Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend

What you just described is being a passenger. People can already do
that, and don't need training.

Hmmph.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s.

And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Dylan Smith wrote:

I'm not sure you're onto something there - as a group, the pilots I know
are probably the least athletic and least fit and eat the worst foods of
any group I know! Go to any fly-in and notice the propensity to being
rotund.

How odd. Maintaining my medical has become one of my exercise mantras. And
they're working. I'm in better shape now than when I started flying
several years ago.

It may be that I know a few people that lost their medicals (although at
least one got his back after a "final rejection" {8^).

My ex-CFII, who is quite well along in the maturity scale, runs five miles
most mornings. His example is another of my mantras, BTW grin.

- Andrew

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::


What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
the price of crude.

Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
the right time?

The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*

Think of it as the credit reporting companies making millions of
citizens' personal information public due to lax security procedures,
and then charging to insure those whose data they have compiled
against identity theft, as is currently occurring. While not the same
situation at all, it is another example of business victimizing the
people of this noble nation.

Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
markets?

Stock investors have their money at risk; think October 1988. Domestic
oil producers control a vital commodity without which this nation
would grind to a halt pronto. They should be regulated.

BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

*
http://www.kucinich.us/archive/repor...7+10%3A06%3A14

"Larry Dighera wrote:
The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*


It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't! *Your
reference is to Rep. Dennis the Menace Kucinich, our hometown, nut-case
legislator here, and his proposed tax. He has no problem with taxing us
(the tax would be passed through to us!) and spending it on pork-barrel
stuff and in effect a tax subsidy to foreign auto producers.

Fred F.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
t::


What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
the price of crude.

Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
the right time?

The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*

Think of it as the credit reporting companies making millions of
citizens' personal information public due to lax security procedures,
and then charging to insure those whose data they have compiled
against identity theft, as is currently occurring. While not the same
situation at all, it is another example of business victimizing the
people of this noble nation.

Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
markets?

Stock investors have their money at risk; think October 1988. Domestic
oil producers control a vital commodity without which this nation
would grind to a halt pronto. They should be regulated.

BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

*
http://www.kucinich.us/archive/repor...7+10%3A06%3A14

The US oil companies get crude either by buying it at market prices or
because they have taken the risk to find it. They *own* the oil reserves on
their books, the government does not. When oil went to $10 not so long ago
they didn't make anything on production. They are currently paying higher
taxes, production taxes and royalties are based on pricing. Also consider
that a lot of oil produced by US companies is produced in foriegn countries
or off their coasts, should we tax the profits on these too. How about
people selling their homes? The housing market has been strong and people
are reaping windfalls.

If it is avgas pricing that concerns you, it is the FBOs that are f*cking us
not the producers/refiners/OPEC. The cost of crude is a small percentage of
the cost of aviation fuel (jet or avgas) so there is no reason that a
doubling of crude prices should be accompanied by a doubling of aviation
fuel prices.

...and if you want to tax something, tax mining on public lands, they pay
zero for the resource. (My pet peeve)...yes thats zero.

Mike
MU-2


Mike
MU-2

What you just described is being a passenger. People can already do
that, and don't need training.

See, I wondered who would come out of the woodwork to say something
like that.

What I described is most emphatically NOT being a passenger. It's
being a driver. With modern technology, flying an airplane really can
be as simple as driving a car. Why shouldn't we make it that simple?
It would give us the advantage of numbers, and that of course would
reduce costs, regulation, etc.

Of course this would significantly devalue the skills of the existing
lightplane pilot, but so what? Do you really believe the skills
required to drive cross country in a 2005 Ford Focus with power
steering, antilock brakes, automatic transmission, the Neverlost
package, and OnStar on modern roads is even vaguely comparable to
making the same trip in a Model T in its heyday?

Flying can be expensive, or it can be difficult and inconvenient - but
if it's going to survive, it can't be both.

Michael

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s.

And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

Yah know, when I was a teen ager my dad had suggested just such a
thing. BTW, the winning bid was $41. Did some one actually pay that?
IF so PT Barnum was right.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Michael wrote:
Which raises an interesting question about focusing more effort on
making an airplane that is simpler to fly.

Which is very doable - it merely requires that we give up some of our
cherished concepts about what the right way is.

Some thoughts:


Some time back Raytheon hacked up a Bonanza with all kinds of
electronic goodies including a fly-by-wire control system and synthetic
vision (highway in the sky) PFD. Reportedly they tested it by grabbing
the receptionist, sticking her in the cockpit, and in an hour she was
able to shoot an ILS to minimums within checkride standards.

Best piece I could find on it online:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA86994.html

I think the biggest challenge for this is integration into the NAS. You
really need two-way datalink with ATC and then you can have a
controller transmit a routing directly to the FMS. Well, we could
certainly get Boeing/Lockmar on board for this, especially if they get
to collect a "toll" for every flight. They'll have more of an incentive
to expand the market than the FAA I think...

With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend, never mind a
week. We wouldn't get the Harley crowd that way, but we might well get
the Mercedes crowd.

I come from a boating family and it's enlightening to compare the two.
Boating is unregulated and almost solely recreational. Flying is
heavily regulated and has utility as a means of transportation.

In the boating world you have a choice of a million different vessels
offering every combination of cost and performance and mission. There
are boats designed for and primarily used by people who shouldn't be
allowed to drive a wheelbarrow, and "little ships" which are the equal
of any commercial vessel and whose owners adhere to the finest
standards of seamanship.

The big difference between flying, boating, and driving in my view is
what I call the "pull-over factor." A car can experience severe
mechanical problems and still easily limp to the side of the road if
not a service station at very low risk to occupants. You can drive
safely in nearly any weather in nearly any car, and if it gets really
bad, you can still pull over and just stop.

A boat raises the stakes in that some mechanical failures can cause
serious problems and there is no pulling over in bad weather. But, even
in sticky situations, you still often have time- minutes, if not an
hour or more to figure out what to do, and you can often call for help
when the bleep hits the fan.

Flying however offers no such outs. Once the wheels are off the ground,
all anyone can do is wish you good luck; if a problem develops, it is
up to the pilot to solve it. This is what scares most people away, and
while you an build many safety systems in to add options, there's still
no way to pull over.

-cwk.

Jay Honeck wrote:
You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
quitting: Money.

To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Right. However, we can't change the money situation. We CAN change
the other variables that are causing the appallingly high student drop
out rate in aviation.

IMHO this is the wrong problem to focus on solving. Up through solo,
flying is all fun and no work. Then you get into the written test and
all the crap to prepare for the checkride. Now it's a chore. I'll bet
getting rid of the written would reduce the attrition rate by at least
25%, perhaps more, but it won't happen anytime soon.

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

-cwk.