Two seats is all you need

Jerry Springer wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Jerry Springer wrote:
snip

More manure



Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
through. That is to say, gullible.

How about experience from being in aviation since I was two years old
when my father bought his first airplane? The experience of being around
aviation and aviation people all of my life. Or maybe from being a
flight instructor since 1976? Gullible, I don't think so.
"Get-home-itis" can be caused by many factors, I don't believe you can
pin it on just pilots with family as you eluded to in another post.

No, not just. But when the airplane is firmly placed in the toy
category, rational thinking about it is possible. So is the airplane
that is really and truly a business tool. But most light "business
aircraft" are actually an effort at tax-deductible (and therefore
subsidized) ego reinforcement and recreation. In that environment clear
thinking is impossible.

The GA industry has done a lot of very stupid things that have caused
a lot of long term damage because they were expedient at the time.
While a few of the much ballyhooed "devastating lawsuits" that impacted
the manufacturers were unjustified, many were fully justified and
indeed had the courts upheld even one good "plant key judgment"-you
just reach in your pocket and hand the plaintiff's attorney the keys to
the plant-the industry would have had to fix its problems.

Most GA pilots are not attorneys, business analysts or accountants,
and when magazines like Flying and Air Progress chose to parrot the
industry line, this was accepted without question. When I query
aircraft owners as to why airplanes are so expensive,one
word-"liability" comes out again and again. Even if they own a boat
and they will unquestioningly pay $300 for a $50 GM alternator because
it says MerCruiser, the $400 PMA'd $50 car alternator has to be the
fault of attorneys.

That's not to say we don't have a litigation crisis in this country
and that we don't need reform. We do, and do. But with the motorcycle,
scuba diving and skydiving businesses operating for the most part
without massive product liability litigation, there is absolutely no
reason to accept that you can't make small airplanes without getting
hauled into court all the time. If they do, the finger has to be
pointed first and foremost at corporate management. Further, while
there is unquestionably excessive amounts of product liability and
medical malpractice litigation, what is really clogging the courts and
killing American jobs is corporate litigation-mostly contract rather
than tort law-and none of the neo-con whoreson Bush Republicans is
going to go near that problem.

Sacred cows, really do make the tastiest burgers...

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Most GA pilots are not attorneys, business analysts or accountants,

Similarly, the legal profession has a great deal of ignorance about
general aviation.

Do you know why Burt Rutan isn't in the homebuilding business anymore?
Because he broke even. He had been profitable, but had to spend money
defending himself in spurious lawsuits (he never lost, by the way).
This is a perfect example of the legal system being *******ized into an
extortion system and stifling innovation. Burt long ago turned his
talents to making his living in a different part of aviation.

Most engineers have to take humanities courses as part of their
education to make them "well rounded." Do litigation lawyers have to
take math and science courses? Hmm. I argue that the legal system has
a lot of "professionals" who have a poor technical background that
results in them accepting spurious cases. How many of them have a clue
who Burt Rutan is, never mind what is involved in building an airplane
yourself? This is just one example of one cause behind excessive
litigation.

and when magazines like Flying and Air Progress chose to parrot the
industry line, this was accepted without question. When I query
aircraft owners as to why airplanes are so expensive,one
word-"liability" comes out again and again. Even if they own a boat
and they will unquestioningly pay $300 for a $50 GM alternator because
it says MerCruiser, the $400 PMA'd $50 car alternator has to be the
fault of attorneys.

I think they unquestionably pay for PMA'ed parts because the law
requires it on certificated aircraft, not because of a herd mentality.

than tort law-and none of the neo-con whoreson Bush Republicans is
going to go near that problem.

You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.

"Jim Carriere" wrote

You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.

Agreed, with spades.

Also, interjecting political hatred and bashing does nothing to increase 50%
of the people's view of him. I'm loitering on the edge of "plonkdom."
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:01:09 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote in ::


"Jim Carriere" wrote

You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.

Agreed, with spades.

Also, interjecting political hatred and bashing does nothing to increase 50%
of the people's view of him.

Worse than that, such behavior in a worldwide forum publicly disgrace
the aviation community, and alienates educated participants who don't
care to be seen as consorting with fools.