If there were 25 million active GA pilots...

I don't think that you could find 25 million
adults in the U.S. who are mentally and
physically capable of piloting a Cessna.
Ever taken a good look at the people at
the DMV office?

You would never get a takeoff clearance.

All citizens would have to wear hard hats
to avoid the debris falling from the sky.

Collision avoidance would be impossible,
even with computers, because the of the
computational complexity of the problem.

Millions of pilots and their passengers would
die.

There would have to be an army of air traffic
controllers. Sure, I'd trust my life to see the automated
air traffic controller running on Microsoft Windows.

Norad would go crazy trying to track that many
objects.

Regarding enforcement actions, with 25 million
people, it would be like the wild west.
It seems that people are becoming less and
less law-abiding; people are running red lights
without even thinking about it these days.
There would have to be an army of these
"Administrative Law Judges" to hear all the cases.

--
__
/ \___/ |
/ / |
/ _ |
/ / \ _|
__ / --- / |
\__/ \__ \/\


Dan Luke wrote:

...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

Another one who "gets it"...


Ted Huffmire wrote:

I don't think that you could find 25 million
adults in the U.S. who are mentally and
physically capable of piloting a Cessna.
Ever taken a good look at the people at
the DMV office?

You would never get a takeoff clearance.

All citizens would have to wear hard hats
to avoid the debris falling from the sky.

Collision avoidance would be impossible,
even with computers, because the of the
computational complexity of the problem.

Millions of pilots and their passengers would
die.

There would have to be an army of air traffic
controllers. Sure, I'd trust my life to see the automated
air traffic controller running on Microsoft Windows.

Norad would go crazy trying to track that many
objects.

Regarding enforcement actions, with 25 million
people, it would be like the wild west.
It seems that people are becoming less and
less law-abiding; people are running red lights
without even thinking about it these days.
There would have to be an army of these
"Administrative Law Judges" to hear all the cases.

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

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

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?

I just don't like the thought of always-controlled flight... well, that and
I don't trust a computer to do all the flying and navigation.

Basically, driving a car is within the capabilities of most people (well,
supposedly, anyways). Flying isn't... the average person doesn't have the
attention span, coordination, or judgement to fly an aircraft.

The average person has all he needs to learn to safely and competently fly a
plane. The only ingredient lacking is desire. I know a bunch of people who
would love to learn to fly, but as soon as you mention cost the lights go
out. People handle cars-they handle boats. A plane is just one small step
beyond either of those. We, as a society, seem to have an inate fear of
heights or of falling to our deaths. Other forms of dying don't seem to
bother us as much. If that were different-people thought the risk of flying
was the same as the risk of other forms of transportation-we could have a
much different world. Like that AOPA ad-A mile of road gets you a mile. A
mile of runway gets you anywhere.

We have the technology and ability to make flying as routine as driving a
car. Safer even. But falling out of the sky is a less appetizing way to die
than running into a brick wall. People in general, tend to be landlubbers.
If that were not true we would probably be a flying society right now.

mike regish

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
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?

I just don't like the thought of always-controlled flight... well, that
and
I don't trust a computer to do all the flying and navigation.

Basically, driving a car is within the capabilities of most people (well,
supposedly, anyways). Flying isn't... the average person doesn't have the
attention span, coordination, or judgement to fly an aircraft.

Tom S. wrote:

| 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.

You *must* figure out the problem from your panel indicators (or
something like that). If you are in IMC in an all-electric airplane and
you turn off all your electrical systems, your NTSB report will at least
be interesting.

Tim

"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?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Jeff" wrote:
Another one who "gets it"...

Dang...there goes another irony meter.

"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.