If there were 25 million active GA pilots...

[Dan Luke]

....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

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
|
| Vacuum pumps would be deep in landfills.
|

You know, a lot of pilots *like* vacuum pumps. They don't want everything
dependent on a single electrical system.

The new Cessna Nav III package for 182s and 206s will be available in March.
It will have the Garmin G1000 PFD and MFD displays. Vacuum instruments
running off dual vacuum pumps will be located underneath the displays. A
Cessna 182 with Nav III will cost the same as a Cessna 182 with Nav II does
now.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> You know, a lot of pilots *like* vacuum pumps.

I'm not among them.

> They don't want everything
> dependent on a single electrical system.

Then have two.

> The new Cessna Nav III package for 182s and 206s will be available
> in March. It will have the Garmin G1000 PFD and MFD displays.
> Vacuum instruments running off dual vacuum pumps will be located
> underneath the displays.

What a great combination. I love Skylanes and and gadgets.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
| > You know, a lot of pilots *like* vacuum pumps.
|
| I'm not among them.
|
| > They don't want everything
| > dependent on a single electrical system.
|
| Then have two.
|
| > The new Cessna Nav III package for 182s and 206s will be available
| > in March. It will have the Garmin G1000 PFD and MFD displays.
| > Vacuum instruments running off dual vacuum pumps will be located
| > underneath the displays.
|
| What a great combination. I love Skylanes and and gadgets.

And the Nav III package even gives you two electrical systems, just like you
want.

Two electrical systems, two vacuum systems, redundancy in everything except
engines and airframes.

[Mike Rapoport]

I have heard that Cessna sold out 2004 withing 24 hrs of the G1000
announcement.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
> | "C J Campbell" wrote:
> | > You know, a lot of pilots *like* vacuum pumps.
> |
> | I'm not among them.
> |
> | > They don't want everything
> | > dependent on a single electrical system.
> |
> | Then have two.
> |
> | > The new Cessna Nav III package for 182s and 206s will be available
> | > in March. It will have the Garmin G1000 PFD and MFD displays.
> | > Vacuum instruments running off dual vacuum pumps will be located
> | > underneath the displays.
> |
> | What a great combination. I love Skylanes and and gadgets.
>
> And the Nav III package even gives you two electrical systems, just like
you
> want.
>
> Two electrical systems, two vacuum systems, redundancy in everything
except
> engines and airframes.
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> I have heard that Cessna sold out 2004 withing 24 hrs of the
> G1000 announcement.

Wow.

[[email protected]]

On 16-Oct-2003, "Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> 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.

I think what you mean is that there would be few places without convenient
access to/from a GA airport

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

More likely GA airplanes would be designed with features like folding wings
to make storage more efficient

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

The real key to even getting to that level of GA use would be to make it
practical for GA airplanes and pilots to safely operate IFR in pretty much
the same mix of weather that the airlines fly in. The biggest challenges:
practical and low cost ice protection and weather visualization (the latter
rapidly becoming a reality) and greatly simplified IFR procedures (so that
25 million pilots could operate "in the system."

>
> 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.

But aircraft engines would continue to cost a lot more than auto engines --
just not ten times as much.


>
> Your new "family" airplane would be air conditioned.

Maybe. Still a big weight penalty and not needed nearly as universally as
AC in cars

It would have a headup synthetic vision/HITS display, emergency autoland
capability, real time data
> link weather and a CD/DVD player.

It would certainly have a lot of "high tech" avionics, but the demands of
traffic control in an environment with 25 million pilots would dominate
their functionality.

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

Maybe, but even with mass production techniques airplanes would still cost
lots more than cars -- just not 10 times as much.

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

Probably right.

>
> Vacuum pumps would be deep in landfills.

Everything that COULD be electronic WOULD be electronic. You would
certainly have redundant electrical systems

>
> Air traffic control would automated for most functions.

It would have to be to manage the 50-fold increase in traffic. Oh, and by
the way, there would undoubtedly need to be enforced positive control in
virtually all airspace with the possible exception of parts of Alaska
>
> 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.

The reason for more uniform (and aggressive) enforcement of regulations
would be that with 25 million users the system would collapse without it

>
> Frogs could dance and the Cubs would win the World Series.

Naw, its not as unlikely as the Cubs winning the Series.

-------
-Elliott Drucker

[David Megginson]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> writes:

>> They don't want everything dependent on a single electrical system.
>
> Then have two.

If you have smoke in the cockpit, you'll have to turn them both off.


All the best,


David

[Dan Luke]

"David Megginson" wrote:
> >> They don't want everything dependent on a single electrical
> >> system.
> >
> > Then have two.
>
> If you have smoke in the cockpit, you'll have to turn them both
> off.

Good point. I'd *still* rather have two electrical systems than one
electrical and one vacuum.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Neal]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:26:32 -0500, "Dan Luke"
<c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:

>Frogs could dance and the Cubs would win the World Series.

I will win the Texas Lotto before the Cubs ever win a World Series.

[Jeff]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:

>If there were 25 million active GA pilots in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:

>There would be GA airports *everywhere*.

There would also be GA *airplanes* everywhere and the number of midair
collisions would increase dramatically. It's a big sky, but not
*that* big.

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

Hangar rates would be about the same--can you say "law of supply and
demand"?

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

Accident rates would skyrocket, both fatal and non-fatal.

>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.

Dream on.

>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.

Air conditioning is for wimps--gain some altitude for goodness sakes.
Heads-up display? Keep your silly heads-up display. Data link? Real
time weather data link is here now and will be quite affordable in the
near future. CD player? If you're gonna be plugged into a CD player,
you'll not be piloting my airplane.

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

Yeah, sure. Your conclusions are as fanciful as your premise.

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> There would also be GA *airplanes* everywhere and the number of midair
> collisions would increase dramatically.

Of course, assuming that the much larger market had not driven superior
technology, which is one of the points of my OP.

> Hangar rates would be about the same--can you say "law of supply and
> demand"?

Can you say "more competition?"

> Accident rates would skyrocket, both fatal and non-fatal.

Why?

> >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.

> Dream on.

Tell me why that would be a dream.

> >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.

> Air conditioning is for wimps--

Spent much time down South, have you?

> Heads-up display? Keep your silly heads-up display. Data link? Real
> time weather data link is here now and will be quite affordable in the
> near future. CD player? If you're gonna be plugged into a CD player,
> you'll not be piloting my airplane.

Ar-r-rrrr maties! Here's a salty, bold pilot!

> Yeah, sure. Your conclusions are as fanciful as your premise.

Uh, see the last line.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jeff]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:

>> Hangar rates would be about the same--can you say "law of supply and
>> demand"?
>
>Can you say "more competition?"

High hangar costs are not due to a lack of "competition". Get real.

>> Accident rates would skyrocket, both fatal and non-fatal.
>
>Why?

Because instead of 400,000 pilots, of which 10% are idiots, you'd have
25 million pilots of which 40% were idiots. Accident rates would
skyrocket.

>Spent much time down South, have you?

I live in the south. I don't have an air conditioner in my airplane
and wouldn't want one.

Your conclusions are indeed as fanciful as your premise.

[Dan Luke]

"Jeff" wrote:
> Because instead of 400,000 pilots, of which 10% are idiots, you'd
have
> 25 million pilots of which 40% were idiots. Accident rates would
> skyrocket.
> Your conclusions are indeed as fanciful as your premise.

Your statistics are as fanciful as my premise.

[Wayne]

You can rent a T hangar for less then aa 1 br apartment. At least around
here. What prices are you paying and where?

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

[Jim Vadek]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | Vacuum pumps would be deep in landfills.
> |
>
> You know, a lot of pilots *like* vacuum pumps. They don't want everything
> dependent on a single electrical system.

You know, a lot of pilots do not know that dual bus electrical systems with
backup alternators are better than vacuum pumps which are virtually
guaranteed to fail before TBO.

[Newps]

Jim Vadek wrote:

> You know, a lot of pilots do not know that dual bus electrical systems with
> backup alternators are better than vacuum pumps which are virtually
> guaranteed to fail before TBO.

Maybe your stupid little dry pump will fail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Jim
Vadek" > wrote:

> vacuum pumps which are virtually
> guaranteed to fail before TBO.

not much of a TBO if the pumps fail before reaching it.

--
Bob Noel

[Henry Bibb]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> ...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:
>
If their competence level was anything like the drivers on the roads,
the aluminum recycling business would be one HOT career choice...

HB

[Dan Luke]

"Henry Bibb" wrote:
> > ...in the USA instead of 400,000 or so:
> >
> If their competence level was anything like the drivers on the
roads,
> the aluminum recycling business would be one HOT career choice...

If it were the same as the current population of pilots, there would
be plenty of scrap created.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ted Huffmire]

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

[Jeff]

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.

[James Blakely]

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
>
>
>
>
>

[mike regish]

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Martin]

> 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.

[mike regish]

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.
>
>

[Tim Bengtson]

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

[Richard Kaplan]

"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

[Dan Luke]

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

Dang...there goes another irony meter.

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Tom S.]

"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.

[Malcolm Teas]

"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

[Scott Lowrey]

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

[Dan Luke]

"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

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[[email protected]]

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Richard Kaplan]

"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

[Tom S.]

"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?

[James Blakely]

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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[James Blakely]

<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.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

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

If it is a non-electrical fire that is a separate issue.

But by having only electric gyros it becomes much harder to deal with an
electrical fire.

Airliners have fire-suppression systems which make this situation less
likely than a GA airplane.

I cannot imagine flying an electric-only airplane with no vacuum backup.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

>You know, a lot of pilots do not know that dual bus electrical systems with
>backup alternators are better than vacuum pumps which are virtually
>guaranteed to fail before TBO.

How about one electric AI and one vacuum AI? That is the best of both
worlds.
--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> How about one electric AI and one vacuum AI? That is the best of both
> worlds.

Which one do you believe when they don't agree? "The man with no watch knows
what time it is. The man with two is never sure."

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.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> "The man with no watch knows what time it is. The man with two is never sure."
^^
Should be "one".

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > How about one electric AI and one vacuum AI? That is the best of both
> > worlds.
>
> Which one do you believe when they don't agree?

One hopes that a look at the vacuum gauge and the ammeter would help you
with that. Of course, if the instrument itself has failed, you have to fall
back on the traditional cross-check techniques, but that would be a
possibility anyway. Besides, it's much more common for the power source
(vacuum or electric) to fail than for the instrument itself to.

Pete

[Montblack]

("G.R. Patterson III" wrote)
> > "The man with no watch knows what time it is. The man with two is never
sure."
> ^^
> Should be "one".

The man's broken watch is 100% accurate - twice a day.

--
Montblack

[Tom S.]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > What if you shutdown both electrical systems and the smoke only
increases?
>
> If it is a non-electrical fire that is a separate issue.

I know...I was just pulling your crank :~)

>
> But by having only electric gyros it becomes much harder to deal with an
> electrical fire.
....
>
> I cannot imagine flying an electric-only airplane with no vacuum backup.

The real "best of both worlds" is a dual bus electrical system with a vacuum
for backup/redundancy.

I wonder how soon that arrangement might make it's way into the lower
echelon of GA aircraft now that miniaturization is becoming so prevalent.

Tom
--
"Federal personnel data show that just 434 civilian federal workers were
fired for poor performance in 2001. Just 210 non-defense workers,
or 1 in 5,000, were fired for poor performance. Firing rates were
similarly low in prior years, and are low across all agencies."

NOTE: "Poor performance" is pretty much limited to sexual harassment, theft,
assault, and other criminal actions. Even that is not often enough for a
federal
employment termination.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Montblack"
> wrote:

> ("G.R. Patterson III" wrote)
> > > "The man with no watch knows what time it is. The man with two is
> > > never
> sure."
> > ^^
> > Should be "one".
>
> The man's broken watch is 100% accurate - twice a day.


there are exceptions to that...

--
Bob Noel

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...


> The real "best of both worlds" is a dual bus electrical system with a
vacuum
> for backup/redundancy.

Yes, I agree completely.

Unfortunately, Cirrus seems to be leading the way without vacuum systems and
I do not think this is a good idea.

To some extent this has parallels with Cirrus installing the ballistic
parachute and using that as an excuse to not perform spin testing.

Similarly this reminds me of the discussion I had with a Cirrus rep at
Oshkosh about their TKS de-icing system option. The rep said it was
"Certified for Inadvertent Icing" which he said was a step between
non-approved deicing equipment and known-icing approval. I say that is
nonsesnse -- what they probably have is an STC approved on a "does no harm"
basis and you could get a tuna fish sandwich on the copilot seat approved
under the same terms. It is not known-ice.

I think Cirrus has some great ideas for safety but I am not certain the
execution is optimum or complete on a number of them.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

>> How about one electric AI and one vacuum AI? That is the best of both
>> worlds.
>
> Which one do you believe when they don't agree? "The man with no watch knows
> what time it is. The man with two is never sure."

You let the other instruments vote one of the AI's off the island.


All the best,


David

[mike regish]

How about one of those fan type generators you can lower into the
slipstream? Don't some airliners have something like that or is it just
something I saw in a movie?

mike regish

P.S. I'm a federal employee with a couple of bosses I'd like to deck. How do
I do it without getting fired? ;-)

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> The real "best of both worlds" is a dual bus electrical system with a
vacuum
> for backup/redundancy.
>
> I wonder how soon that arrangement might make it's way into the lower
> echelon of GA aircraft now that miniaturization is becoming so prevalent.
>
> Tom
> --
> "Federal personnel data show that just 434 civilian federal workers were
> fired for poor performance in 2001. Just 210 non-defense workers,
> or 1 in 5,000, were fired for poor performance. Firing rates were
> similarly low in prior years, and are low across all agencies."
>
> NOTE: "Poor performance" is pretty much limited to sexual harassment,
theft,
> assault, and other criminal actions. Even that is not often enough for a
> federal
> employment termination.
>
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

mike regish wrote:
>
> How about one of those fan type generators you can lower into the
> slipstream? Don't some airliners have something like that or is it just
> something I saw in a movie?

Dunno about airliners, but the Cessna Owners Organization magazine used to carry
ads for those things. In 1995, one cost $1,495 and STCs were available for a
Cessna 210 and Piper PA-32. Sold by Basic Aircraft Products in Evans Georgia.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message
...

> The real key to even getting to that level of GA use would be to make it
> practical for GA airplanes and pilots to safely operate IFR in pretty much
> the same mix of weather that the airlines fly in. The biggest challenges:
> practical and low cost ice protection and weather visualization (the
latter

Even with a terrific TKS known-ice system and 5-minute weather datalink from
Weatherworx, my plane is nowhere near as capable as an airliner. Airliners
have advantages in altitude, speed, and range that make a big difference
compared with my piston single.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

On 23-Oct-2003, "Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> Even with a terrific TKS known-ice system and 5-minute weather datalink
> from Weatherworx, my plane is nowhere near as capable as an airliner.
> Airliners have advantages in altitude, speed, and range that make a big
> difference
> compared with my piston single.


I think you missed my point. In order to attract 25 million active pilots a
vast majority of them would have to view GA aircraft as a reliable means of
transportation for trips of modest length. That means reliably being able
to operate in IFR environments in all seasons and in all regions of the
country. That does NOT mean they would have to match the airlines in speed,
range, or altitude capability, or that they would have to be able to go in
unusually nasty weather. But they would have to be able to operate safely
in TYPICAL bad weather. Put another way, how many people would own and
drive cars if they could only be used for sightseeing around town on sunny
days?
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> I think you missed my point. In order to attract 25 million active pilots
a
> vast majority of them would have to view GA aircraft as a reliable means
of
> transportation for trips of modest length. That means reliably being able
> to operate in IFR environments in all seasons and in all regions of the
> country.

....which I personally regard as an impossibility in any practical sense.
That was the main reason for my OP, to generate discussion about why there
*aren't* 25M active GA pilots. There is no reasonably economical airplane
that I can envision that could fulfil the requirements you describe - NASA's
silly Advanced General Aviation Transports Experiment notwithstanding.

> Put another way, how many people would own and drive cars if they could
> only be used for sightseeing around town on sunny days?

Bingo.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Nils Rostedt]

mike regish wrote ...
> How about one of those fan type generators you can lower into the
> slipstream? Don't some airliners have something like that or is it just
> something I saw in a movie?
>
> mike regish
>

Indeed, it's the RAT or ram air turbine. Its purpose is to generate enough
power to keep the plane flying. In
some planes it pressurizes the ciritcal hydraulics too, as
well as the more important avionics.

Reminds me of the venturi tubes used to generate vacuum for the attitude
indicator in old Tiger Moths. I guess it was pretty reliable. Maybe these
things still have a place in modern airplanes alongside the computers ;-)

/ Nils

[Paul Mennen]

> Reminds me of the venturi tubes used to generate vacuum for the attitude
> indicator in old Tiger Moths. I guess it was pretty reliable. Maybe these
> things still have a place in modern airplanes alongside the computers ;-)
>
> / Nils

You don't have to go back that far! The vacuum system in my IFR equipped
1953 Cessna 170 was powered via a venturi. Works perfectly well
(as long as you don't run into to much ice) But that's why you
have an electric T&B ;)

~Paul Mennen

[Dylan Smith]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:38:40 GMT, mike regish > wrote:
>How about one of those fan type generators you can lower into the
>slipstream? Don't some airliners have something like that or is it just
>something I saw in a movie?

I think they are called a 'ram air turbine'.

On the Diamond DA-40, with all electrical IFR instruments, there is a
battery backup for the AI which is totally separate from the normal
electrical buses (activated by a guarded switch). The backup is powered
by a pack of alkaline (Duracell) batteries (with expiry date), and IIRC,
lasts quite a long time if you need to use it.

I'd much rather have electric AI and DG and vacuum TC in the traditional
set-up. I've seen numerous vacuum failures, but in over 1000 hours of
flying I've yet to see an electrical failure where I've had no power
at all. I'd rather have the most useful instruments powered by the most
reliable source.o

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd much rather have electric AI and DG and vacuum TC in the traditional
> set-up. I've seen numerous vacuum failures, but in over 1000 hours of
> flying I've yet to see an electrical failure where I've had no power
> at all. I'd rather have the most useful instruments powered by the most
> reliable source.o

I experienced two complete electrical failures in my first 100 hours. Of
course, that's more a commentary on the condition of the rental fleet back
then...

I've never seen a vacuum failure, in over 800 hours of flying. (Although I
did experience a vacuum attitude indicator failure a couple of months
ago...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> I've never seen a vacuum failure, in over 800 hours of flying. (Although I
> did experience a vacuum attitude indicator failure a couple of months
> ago...)

I experienced my first vacuum failure about 100 hours after I bought
my Warrior. I was about 10 miles back at night in excellent VMC. I
reduced power to start a gentle descent, and immediately the vacuum
indicator lit up (it was impossible to miss). I crosschecked the
suction gauge, which read 0. By the time we touched down, the AI was
seriously tilted and the HI was barely moving.

My plane was imported to Canada in 1988 and got a new set of logs then
(as is typical). I have found no reference to a vacuum pump
replacement in the logs, so the pump that failed had at least 1,000
hours and 15 years on it.


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> > I've never seen a vacuum failure, in over 800 hours of flying.
(Although I
> > did experience a vacuum attitude indicator failure a couple of months
> > ago...)
>
> I experienced my first vacuum failure about 100 hours after I bought
> my Warrior.

Augh -- I KNEW I shouldn't have said anything like that out loud! My DG
just went belly-up on my flight to Pella yesterday.

It's totally, 100% dead -- no movement or gyro spinning up at all. And I
just replaced the AI last month.

But the vacuum is still reading a good strong "5", for whatever that's
worth.

Nothing like losing both of your vacuum instruments within a month of each
other...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Augh -- I KNEW I shouldn't have said anything like that out loud! My DG
> just went belly-up on my flight to Pella yesterday.
>
> It's totally, 100% dead -- no movement or gyro spinning up at all. And I
> just replaced the AI last month.
>
> But the vacuum is still reading a good strong "5", for whatever that's
> worth.

I wonder if it's spewing junk into your gyros -- did you change the
central air filter (or whatever it's called) when you installed the
new AI?


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> I wonder if it's spewing junk into your gyros -- did you change the
> central air filter (or whatever it's called) when you installed the
> new AI?

Dunno -- I would assume that my A&P would know to check that, but I'm sure
going to be asking him now... (He just called me to say that all the lines
and fitting are tight, eliminating the cheap and easy problems...)

It's always something with airplanes, isn't it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"