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

So, why do such simple engines cost so darn much?

I rember way back when Eiper was going to do a deal with Lotus or someone to
mass produce an UL engine. Like always, nothing happened as far as I know. Same
with BD-5.

-- Charlie Springer

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]).


The assumption in the minds of many is that the automobile is necessary.
Also, cars intruding homes tend to happen where you would expect them too (T
intersections, corners, off ramps). Houses that get hit, tend to get hit
several times. My present home is hardly more likely to get hit by a car
than a plane. Especially by a car with a mechanical problem.

Mostly though, I agree with your point about folks protecting their own
freedoms.

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.


Still following you, people who know nothing about planes are impressed by
BRS. It does help allay their fears, but will it continue to do so when the
facts about a BRS landing come out?

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.


I agree with you that this type of aircraft could change some people's
perception of flying small planes. Unfortunately, it will not change the
following mindsets:

[Insert your favorite idiot voice and accent]

"Flying is unnatural"

"I don't want that noisy thing flying over MY house"

"I don't trust those F'n computers"

"What happens if the computer fails"

etc.

There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for this
idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems with
it (which is admittedly my nature).

Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on one.
Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts on
leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't make
a new small piston plane.

I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
well enough to keep it safe.

that is an unsubstantiated nonsense claim if ever there was one.
you ever heard of the EAA and all the similar organisations the world
over?

....maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society, but it does seem to me that you started on a
pessimistic error in that post.

Stealth Pilot
Australia
(happily maintaining my own aircraft in spite of the legislation)

maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,

---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,

---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
to. (thought of you instantly)

the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
85 - 100 is 34%
100 - 115 is 34% again.
115 - 130 is 14%
over 130 is 2%

traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
so IQ's dont tell all of the story.

if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
and actually maintaining their aircraft.

even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
maintaining their own aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

Is the point whether they are able, or that they will do it?

Many people just do not have the right attitude. Current aviation
populations are made up of enthusiastast who care about planes at least on
some level.

What happens when the average owner is less of an enthusiast and only sees
his plane as a transportation appliance?

Cars have gotten this way for many people. They just do not see it as an
important possession that deserves care and respect anymore. Those people
CAN take care of their cars, they just don't.






"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,

---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then
the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our
society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion
the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or
even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
to. (thought of you instantly)

the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
85 - 100 is 34%
100 - 115 is 34% again.
115 - 130 is 14%
over 130 is 2%

traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
so IQ's dont tell all of the story.

if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
and actually maintaining their aircraft.

even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
maintaining their own aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:32:24 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,

---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
to. (thought of you instantly)

the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
85 - 100 is 34%
100 - 115 is 34% again.
115 - 130 is 14%
over 130 is 2%

traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
so IQ's dont tell all of the story.

if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
and actually maintaining their aircraft.

even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
maintaining their own aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

If one concludes from your data, that the median IQ is arranged to be
100 (which one should) then Bob is suggesting the AVERAGE
ought to be higher - so that the average citizen is well placed to fix
up a FG single, on this basis.
How about that! :-)

B

Veeduber wrote:
maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,


---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

BY DEFINITION....

50% of the world's population are of below average intelligence!!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

BY DEFINITION....

50% of the world's population are of below average intelligence!!

Well, at or below the median. Depends on the distribution

Ed "feeling hypothetical" Wischmeyer