Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:1Yfgj.24515$Ux2.16795@attbi_s22:

The way the cowards continue to blow up our soldiers and civilian
support people with suicide bombs, they deserve no protection,
either. The fact that they are still kept alive is more than they
deserve.

How do you know that they are guilty of anything? They haven't even
been charged.

POWs are rarely charged with crimes. They are merely held until the
war is over.


In this case, that could be a life sentence.

But don't worry. In another year we'll have a whole new set of
attorneys arguing the case.

Yep, and you'll stil be in Iraq.



Bertie

On 2008-01-07, Jay Honeck wrote:
Unfortunately, all of these have serious issues with longevity, and those
that don't are both desirable and scarce. I'm also looking for an aircraft
that I can fly IFR if the medical issues get resolved, and none of those
qualify.
That last prerequisite is gonna make your LSA much more pricey than most.

Yup. OTOH, it'll also hold its value better, too.

Have you flown a CT? That little plane was just a gas to fly -- quick,
nimble, and modern.

Looks nice, but would it be legal for IFR?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Phil J wrote in
:

On Jan 6, 12:43�pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-01-06, Phil J wrote:

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low.
�One of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people
to learn to fly, and make it less expensive.. �By setting the
weight limit so low that there are hardly any older certified
airplanes that qualify, they seriously diminished the effect of the
regulation. �I wish they had just limited the category to
two-place, non-retractable, fixed- pitch propeller aircraft. �I
don't see why they even needed to include

weight in the reg.

Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a
Stearman wi
th
an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?

Jay Maynard, K5ZC � � � � � � � � �http://www.conmicro.c
omhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com� �
�http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org� � � � � � � (Yes,
that's me!)

My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?


Because more would crash if it was an LSA.



Bertie

I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane. I think the goal of
getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
be the whole point of the LSA category.

Phil

Phil J wrote in news:85ec11e3-604f-4aff-b623-
:




I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane.


Mm, yeah, i agree. Thee's more skill involved in flying a Luscombe or Chief
than a 150, that's certain.

I think the goal of
getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
be the whole point of the LSA category.

Yeah. I suppose. I'm not sure how they came up with the limit, but in my
heart of hearts, I'm not real entusiastic about a system that lowers
standards in the first place. Having said that, I hope it works..


Bertie

Phil J wrote:

I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane. I think the goal of
getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
be the whole point of the LSA category.

One would think a realistic definition would be for a two place aircraft
capable of carrying two of today's average people (which sure as hell
isn't 170 to 190 lbs) with at least a couple of hours fuel, fixed gear,
fixed prop, and a reasonable HP limit like 160 HP.

I don't see why there would need to be a gross weight limit at all as
the other restrictions would pretty much take care of things.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The two major, and just about only, sources of lead exposure for normal
people was white lead paint, long ago banned in the US, being injested
by infants and Mexican folk medicine.

The most significant source for the average person prior to the elimination of
leaded gasoline was leaded gasoline. Body burdens of lead have significantly
declined since it was eliminated.

Nonsense.

As for being "significant", kids in the southwest routinely show signs
of execess lead, i.e. enough to cause physical problems. It always gets
traced back to Mexican folk medicine.

That is now spreading across the US as the illegals spread.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

NW_Pilot wrote:
"Gig601XLBuilder" wrote in message
...
NW_Pilot wrote:
You may want to look "research" again there are a handfull of private
prisons that require an inmate to be an Organ Donor. Not legal in
state/federal run facilities only prtivate in a select few states that
allow it. Go google it....

No you Google it and post the result. If you make the claim it's up to you
to back it up.

Yea, its's under "presumed/Implied Consent" organ donation laws for
Prisoners and Detainees! where you must opt-out!!!



Great. I wish they would do the same with everyone in and out of prison.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
Morgans wrote:
Sorry, but you are way off base on this one. Prisoners in the US are
there for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else
major felony offenders.

Or due to police or prosecutorial misconduct. Or in knee-jerk response
to personal habits which other civilized nations find perfectly acceptable.


Those personal habits, and I'm well aware you are talking about drugs,
have been deemed illegal here as well as most other nations.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes:

Prisoners in the US are there
for good reason, and most all are multiple offenders, or else major felony
offenders.

Eighty percent of U.S. prisoners are in prison on drug charges.

That 80% number while technically either true or close to true also
include a metric-butt load of people that the drug offense was secondary
to another offense non-drug related offense. Which pretty much proves
the point that that drugs cause crime in general.

James Sleeman wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:04 am, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Gitmo isn't a US prison. It is a holding are for illegal enemy combatants.

I would usually avoid participating in such off topic discussion.
But, your statement is so stupid it's not even funny.

Gitmo is for all intents and purposes a prison, inhabitants are not
free to leave, they are being held prisoner.

Gitmo is for all intents and purposes part of the US, even if it is an
occupied territory in Cuba, the US isn't about to give it up, the US
isn't about to let Cuba have anything to do with Guantanamo Bay again,
ever, the US asserts all control over that piece of land and
facilities on it, the US makes the rules in Guantanamo Bay, not any
other nation. It's a US territory.

Therefore, Gitmo most certainly IS a US Prison, it's a place holding
prisoners in a territory of the US, a US Prison.

As for the prisoners being "enemy combatants" I might well remind you
that there has been no fair and open trial accorded the majority of
the prisoners, and more so, a number of prisoners have been released,
free to go, innocent of implied crime, sometimes after YEARS of being
held prisoner at Gitmo.

Gitmo is a disgrace to the US. To try and justify it by any means is
ludicrous.



How else do you expect us to deal with non-uniformed combatants in a
combat zone? Under the Geneva Convention those people should be
considered spies and you can feel free to look up the options are for
dealing with spies.