Aviation is too expensive

"H.J." wrote in message
...
Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
Certified (MCSE), or getting a real estate license. (speaking effort-wise
and time-wise)
[snip]



I spent *QUITE* a bit more time, money & effort getting my ASEL than I did
my MCSD. Plus, I've never known anyone who got killed when a program didn't
compile correctly. Airplanes can kill you quick, if you don't stay ahead of
the game.

Of course my programs have been know to "stall" occasionally.....

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

By that reasoning, there should be very few people driving cars, given
the number of people killed on the road.

Why do you say that? Automobiles kill a much smaller percentage of the
participants than aviation does.

You don't generally hear about percentages - just raw numbers. In terms
of raw numbers, more people are killed on the highways every year than
on aircraft. The OP stated that if flying killed fewer people, then
more people would fly. My point was that by that reasoning, there
should be very few people driving cars given the large number of crashes
and automobile-related deaths every year.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
You don't generally hear about percentages - just raw numbers. In terms
of raw numbers, more people are killed on the highways every year than
on aircraft.

So what? Most people have no idea what the raw numbers are. In fact, most
people have no idea what ANY of the numbers are. All they really know is
that their TV tells them that airplanes are more dangerous. It's
practically coincidence that, by most measures, the TV is correct, since
other than that basic generalization, the TV doesn't really understand
aviation.

The OP stated that if flying killed fewer people, then
more people would fly. My point was that by that reasoning, there
should be very few people driving cars given the large number of crashes
and automobile-related deaths every year.

Your reasoning is flawed. The original post may well have been incorrect,
but there's no way to show that by drawing an analogy to driving. Aviation
and driving are two very different activities, and it's foolish to think
that if you could make one single variable (out of countless) the same in
each, that the resulting behaviors would be identical. But regardless, even
assuming a rational comparison of fatality rates, driving comes out way
ahead of flying. People don't care how many times X happens total, they
care what their chances of X happening to them is (assuming they stop to
think about it at all, which they normally don't).

Pete

"Chris W" wrote in message


I love these alternate engine debates, I always learn something new.
Anyway, it is
my understanding that even with a psru some of the stress and vibration
introduced
by the prop will still make it to the engine. Which makes the design of
the psru
very critical in any auto engine conversion. In the end all these people
putting
all kinds of different engines on home builts can only make aviation
better,
eventually.


--
Chris Woodhouse


The torsional vibration problems are more of a problem with engines running
a geared PSRU, also on ones where the converter removes the harmonic
balancer. The PSRU's that use the toothed rubber drive belts have less of
an issue with the vibration, because the belts seem to dampen it out.

The other problem is with PSRU's that use belts or chains, and do nothing to
take care of the side forces on the crankshaft. The bending of the crank at
those speeds can cause bad things to happen.
--
---Jim in NC---

ospam (Rosspilot) wrote in message ...
"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
You raise some interesting points . . . answer is really just because
that's what the market will bear.
Those who sell *anything* to pilots know that we love it so much we
will pay
whatever it costs to keep doing it, because the only form of protest is to
stop paying . . . and stop flying. I can't do that.

Kinda like cocaine, huh? :~)

In more ways than one. You go up, then you come down. You are out a big pile of money and have nothing to show for it but the experience.
And you can't wait to do it again. G

www.Rosspilot.com

This is actually a pretty good analogy, unfortunately. Supply and
DEMAND, and the economies (or lack thereof) due to size of the market
(vs cars, for example). The liability argument is facile and naive.
If it were true, cars would be more expensive than airplanes. You all
know those statistics about safety of air travel versus cars. (Yeah,
I'm a lawyer; but I don't handle airplane crashes (not very many) but
as for car wrecks...

Chris W wrote in message I love these alternate engine debates, I always
learn something new. Anyway, it is
my understanding that even with a psru some of the stress and vibration
introduced
by the prop will still make it to the engine. Which makes the design of
the psru
very critical in any auto engine conversion.

I dunno- There's a whole lot of airboats around here with a wood prop bolted
directly to the flywheel of a Chevy V-8 small-block. Airboaters aren't as
finicky as pilots about taking it easy on their equipment and yet, there
aren't too many airboaters stranded in the swamps. Hmmm....

D.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed.

And the OP's reasoning was also flawed.

So there.

Nyah.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
So there.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:27:55 -0400, "Morgans" post/the/group.here.net
wrote:

The torsional vibration problems are more of a problem with engines running
a geared PSRU, also on ones where the converter removes the harmonic
balancer. The PSRU's that use the toothed rubber drive belts have less of
an issue with the vibration, because the belts seem to dampen it out.

The other problem is with PSRU's that use belts or chains, and do nothing to
take care of the side forces on the crankshaft. The bending of the crank at
those speeds can cause bad things to happen.
--
---Jim in NC---

That's taken care of by using a large bearing to support the drive cog
at the outer plate of the PSRU. With the bearing, the cog drives the
belt with no bending moment applied to the crank at all. However, the
cog itself must be carefully dialed in to the flywheel, it must run
true within a few thousandths. That's one critical adjustment, the
other is to make sure that the belt is properly tensioned before
flight. Once the belt is properly tensioned, it usually does not need
further adjustment.

There must be some slack in the belt prior to flight as the cogs heat
up and expand. This tightens up the belt and can apply a lot of
pressure to the bearings which, if not caught early on, can fail
prematurely. With the proper slack in the belt, when the cogs heat up
the belt does not tighten down too much. Not enough tension is also
not a good thing.

In addition, the belt drive needs to have some cooling air flowing
across it. A little chin scoop like that of the P-51 Mustang works
fine.

Corky Scott

I find it telling, that you do not mention safety at all.


On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:11:02 -0700, "H.J." wrote
in Message-Id: :

Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
Certified (MCSE) [sic], or getting a real estate license. (speaking
effort-wise and time-wise)

First, getting a "pilot license" in the US is IMPOSSIBLE, as the FAA
issues airman _certificates_, not licenses.

Your contention, that becoming MS certified or obtaining a real estate
sales agent's license requires the commensurate time and effort to
become an FAA certificated airman, overlooks the medical, visual,
physical and situational awareness aspects required of airmen.
Additionally, real estate sales agents do not require the courage and
judgement necessary for airmen. (The MSCE certificate is a
meaningless joke.) There is no question, that navigating the skies
requires far more of a person then filling out a pre-printed Offer to
Purchase form.

Restricting your argument to time and effort considerations
exclusively, intentionally overlooks the unique skills demanded of an
airman, and belies the unreasonable nature of the views you express.

What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost.

True, the cost of training and aircraft operation does tend to prevent
many of those who desire to fly from becoming certificated. But
somehow 600,000 of us have managed to find the means to obtain a
certificate. Those individuals, whose hearts truly demand they take
to the skies, find a way. Those dilettantes who lack the
responsibility/maturity and dedication to motivate them, complain
about the price of civil aviation operation as the reason for their
lack of admission to plying the heavens. So those who will become an
asset to our ranks succeed in obtaining an airmans certificate; others
don't.

If the door to personal aviation could truly be opened with money
ALONE, we would see many more JFK, Jr. types (wealthy dilettantes)
among our ranks. Thankfully that is not the case.

Guys would buy planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership
wasn't so high.

You say that like it would be a good thing® for typical empty-headed,
dare-devil, types to take to the nation's skies; I couldn't disagree
more. Think of usenet before the likes of AOL opened the door to the
hoards of general masses, and diluted its intellectual content with
uninformed participants. AOL enticed largely unqualified people into
subscribing to their exploitative service by reducing the initial
price of admission to zero.

Formerly, it was necessary for a user desirous of participating in
usenet discussions to acquire the requisite skills and contacts to
administrate a UNIX based news-feed. This tended to limit
participants to the technically savvy, literate users who possessed
the requisite skills and dedication. The exceptions were college
freshmen who annually decreased the usenet signal to noise ratio; but
at least they were literate. Now usenet is awash in pornography,
guerrilla marketing, and generally unenlightened content. The
"quick-buck artist" rushes in to exploit any otherwise formerly
restricted situation, to fill their pockets at the expense of
eternally overwhelming it. In the case of aviation, that would result
in many deaths.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something.

That sounds like the cry of one unable or unwilling to so dedicate
himself to aviation as to be an asset to it. One does not "make it
into aviation." One fulfills the training requirements, and
demonstrates his aviation skills to a pilot-examiner, and his physical
state to a medical examiner, and is found either qualified or
unqualified.

Aviation is not like jumping on a dirt-bike and decimating the fragile
desert ecology. Aviation may be recreational, but never trifling
frivolity. Aviation requires an airman to responsibly exercise his
skills. If pilot training fails to intensify an applicant's attitude
toward safety and responsibility in aircraft operation, it is flawed.
Aviation is a way of life, not merely fun.

They are forced to abide by a very complicated system of laws and expenses
that dont make sense.

There is no question that the federal aviation regulations make sense.
I, for one, would not care to share the skies with those who fail to
comprehend the logic of aviation regulations. Those who fail to
appreciate the logic of federal aviation regulations should, without
question, remain ground bound (much as those who are unable to
comprehend the simple arcana of MS Outlook should be prevented from
usenet participation).

But since it's always been that way, they just accept it.

Actually, it hasn't "always been that way." In the early days of
aviation, safety suffered due to ignorance and a lack of standards.
Thankfully, standards evolved to prevent the repetition of unsafe
practices.

Then after they land and drive out of the airport in their
triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-
suspension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

Aircraft are not automobiles. Anyone who brings a highway mentality
to aviation soon learns that. When an automotive system fails, the
motorist pulls over to the side of the road and calls AAA. Airmen are
not afforded that convenience; airplane system failures are more often
than not fatal. How many inappropriately licensed motorists daily
exhaust their fuel supplies on the highway; what would happen if they
were flying over mountainous terrain instead? Piloting an aircraft is
so much more unforgiving of human failure than driving an automobile,
as to make them incomparable. (Imagine driving in zero visibility for
instance.) They even take place in different dimensions.

Because of weight considerations, aircraft cannot be built as robust
as automobiles. It is the rare "bugsmasher" that even boasts an air
conditioning system comparable to those installed in nearly all
automobiles. The necessity to build aircraft as light as possible
results in many innovations being inappropriate for use in them.

Aircraft are not automobiles. Their similarity ends at their utility
in transporting people to destinations. Beyond that function, they
are fundamentally and irrefutably dispirit. To fail to discern their
differences is to reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the
issues.

The strange part is, the pilots etc who could benefit the most from
'thinking outside of the box' are here in this group defending $2.62/gal gas

Autogas is available for aviation powerplants. Those pilots who
choose to ignore the safety benefits of aviation fuel (for lack of
accessability or economic reasons) can obtain a certificate permitting
its use in most aviation engines.

and $50K junk-heap-aircraft as if their pride depends on it or something.

The age of an aircraft does not qualify it to be regarded as a
junk-heap. There are no "junk-heap-aircraft" flying with valid
Airworthiness Certificates. Unlike automobiles, aircraft are annually
inspected by government certificated inspectors, and restored to
acceptable condition, or grounded.

The pilot orgs seem to be the same.

They comprehend the issues.

I heard Rutan once mention that if he could have seen into the future from
the 1960's and seen the current state of aviation in the 1990's - basically
the same old technology and performance born of 1960s, he would have
thought that some nuclear holocost had occured that had frozen progress in
it's tracks.

There is no question that Mr. Rutan is an innovative genius, but I
would dearly like to see his solutions to providing aviation operation
to the masses. NASA's Small Aircraft Transportation System is the
government's solution for the futu
http://sats.nasa.gov/
http://www.sdsmt.edu/space/SATSMay2000MeetingInfo.htm
http://sats.erau.edu/images.html

Perhaps that is what Mr Rutan had in mind.

There's no (technological) reason we couldn't have $35,000 200 kt.
Auto-fuel-burning composite aircraft with fully digital glass cockpits RIGHT
NOW!

With the exception of the price you mention, that hypothetical
aircraft is already in the air.

The cost of development, manufacture, and compliance with federal
safety standards, together with the limited market, conspire to drive
the cost of aircraft significantly beyond $35,000. The market for
$35,000 automobiles in the US is several orders of magnitude larger
than that for aircraft, as a result of the dearth of qualified pilots,
and the necessity of more stringent aviation safety standards. This
limited market prevents the development and safety costs of aircraft
from being amortized over a sufficient number units to permit the
profitable sale of aircraft at that price.

Are you suggesting, that millions of new aircraft with reduced safety
standards should take to the nation's skies annually? Jim Bede sold
that notion to the nation in the early '70s. Fortunately for all of
us, the mass market BD-5 was largely a failure, because it caused so
many deaths.

So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
environment

Civil aviation may not be perfect, but to date, better solutions have
not surfaced.

by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
so it's ok.'

Those pilots who present those arguments to you fail to discern the
true causes.

Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.

Those who fail to discern the role of economy-of-scale in price
reduction, lack fundamental understanding of manufacturing realities.

So while necessary safety concerns and a restricted market cause the
price of aviation to be well beyond that of automobile operation, it
is the lack of proposed aviation solutions that possess comparable or
superior safety characteristics to those available today, that retard
the advancement of aviation accessability for the masses.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,