Personal Airborne Vehicles
Priorities to consider before deployment for operation by the General Public
Lead:
Associates:
Dr Chai Lei (Phd, MDS, DipEd)
Sheena De-Jager-Miles (BA - Mass Media)
Shirley Tao (BBus - Information Technology)
Timeline:
Research beginning:
Last Questionnaire return accepted:
Data input, categorization, collation
and analysis completed:
Report completion & publishing:
Resources:
1st September 2018
30th June 2020
10th September 2020
22nd January 2021
Data collection services supplied by DRG Global Ltd, CatalystMR Ltd,
Discovery Research co., Karvy Insights Ltd, Global NR, C23 Research
Spain, IGV Marktforschung GmbH, Psyma Latina Mexico, IBISWorld
Australia
Resources for the collation and aggregation of data were granted, housed
and supported by Servers Australia Pty Ltd in their mass data storage and
collation center, Brisbane Australia.
Staffing resources for categorization, input and verification of data
supplied by Pacific West Data Pty Ltd and joint venture partners from
offices in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, France and USA.
This work was commissioned and released by the Pacific West Group. Under the Copyright Act of
Australia 1968 (as amended) the authors (Dr Chai Lei, Sheena De-Jager-Miles & Shirley Tao) and data
owners (Pacific West Data Pty Ltd) assert their right to claim this paper as an original work.
INTRODUCTION
From the period of the late 1960’s through to
the late 1990’s there was a surge in the public
knowledge of scientific advances. During this
period the public and entertainment media
engaged in the fanciful desire and creation of
fictitious future societies which they actively
envisaged would come about in the new
millennium.
One prominent feature of these envisaged
societies was a form of personal airborne
vehicle. These vehicles almost always
resembled, in operation, safety and style, what
the world had come to understand as common
usage vehicles from the road industry. Often
depictions also had features and operational
characteristics which resembled those of the
marine industry.
This led to the idea of the “flying car” as
being the depiction of future advanced society.
In current science fiction media we still see
that the concept of the “flying car” is a
fundamental icon of a futuristic society.
In the new millennium it seemed that all
projects aimed at developing such personal
airborne vehicles (PAV) were doomed to
failure. This situation was so definite that no
PAV of the nature envisaged has been
developed even though it seems the
technology is prevalent. A comic relief which
aptly states the general public’s opinion on
this situation can be found in the now defunct
website “www.wheresmyflyingcar.com” and
the book of the same name by J Storrs Hall [1]
With the new millennium also came a surge
in an offshoot industry - drones for personal
use. The industry has taken on the ideas of
the personal airborne vehicle and tried to
make them palatable to regulatory control by
creating versions that are either autonomous
or have remote drivers. The drivers of these
vehicles are essentially helicopter or airplane
pilots. This approach in effect removes the
ability of the general population to use the
vehicles for every-day usage. However it has
generated a lot of interest in the options which
can be investigated in this industry.
It has now been around 15 years since this
offshoot redirection within the industry. This
instance of the industry has included input of
major players such as Boeing and AirBus.
Despite this and the promise of better things
to come, the industry for personal “flying cars”
has yet to actually start.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to investigate the
possible reasons for this inability of the PAV
industry to become active and viable.
The study will focus on practical items and
concerns that parties connected with the
industry have expressed or which may impact
the general implementation of the industry.

impediments to the proliferation and
usage of PAV’s by the general
population

practical problems with the
manufacture and usage of PAV’s by
the general population

areas of practical concern for the
operation of PAV’s by the general
public and authorities
METHOD
The study participants encompassed:
 Federal/State regulatory authorities
 Transport authorities
 Manufacturers
 Distributors
 The general population
As the Manufacturers and Distributors are
likely to be subject to any regulatory control
and various economic factors they were not
included in this study.
The reasoning for this non-inclusion is that
the purpose of the study is to find practical
impediments. Financial impediments are
arbitrary and subject to the ability and
resources of the manufacturer or seller.
Regulation on manufacturing is covered in
any regulatory framework created by the
relevant authorities and would most likely be
developed in cooperation with the
manufacturers. This basis effectively
removes these arbitrary and nominal problems
from importance in this study.
Media coverage was studied in a number of
countries to gauge the pertinence of PAV’s to
social and governmental acceptance. The
following items were included as methods for
gauging this acceptance:

Social media coverage
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
2



Websites talking about PAV’s or
Drones of a nature which embodied
the concept of “flying cars”
Companies setup for R&D PAV’s or
Drones of a nature which embodied
the concept of “flying cars”
News media coverage on recognized
news channels within the country
It is difficult to determine the amount of
finance which has gone into the R&D within
the various companies so this factor was
removed from the study equation.
A list of the countries which showed the
greatest interest and the participants from
those countries is displayed in References
Section [2] & [3] below.
The following segments were selected as
participating populations:


21 representatives from Federal
Authorities [2]

37 representatives from Transport and
Marine Authorities [2]

103,300 representatives from the
general population [3]
Participants from the general public were
approached by various agencies who
randomly selected participants from available
lists of persons who had given permission for
data collection. A total of 150,000 were
approached and 103,358 returned the
questionnaire within the required timeframe.
Participants from the federal, marine and
transport authorities were from the safety and
regulatory departments. A cross section of
administrative, inspection and authorizing
staff who were willing to participate were
found from these departments.
The federal/state authority for air
traffic
QUESTIONNAIRE



A random selection of state/province
road transport authorities
A random selection of state/province
marine authorities
A random selection of people from the
general population who did not work
for or have contact with one of the
above authorities.
The study was done anonymously to ensure
each individual representative was able to
answer without concern for their personal
data being collected or used for any purposes
other than this study.
A total of 103,358 participants responded to
the questionnaire within the required
timeframe.
The criteria listed in References Section [4]
below were presented for answers on the
questionnaire.
Participants were asked to give as much detail
as they felt necessary and to ensure that the
answers were in point form.
Each participant was given a 4 week
timeframe to return the questionnaire. This
time period allowed them to put some thought
into the information they were supplying.
It was thought that the 4 week timeframe
would give more informed results than
information supplied without due thought
given to the subject.
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
3
RESULTS
Question (1)

100,205 participants felt that PAV’s
would be a factor of future society.

3,153 participants felt that PAV’s
would not be a factor of future society.
Question (2)


99,504 participants felt that PAV’s
would be operated in a similar manner
to current cars and boats.
3854 participants felt that PAV’s
would not operate in a similar manner
to current cars and boats.
There were 102,467 participants who
responded to Question (4). The answers were
in point form and were spread over the broad
categorizations of:
Category
Financial (control by various
current interests)
Regulatory (no current
regulatory structure)
Safety (no applicable current
safety standard)
Insurance/liability (no current
recognized insurance
structure)
Other items
Point
Items
180,285
204,879
251,492
163,965
31,238
Question (5) & (7)
Note: of the 3,854 participants who
answered “No” to Question (2), 3,153
participants also answered “No” to
Question (1). Therefore only 701
participants who felt PAV’s would be part
of the future society also felt that these
PAV’s would operate in a different
manner to current cars and boats.
Question (3)
556 participants gave answers to Question (3).
The answers were categorized as autonomous
(498) and semi-autonomous (58) vehicle
modes of operation.
For the purposes of this study these answers
were not applicable to the overall
requirements and thus were not included in
the final categorization of results.
During input and collation of the answers to
Question (5) & (7) it became obvious that all
the point items could be categorized into
similar groupings. To this end the data from
Question (5) & (7) were combined to give a
final figure for each category.
A total of 2,054,708 point items were entered
as data for the combined Question (5) & (7).
These were categorized into the following
groupings:
Total Population
Point
Category
Items
Geo-Political Problems
410,942
Liability for Disaster
452,036
Passenger Safety
636,959
Regulatory Control
287,659
Flight Dangers
246,565
Other Items
20,547
(See Reference Section [5] for detailed explanations of
categories)
Question (4)
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
4
Transport Authorities
Total Population
Geo-political
Problems
1%
12%
Liability for
Disaster
20%
Passenger Safety
14%
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Total
Regulatory
Control
22%
31%
Flight Dangers
Transport Authorities
1%
Other Items
10%
Total
Point
Items
671
528
406
203
203
20
2,031
Federal Authorities
1%
10%
33%
10%
20%
23%
Federal Authorities
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Point
Items
1059
1060
1377
1218
530
53
5,297
20%
26%
General Population
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Total
Point
Items
122,826
409,422
982,613
204,711
307,067
20,471
2,047,110
20%
26%
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
5
General Population
Overall Priority by Category
(Federal Authority)
1%
15%
6%
20%
10%
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
%
Priority 1
30
14
33
11
48%
Overall Priority by Category
(Transport Authority)
Ratings – Question (6) & (8)
After categorization of the point items listed
in Question (5) & (7) the priorities applied by
participants were averaged within the
categories to highlight:

the overall priority of each category

specific areas within the categories
which were highlighted by
participants
Following are subsets of the data showing the
number of items listed as priority 1 in each
category.
See Reference Section [6] for full table of
priorities by category.
Overall Priority by Category
(Total Population)
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
%
Priority 1
16
17
39
16
11
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
%
Priority 1
15
19
38
23
14
Overall Priority by Category
(General Population)
Category
Geo-Political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
%
Priority 1
20
45
15
20
Question (9)
The majority of participants (102,146)
answered Yes, regulation for PAV’s should
be handled in a similar manner to current
regulation of the road and marine industry.
Of the remaining (1,212) participants who
answered No, 21 were from the Aviation
Authorities. This constitutes 100% of the
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
6
representatives from the aviation authorities
who participated.

High numbers of vehicles working
without control systems in a small 3D
space.
Question (10)

Policing by local authorities.
100% of participants who gave a short answer
for how they thought PAV’s should be
regulated listed the aviation industry
regulatory framework as the preferred method
for regulation of PAV’s.
CONCLUSIONS
Assumptions
Specific Items of Concern
Following analysis of the point items within
the categories the following items were able
to be highlighted as items of specific concern
to participants. These items were mentioned
as point items and given a high priority (1-5)
by a majority of participants.

Operators flying over political areas
such as borders

Operators flying over unsafe areas
such as residential and city

Operators flying over restricted areas
such as airports and hospitals



Data results are skewed towards the
majority population segment –
General Population. This is because
the majority of participants are from
that segment.

Federal and Transport Authorities are
the bodies which recommend, design
and enforce policy. It is therefore
logical their understanding of
requirements are:
a) More informed than the General
Population segment due to
industry involvement
b) Based on compounded knowledge
stored within the industry
Atmospheric difficulties such as
turbulence, air pressure and icing
which operators may not be trained to
handle
c) Based on a working knowledge of
statistical data from the last 100+
years of industry standardization
and regulation.
Vertical engine failure

Horizontal air breaking of a moving
vehicle

Maneuvering of the vehicle

Power failures

Emergency procedures
It is therefore logical to assume that
the weight of decisions to create and
implement policy will be skewed
towards the views of the Federal and
Transport Authorities.

Understanding of engineering
problems to do with risks during flight
are not well understood by the General
Population segment.
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
7
Conclusion 1
99% of items listed as concerns or
impediments fall into 5 categories across all
population segments (see References Section
[5]).
This indicates that regardless of population
segment viewpoint or experience, there is a
general agreement on what the impediments
are to PAV’s being proliferated for day-today usage by the general public.
This focus on passenger safety suggests that
participants may feel standardized safety
components and regulation have not yet been
specified, designed or created for the safe
operation of PAV’s.
Conclusion 3
As above the main impediment cited was that
passenger safety components and regulations
had not yet been specified or drafted for the
every-day usage by the general public.
Conclusion 2
There is a noticeable difference in assignment
of importance across categories between the
different population segments.
Extrapolating from the current road, air and
marine regulatory frameworks, this would
extend to manufacture, componentry and
operational ability.
This can be accounted for by:
Conclusion 4
a) The assumptions listed above
b) The different focuses for the different
population segments.



Federal authorities appear to be
more focused on items which
affect the over-all population and
security of the country.
Transport authorities appear to be
more focused on items which
affect the general control and
safety within their region of
influence or control.
The general population appears to
be more focused on the safety and
freedom for personal usage of the
vehicles.
The most commonly mentioned and
assigned the highest priority over
all is operator/passenger safety.
The most important priority for policy makers
was geo-political problems. This suggests that
these population segments feel there is a need
to design and draft regulations and standards
that cover:

Political borders and immigration

No-fly zones (hospitals, military,
airports etc)

Policing (tracking, apprehending,
restricting usage etc)

Privacy

Residential and city flying

Standardized rules of driving such as
the current road, air and marine
standards.
Failure to comprehend these political
impediments appears to be one of the main
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
8
reasons for the current non-viability of the
industry[1].
Conclusion 5
The second most important priority across the
population segments is that of liability. It
appears that all segments agree that there is
not yet any adequate specification of
regulation surrounding:

Handling of accidents

Handling of insurance

General safety requirements for
operating a PAV

Emergency regulations and
components
Conclusion 6
The majority of participants (including
Authorities) felt that PAV’s should be
regulated and controlled in a similar manner
to the current road and marine regulatory
framework.
This indicates that participants felt that the
future vehicles would become a substitute for
the current personal use road industry.
It also indicates that the participants have
confidence in the knowledge store,
methodologies, standardization and
operational regulation which is in the current
road and marine industry.
The implication is that the regulatory and
safety regimes can be utilized as a starting
point and built upon for a regulatory
framework for PAV’s.
The fact that the general population segment
showed little interest in flight safety items
being prioritized as high indicates that the
general engineering problems with flight are
poorly understood by that segment.
It can be extrapolated that this is analogous to
the understanding of the safety components
within current road vehicles.
Due to this it would appear necessary that any
manufacture of PAV’s must be regulated to
contain the same automatic safety
methodology and ease of use which is current
in the road and marine industry.
It follows that this regulation must extend to
the design, manufacture and testing of
vehicles in a similar rigorous manner which is
applied to the current road, air and marine
industries.
Item points listed by aviation industry
authorities focused on the need to include
air safety factors and specific training in
operating in 3D space.
Conclusion 8
From the high priorities assigned to
regulatory control by the polled authorities it
is clear that a major impediment to the
proliferation of PAV’s for day-to-day usage
by the general population is that of consistent
and standardized regulation in order to
control:

Where people can fly

How they can fly

How the vehicles can be policed and
apprehended
Conclusion 7
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
9

Manufacture, installation and testing
of automatic and manual safety
equipment
following are a condensed list of specific
point items which were repeated by the
majority of participants.

A standard set of operational
guidelines (what side to pass, how
close a vehicle can get to a building or
other vehicle, flying in adverse
conditions etc)
The priorities assigned to these items varied
depending on the population segment and
their skew of focus (as described in Assumptions
above), however all items condensed to this
list were given a priority of 1-5.

Operators flying over political areas
such as borders

Operators flying over unsafe areas
such as residential and city

Operators flying over restricted areas
such as airports and hospitals

Atmospheric difficulties such as
turbulence, air pressure and icing
which operators may not be trained to
handle

Vertical engine failure
Engines that provide lift ability to the
vehicle to keep it airborne.

Horizontal air breaking of a moving
vehicle

Maneuvering of the vehicle in 3D
space

Power failures

Emergency procedures

High numbers of vehicles working
without control systems in a small 3D
space.

Policing by local authorities

Automatic passenger/operator safety
devices
Overall Conclusion
The study highlights the need for the design
of a regulatory framework for manufacture,
testing, operation and general regulation of
PAV’s. The participants indicated the desire
for a much more controlled approach than the
start of the current motor industry in the
1800-1900’s.
Participants indicated knowledge of what is
assumed to be standard regulatory and safety
needs for any new vehicle industry. This
would appear to show a confidence that the
current motor, air and marine industry has a
good working knowledge of what is needed
and how to create the regulatory framework to
implement that in the new PAV industry.
It can be extrapolated from this basis that it
would be acceptable for regulation of any new
industry for PAV’s could be controlled in the
same manner as the current road and marine
industry. Notwithstanding it was highlighted
there would need to be some allowance for air
safety and control which is not currently in
the road and marine industries.
The cross referencing of ideas from all
population segments indicates that a
collaboration between the current industry
authorities would be acceptable.
The study also highlights there are very
specific items which must be addressed
besides the general safety and regulation
concerning ownership and usage. The
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
10

Liability and recovery of disasters
These items show specific areas which need
to be addressed before:
a) The public accept the use of PAV’s
b) The regulatory authorities accept the
proliferation of PAV’s for the personal
day-to-day use by the general public
References
[1]
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42036377-where-is-my-flying-car
[2]
Regional Authorities
The following is a breakdown of the selected authorities and participants within
each country. They are listed in alphabetical order with no reference to the
gauging of the prominence of the subject within the country:
Country
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
India
New Zealand
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
USA
No. of
Authority
Representatives
Federal Airports Corporation
2
QLD Main Roads
3
NSW Main Roads
3
Civil Aviation Authority
2
Transport Authority of Brussels-Capital
2
National Civil Aviation Agency
1
Ministry of Transport
2
Canadian Airports Council
2
Canadian Transport Agency
3
Civil Aviation Authority
3
EMTA
3
Federal Aviation Authority
2
Federal Ministry of Transport
4
Airports Authority of India
2
Dehli Transport Department
3
Civil Aviation Authority
1
NZ Transport Agency
2
Civil Aviation Authority
1
Regional Transport Department Madrid
3
Civil Aviation Administration
2
Swedish Transport Administration
2
Civil Aviation Authority
1
Department of Transport
2
Federal Airport Authority
2
California State Transport Agency
2
Metropolitan Transportation Authority NY
3
Total
58
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
12
[3]
General Population Respondents
Below is a breakdown of the representation of responding participants from the
general population from the countries selected for study:
Country
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
India
New Zealand
Spain
Sweden
UAE
United Kingdom
USA
Total
No. of
Representatives
5,000
2,500
5,500
4,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
300
15,000
20,000
103,300
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
13
[4]
Questionnaire
Definitions:
 “Flying car” is the definition given to a personal use vehicle which travels via
airborne means not through the medium of road or water.

“Operated in a similar manner” depicts a vehicle following the same thought
process for safety, operation, manufacture standards and regulatory
framework as is current for road and marine vehicles operated for personal use.

“proliferation of personal flying cars” means the common day-to-day usage
and operation by ordinary members of the public as is current for road and
marine vehicles operated for personal use.

When asked to rate items please rate from 1 (most important) to 100 (least
important. Please indicate clearly beside the item with a single number (1100).
No.
Question
1 Do you think flying cars will be factor in the future
of society
2 Do you think flying cars will be operated in a
similar manner to current motor transport
3 If “No” to question 2 above please explain how
you feel they could be operated by the general
public
4 Please list reasons why you feel there is currently
no flying car industry
5 List concerns you have with the proliferation of
personal flying cars for general public use
6 Please rate the order of importance of these
concerns
7 List impediments to proliferation of personal
flying cars for general public use
8 Please rate the order of importance of these
impediments
9 Do you think that flying cars should be regulated
in the same manner as current road and marine
vehicles?
10 If “No” please explain how they should be
regulated
Expected
Answer
Y/N
Y/N
Short
answer
List
answer
List
answer
List
answer
Y/N
Short
answer
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
14
[5]
Point Item Categories
Detailed explanations of “concerns” and “impediments” to proliferation of PAV’s
for use by the general public.
Category
Geo-political Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
[6]
Description
border crossings, immigration, no-fly zones (hospitals,
military, essential services, government etc), general residential
and city flying, privacy
vehicle falling out of sky, crashing into buildings, general crash
liability, 3rd party damage, environmental problems
ability to control passenger safety in a manner equivalent to or
better than current road and marine industry, additional
passenger safety for vertical drop failures, crashing over water
standard operating procedures, ownership and registration,
tracking, manufacture, safety standards, environmental safety
and standards
atmospheric problems (icing, depressurization, etc), turbulence,
flight control with multiple vehicles in a 3D space
Priority details by category
The following table depicts the percentage of items listed with each priority
within the defined categories.
When inputting data rating of priority items it was noted that a number of
participants only rated the top 1-10 items. This meant they left many items
unrated. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the participant felt the
items were necessary and of some importance – the reasoning being the
participant would not have entered the items on the questionnaire if they did not
feel the items were relevant to the purpose of the study. However the participant
did not think they were significantly important to over-rule any of the items which
they had rated.
Items which were submitted and were unrated are consolidated with the lowest
rating on which the participant rated items within the same category.
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
15
Category
Geo-Political
Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Category
Geo-Political
Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Category
Geo-Political
Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
Category
Geo-Political
Problems
Liability for Disaster
Passenger Safety
Regulatory Control
Flight Dangers
Other Items
% P1
16
17
39
16
11
% P1
30
14
33
11
% P1
15
19
38
23
14
%
P2
13
24
28
22
19
%
P2
24
25
23
18
10
%
P2
14
20
34
28
25
Total Population
%
%
%
P3
P4 %P5 P6
22
17
19
23
24
18
14
7
16
18
13
11
6
11
13
16
7
10
1
6
7
13
Federal Authorities
%
%
%
P3
P4 %P5 P6
23
19
18
32
24
20
17
11
22
28
3
14
8
13
26
47
11
7
4
9
38
Transport Authorities
%
%
%
P3
P4 %P5 P6
30
15
27
16
32
20
12
1
13
11
%
P7
%
P8
%
P9
% P10 % P11
6
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
4
38
1
2
1
1
1
1
33
%
P7
1
%
P8
%
P9
% P10 % P11
%
P8
%
P9
% P10 % P11
3
15
%
P7
11
10
5
9
5
8
5
9
7
8
6
3
4
1
2
100
% P1
18
45
15
20
%
P2
26
27
14
23
General Population
%
%
%
P3
P4 %P5 P6
12
17
13
25
15
15
13
11
14
14
25
11
4
12
8
%
P7
%
P8
%
P9
% P10 % P11
21
9
13
6
9
3
2
8
7
4
5
100
3
4
2
3
2
1
Personal Airborne Vehicles – Priorities to consider before deployment and operation by the general public
1
16