If there were 25 million active GA pilots...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
|
|
|
|
| "Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message
| ...
|
| Then have two.
|
| When you are IMC with smoke in your cockpit, how do you know which
| electrical system to shut down?

You shut down both of them and wait for the smoke to clear. Then you
cautiously turn them on one at a time and see which one produces smoke.

Or your observe your panel status lights to determine which is having bus
problems, then shutdown the inop one.

"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message ...
...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:

There would be GA airports *everywhere*. They would be like beehives on the
day before Thanksgiving.

I appreciate the idea, I like the post. But, I'm curious about the
above idiom. Why beehives? Why Thanksgiving? grin

-Malcolm

Navigating and controlling a vehicle in the air will always be more complex
than moving over the ground. In my opinion, that eliminates the possibility
of the masses taking to flight. Perhaps it will be possible with advanced
navigational technology and more efficient and more controllable propulsion
some day.

Compare driving a car to piloting a boat: still two dimensional but much
more difficult in terms of navigation when the boat is on open water away
from land. Weather, finding fuel, sinking, capsizing, grounding, and
drowning are serious hazards. Navigation is done with charts, radar, GPS...
many of same tools air pilots use. None of which is necessary in a car on
roadway systems - except in the
boonies. There are no brakes either; but you can stop when you want,
assuming you have enough room and can use reverse propulsion.

Now throw the third dimension on top of that and remove braking (except for
rotorcraft). Now the pilot workload goes way up becuase control and
navigation in the vertical dimenstion have been added. And the same hazards
are still there - OK, replace water hazards with gravity hazards.

Even in a boat, there are often marked traffic lanes in high-volume and/or
shallow waters. Until we get highway-in-the-sky HUDs for general use, we
only have nav instruments - much more demanding to learn and operate than
any car system.

I don't think moving through a fluid (surface boat, submarine, aircraft)
will ever be as simple and as popular as moving over the ground.

-Scott

"Malcolm Teas" wrote:
I appreciate the idea, I like the post. But, I'm curious about the
above idiom. Why beehives?

If you get a chance, observe arrivals and departures at a beehive
sometime.

Why Thanksgiving? grin

Hee-hee! Well, uh...bees gotta go see mom too?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:

Anyone who thinks that we would have 25 million active pilots for longer than a
few days should listen to the New Jersey traffic reports any weekday morning.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

In rec.aviation.owning Scott Lowrey wrote:
: Compare driving a car to piloting a boat: still two dimensional but much
: more difficult in terms of navigation when the boat is on open water away
: from land.

I would argue that driving is effectively a 1-dimensional
endeavor. Once a road is chosen, it's followed and navigation isn't
necessary. Boating is 2-dimensional, with the additional problems of
weather, etc as you mentioned.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

You shut down both of them and wait for the smoke to clear. Then you
cautiously turn them on one at a time and see which one produces smoke.

If you are IMC you cannot turn both electrical systems off in an airplane
with no vacuum system.


Or your observe your panel status lights to determine which is having bus
problems, then shutdown the inop one.

What if there is just smoke but no panel status light change?



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

You shut down both of them and wait for the smoke to clear. Then you
cautiously turn them on one at a time and see which one produces
smoke.

If you are IMC you cannot turn both electrical systems off in an airplane
with no vacuum system.


Or your observe your panel status lights to determine which is having
bus
problems, then shutdown the inop one.

What if there is just smoke but no panel status light change?

What if you shutdown both electrical systems and the smoke only increases?

No, I didn't mean that it wasn't possible. I was merely pointing out that
(I believe, anyway) that uncontrolled VFR flight would be a thing of the
past.

With that many airplanes, every flight would have to be controlled with
something like CAPSTONE.


"mike regish" wrote in message
. net...
We have a 3d volume to use up there. With TCAS and HITS I don't think it
would be that big a deal. With more airports the congestion would be
spread
out. We have the technology. We just don't have enough people willing to
implement it. And we're too unable to accept responsibility for our
actions,
always wanting to blame and sue somebody else so it will probably never
happen. But it's certainly possible. Look at all the traffic we fit on all
our little 2 dimensional ribbons of roadway. You think we couldn't handle
that in the skies?

mike regish

"James Blakely" wrote in
message
...
With 40 million GA pilots, there would be no VFR. All GA flight would
have
to be controlled.

Imaging a road system with no traffic control.


"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message
...
...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:

There would be GA airports *everywhere*. They would be like beehives
on
the
day before Thanksgiving.

You could rent a T hangar for less than the cost of a 1 br apartment.

The accident rate would be about the same but the fatal accident rate
would
be lower due to modern, more crashworthy designs.

You'd give the engine in your airplane about as much thought as you do
the
one in your car. The idea of sending oil samples off for analysis at
each
change would seem absurd.

Your new "family" airplane would be air conditioned. It would have a
headup
synthetic vision/HITS display, emergency autoland capability, real
time
data
link weather and a CD/DVD player.

You'd have a second, "fun" airplane.

40-year old airplanes would all be junkers or lovingly restored
classics.

Vacuum pumps would be deep in landfills.

Air traffic control would automated for most functions.

Regulation enforcement officers would be flying around, watching and
listening, but federal enforcement actions would be more uniform and
fair
due to more lawyers and politicians getting busted and raising hell.

Frogs could dance and the Cubs would win the World Series.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

snicker Good one.

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


Dan Luke wrote:

...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:

Anyone who thinks that we would have 25 million active pilots for longer
than a
few days should listen to the New Jersey traffic reports any weekday
morning.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too
much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.