Saying “ChatGPT told me …” is a fast track to getting your input dismissed on our team. That phrasing shifts accountability from you to the AI. If we really wanted advice straight from the model, we wouldn’t need a human in the loop - we’d ask it ourselves.
First of all: great that you’re working on bringing innovation to general aviation! During training I also wondered about some technical aspects, as a lot of the tech in an airplane is from almost 60-70 years ago.
However, as a PPL holder myself I think that understanding weight and balance, aerodynamics, flight planning, ATC, airlaw, principles of flight etc. is paramount to keep yourself and others safe.
In the air you cannot simply drive to the side of the road and have a look at what’s going on. As a pilot you must be able to make decisions on the spot. To be able to make those properly, you have to understand what’s going on from first principles. In aviation safety is the primary goal. Statistically more than 80% of aviation accidents can be traced back to human error. Anything that facilitates bringing people in the pilot seat suggesting they need less training is something i strictly oppose.
Despite, anything that helps to simplify aircraft operations may decrease cognitive load and is therefore welcome.
I guess you're aware of the ICAO/FAA hoops you have to jump through to get anything of what you're developing beyond experimental certificate but having seen how long it took e.g. Volocopter to gain their (still incomplete) type certificate it is a long road.
If you'd be able to simplify avionics and create an affordable standardized fly-by-wire kit that alone would be a great innovation for GA especially in the ultralight and light sport aircraft category.
A - Just as with customer reviews on amazon unhappy customers are often times the majority to leave a review whereas fewer happy customers voice their opinion in the form of a review. I suspect the same goes for VC interactions.
B - Due to the way the VC business is structured the variance in "quality" of VCs is heavily skewed and not normally distributed, tricking our perception of what to expect. In other words i suspect that you have a much higher likelihood in to interact with a very "low quality" VC or absolute "top VC" than with an "average" VC. If you amplify this with A you may get an even worse public opinion.
Nevertheless I think on an individual basis you're always better off if you don't need VC for your business - if you have that option.
Just an anecdote (no judgement here; VC has its place): An acquaintance of mine who works for a VC firm once said "Ultimately, VC money is a loan for people who are not bankable".
That really resonated with me as with that perspective I understood why behavior & practices are closer to what you'd experience if you personally need to take out a loan outside of the regulated banking system
Cost/price is another key aspect that is not prominently present in the article but is a key decision driver. The assumption on the employer side is that younger folks will work for lower salaries AND can be developed to the companies needs whereas someone with 10-20 years of experience is automatically “more expensive” and has to adapt.
Now there is a catch: even IF an experienced candidate would work for a lower salary, e.g. if they don’t have exactly the matching skillset and need time to learn, the employer may see this as an indication/admission of a lack of competency and decide against that candidate.
It’s a tough challenge and often a lot of irrationality seems to be involved.
Can confirm that you may run into trouble e.g. when requiring screenshot capabilities (via scrot in our case) hence we had to set the WaylandEnable to false as well.
Saying “ChatGPT told me …” is a fast track to getting your input dismissed on our team. That phrasing shifts accountability from you to the AI. If we really wanted advice straight from the model, we wouldn’t need a human in the loop - we’d ask it ourselves.