What GA needs

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
that involves an actual airplane.
BZZZ wrong answer, your not learning to fly, your learning to play a game

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
away that makes it worth while to do.

There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

Such as?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:08:31 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

YOu can quote all the Wki sites you like. That doesn't change the
fact that fractional ownership is just an evolution of partnerships
and flying clubs.

So if Ford's Model T evolved into a high-performance sports car, would
you characterize them both the same?

It is your failure to acknowledge the RECENT surge in businesses
offering fractional aircraft ownership and the RECENT changes in FAA
fractional ownership regulations that prompts me to keep providing
evidence of it for you.

So while fractional ownership may not be new, it is newly emphasized.
Why do you suppose that is?

Larry I never once said or even implied that fractional ownership wasn't
subject to a recent surge. You jusr keep acting like partial ownership among
many is a new thing and it isn't. The way it is marketed and managed has
changed.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has
been simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn
good and I really don't see how you could get it any shorter without
taking everything away that makes it worth while to do.

There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually
flying that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

How the hell would you know that? You have never taken a lesson in your
life. I have PP-ASEL and R-H ratings and can not think of one single thing
during that training that I would consider useless or red tape.

If you aren't talking about red tape and the training process please feel
free to give me an example.

On Sep 12, 12:40 am, James Sleeman wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
towards attracting new pilots.

It's called a US-Legal ultralight. Or LSA like an X-Air H or RANS S6
for a little more $ and comfort.

You sound like the kind of person who would really get a kick out of
flying even first generation ultralghts, it really is getting right
back to basics, stick, rudder, and not a whole lot else to get between
you and the art of flying.

I think I would, actually. When I fly, it will likely be under light-
sport rules since all I anticipate really wanting to do is drill some
plane-shaped holes in the sky and take in the view.

My concern is for the next generation of rental aircraft. The cheap
LSA and ultralights that you cited all seem to be flying under the
experimental rules, which I believe don't allow an aircraft to be
rented or used for any commercial purpose including instruction for
hire. (If I've misread the FARs, please correct me as IANAP) There
doesn't seem to be anything coming along to replace the Cessna 150 on
the flight school and rental lineup, and that's what worries me.

-JTD

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car


Rotary engine - Poor boys turbine. Greatly reduce the moving part count, for
weight, cost and reliability, and keep some of the fuel efficiency.

Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.

Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to flywheels
(propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some kind of
dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a tremendous
deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.

On Sep 12, 1:31 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:
Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
away that makes it worth while to do.

There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
check in my hand. The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet, and
I never got the idea that flight instruction was more complex than it
needed to be. Yeah, it was hard, in my limited experience, but flying
is complex. There's weather to consider, navigation from a completely
different perspective, and that pesky third dimension...

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Could you give an
example?

-JTD

writes:

Such as?

The entire process of obtaining a license, for example, as well as the endless
currency requirements, medical exams, type ratings, and so on.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

How the hell would you know that?

By looking it up. The concept of research is not widely known but it remains
very useful.

Jeff Dougherty writes:

Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
check in my hand.

Getting in is just the beginning.

The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
unnecessarily repetitive.

Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
regulation, and so on.

It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.