Aviation is too expensive

[Chris W]

Three words, "Amateur Built Aircraft"


--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Tom S.]

"Chris W" > wrote in message ...
> Three words, "Amateur Built Aircraft"
>

Non-answer.

He's not asking for cheap alternatives, he's asking why aviation costs are
so disproportionate (i.e., why a 25 year old aircraft cost more than it did
new).

[H.J.]

What's wrong with general aviation?

An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost $180,000.
These are relic machines with instrument panel lights and loose door handles
worse than any yugo ever had. I'd say an old Cherokee from 1978 should be
worth about as much as a V.W. from the same time period: $2500. Especially
considering the absurd yearly expenses required to keep one legal. If a v.w.
bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.

A hiker's GPS runs $199 while an aviation version costs $1,999.

Why does an aviation spark plug cost over $20??? It's just a plug! It should
cost $1.99 for a good one! A far more complex product with dozens of
precision parts - a digital watch - can go for as little as $5.99 at
Walmart.

Why does the 36" fiberglass pan of a Warrior (the chin part where the carb
intake is on the nose) cost 5,000 freaking dollars???? It is only glass and
glue, after all. There is no structural support or anything like that
involved.

Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in it? Why
isnt it $1.50?

Maybe modern pilots are just money bags who dont care about costs.

[Jeff Franks]

Two words...

supply and demand.


"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> What's wrong with general aviation?
>
> An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost
$180,000.
> These are relic machines with instrument panel lights and loose door
handles
> worse than any yugo ever had. I'd say an old Cherokee from 1978 should be
> worth about as much as a V.W. from the same time period: $2500. Especially
> considering the absurd yearly expenses required to keep one legal. If a
v.w.
> bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
> inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.
>
> A hiker's GPS runs $199 while an aviation version costs $1,999.
>
> Why does an aviation spark plug cost over $20??? It's just a plug! It
should
> cost $1.99 for a good one! A far more complex product with dozens of
> precision parts - a digital watch - can go for as little as $5.99 at
> Walmart.
>
> Why does the 36" fiberglass pan of a Warrior (the chin part where the carb
> intake is on the nose) cost 5,000 freaking dollars???? It is only glass
and
> glue, after all. There is no structural support or anything like that
> involved.
>
> Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in it?
Why
> isnt it $1.50?
>
> Maybe modern pilots are just money bags who dont care about costs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Two words...
>
> supply and demand.

It's liability, too. Everyone tags on "x" percent, just to cover their
perceived risks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Addison]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:43:14 -0700, Tom S. wrote:

>
> "Chris W" > wrote in message ...
>> Three words, "Amateur Built Aircraft"
>>
>
> Non-answer.
>
> He's not asking for cheap alternatives, he's asking why aviation costs are
> so disproportionate (i.e., why a 25 year old aircraft cost more than it did
> new).

Some of that is due to inflation, which people tend to forget.

Inflation is, IIRC, averaging about 4% over the last 30 years or so. So
the buying power of $15k 30 years ago is equal to $48k today. (And compound
interest isn't my forte, apologies if I did that wrong).

So, $15k or $50k, which is "more?" Well, in this case, they're "equal".

Some of his other complaints.. well, he's welcome to _start his own
company_, and make the inexpensive parts, sell gas for under its cost,
etc.

And I suspect if he were to try that, or at least consider it a bit
longer, he might answer his own question.

Addison

[Chris W]

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Chris W" > wrote in message ...
> > Three words, "Amateur Built Aircraft"
>
> Non-answer.
>
> He's not asking for cheap alternatives, he's asking why aviation costs are
> so disproportionate (i.e., why a 25 year old aircraft cost more than it did
> new).

Well in that case, I have three letters for you, FAA.

And I take exception to using the term "cheap alternative" to describe "Amateur
Built Aircraft". Now if you meant "inexpensive" alternative I have no problem
with that.


--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[gblack]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
...
: In article >,
: "H.J." > wrote:
:
: > If a v.w.
: > bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
: > inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.
:
: And fewer of them would be broken down on the side of the road.
:
and even fewer would get on the road

[David Megginson]

"H.J." > writes:

> What's wrong with general aviation?
>
> An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost
> $180,000.

Boats are the same, as far as I've heard. Houses are worse: run-down
houses in our neighbourhood are now selling for over double what we
paid for our (good-condition) house in the mid 1990's.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[JWS]

For the most part the cost of flying is basic economics, supply vs. demand.

Not too many people want a 1978 VW, you cannot say the same about any 1978
single engine plane.

Why inspect the VW, if it quits running you may have to talk a walk some
where, different story with the airplane.

Maybe $2.65/gal for 100LL is reasonable, cannot say I have seen it sold
anywhere but airports here in the US. Some third world countries are
probably still burning it in cars. If that is the case, the oil companies
are making a specialty product just for airplanes.

I do not know a lot about Piper parts and their cost, but the simple 36"
piece of fiberglass was probably built by hand, and they probably are
probably only selling a couple of them a year so there is no economy of
scale.

Considering the conditions an airplane sparkplug has to operate in, it is
probably worth more than $1.99. Look what an airplane engine has to do
compared to a car engine. Try running your car from idle to full throttle,
hold at full throttle under load for extended time periods and repeat. Check
out some of the experimental flyers who with some degree of success use
automotive engines in their planes, very few car engines can handle the
task. Plus, Wal-Mart sells a lot more sparkplugs that your aviation parts
supplier.

I wear cheap digital watches, like the 1978 VW when they quit (and they
always do), it is no big deal and I throw them away. Sometimes the most
difficult product to produce is a simple reliable one.

Avionics could be made a lot cheaper, but if you can sell it for $1,999 why
sell it for $199. You may say that they could sell more units and make up
the difference in volume, but any business thats been around for a while
knows what the demand for their product will be at a given price.

Flying is a very expensive hobby, but a lot of other hobbies are expensive,
you make your choices, if you want to do something you make it happen.. I do
not know many pilots that I would call money bags. Most have made economic
trade offs in other areas of their life that enable them to fly. Some live
in more modest homes than they would if they didn't fly, they don't take
many vacations, they drive the same cars for years. They put flying on hold
till after the kids are out of college and have more free cash. Everyone
knew how much it cost when they started, nobody changed the rules in the
middle of the game.

I have quit flying, right now I cannot afford it and my other expensive
hobbies, amateur radio, and scuba diving. Just shelled out $2000.00 today
for a 4 day diving trip, what should it have cost? I can go to Vegas for 4
nights for $800.00

Will PP-AEL
"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> What's wrong with general aviation?
>
> An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost
$180,000.
> These are relic machines with instrument panel lights and loose door
handles
> worse than any yugo ever had. I'd say an old Cherokee from 1978 should be
> worth about as much as a V.W. from the same time period: $2500. Especially
> considering the absurd yearly expenses required to keep one legal. If a
v.w.
> bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
> inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.
>
> A hiker's GPS runs $199 while an aviation version costs $1,999.
>
> Why does an aviation spark plug cost over $20??? It's just a plug! It
should
> cost $1.99 for a good one! A far more complex product with dozens of
> precision parts - a digital watch - can go for as little as $5.99 at
> Walmart.
>
> Why does the 36" fiberglass pan of a Warrior (the chin part where the carb
> intake is on the nose) cost 5,000 freaking dollars???? It is only glass
and
> glue, after all. There is no structural support or anything like that
> involved.
>
> Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in it?
Why
> isnt it $1.50?
>
> Maybe modern pilots are just money bags who dont care about costs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"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? :~)

[Tom S.]

"JWS" > wrote in message
. ..
> For the most part the cost of flying is basic economics, supply vs.
demand.
>
> Not too many people want a 1978 VW, you cannot say the same about any 1978
> single engine plane.
>
> Why inspect the VW, if it quits running you may have to talk a walk some
> where, different story with the airplane.
>
> Maybe $2.65/gal for 100LL is reasonable, cannot say I have seen it sold
> anywhere but airports here in the US. Some third world countries are
> probably still burning it in cars. If that is the case, the oil companies
> are making a specialty product just for airplanes.

What are the taxes on AvGas and Jet-A? It's around 38-45 cents on automobile
gas (The producers get about 9-15 cents, the parasites get four times as
much).

> I do not know a lot about Piper parts and their cost, but the simple 36"
> piece of fiberglass was probably built by hand, and they probably are
> probably only selling a couple of them a year so there is no economy of
> scale.

BINGO!! Cigar to JWS!!

[jim rosinski]

>>> He's not asking for cheap alternatives, he's asking why aviation
costs are
>>> so disproportionate (i.e., why a 25 year old aircraft cost more
than it did
>>> new).

> > supply and demand.

> It's liability, too. Everyone tags on "x" percent, just to cover their
> perceived risks.

Also "economies of scale". You'll find similar (expensive) situations
for boats and other niche items that don't have a huge market base.
And airplanes don't rust, meaning they can last longer than cars.
They do corrode, but that usually takes longer.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Rosspilot]

>"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

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:13:10 GMT, "JWS" >
wrote:


>Considering the conditions an airplane sparkplug has to operate in, it is
>probably worth more than $1.99. Look what an airplane engine has to do
>compared to a car engine. Try running your car from idle to full throttle,
>hold at full throttle under load for extended time periods and repeat. Check
>out some of the experimental flyers who with some degree of success use
>automotive engines in their planes, very few car engines can handle the
>task. Plus, Wal-Mart sells a lot more sparkplugs that your aviation parts
>supplier.

The auto conversions fly just like their more expensive cousins, using
the same manifold pressures and use ordinary auto spark plugs.

I should post the article I have that describes the development of an
ordinary Chevy V-6. The number of hours the engines spend at full
throttle and the torture they go through is by FAR more severe than
the FAA's mandated testing for new aircraft engines. Here's one small
excerpt:

"Thermal cycle tests are run to define engine capability under cold
weather condition. We run the engine at full throttle at 4000 RPM,
bring it down to idle, stop it, switch the coolant valves to drain the
hot coolant, pump the chilled coolant from the chiller until the metal
temperature stabilizes at 0 degrees F. Frost forms on the outside of
the block, as the cold coolant rushes into the engine. When it
stabilizes at 0 F, we motor the engine, start it, come to full
throttle at 4400 RPM, the valves switch and the coolant temperature
starts to climb. It climbs back up to 260 degrees F. It takes 10 -11
minutes to complete one cycle. The engine must pass 600 cycles
without any sign of failure. We typically run 1200 cycles and a probe
test will run 1600 cycles. That's a (sic) excellent gasket killer
test. Head gaskets are the first to fail because of the rapid
expansion and contraction."

Chevy is only typical, all automakers butcher their engines like this
during development. They have to, if they produce a dog or
maintenance hog, their reputation will take a long time to rebuild and
money, lots of it, will be lost.

Corky Scott

[Jeff Franks]

> It's liability, too. Everyone tags on "x" percent, just to cover their
> perceived risks.

And with our judicial system (read "jurors") handing out rewards of $480
MILLION for a crash (that the guy lived through)....I can understand why
they'd want that coverage. (I understand its been overturned recently
though, thank God)......

(this is where our resident lawyer Larry gets to pipe in about it being
"fair" :)

Biggest problem with money and flying is that if you say "I'm a pilot", the
general public thinks you must be rich. I can buy a sub-$20k airplane and
my best friend can spend $30k for a new bass boat. But who do you think Joe
Average will think has the most money?

[Chris W]

Corky Scott wrote:

> The auto conversions fly just like their more expensive cousins, using
> the same manifold pressures and use ordinary auto spark plugs.
>
> I should post the article I have that describes the development of an
> ordinary Chevy V-6. The number of hours the engines spend at full
> throttle and the torture they go through is by FAR more severe than
> the FAA's mandated testing for new aircraft engines.

Attach a 6 foot propeller to the crank and everything changes. That introduces
stresses and vibrations that auto engines never dreamed of.


--
Chris Woodhouse
Oklahoma City

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

[Casey Wilson]

"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>
>
Sounds like an amusement ride in Las Vegas that my grandkids went on.
I don't remember the name, but I do remember the parent's shelling out $15
for a 0:01:40 experience. Let's see, what kind of airplane could I rent for
that $540 per hour....?
Relatively speaking, a C-172 is pretty cheap.

[Peter Duniho]

"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> You can rent a Ferrari for $200 PER DAY.

Really? Where? Around here, all you can get for (about) $200 is a Boxster
or a C5 Corvette. The local "exotic" rental place doesn't have a Ferrari
anymore, but if I recall, when they did it was more like $500/day or so.

> Has anybody ever rented a C-172 for $200 per day?

Again, comparing to the exotic rental around here, there are a lot more
restrictions with the cars. A 100-200 mile/day limit is common, as is a
requirement to remain in this state. The local shop includes only 75 miles
in the daily rate, and for a Ferrari (if they still had it) would charge
$1/mile for additional mileage. I'd be hard-pressed to spend $200 using a
C172 within those restrictions.

> A ferrari has more horsepower, higher Vne, and is more
> complex.

And requires far less training in order to use, creating a much larger
market.

> So, Why can't a new generic-ish plane sell for $25,000? and rent for $60
per
> day?

Haven't you been reading this thread?

> Maybe it is an economy-of-scale issue, but if a plane sold for a more
> reasonable price, half the guys in town would get one and then there'd be
no
> economy-of-scale problem, right?

"Half the guys in town" wouldn't be able to fly one. It takes a particular
commitment and motivation to learn to fly a plane. Even if aviation were
less expensive, you wouldn't have 100 million (or so) pilots in the U.S.

Beyond that, there may be a bit of the chicken/egg thing going on, but there
are lots of other reasons why aviation is expensive too. It's just not true
that, if overnight you could reduce the price point of 4-seater piston
aviation to match that of a typical family sedan, there'd be no
economy-of-scale problem.

Pete

[Judah]

"H.J." > wrote in
:

<snip>

> Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in
> it? Why isnt it $1.50?

I'll support the argument of supply and demand with a paraphrasing of an
article that I read a few weeks ago....


You're complaining about paying $2.65 for gas. How much did you pay for the
Gallon of Milk you bought at the grocery store? $2.99? How about a gallon
of coffee? If you buy it at Dunkins, you probably pay $1.50 or so for a 16
oz coffee (2 cups). To make a gallon, you would need to buy 8 of those!
That makes $12 / gallon! And they're the cheap ones! If you go to Starbucks
you probably pay more than DOUBLE that! $24/gallon of coffee! And while I
know that your morning coffee might provide that extra "lift" to get
through the day, I suspect that you would give it up in a heartbeat to pay
for a little over an hour of flying in most light singles (2 hours in
some)!

Wait. I'm not done!

You know water? That stuff that you can go to the tap, turn the knob, and
get for pennies on the gallon? Well, if you take that water, put it in a 20
oz bottle, and put a blue label on it, you can go to a soda machine and pay
up to $2.00 for it! Well, that equates to $12.80 / gallon of water! WATER!!
You are going to pay nearly $13 for something that if you walked past the
soda machine to the bathroom you could get for FREE!

So you see, it's all about marketing - supply and demand is king. The
reason someone can get $50k for a 20 year old piper is because there is
someone willing to pay that much for it. And while that someone may not be
you or me, it's someone...

But then, I generally make my coffee in a pot at home using water that
comes out of the tap...


;)

[john smith]

"H.J." wrote:
> You can rent a Ferrari for $200 PER DAY. Has anybody ever rented a C-172 for
> $200 per day? A ferrari has more horsepower, higher Vne, and is more
> complex. And, yes, a typical car is more complex than a typical plane - a
> car has numerous moving suspension parts and transmission parts, water
> cooling, etc.

Let's keep it an "apples-to-apples" discussion.
Forget rental cost. How much does a Ferrari cost to buy? $300k? $500K?
Both are mostly hand-made, hence the high price of acquisition.
Then there is maintenance... the mechanic's education, tools, cost of
replacement parts, etc.
Same GM part for a Chevy and a Cadillac, do you pay the same price from
each dealer's parts department?

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> > Two words... supply and demand.
>
> It's liability, too. Everyone tags on "x" percent, just to cover their
> perceived risks.

Let's all get real. Supply and demand and economies of scale? Then
why does the top end RADAR for a small boat cost less than $2000, new?
They don't sell any more of those than they do small airplane RADAR
sets.

For that matter, why does an autopilot for an experimental cost $1500,
new? There are fewer experimentals flying than certified aircraft.

Liability? The same laws, lawyers, judges and juries apply whether
we're talking certified aircraft, homebuilt, or boat.

No, let's be real. The real enemy is our government - specifically
the FAA. They're the reason we're struggling to keep 40 year old
technology going rather than getting new stuff at a fraction of the
cost.

Michael

[David Megginson]

"H.J." > writes:

> I get your point about the roller coaster, but no, Relatively
> speaking a C-172 is way too expensive. A C-172 is sort of the
> average Ford Taurus of the sky.

Ford sells hundreds of thousands of Taurus's every year, so the
overhead cost of design, certification, administration, and (mainly)
running the manufacturing facilities gets spread around; even then, I
think that Ford is currently losing a few hundred dollars on every one
that goes out the door.

Cessna sold, at most, a few dozen 172's last year. There are probably
guys building canoes in their basements who have more turnover than
that.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Ted Huffmire]

If aviation were cheap enough for everybody,
imagine how long you would have to wait
to get a takeoff clearance. Every taxiway would
look like San Carlos Airport at 11am on a Saturday.

If a 1978 Piper didn't have to have an annual
inspection, parts would be falling on people's
heads like they do from a broken down car.

Who needs GPS? I am perfectly happy with
VOR and NDB. The Cirrus SR-22 has lots of
all-glass fancy avionics but they are
crashing left and right--probably because
people are staring at the computer screen
instead of looking out the darn window.

If general aviation did not kill as many
people as it does, then more people would
fly (fewer would be discouraged).
Imagine how difficult it would be to
get flight following or a bay tour transition.
So many little planes to dodge in the narrow
airspace allotted for us -- think sunol
intersection, KGO, coyote hills area.

Luckily the FAA doesn't require pilots
to carry insurance, unlike motor vehicles.
Who wants to pay $10K for a $100K per seat
policy--insufficient to cover lost wages,
medical bills, legal bills, and pain and
suffering associated with an accident.

Ted

"H.J." wrote:
>
> What's wrong with general aviation?
>
> An old crapper Piper from 1978 costs over $50,000. A nice one cost $180,000.
> These are relic machines with instrument panel lights and loose door handles
> worse than any yugo ever had. I'd say an old Cherokee from 1978 should be
> worth about as much as a V.W. from the same time period: $2500. Especially
> considering the absurd yearly expenses required to keep one legal. If a v.w.
> bug had to have an annual inspection that costs what a GA aircraft
> inspection does, nobody would pay a cent for one.
>
> A hiker's GPS runs $199 while an aviation version costs $1,999.
>
> Why does an aviation spark plug cost over $20??? It's just a plug! It should
> cost $1.99 for a good one! A far more complex product with dozens of
> precision parts - a digital watch - can go for as little as $5.99 at
> Walmart.
>
> Why does the 36" fiberglass pan of a Warrior (the chin part where the carb
> intake is on the nose) cost 5,000 freaking dollars???? It is only glass and
> glue, after all. There is no structural support or anything like that
> involved.
>
> Fuel is $2.65 for self serve 100LL! Does it have pure gold flakes in it? Why
> isnt it $1.50?
>
> Maybe modern pilots are just money bags who dont care about costs.

[David Megginson]

Ted Huffmire > writes:

> Luckily the FAA doesn't require pilots to carry insurance, unlike
> motor vehicles. Who wants to pay $10K for a $100K per seat
> policy--insufficient to cover lost wages, medical bills, legal
> bills, and pain and suffering associated with an accident.

Transport Canada does require Canadian pilots to carry liability
insurance, and fortunately, it's not that expensive. When I bought my
Warrior last December, I was an 85-hour pilot with no ratings, and my
total cost for CAD 1,000,000 combined liability (USD 720,000) is only
CAD 515/year (USD 370) -- it's hull insurance that costs all the
money.

I'd be surprised if liability insurance is any more expensive down in
the U.S.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[H.J.]

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)

What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost. Guys would buy
planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership wasn't so high.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something. They are forced to abide by a very
complicated system of laws and expenses that dont make sense. But since it's
always been that way, they just accept it. Then after they land and drive
out of the airport in their
triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-susp
ension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

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
and $50K junk-heap-aircraft as if their pride depends on it or something.
The pilot orgs seem to be the same.

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's no (technological) reason we couldn't have $35,000 200 kt.
Auto-fuel-burning composite aircraft with fully digital glass cockpits RIGHT
NOW! So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
environment by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
so it's ok.' Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.








> "Half the guys in town" wouldn't be able to fly one. It takes a
particular
> commitment and motivation to learn to fly a plane. Even if aviation were
> less expensive, you wouldn't have 100 million (or so) pilots in the U.S.
>
> Beyond that, there may be a bit of the chicken/egg thing going on, but
there
> are lots of other reasons why aviation is expensive too. It's just not
true
> that, if overnight you could reduce the price point of 4-seater piston
> aviation to match that of a typical family sedan, there'd be no
> economy-of-scale problem.

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
Ted Huffmire > wrote:

> If general aviation did not kill as many
> people as it does, then more people would
> fly (fewer would be discouraged).

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

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.

Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
more than half a million automobile deaths per year.

[Jeff Franks]

"H.J." > wrote in message
...
> Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
> Certified (MCSE),

I disagree...at least with flying your required to show *SOME* level of
competance. I've fired more MCSE's for not know squat than I care to
mention

> (speaking effort-wise and time-wise)

well ok....

> What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost. Guys would buy
> planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership wasn't so high.

agreed.

> It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
> down, or brainwashed or something. They are forced to abide by a very
> complicated system of laws and expenses that dont make sense. But since
it's
> always been that way, they just accept it. Then after they land and drive
> out of the airport in their
>
triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-susp
> ension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
> dont even realize the irony of it.

agreed.


---stuff clipped here---

> 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! So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
> is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
> environment by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
> so it's ok.' Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.
>

Well economies of scale and supply/demand BOTH play large parts in the
equation...but, I agree, there are definite problems. The Alternator on my
fathers Cherokee 6 is identical to the one on my brothers Dodge
truck...except the model number has an "A" tagged on the end. Specs are the
same, but the price is $200 different. (even has the Chrysler logo on
it...grrr).

I blame *some* of this on the manufacturers charging what the market will
bear. But the reason you don't have a C-172 selling for $40k is liability.

Yes the auto industry fights the same fight, but most jurors and judges
drive cars. They understand that things break and even though an occasional
lawsuit gets ridiculous against the auto giants, for the most part the
judgments and awards make sense. Now you and I can look at an accident
report from the NTSB and think "well that guy screwed up" or "man that was a
flaw in the plane" (Monday morning quarterback style). But look at the
jurors handing out money based on the judgment that if the airplane crashed,
somebody has to pay. I personally would be scared S***less to produce a
product to go in a Certified plane. If I created a widget to go on your
panel and it EVER stopped working....I'm liable...even on a 50 year old
plane.

In the late 80's, after Cessna stopped producing GA aircraft, I read an
interview with the CEO (I think) of Cessna. He mentioned that Cessna could
build a C152 and sell it for a nice profit for $15,000 (1987 dollars).
Everything else in the price was pure liability insurance. (I can't
remember if I have the exact numbers, but their close)

The ridiculousness of the $480 million suit against Cessna proves the point.
As I said in another post. Airplanes=$$$$ in most peoples minds.

[Steven Barnes]

"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.....

[Larry Fransson]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Morgans]

"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---

[smackey]

(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...

[Capt. Doug]

>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.

[Larry Fransson]

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

[Peter Duniho]

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

Well, I certainly can't argue with that. :)

[Corky Scott]

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

[Larry Dighera]

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 future:
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,

[Jeff Franks]

>
> 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...

Not true. There is MUCH more precedent in the legal system for car crashes.
If I have a one car crash because I failed to negotiate a curve, chances are
I'm not going to get to far in a lawsuit. If I crash my plane because I
wasn't paying attention to my airspeed on final, I get to sue the makers of
the CD-player in my panel. Again...jurors know how to drive cars.....and
only rich people with too much money (that should be shared) fly
airplanes.... <blyak.....I feel grimy just typing it>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Capt. Doug" wrote:
>
> ..... and yet, there
> aren't too many airboaters stranded in the swamps.

And you know this how?

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...

> Let's all get real. Supply and demand and economies of scale?
<snip>

Well, economies of scale are a large factor. The airplanes that
roll out of the factories today are all basically hand crafted.
Unlike the automated, roboticized car assmbly lines. If Cessna could
utilize automation and robotics like Ford or GM, their planes would
carry a much lower price tag (and probably have better initial
quality). Unfortunately, they don't sell enough planes to justify the
vast investment in those technologies, while Ford/GM can happily
spread the costs over millions of units.

> No, let's be real. The real enemy is our government - specifically
> the FAA. They're the reason we're struggling to keep 40 year old
> technology going rather than getting new stuff at a fraction of the
> cost.

Also true. It takes a huge investment and lots of time to get a
product through the bureaucratic nightmare that is the FAA. But
again, the cost of that struggle is spread over a very few units,
thereby bumping up the price.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

>
> Michael

[Capt. Doug]

>G.R. Patterson III wrote in message > And you know this how?

From the NTSB website.

D.

[jim rosinski]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:

> Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
> more than half a million automobile deaths per year.

Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
balance in favor of GA over driving.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Gary L. Drescher]

"jim rosinski" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:
>
> > Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would
have
> > more than half a million automobile deaths per year.
>
> Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
> rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
> good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
> times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
> balance in favor of GA over driving.

It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

--Gary


>
> Jim Rosinski
> N3825Q

[Robert Henry]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
et...
>
> It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads
here
> on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
> conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
> GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure,
GA
> is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.
>

I prefer Rod Machado's view which ties into another current thread in this
forum:

In an airplane, the pilot has complete control over his actions, and more
options. In the automobile, there is a thin (yellow) line between me and my
existence; there is no controlling the other vehicle on the other side of an
imaginary plane of separation, and no where to go if there's a violation.

I think there's also something to be said about NOT being 1 of 600 of 300M,
as opposed to 1 of 42,600 of 300M. Self-delusional or not, the logic works
for me.

[Mutts]

I have always wondered how these numbers would change
if the "gross negligence" factor was removed. In other words,
folks who drag race, drive drunk, crash because a bee was
in the car, take off in terrible weather, run out of fuel, skip
preflights or maintainance, "watch this" antics.

What would the comparison be if we only looked at "safe" drivers
and "safe" GA pilots.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:29:57 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
>
>It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
>on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
>conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
>GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
>is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.
>
>--Gary
>
>

[Jeff Franks]

> Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
> more than half a million automobile deaths per year.
>

Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."

Thanks

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message
...
> > Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would
have
> > more than half a million automobile deaths per year.
> >
>
> Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
> have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."

Jeff, you can find the GA fatality rate in ASF's Nall Report (AOPA web
site), and the automobile rate at the NTSB's site. The GA rate is more than
ten times higher. Multiplying the automobile rate by that factor gives more
than .5 M deaths per year.

--Gary

>
> Thanks

[Big John]

Jeff

Just ran some figures for a study I'm doing. US averaged over 115
fatalities a day (that's about 42,000 a year) on highway in last year
data is available. (2002 or+ so). They are always a year or two behind
releasing data since it takes time to collect for year and compile the
stats.

Some other stats: 2.5 truck drivers die each day on highway.

1.6 are killed each day working on farm.

Some place I've see how many die making
love each day.

Guess you pays your money and take your chances <G>


Big John
Couch potato with a cold beer and chips. Safest place I can find.


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:32:10 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
> wrote:

>> Yup. If cars had the same fatality rate per hour as GA, the US would have
>> more than half a million automobile deaths per year.
>>
>
>Where did you get this stat? I've heard it both ways... and would like to
>have a credible source rather than "well I heard..."
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mutts wrote:
>
> What would the comparison be if we only looked at "safe" drivers
> and "safe" GA pilots.

It's hard enough to work out a comparison or accident rates between items
that are measured in hours traveled versus items measured in miles traveled
without bogging it down with some arbitrary exclusions based on personal
value judgements.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> Guess you pays your money and take your chances <G>

Nobody gets out alive.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Capt. Doug]

>G.R. Patterson III wrote in message > The NTSB keeps track of stranded
>airboaters?

Yes, unless you're from New Jersey.

D. (swamp monster)

[Tom S.]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
> Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product and
begin
> to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop the price to
> about 20% of what is is today, don't you think? 25 kilobucks may be low,
> but something in the range of the price of a BMW or Mercedes would be
> affordable to a lot of people. Driving about the GTA it seems like
there's
> just one hell of a lot of people around who can afford and are willing to
> pay 50 to 75 kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was,
> say, 5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all
> other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today, I wonder
> what that would do to the financial picture. Would be very intersting to
see
> what the economists call the elasticity of demand curve that relates
market
> price to consumer demand. Of course, the other side of the coin is whether
> there would be enough room in the sky for all the flight operations that
> could result.
>
I wonder how many people don't fly because of the expense, versus how many
don't because they consider small planes "scary"?

I know (at least on a professional level) around 20 people that a worth well
over $1million and six that are worth around $50-100M, and TWO of them fly
(both of these for their businesses).

Everybody (pretty much) HAS to drive (hence the automobile economy of scale)
but very few HAVE to fly. There's a big difference between "want to" and
"have to".

[Dan Luke]

"Steve House" wrote in message:
> Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product and
begin
> to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop the price to
> about 20% of what is is today, don't you think? 25 kilobucks may be low,
> but something in the range of the price of a BMW or Mercedes would be
> affordable to a lot of people. Driving about the GTA it seems like
there's
> just one hell of a lot of people around who can afford and are willing to
> pay 50 to 75 kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was,
> say, 5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
all
> other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today, I wonder
> what that would do to the financial picture.

Gee, I wonder why Cessna has never thought of this.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Robert Henry" wrote:
> I think there's also something to be said about NOT being 1 of 600 of
300M,
> as opposed to 1 of 42,600 of 300M.

The mathematical absurdity of that idea is spectacular, but you topped it
with this thundering oxymoron:

> Self-delusional or not, the logic works
> for me.

Whew!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[David Megginson]

"Steve House" > writes:

> Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product
> and begin to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop
> the price to about 20% of what is is today, don't you think?

No -- the annual cost of owning, maintaining, and flying the plane
would still keep people away. For example, if I won a Piper Malibu in
a raffle tomorrow (tax-free), I still would not be able to afford to
keep it even at $0 purchase price unless I brought in an awful lot of
partners, and I'd need a lot of training to learn to fly it safely.

For many other people, the same applies even to an entry-level plane
like a 172 or Cherokee (which is right at my budget limit of CAD
10K/year). There's also the time that you have to invest in training
and currency to be a safe pilot -- even if the plane and training were
dirt cheap (and how much less could we pay flight instructors without
forcing them onto welfare?), a lot of people simply couldn't spare the
time and attention.

Note also that that price cut supposes that the avionics, engine,
propeller, etc. that make up a big part of the plane's cost have all
also come down in price by 80%. In that case, a lot of people would
just take their existing planes and put in that $2000 Garmin 530, a
$4000 factory-new Lycoming engine, etc.

Note that I'm not saying that flying cannot or should not get cheaper
-- there may be an avionics revolution just around the corner, for
example, that will give us all full IFR glass cockpits with real-time
weather display for under USD 5000, and someone may soon come out with
a much cheaper STC'd replacement engine for the Lycomings and
Continentals we currently use. I'll be thrilled if that happens, but
I wouldn't expect the pilot population to increase all that much.

> Driving about the GTA it seems like there's just one hell of a lot
> of people around who can afford and are willing to pay 50 to 75
> kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was, say,
> 5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
> all other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today,
> I wonder what that would do to the financial picture.

It wouldn't help much. As I mentioned, a lot of the cost of a new
plane is the components (engine, avionics, etc.) and those are already
selling in much higher numbers. Cessna over-optimistically projected
1000 planes/year when they revived the 172 in the 1990's, so the
initial pricing was already based on that. To get any real economies
of scale, you'd need to bump that up by another couple of orders of
magnitude, and I just don't believe that there are that many people
out there with the skill, time, and interest to be pilots.

Fortunately, we pilots have a lot of other options. You can get a
very decent 25-year-old four-seater plane for much less than the price
of a new luxury car, and properly-maintained used airplanes are safe
and comfortable -- there are many light planes from the 1930's and
1940's still in the air. In that respect, an airplane is a lot more
like a house than a car. My house was nearly 60 years old when I
bought it, but I didn't worry that it wasn't new; in fact, it's much
better built than the new houses going up in the burbs these days.

There are also ultralights, owner-maintenance (in Canada, anyway), and
homebuilts, for people who are willing to assume extra risk and extra
flight restrictions in exchange for significant cost savings. I get
the feeling sometimes that every second pilot past retirement has an
RV in some stage of construction in his or her garage.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Robert Henry]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> The mathematical absurdity of that idea is spectacular, but you topped it
> with this thundering oxymoron:

The point was at 12 o'clock, 1/2 mile, 40,000 feet higher, SR 71.

I'm guessing you missed it completely.



Oh well.

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

David Megginson wrote:
> "Steve House" > writes:
>
>
>>Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product
>>and begin to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop
>>the price to about 20% of what is is today, don't you think?
>
>
> No -- the annual cost of owning, maintaining, and flying the plane
> would still keep people away. For example, if I won a Piper Malibu in
> a raffle tomorrow (tax-free), I still would not be able to afford to
> keep it even at $0 purchase price unless I brought in an awful lot of
> partners, and I'd need a lot of training to learn to fly it safely.
>


Agree! And not too many places suddenly become that beneficent that
'they' will foot the tax bill which can get considerable considering the
cost of new birds these days and the fact that as soon as one takes
delivery of their prize, the fed and state tax folks immediately have
their hand extended [with requisite grin] for their cut of your good
fortune. Then, once possession of the prize takes place, hey, even if
you're ATP rated, would you take off without having the bird insured?
And then, upon flying off with your prize, well, where is 'home'...I
mean for the bird...and 'that' ONGOING cost. And we're talking field
tie-down in most cases versus hanger space where, in some localities and
climates, you'll need Bill Gates bucks to ante-up! In advance, thank
you. Then we have fuel costs of course and normal maintenance and
then...and then....and then....well, you get the picture.

So folks say, hey, forget the pipedream of winning a new bird and tax
free yet and figure they'll go the old familiar road of locating a
used..ehhh...make that pre-owned...172 or, hey, the venerable 150/152
and build-up so to speak UNTIL they check out the prices! Whew!

Point? I agree...while owning is nice, it's also expensive. VERY
expensive. Tell you what...I'm going to make a prediction...[are you
listening old amigo, Jim Fisher?]--you'll see the day that eventually
the level of SIMULATOR flying and I'm talking MOTION type albeit if only
limited to simple four axis down/up, left/right but limited if only to
create a system that can be affordable linked to high level flight
simulation that can be constructed and flown within the home basement!
Scoff if you will but let me lay this one on you--- you like
multi-engine or even jets or helos...yes?.....now can you AFFORD these
kinds of real McCoy birds and their upkeep? Well, can you?

I won't even go into the matter of required FAA ratings for same! I'm
here to tell you that in my opinion, you will see various and presently
FAA ticket holders including your basic PPL single-donkey SEL types
taking another hard look at simulated flight if only as an adjunct to
the real thing [and learning experience] when the shekels are just not
there [now or down the line] for the real McCoy. Or rentals become out
of sight unless one is a practicing neurosurgeon or is already in the av
field. Or family considerations [or loss of that Class 'whatever' med!]
dictate such alternatives. What's the old chestnut for those who want
their own bird [and ratings] but have, as an example, a growing family,
to wit, "They have a very bad habit, they like to eat!" Home mortgages
and vehicle [often multi-vehicle] payments ET AL notwithstanding.


Doc Tony

What's that? Nope! 'Not' medical...academic...translation: no V-tail
Bonanza...nor a Cirrus SR22 either! Wouldn't mind though...hey...you got
350 thou' plus to lend at zero interest for let's say 50 years or so? ;-)



> For many other people, the same applies even to an entry-level plane
> like a 172 or Cherokee (which is right at my budget limit of CAD
> 10K/year). There's also the time that you have to invest in training
> and currency to be a safe pilot -- even if the plane and training were
> dirt cheap (and how much less could we pay flight instructors without
> forcing them onto welfare?), a lot of people simply couldn't spare the
> time and attention.
>
> Note also that that price cut supposes that the avionics, engine,
> propeller, etc. that make up a big part of the plane's cost have all
> also come down in price by 80%. In that case, a lot of people would
> just take their existing planes and put in that $2000 Garmin 530, a
> $4000 factory-new Lycoming engine, etc.
>
> Note that I'm not saying that flying cannot or should not get cheaper
> -- there may be an avionics revolution just around the corner, for
> example, that will give us all full IFR glass cockpits with real-time
> weather display for under USD 5000, and someone may soon come out with
> a much cheaper STC'd replacement engine for the Lycomings and
> Continentals we currently use. I'll be thrilled if that happens, but
> I wouldn't expect the pilot population to increase all that much.
>
>
>>Driving about the GTA it seems like there's just one hell of a lot
>>of people around who can afford and are willing to pay 50 to 75
>>kilobucks for a car. If the market for 172's and 182's was, say,
>>5000 or even just 1000 units per year instead of a couple of dozen,
>>all other per unit cost factors being equal to what they are today,
>>I wonder what that would do to the financial picture.
>
>
> It wouldn't help much. As I mentioned, a lot of the cost of a new
> plane is the components (engine, avionics, etc.) and those are already
> selling in much higher numbers. Cessna over-optimistically projected
> 1000 planes/year when they revived the 172 in the 1990's, so the
> initial pricing was already based on that. To get any real economies
> of scale, you'd need to bump that up by another couple of orders of
> magnitude, and I just don't believe that there are that many people
> out there with the skill, time, and interest to be pilots.
>
> Fortunately, we pilots have a lot of other options. You can get a
> very decent 25-year-old four-seater plane for much less than the price
> of a new luxury car, and properly-maintained used airplanes are safe
> and comfortable -- there are many light planes from the 1930's and
> 1940's still in the air. In that respect, an airplane is a lot more
> like a house than a car. My house was nearly 60 years old when I
> bought it, but I didn't worry that it wasn't new; in fact, it's much
> better built than the new houses going up in the burbs these days.
>
> There are also ultralights, owner-maintenance (in Canada, anyway), and
> homebuilts, for people who are willing to assume extra risk and extra
> flight restrictions in exchange for significant cost savings. I get
> the feeling sometimes that every second pilot past retirement has an
> RV in some stage of construction in his or her garage.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
>

[David Megginson]

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > writes:

> So folks say, hey, forget the pipedream of winning a new bird and
> tax free yet and figure they'll go the old familiar road of locating
> a used..ehhh...make that pre-owned...172 or, hey, the venerable
> 150/152 and build-up so to speak UNTIL they check out the prices!
> Whew!

It's not cheap, and it's definitely not the same as buying a mountain
bike or an ATV, but ownership is doable for a typical middle class
person who's motivated enough. For example, a good 1960's Cherokee
140 will run maybe USD 35,000. It will cost somewhere around USD
7,000-10,000/year to own and operate the plane, depending on how much
it flies and where it's kept, though there can be a lot of volatility
in any given year due to maintenance surprises.

A lot of people who want to fly can afford that kind of flying by
themselves. For people who cannot, a partnership drastically reduces
the overhead -- split that 140 three ways, and an awful lot of
not-even-close-to-rich people can afford to fly. Partnerships are
also better for the plane, since a plane that flies more tends to last
longer and have fewer problems than a plane that sits around.

> Point? I agree...while owning is nice, it's also expensive. VERY
> expensive. Tell you what...I'm going to make a prediction...[are you
> listening old amigo, Jim Fisher?]--you'll see the day that
> eventually the level of SIMULATOR flying and I'm talking MOTION type
> albeit if only limited to simple four axis down/up, left/right but
> limited if only to create a system that can be affordable linked to
> high level flight simulation that can be constructed and flown
> within the home basement!

I respectfully disagree on this point -- pilots don't mind practicing
on sims, but the point of flying is to be up in the air and/or to go
places.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[jim rosinski]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote

> > Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
> > rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
> > good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
> > times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
> > balance in favor of GA over driving.
>
> It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads here
> on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
> conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
> GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
> is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

OK thanks for the stats, sobering though they might be. But: consider
that planes generally get from A to B in more of a straight line than
cars (thus my words "per effective distance traveled" quoted above and
the factor of 8 you cite becomes more like 4 or 5. Then the fact that
a 172 is statistically one of the safest planes around, and maybe
we're talking close to a wash in safety between driving and flying?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

David Megginson wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > writes:
>
>
>>So folks say, hey, forget the pipedream of winning a new bird and
>>tax free yet and figure they'll go the old familiar road of locating
>>a used..ehhh...make that pre-owned...172 or, hey, the venerable
>>150/152 and build-up so to speak UNTIL they check out the prices!
>>Whew!
>
>
> It's not cheap, and it's definitely not the same as buying a mountain
> bike or an ATV, but ownership is doable for a typical middle class
> person who's motivated enough. For example, a good 1960's Cherokee
> 140 will run maybe USD 35,000. It will cost somewhere around USD
> 7,000-10,000/year to own and operate the plane, depending on how much
> it flies and where it's kept, though there can be a lot of volatility
> in any given year due to maintenance surprises.
>
> A lot of people who want to fly can afford that kind of flying by
> themselves. For people who cannot, a partnership drastically reduces
> the overhead -- split that 140 three ways, and an awful lot of
> not-even-close-to-rich people can afford to fly. Partnerships are
> also better for the plane, since a plane that flies more tends to last
> longer and have fewer problems than a plane that sits around.
>
>


That's of course a valid point, David, and perhaps that indeed explains
the trend towards such partnerships or, indeed, flying clubs and
fractional ownerships. So too, I tend to think of the single ownership
thing and I find this to be
more and more of a fruitless effort as costs to escalate. What PPL would
place a value on their life versus cost of a TCAS yet when one spots the
tags for those items...whew! No wonder there are more 'portable' Garmins
being sold then CP mounted big ticket mates so to speak.

Then too, it's not even so much the moan of "ohhhhh those prohibitive
FBO labor costs" [although I am the FIRST to defend the axiom that
competent work doesn't come cheap!] but likewise the av parts themselves
be that a simple spark plug or avionics which [and I'll no doubt catch
some flak for this] 'because' they are aviation bound suddenly carry
price tags often triple or more the cost! Sort of like the $270 hammer
syndrome and $400 coffee pot or, when I was in the military some moons
ago, paint it OD, define it as 'mil spec', 'quadruple' the price ...
and sell it to Uncle Sam!


>I agree...while owning is nice, it's also expensive. VERY[i]
>>expensive. Tell you what...I'm going to make a prediction...[are you
>>listening old amigo, Jim Fisher?]--you'll see the day that
>>eventually the level of SIMULATOR flying and I'm talking MOTION type
>>albeit if only limited to simple four axis down/up, left/right but
>>limited if only to create a system that can be affordable linked to
>>high level flight simulation that can be constructed and flown
>>within the home basement!
>
>
> I respectfully disagree on this point -- pilots don't mind practicing
> on sims, but the point of flying is to be up in the air and/or to go
> places.
>
>
>

Absolutely agree, David, but alas, that is not always economically
doable if only 'due' to such escalating and spiraling costs. That's the
proverbial rub! Sure, there is the axiom that says 'when there is a
will, there is a way' but that depends on the goal..and the costs involved.

But then, in fairness and as you duly point out, perhaps the wave of the
future will be more and more partnership deals if only because folks
find themselves in the same boat as individual 'new' plane ownership or
pre-owned but in need of big bucks updating becomes so pricey [and the
rather hefty associated costs of course] that one staggers under the
weight of the numbers!

Regards,

Doc Tony

All the best,
>
>
> David
>

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Steve House wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snip
>
>>Agree! And not too many places suddenly become that beneficent that
>>'they' will foot the tax bill which can get considerable considering the
>>cost of new birds these days and the fact that as soon as one takes
>>delivery of their prize, the fed and state tax folks immediately have
>>their hand extended [with requisite grin] for their cut of your good
>>fortune. Then, once possession of the prize takes place, hey, even if
>>you're ATP rated, would you take off without having the bird insured?
>
>
> At least up here in the Northland, prizes, lottery and gambling winnings
> aren't considered taxable income, yet. <shhhhh> Get your new plane in a
> prize drawing and the tax man doesn't cometh.
>
>

Ahhhh! That's refreshing news! Alas, Steve, we have a governor here that
is so desperate for coin of the realm that he wants to tax garage sale
items and he just may put his revenue spies into peeking into recorded
Ebay deals for a piece of the pie. Right now, however, he is involved in
a sort of Custer-like jihad with the Native Americans demanding a piece
of the normal state tax --and-- state surcharge taxes pie from what the
NA's make 'within' their sovereign nations a la tobacco [internet sales
inclusive] and BINGO sales.

Hey! Win a lottery in my state over $600 and they with-hold 20% at the
get-go splitting that freebie dough pot with Uncle Sam. But then, this
is the same governor and his brain-trust who says that folks with fancy
cars and AIRPLANES 'should' pay a luxury tax because, after all, even if
you own a piece of an [gasp!] airplane, you must be filthy rich, yes?

Doc Tony

PS-- How's this though... an amigo uses his own plane to fly small
portable albeit donated generators to folks way up north when the big
ice storm hit some years ago and these folks were WEEKS without power.
OK, he claims PART of that fuel expense on his state tax form and it
bounces back --why--- well, the state rejected a 'charitable expense
deduction' because the guy 'volunteered' his services, so, tough!

How's that for a 'help thy neighbor' kick in the keester? Shades of our
friend 'Calvera' [Eli Wallach] in the great flick, "The Magnificent
Seven", to wit, "Generosity! That was my first mistake!" :-)

[Ash Wyllie]

Gently extracted from the mind of jim rosinski;


>"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote

>> > Rather than per hour, perhaps a more fair metric would be "fatality
>> > rate per effective distance traveled". Even in my slow Cessna 172 a
>> > good rule of thumb is that I can get from point A to point B about 3
>> > times faster than driving. On safety grounds alone, it might tip the
>> > balance in favor of GA over driving.
>>
>> It doesn't, though. If you do a google search for the previous threads
>> here on this topic, you'll find data that has been cited to support the
>> conclusion that the fatality rate per hour is around 15 times greater for
>> GA, and per mile it's around 8 times greater for GA. By either measure, GA
>> is roughly an order of magnitude more dangerous.

>OK thanks for the stats, sobering though they might be. But: consider
>that planes generally get from A to B in more of a straight line than
>cars (thus my words "per effective distance traveled" quoted above and
>the factor of 8 you cite becomes more like 4 or 5. Then the fact that
>a 172 is statistically one of the safest planes around, and maybe
>we're talking close to a wash in safety between driving and flying?

I'm not too sure about that. GA includes turbine aircraft. And they are highly
utilized with safety records comparable to commercial aviation.

What is not clear to me is the real risks of my flying a few hundred miles in
a 172 versus driving to the same destination. Or for that matter, 10hrs of
local flying vs 10hrs of scuba diving vrs 10hrs of x-country skiing vrs 10hs
on a motorcycle or some other outdoor hobby.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steve House wrote:
>
> Cessna and other manufacturers could sell a whole lot more product and begin
> to realize some of those economies of scale if they'd drop the price to
> about 20% of what is is today, don't you think?

No, I don't. Most of the people I know wouldn't buy one if it cost $5,000.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steve House wrote:
>
> At least up here in the Northland, prizes, lottery and gambling winnings
> aren't considered taxable income, yet. <shhhhh> Get your new plane in a
> prize drawing and the tax man doesn't cometh.

Hope you guys can keep it that way. Here, I would owe 33% of the value to
the IRS, 6% of the value to the New Jersey income tax people, and another
6% of the value for the State usage tax. If I won the AOPA Waco ($250,000
value) and couldn't sell it within 6 weeks, I'd have to declare bankruptcy.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[David Megginson]

Newps > writes:

> If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
> flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
> flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So
> day VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

Don't forget to subtract out impaired driving, joyriding, driving in
heavy rain or fog, driving on icy roads, driving while distracted
(cell phone, radio tuning, kids, etc.), speeding, and dangerous
passing from the driving stats as well. To be fair, you would leave
in any fatalities caused in *other* cars, since they had no control
over the behaviour of the accident driver.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Ash Wyllie]

Gently extracted from the mind of David Megginson;


>Newps > writes:

>> If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
>> flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
>> flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So
>> day VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

>Don't forget to subtract out impaired driving, joyriding, driving in
>heavy rain or fog, driving on icy roads, driving while distracted
>(cell phone, radio tuning, kids, etc.), speeding, and dangerous
>passing from the driving stats as well. To be fair, you would leave
>in any fatalities caused in *other* cars, since they had no control
>over the behaviour of the accident driver.

It's a fair comparison. I'm usually willing to wait several days to get a nice
VFR day. But then I don't have a tight schedule to keep.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:KKuZa.114264$uu5.15644@sccrnsc04...
> If you look at the accident stats of a 182 and subtract out night
> flying, flying into bad weather while VFR and all IMC flight on an IFR
> flight plan the safety record is virtually the same as driving. So day
> VFR flight is about as safe as it gets.

My recall is that light plane VFR was the overwhelming source for crashes
(and all the boneheaded moves) -- that the accident rate under IFR dropped
by several orders of magnitude.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Steven Barnes" > writes:

> "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.....

Well, I've never worked on software that could kill people if it
didn't *complie* correctly either -- but I've worked on software that
could kill people if it didn't *work* correctly. Then again, *that*
sort of software isn't written by people with Microsoft certifications
:-).

(Honeywell GPS groundstation software, for a brief period in 1996;
it's even aviation-related!)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

[Tom S.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > 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.....
>
> Well, I've never worked on software that could kill people if it
> didn't *complie* correctly either -- but I've worked on software that
> could kill people if it didn't *work* correctly. Then again, *that*
> sort of software isn't written by people with Microsoft certifications
> :-).
>
> (Honeywell GPS groundstation software, for a brief period in 1996;
> it's even aviation-related!)

I spent 17 years as an IT project manager, and I'm unwilling to use most ANY
software to even balance my checkbook :~)