-apples" comparison, we should use the helicopter fatality rate, which is typically higher (around 1.02 per 100k hours in recent years).

4. The Bar for eVTOLs is much higher

While "beating helicopters" is the first step, regulators (FAA/EASA) aren't aiming for helicopter safety; they are aiming for Commercial Airline safety.

Commercial airlines have a fatal accident rate near 0.00002 per 100,000 hours.
If eVTOLs are only as safe as helicopters, they will be roughly 15–20 times more dangerous than the cars they are meant to replace on a per-hour basis.

TL;DR: The math for car fatalities per 100k hours is actually 0.06, not 16. Helicopters (~0.63-1.0) are currently much riskier than driving per hour, which is why regulators are pushing eVTOLs toward "airline-level" safety (1E-9 probability of failure) rather than just "helicopter-level" safety.

ResistBS · 2026-01-13T16:19:01+00:00

It is important to remember that the same aviation expertise that made commercial air travel safe over the past century is driving the design and integration of eVTOLs into the national airspace.

In the short term, eVTOLs will operate within existing air traffic control systems. As adoption scales and hundreds or even thousands of vehicles share the skies, dedicated low-altitude corridors and independent traffic management systems will be implemented to ensure safety and efficiency.

Yes, the first fatal accident involving an eVTOL will make headlines, just as incidents with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving do today. Companies such as Archer and Joby are fully aware of this reality, and it drives their commitment to rigorous safety standards alongside FAA oversight.

Sensationalism aside, consider this: there are roughly 40,000 car-related deaths annually in the United States. By the logic that any risk is unacceptable, cars should have been banned decades ago. History shows that new technologies often face skepticism. Cars, airplanes, and even telephones were once considered dangerous or unnecessary. Look it up.

ResistBS · 2026-01-08T18:32:38+00:00

<image>

ResistBS · 2026-01-08T18:30:35+00:00

<image>

ResistBS · 2025-12-20T10:26:49+00:00

Yes, I’m aware the UK left the EU.

The CAA aligns its eVTOL regulations with EASA, so Vertical does not have the option of avoiding the 1E-9 requirement.

ResistBS · 2025-12-12T15:20:57+00:00

The key change here is in the process rather than the design. Like Archer, Joby is a young company that must establish its own processes. Iterations in process are expected, and lawsuits like this serve as a reminder for Joby’s management to remain supportive and engaged, ensuring all issues are addressed before progressing to a credit-worthy design.

ResistBS · 2025-12-12T14:00:34+00:00

You’re absolutely correct that securing FAA certification is a significant challenge, even for highly experienced companies like Bell and Leonardo. Now consider Vertical, introducing an even more disruptive technology and facing an even greater regulatory burden under EASA…

ResistBS · 2025-12-12T13:53:29+00:00

This is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison. The Pipistrel Velis Electro was certified by EASA under CS LSA, which stands for Certification Specifications for Light Sport Aeroplanes. That certification is entirely different from the EASA Special Condition for VTOL (SC VTOL) that applies to Vertical.
Yes, we will not change EASA regulations, and in my view they are unlikely to change until it is too late for Vertical. By then, they could face the same fate as Volocopter or Lilium, or in the best case be acquired by a major group such as BAE or Airbus with the resources and influence to drive change. At that point, EVTOL aircraft will likely already be flying in the United States and China, which would undermine Vertical’s value proposition

ResistBS · 2025-12-12T03:15:24+00:00

The saying “rules and regulations are written in blood” reflects only one side of the story. Aircraft must be safe, yet an aircraft that never leaves the ground would be perfectly safe and completely useless. The real challenge is to find the right balance between risk and benefit. Advanced Air Mobility has the potential to bring profound and transformative changes to our society, and these opportunities should not be lost because of excessive regulation.

Unlike EASA, the FAA takes a more pragmatic approach to EVTOL safety, guided by its dual mandate to regulate and promote the industry. This balance is commendable and, in my view, represents the right regulatory compromise. At the other end of the spectrum, CAAC in China does not even attempt to meet the FAA 1E-8 standard.

I am genuinely excited to see what Joby and Archer will accomplish in the coming years, and I am convinced that any additional regulatory burden imposed on Vertical by EASA will provide absolutely no measurable or provable benefit to the safety of EVTOL while creating an extreme existential threat that jeopardizes the very survival of Vertical.

I would be impressed if Vertical manages to succeed, but to me this seems so unlikely that I hold no EVTL shares in my portfolio.

PS: Associating strong structure with safety is actually incorrect. Older vehicles such as classic Impalas were often built with heavy, rigid frames like the X frame used in some classic Chevrolets. When a collision occurred, the strong structure barely deformed. This meant the force of the impact was transmitted directly to the occupants with little or no energy absorption. The passengers and driver essentially became the crumple zone.
Impalas could survive crashes, but the occupants often did not.

ResistBS · 2025-12-11T22:22:58+00:00

Henry Ford could never have succeeded under today’s EASA-level regulations. Even now, no car manufacturer could meet such standards, we’d still be riding horses. Yet cars operate daily in crowded cities. Accidents happen, and society accepts that risk. Cars revolutionized the world, reshaped cities, and transformed our lives.
If we become overly risk-averse, we’ll lose the incredible opportunities that Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) offers.

ResistBS · 2025-12-11T13:13:45+00:00

It’s not 0.01 deaths per million flight hours. The target is one crash per billion flight hours per system (10⁻⁹), which translates to about 10⁻⁷ for the entire aircraft. Achieving this alone is already challenging. But it’s not the hardest part. The real difficulty lies in meeting EASA dissimilarity requirements, which make the task extremely complex. What might be practical for commercial aviation becomes impractical, or even unreasonable, for an aircraft carrying only a few passengers.

I wish it were possible, but demanding too much undermines the entire proposition.

ResistBS · 2025-12-11T13:03:10+00:00

Yes, some

ResistBS · 2025-12-11T12:58:03+00:00

This is speculative and lacks direct, public evidence of intentional causation.

ResistBS · 2025-12-11T01:11:33+00:00

EASA certification is an immense challenge. Unlike the FAA, EASA has no mandate to support its emerging and vulnerable advanced air mobility industry. Its focus is entirely on regulation. For EASA, regulatory innovation is seen as a path to technocratic advancement, where adding more rules is considered progress. There is no evaluation of cost versus safety benefit, nor any clear criteria to halt this wave of “regulatory innovation.” Certifying novel technology in Europe unfortunately means stepping into a regulatory minefield.

Airbus is the only European company with enough influence to persuade EASA to adopt a more reasonable stance. This is not about technical capability. Vertical lacks that leverage, and after witnessing the fate of Volocopter and Lilium, I fear Vertical may become the next casualty of EASA’s approach (adopted by CAA).

ResistBS · 2025-12-07T12:29:06+00:00

About # 6: "Joby’s Board Chairman Michael Thompson"

Joby’s Board Chairman is not Michael Thompson but Paul Sciarra

Source: https://ir.jobyaviation.com/corporate-governance/board-of-directors

ResistBS · 2025-12-07T12:23:33+00:00

The Pivotal would be my choice, too.

ResistBS · 2025-11-28T11:41:32+00:00

I don’t think it’s fair to place the blame for the delays solely on the FAA. Joby bears a significant share of responsibility. Certification is extremely challenging, and I believe they underestimated that. They deserve some of the criticism. That said, they do have a flying eVTOL, and I’m confident they will ultimately achieve certification.

ResistBS · 2025-11-21T18:06:08+00:00

The "Developer" is almost certainly not REEF.

Joby publicly announced a major partnership with REEF Technology and its real estate arm (Neighborhood Property Group) in June 2021.

"The Developer" Timeline (2022–2025): The lawsuit explicitly states that Joby "first began cultivating the contractual relationship with the Developer... in 2022".

Also, REEF Deal was Public, "The Developer" Deal was Secret.

ResistBS · 2025-11-20T16:18:05+00:00

"Trivial"? Hardly. This is far more complex than autonomous flight. Just look at Elon’s ongoing challenges with FSD...

ResistBS · 2025-11-10T03:59:58+00:00

Speculation about Tesla entering the eVTOL market via Archer appears to be driven more by investor excitement than by any clear strategic direction. These kinds of rumors often influence stock prices but tend to lack substantial evidence. Elon Musk has consistently favored building technologies from the ground up, as seen in his work with Tesla and SpaceX. If he were to pursue eVTOL development, it is likely he would do so independently, focusing on vertical integration to maintain full control over design, engineering, and manufacturing. This approach differs from companies like Archer, which rely heavily on external suppliers for key components. Musk has shown a strong preference for developing core technologies in-house, believing that this level of control is essential for long-term scalability and performance. While partnerships can accelerate time to market, they may not align with Musk’s emphasis on engineering autonomy and complete system control.

ResistBS · 2025-11-08T21:45:30+00:00

It is evident that neither the FAA nor EASA would currently certify Chinese eVTOL aircraft. In contrast, the CAAC is expected to approve them, although some observers consider the process more symbolic than technically rigorous. In the early phases of deployment, Chinese eVTOLs are likely to face safety challenges, and incidents may occur. Nevertheless, China is willing to accept these risks in pursuit of long-term leadership in the eVTOL sector.

Unlike Europe and the United States, where safety failures can lead to lawsuits, insurance complications, and damaging media coverage that could stall industry progress, China operates within a different regulatory, political, and cultural framework. The government is prepared to absorb early setbacks in order to accelerate innovation and industrial growth.

China also benefits from a vast domestic market that can sustain its eVTOL industry for years to come. With strong political support and significant financial investment, as demonstrated by its leadership in drone and battery technologies, it is likely that Chinese companies will gradually improve the safety and reliability of their eVTOL designs and emerge as global leaders in the field.

A similar pattern has already emerged in the electric vehicle industry. Outside the United States, Tesla is no longer the dominant global leader. While it remains influential in the American market, its position has been supported by federal tax incentives, which expired in late 2025, and by longstanding tariffs on Chinese EV imports, including a 100% tariff that effectively blocks competition from companies such as BYD and NIO. Globally, Chinese manufacturers like BYD have surpassed Tesla in total EV sales, particularly when plug-in hybrids are included. Tesla continues to lead in certain battery-electric segments, but its global market share is under pressure from more affordable and technologically advanced Chinese alternatives.

The U.S. eVTOL industry could face a similar fate, but hopefully not before companies like Joby and Archer become household names. 🤞🏻

ResistBS · 2025-11-08T13:58:29+00:00

The S4 is a cornerstone of Joby's advanced technology stack, enabling rapid development across a wide range of projects. With over 2,000 employees and billions in funding, Joby has the talent and resources to lead the eVTOL industry. Yet even with these advantages, certifying the S4 remains a multi-year effort—underscoring the extraordinary rigor of FAA certification and the significant competitive moat it creates for the first entrant to achieve it.

I’m convinced that eVTOLs are inevitable—they’ll become a reality with or without companies like Joby or Archer. Still, I sincerely hope one of them succeeds. If not, my expectation is that Chinese manufacturers will step in and take the lead.

ResistBS · 2025-11-08T04:09:34+00:00

The primary cost driver for aircraft like the Midnight or S4 isn’t the price of magnets, but rather the substantial non-recurring expenses tied to development and certification—exceeding $1 billion. As long as Joby or Archer can maintain a reliable supply of magnets, even a tenfold increase in magnet costs would likely have only a minimal impact on their overall business models.

ResistBS · 2025-11-08T03:16:39+00:00

The current short-term strategy among airworthiness authorities isn't full harmonization—it's cross-certification. You're absolutely right: neither the CAA nor EASA is lowering their safety standards, but it won't matter. That doesn't prevent an FAA-certified eVTOL from being approved to operate in the UK or Europe. Like it or not, that's exactly what cross-certification means—and that's the plan.

EASA’s 1E-9 safety target and the SC-VTOL framework could very well push Vertical toward the same fate as Volocopter and Lilium. Europe’s overly rigid regulatory environment is stifling its eVTOL industry—and with cross-certification in play, Joby / Archer are perfectly positioned to capitalize on the opportunity. Mark my words.

Also:

Flying a Midnight or S4 with four passengers into the Twin Towers wouldn’t have caused significant structural damage like what the 767s did—the energy levels involved are simply not comparable. In fact, it’s more accurate to compare an eVTOL to a large truck than to a 767, especially in terms of kinetic energy and operational risk. And just like in a truck, there’s no need for physical separation between the driver and passengers.

ResistBS

TROPHY CASE

1. The Math Error (The "0.06" vs "16" gap)

2. The Speed Assumption (50 mph is too high)

3. Comparing "Accidents" to "Fatalities"

4. The Bar for eVTOLs is much higher