Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course.

I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
(P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
is).

The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

. . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

--
Jim Fisher

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For

instance,

most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a

decade

non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and

faster

at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.


And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
can save money by employing a different process without overly
compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
to make a profit.

It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
"break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
reluctant to take such a long term risk.



The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.


So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?



Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies. However what I also see is that these
factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen. Direct
injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
to safety and running costs. We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
adoption of full engine management and control units.

And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks. Only in
this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
market.

When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
- even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate.

Really? That sounds just a bit revisionist.

The courts did indeed grant a fairly broad patent to the Wrights -
they had the patent on three axis control. Their insistence on
enforcing said patent arguably made the machines of the first decade
of powered flight less safe than they could have been, and the death
toll higher. In the end, Curtiss developed the aileron as an end-run
around the Wright patent. A lengthy legal battle ensued. In the end,
the lawyers got everything, and the only possibility of survival for
the two companies was merger. It is for that reason that we all know
about the Curtiss-Wright company.

Prior to 1926 there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off.

Actually, the industry of the time consisted mostly of barnstormers
carrying passengers in WW-I surplus trainers.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines.

No, pretty much all the machines of 1926 and prior (when certification
became required) were scary wooden deathtraps.

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
planning route structures and suppressing competition.

But it was in the 1930's that real airliners (metal, multiengine,
capable of sustained single engine flight) were developed.

Today, innovation has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology.

Certainly, but I note that we're skipping the interesting 50 years in
between, which saw most of the important advances.

For instance, most
FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
at the same time.

Composite materials have been a major staple in transport category
aircraft for decades. It's only the light GA fleet that remains
(mostly - there are exceptions like the Lancair and Cirrus) mired in
the past. There's no problem with getting new technology into
airliners, because the level of regulation for airliners is
appropriate to the money available and the risk to public safety.

Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

In fact, air transport (as a whole industry) has never been
consistently profitable.

If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of
existence.

But it's not the giants of industry that innovate. Pretty much all
innovation comes from the small companies. The last innovative thing
Boeing did was the 707, and the management bet the company to do it.
In today's financial climate, where Wall Street writes the rules, such
an action would be unthinkable. Cessna is still offering warmed-over
designs decades old, as are Piper and Beech. Only a handful of small
upstarts are offering anything new.

Michael

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course.

I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
(P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
is).

The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

It's stopping. Isn't quite STOPPED, but P&I, our key to the future, is being
rapidly strangled.

. . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.


And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
can save money by employing a different process without overly
compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
to make a profit.

Being more efficient is, and always has been, a factor in progress. An
example would be the pin making machine of the late 1700's, or the assemply
lines of the early 20th century.


It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
"break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
reluctant to take such a long term risk.

Quite so, but not only is the manufacturing process costly (where sold goods
are being created), but the R&D process where revenue is not assured and
legal claims ON THE SOLD GOODS can wipe out everything.



So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?



Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.

And an obscene legal system...

However what I also see is that these
factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

That's not even a point of issue.

For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen.

Hell, turbochargers have been in GA planes for over 40 years.

See what TATurbo has been doing for turbo-normalization. See also what
they're doing for ignition systems (PRISM system).

Direct
injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
to safety and running costs.

First, FI has been in GA a long time, but also the mandated costs of
converting from, say, a O-470 to a IO-470 has been prohibitive.

We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
adoption of full engine management and control units.

Consider if PC technology gains had mirrored GA engine and airframe
technology.

And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks.

Evidently you're not considering the FAA and STC costs.

Only in
this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
market.

By innovating...

When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
- even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

Those risks were market risks, not what the issue is here. Besides, the 747
was an extension of existing design and technology, not an entirely new
paradigm.

You're right in what you observe, but it's not the topic of the article. The
biggest detriment is our tort system first, and the regulatory system
second.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding
"negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim
Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to
assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

Where did I say a dollar amount?

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their
invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate.

Really? That sounds just a bit revisionist.

The courts did indeed grant a fairly broad patent to the Wrights -
they had the patent on three axis control. Their insistence on
enforcing said patent arguably made the machines of the first decade
of powered flight less safe than they could have been, and the death
toll higher.

How so?

In the end, Curtiss developed the aileron as an end-run
around the Wright patent.

You just answered your own point.


A lengthy legal battle ensued. In the end,
the lawyers got everything, and the only possibility of survival for
the two companies was merger. It is for that reason that we all know
about the Curtiss-Wright company.

Yup -- one with the innovation, another with the improvement. Like IBM and
Microsoft in 1980 an beyond.


Prior to 1926 there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took
off.

BINGO! They called it "The Golden Age".

Actually, the industry of the time consisted mostly of barnstormers
carrying passengers in WW-I surplus trainers.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden,
scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines.

No, pretty much all the machines of 1926 and prior (when certification
became required) were scary wooden deathtraps.

And no one was forcing people aboard at gun point. (Until they started
transfering prisoners).

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines,
master
planning route structures and suppressing competition.

But it was in the 1930's that real airliners (metal, multiengine,
capable of sustained single engine flight) were developed.

And still there was virtually NO regulation outside of pilots licensing.

Today, innovation has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the
first 25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and
regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology.

Certainly, but I note that we're skipping the interesting 50 years in
between, which saw most of the important advances.

You're confusing "science" and "technology", and most of the technology was
a result of military research and war time activities. In that manner, we
can thank the Nazi's for rockets and jets.

For instance, most
FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

Composite materials have been a major staple in transport category
aircraft for decades. It's only the light GA fleet that remains
(mostly - there are exceptions like the Lancair and Cirrus) mired in
the past. There's no problem with getting new technology into
airliners, because the level of regulation for airliners is
appropriate to the money available and the risk to public safety.

And the airlines and Boeing are nearly dead.



Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and
fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation
one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable
service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

In fact, air transport (as a whole industry) has never been
consistently profitable.

Quite...it went from innovation to heavy regulation.

If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out of
existence.

But it's not the giants of industry that innovate. Pretty much all
innovation comes from the small companies. The last innovative thing
Boeing did was the 707, and the management bet the company to do it.

In today's financial climate, where Wall Street writes the rules, such
an action would be unthinkable.

Wall Street doesn't write any rules, investors do. ANd investors are
hamstrung by regulation and TAX LAWS.

Cessna is still offering warmed-over
designs decades old, as are Piper and Beech. Only a handful of small
upstarts are offering anything new.

Wonder why that is. You make a good history that's appropriate for "Trivia
Pursuit", but never get into the fundemantal issues of WHAT and WHY.

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

Doesn't matter when the legal system (tort law) "requires" prescience and
omnipotence.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."