We probably have the highest wing loading of any aircraft, therefore the impact of turbulence is much less than fixed wing or helicopter. The pilot has belly strap and lock holding them to vehicle unless they need to release in an emergency in which case it has pyro cutter.

In rain you’d get wet just like riding a motorcycle on the road. The engines keep running fine.

Flying into birds is not recommended for any aircraft. They wouldn’t go into the engines but could hit the pilot then our safety systems would need to deploy.

Lightning usually won’t take an aircraft of any type out of the sky but may affect instruments.

Thankyou for sticking around and answering so many questions!

My first thought was "why is the pilot hunched over the intakes?" immediately followed by "holy hell that wing/disc loading must play hell on power requirements and fuel consumption, how does that work?".

You mention a scale model elsewhere, is there any video of it available online?

To your point, all of those can be fatal for existing light aircraft.

True. To build on OPs point though, these aren't exactly comparable. Specifically, light aircraft:

* are piloted by people who have to be certified pilots, which takes considerable training

* are flown at higher altitudes than what this product's marketing is suggesting

* are much more expensive to own/operate

* are only allowed to take off from specific places (regional airports) that tend to be away from high population density areas

* can use the lift from wings to potentially glide to safety if engine failures occur

This concept looks like it works best for short hops between high population density areas, and is at a price point and training level (read: none) that would mean many more potential vehicles would be in the air. So it's not only the above issues but also a matter of degree.

Oh, I totally agree. I was attempting to make the point that purpose-built aircraft with more highly trained pilots still succumb to this. A random on a flying motorcycle doesn’t stand a chance.

Ya it seems like risk profile isn't very clear, nor do major risks have sufficient mitigations.

I feel like the easier place to start is a low-speed automated cargo delivery system that runs on pre-defined flight paths and only in certain weather conditions. Even then you're dealing with pretty decent risk profile given the failure mode of anything flying is rather dangerous.

I'm not against flying things in cities per se, just want to see the discussion go more like 1) flying things are good for X Y Z reasons, 2) major issues to address before we get there include A B C, 3) here's how we're solving those to unlock this new opportunity. Maybe that discussion is happening in other places, but I'd love to see these safety factors better addressed by anyone building these types of things, else it doesn't build much confidence in the viability of the company.

The safety system has to be integral with initial design and it is. Before these are used in urban environments the machine must be able to set itself down safely regardless of the failure. That is possible.

Cool, I'd love to see the specifics. I imagine it'd be impressive and worthy of showing off.

Many are fatal on an ordinary motorcycle too. Motorcyclists accept those risks.