Two seats is all you need

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.

Jerry

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
news
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.

Jerry

Get-home-itis is an affliction suffered by people with jobs. I don't have a
job and I never get it...........and I've got a family (but only a
2-seater). G

jim

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
liability problems.

What?? Where does that come from? Most all my flying is with my family.
I'm more likely to adjust my risk management assesemtn when I'm flying
by myself than with my family. Seems like you have some backwards logic
to me.

When you are flying with your family aboard, your "home" is in the back
seat!!

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...


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.

Instead, Brett, why don't you offer proof of the *facts* you post. Start
with this one, which I copied from one of your posts earlier in this
thread:

"It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
the issue to keep the full page spreads coming."

And Bret, when responding to Kyle, remember that correlation is not
causation.

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

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Jerry Springer wrote:

Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
Citations.)

Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
liability problems.


I think the manure is coming out of your a**.



It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.


You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Bret Ludwig wrote:
It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.


You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)

He's stuck on them.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:48:47 -0800, 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.

Jerry

Getthereitis has a many causes as there are pilots or drivers.

What causes getthereitis in one pilot will cause stayputitis in
another.

If I take family and/or friends some where I tend to be more
conservative than when flying alone. I want their trip to be fun, not
scary. My wife has ridden on enough trips that IFR doesn't bother
her, but turbulence with the hard bumps (like chuckholes in a road)
do. When we go on vacation we plan on getting "there" today, or
tomorrow, or the day after and it's the same on the way home.

WE have 4 seats and long range, but normally I fly alone or with my
wife unless it's just short sight seeing trips. My wife and I in
front and the baggage compartment as well as the rear seats usually
ends up full. We've never learned to travel light. :-))

"From many years of flying" I would say "in general" family and
friends will cause an experienced pilot to be more conservative while
a pilot who has to be at work Monday morning my push it instead of
taking another day of vacation. Some places require vacation be
scheduled months in advance and there may be repercussions if you
don't make it back on time. OTOH some pilots would jump at the
excuse of squeezing in another day off.:-))

I've been thinking of taking a short trip just to shake out some of
the cobwebs as I've done little traveling in the past couple of years,
but with the wind forecast today being 30G60 I don't think it's going
to be this week end. OTOH I have flown over 500 miles on a day when
it was 30G50 and my wife was with me. I've never seen a ground speed
that high when flying that low, before or since. At 500 feet the winds
were over 100 at least for the first 100 to 150 miles. After that they
dropped to about a 40 knot tail wind.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger