What GA needs

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:08:31 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Are you being dense Larry or just your standard asshole self?

Neither. And I don't resort to profanity when I'm at a loss for
cognitive argument either. Indulging in that sort of uncivil behavior
only servers to reveal your inability to express yourself effectively,
and it reflects on you about as well as it did on Cheney:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun24.html
Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity
Clash With Leahy About Halliburton

"**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
presidency.

YOu can quote all the Wki sites you like. That doesn't change the fact that fractional
ownership is just an evolution of partnerships and flying clubs.

So if Ford's Model T evolved into a high-performance sports car, would
you characterize them both the same?

It is your failure to acknowledge the RECENT surge in businesses
offering fractional aircraft ownership and the RECENT changes in FAA
fractional ownership regulations that prompts me to keep providing
evidence of it for you.

So while fractional ownership may not be new, it is newly emphasized.
Why do you suppose that is?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
gratification.

It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
on what we do learn.

How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a
little older.

52


When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and
I'd be willing you did to.

Yup.

Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history in which they seemed
to only care that you remembered the dates things happened not really why
they happened.

Multipliciation tables (the 9's) is a method to make the basics automatic.
Before that, though, one must get a fundemental grasp of numbers. For
spelling, one learns the rules of how words are formed. For reading, it's
phonetics (26 basic rules), and a dictionary for new words (ostensibly to
garner an appreciation for pretentious *******s like Bill Buckley...and me).


I know it's easy to blame all our ills on the current education system but
it is really a lazy approach to the problem.

I don't blame all the ills on modern education, just the ones pertaining to
thinking and comprehension.

I know to many recent high school grads that got perfectly good educations
despite the problems in the schools.

The why are SOOOO many HS and even college grads so half-literate at best,
and so many that can't think their way out of a paper bag? Possible because
rote only works for concretized learning, not the abstractions that lets you
build off those basics.

In history, we learned names, dates, places...but we never learned how or
why, or what made something unique, or how it carried into modern times.
That's because even history was rote learning for the past couple
generations.

So maybe we ought to blame the parents of those that don't to at least
some extent.

That's certainly a problem in that many parents know how to breed 'em, and
even if they can feed them, don't feed that critical part between the ears.
This, though, is fairly recent, within the past generation on a national
scale, though certain parts of the country were never too big on education
(i.e., the Deep South up until the recent past).

So, is education the fault of all our ills? Only from a standpoint of
methodology. Join that with parental apathy and add a strong dose of
post-modernism and the situation becomes much clearer.

We are humans, and humans have no particular strengths, such as eye sight,
or speed, or physical strength, compared to other animals -- all we have is
what's between our ears. When we forfeit that, we're at a distinct
DISadvantage from a survivability standpoint. That includes survivability as
a culture, or as a species.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

I have read such thoughts emanating from peoples as far back as the ancient
Greeks and Romans. Indeed, you are correct.

Thing is, today it's institutionalized, subsidized and glorified.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
gratification.

It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
on what we do learn.

How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a
little older.

52


When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and
I'd be willing you did to.

Yup.

Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history in which they
seemed to only care that you remembered the dates things happened not
really why they happened.

Multipliciation tables (the 9's) is a method to make the basics automatic.
Before that, though, one must get a fundemental grasp of numbers. For
spelling, one learns the rules of how words are formed. For reading, it's
phonetics (26 basic rules), and a dictionary for new words (ostensibly to
garner an appreciation for pretentious *******s like Bill Buckley...and
me).

I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school. When I transitioned to
public high school, it was much different.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:04:09 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Matt Barrow writes:

Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

So that's still only 1.5 hours for the cost of a pair of expensive sneakers.
The sneakers will last for months or years; once that 1.5 hours of flying time
is gone, there's nothing.


Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
just going to cost more money.




randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

"Matt Barrow" wrote

I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school. When I transitioned to
public high school, it was much different.

I wondered how long it would take to get that dig in. Not all that long.

If nothing else, you are consistent; a real one stance man. Gads.

For those of you that don't realize it, criticizing the public schools is
Matt's only claim to fame, and a frequent reoccurring theme in his posts.

My recommendation is to agree with him, and then he won't have
anything/anyone to argue about/with.
--
Jim in NC

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:


Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
however, isn't one of them.


Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine powered
Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
dramatically shorter.

While you can burn almost anything in them, you should plan on burning a
lot of it. That was also one of the downfalls of the early turbine powered
cars (besides the initial expense).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200709/1

As a member of the younger generation (I'm 24), I can only speak from
personal experience. I'm under no illusions that I can speak for my
entire generation. :-)

Some background: I was That Kid At The Airport Fence. When I was
young, I used to beg my dad to take me to the local private airport so
I could watch the planes take off and land. I memorized
configurations so that I could tell a Cessna from a Piper from a
Mooney, and I still remember jumping out of bed one morning (*not* a
common thing when I was a youngin, as my parents would attest) and
dashing around the house excited at the news that Piper was going to
restart production of GA aircraft. Did the EAA Young Eagles,
discovery flights, the whole bit.

Despite that, my stay in flight school after I got out of college was
short and abortive. I took about 10 hours worth of lessons before I
stopped. Some of the reasons for why I stopped had to do with timing-
it was fall and I was starting a premedical program that didn't leave
me enough time to devote to aviation. The one that's perhaps of more
general interest, though, was cost. I've been gainfully employed ever
since leaving college and making what I would consider a decent salary
for a recent grad, but what I realized after about six weeks of flying
lessons was that finishing my private and keeping up a decent level of
proficiency was probably going to be more than I could afford.
Getting the PPL would be pretty expensive, but if I was going to feel
comfortable in the air I knew I would also have to rent and fly on a
pretty regular basis- I had done enough reading to know that getting
rusty, especially in a new pilot, could be deadly.

Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
so inclined. But flying seemed to almost be on another order of
magnitude- the FBO where I trained rented Cessna 152s for $90 an hour
wet. At this stage in my life, that doesn't work out to a whole lot
of proficiency flights. I ended up calculating the cost of finishing
my PPL to be around $5000-6000, which is roughly twice what I spent on
my current car.

(And yes, a smarter move would have been to calculate this all out
beforehand. I thought I might squeeze through in the minimum
time...and in the end, I really really wanted to believe this was
something I was going to be able to afford, and I ignored questions
like "What if I take more than the minimum?" or "How am I going to
keep current?".)

Now, part of this is just where I am in my life, and where a lot of my
generation is as well- we're just out of college, and since the world
doesn't come delivered to your door we're not making the big bucks
just yet. At the same time, though, I can't help thinking that if
aviation were a bit more affordable it might be easier to draw in
younger folks who are in relatively lower-paying ($35-40K/year) jobs.
I can only speak from my own personal experience here, but the math
would have been very different for me if there had been an aircraft
available for, say, $60-75/hour wet rate. It would have made the PPL
less expensive, and it would also have made it easier for me to afford
currency. In my individual case it might or might not have made a
difference, but it would have lowered the barrier.

(Reducing the hours of instruction needed to gain the PPL would also
lower the barrier, but I'm not convinced that's the best way to
proceed. I had just enough training to realize how hard flying really
is, and I know that I would have needed at least 40 hours to be
comfortable with all of the PPL tasks. Lowering entry barriers is
nice and all, but I don't think that compromising standards is the way
to do it. And I say that as an unsuccessful flight student.)

Obviously, the pilot community can't just wave magic wands and make
cheaper aircraft appear. I had high hopes when the LSA category was
announced that cheaper aircraft might be in the offing, even if their
operating regime was more restrictred, but so far I've been
disappointed in the results. Most of the LSA I've seen announced have
been in the same $100-150K range as new-build GA aircraft, without any
real price reductions over what was available pre-LSA.

So what's the point of my ramblings? I'd say that based on my
personal experience a cheaper airplane is more likely to pull younger
people to GA than a pretty one. Composite bodies are pretty and I
like a nice interior as well as the next man, but I'd gladly perch on
a bicycle seat and fly the ugliest plane in the sky if it was cheaper
to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
towards attracting new pilots.

(And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
long it takes, I will be back.)

"randall g" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:04:09 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Matt Barrow writes:

Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

So that's still only 1.5 hours for the cost of a pair of expensive
sneakers.
The sneakers will last for months or years; once that 1.5 hours of flying
time
is gone, there's nothing.


Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
just going to cost more money.

Your grasp is astonishing.

"Jeff Dougherty" wrote in message
oups.com...

Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
so inclined.

Exactly. Your inclinations run (no pun about sneakers intended) in a
different direction.

Hmm...

(And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
long it takes, I will be back.)

I'd say that your goals are rather more challenging than most of your peers.
That MAY be a factor. Costs may also be a factor, but I'd wager it was a
strong combination of both in your case.

When you're back, we'll be here waiting to hear from you.