Sun goes dark, rivers run red, Facetmobile webpage updated.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:43:30 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Nor do most folks want 4,000 pound cars crashing through their house
walls...yet that occurs, fairly often.

Yet we don't hear cries calling for people to ban automobiles. Why?
Because people won't argue for more restrictions on their *own* freedoms
(well, other than [insert least-favorite political affiliation here]).

Why don't more people fly? Because they're afraid of dying.

You know, and I know, it's a (mostly) irrational fear. But the fact is, a
lot of people think "little airplanes" are dangerous. They don't get
enraged at stuff like TFRs, because it doesn't affect them, just those
"rich snobs with their Learjets".

That isn't going to change until more people are flying. But people aren't
even going to consider it until something changes their minds about the
safety aspects. It doesn't have to be a *logical* item... but the presence
of an aircraft recovery chute that automatically deploys when things go bad
is likely to be a big factor.

I'm not fond of automotive airbags...yet the marketers now seem to think
safety features help sell cars. Ever since I've been flying, non-pilots
have asked me, "Hey, why don't they invent a parachute that saves the
entire airplane?" Now they've got one.

Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't trust
that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
citizen as owner.

I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more than
a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?

Dude, you're assuming an evolutionary approach. Quit that. Assume an air
vehicle (AV) that does not *require* a pilot. One in which the only way to
control the AV is via the computer.

You step inside, and press the "start" button. When the self-test is done,
you specify your destination, then press "depart."

BRS past its repack date? The AV refuses to take off. Ditto if the annual
inspection hasn't been accomplished.

And if you're in flight and the AV CPU locks up, the independent safety
system (ISS) fires the BRS and activates the ELT. Heck, there's no reason
a BRS chute can't be made someone steerable, and the ISS aims for the
nearest open space in its database.

Is it *flying*? Heck no. But it would probably make GA palatable for more
of the non-flying public.

Ron Wanttaja