Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

[Tom Sixkiller]

America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3398 Summary:
America has abandoned the cultural values that made the Wright brothers'
great achievement possible.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers launched
their fragile first plane, catapulting us into the Century of Flight.
Starting with a linen-and-fabric machine barely controllable aloft,
aviation's giants have given us routine jet travel as an everyday
convenience--a necessity even.

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives innovation.

A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were
willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that killed
his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company,
only earned his wings after 12 crashes. "If you are looking for perfect
safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds," wrote
Wilbur Wright. But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and
deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from
their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment.

Today we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding that
progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect, to
last forever and to protect us from our own failings--or else we sue. By the
late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29
years--yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were sued
for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like
Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on
research--and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes
in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.

With reliance on one's independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be
coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture
that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected their
right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926 there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off. By
1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo flight,
Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid
as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers' rickety
contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh's plane, which crossed an
ocean.

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most
FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
at the same time.

Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

The symbol of flight in America today is no longer the Wright brothers, but
Icarus. Where once we venerated the bold exploration of new frontiers, we
now condone bureaucrats putting shackles on anyone who seeks to test the
untried--to soar too high or succeed too well.

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of
existence.




About the Author: Heike Berthold is a regional sales director for an
airplane manufacturer, and a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
Irvine, Calif.

[CFLav8r]

This article is right on the money.
This is what I have been saying for years.
When you live in a society that is unwilling to accept responsibility for
there own actions,
you will forever stall progress.
We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common Sense
Act".
The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense should
have dictated your actions/results.
Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of the
supermarket,
it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
were walking.

Just my two cents worth, please don't sue me for it.

David (KORL)

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
> by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)
>
> Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3398
Summary:
> America has abandoned the cultural values that made the Wright brothers'
> great achievement possible.
>
> [CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers
launched
> their fragile first plane, catapulting us into the Century of Flight.
> Starting with a linen-and-fabric machine barely controllable aloft,
> aviation's giants have given us routine jet travel as an everyday
> convenience--a necessity even.
>
> The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
> flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
> extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
> their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
> innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
> its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.
>
> A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were
> willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that
killed
> his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company,
> only earned his wings after 12 crashes. "If you are looking for perfect
> safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds," wrote
> Wilbur Wright. But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and
> deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from
> their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment.
>
> Today we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding
that
> progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect,
to
> last forever and to protect us from our own failings--or else we sue. By
the
> late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29
> years--yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were
sued
> for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like
> Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on
> research--and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes
> in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.
>
> With reliance on one's independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be
> coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture
> that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected
their
> right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights
> and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
> Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
> scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
> achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
> rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their
invention--and
> government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926
there
> were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
> governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off.
By
> 1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo
flight,
> Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.
>
> In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
> deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid
> as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers' rickety
> contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh's plane, which crossed an
> ocean.
>
> Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
> planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation
has
> ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first
25
> years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
> barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most
> FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
> construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
> non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
> materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
> at the same time.
>
> Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
> requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
> regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
> have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
> might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable
service,
> aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.
>
> The symbol of flight in America today is no longer the Wright brothers,
but
> Icarus. Where once we venerated the bold exploration of new frontiers, we
> now condone bureaucrats putting shackles on anyone who seeks to test the
> untried--to soar too high or succeed too well.
>
> On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
> ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
> America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
> elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
> of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
of
> existence.
>
>
>
>
> About the Author: Heike Berthold is a regional sales director for an
> airplane manufacturer, and a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
> Irvine, Calif.
>
>
>

[David Megginson]

CFLav8r wrote:

> We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common Sense
> Act".
> The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense should
> have dictated your actions/results.
> Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of the
> supermarket,
> it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
> were walking.

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

The second change could be huge. For example, if BigCorp does something
that injures a person, the jury might decide to award the person 1.5M for
pain and suffering, but then add on 50M punitive damages to teach BigCorp a
lesson. There is no reason that the plaintiff should get that 50M, since it
is effectively a fine -- if it goes to the taxpayers (like any other fine
would), then there is less to tempt people to spurious lawsuits.


All the best,


David

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> CFLav8r wrote:
>
> > We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common
Sense
> > Act".
> > The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense
should
> > have dictated your actions/results.
> > Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of
the
> > supermarket,
> > it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
> > were walking.
>
> Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
> extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:
>
> 1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
> Canada); and
>
> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

>
> The second change could be huge. For example, if BigCorp does something
> that injures a person, the jury might decide to award the person 1.5M for
> pain and suffering, but then add on 50M punitive damages to teach BigCorp
a
> lesson. There is no reason that the plaintiff should get that 50M, since
it
> is effectively a fine -- if it goes to the taxpayers (like any other fine
> would), then there is less to tempt people to spurious lawsuits.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

[Jay Honeck]

> On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
> ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
> America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
> elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
> of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
of
> existence.

Right on!

Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>
> Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
> reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

So what? Punitive damages are not a part of the "make a victim whole"
payment. They're added "on top" of that as a demotivator for similar
activities in the future.

It's an interesting idea, and it might cause fewer people to view the legal
system as a lottery.

- Andrew

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ukjDb.357555$Dw6.1171667@attbi_s02...
> > On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
> > ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that
made
> > America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation
and
> > elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
> > of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out
> of
> > existence.
>
> Right on!
>
> Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?

Teach your children well...then your neighbors.

America's problems are NOT political, but philosophic (remember -- each and
every one of the "Gang of 535" was ELECTED!!); the problems won't change
until Americans in general, change "between the ears". Unless we stop
thinking of other citizens as "milch cows", we'll only continue shooting
ourselves in the ass.

[Javier Henderson]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
> > ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
> > America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
> > elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
> > of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
> of
> > existence.
>
> Right on!
>
> Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?

As a first step, let's form a congressional committee to look into this.

-jav

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > > On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
> > > ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that
made
> > > America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation
and
> > > elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
> > > of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out
> > of
> > > existence.
> >
> > Right on!
> >
> > Now, as usual, comes the hard part: What do we do about it?
>
> As a first step, let's form a congressional committee to look into this.
>
A few $$$millions in PAC money would help...

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
> extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:
>
> 1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
> Canada); and
>
> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

I would argue that the winner's legal costs be paid from a pool created from
the punitive damages.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jim Fisher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
> flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
> extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
> their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
> innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
> its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

[Icebound]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> ... snip ...
>
> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.
>
>

Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

[Gig Giacona]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser
> > extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:
> >
> > 1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this
in
> > Canada); and
> >
> > 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>
> I would argue that the winner's legal costs be paid from a pool created
from
> the punitive damages.
>

Or better yet the losing lawyer pays the winner's legal fees.

[John T]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message

>
> American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

That may be true, but I think the point of the article is that the pace of
innovation and progress would be much greater without the regulatory and
litigious barriers that have been erected since the Wrights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher" > wrote:

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> >
> > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
> > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
> > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
> made
> > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
> the
> > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
> > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> innovation.
>
> Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn article
> for me.
>
> American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
> that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
> Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.


It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well. Progress is
definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
part of slow progress. They can make cost of entry into markets very
high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

>
> The point of the article was lost on me.

There wasn't much of a point just some emotional knee-jerk with a
lot of fluffy talk.

R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>

[Dan Thomas]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message >...

> American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
> that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
> Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
>
> The point of the article was lost on me.


Other countries, notably China, North Korea, Japan, and
Ireland have built industries that thrive on production of items
either too expensive to make in North America because we demanded way
too much money to work in the factories, or because everyone here is
too scared to make something that might result in lawsuits by stupid
people who think there should be no risk in risky recreation. If we do
build them we have to charge exorbitant prices to cover liability
insurance against such litigation.
It's not that American (or Canadian, for me) innovation is dead.
It's that the process of getting good ideas into the hands of the
people is so difficult, cumbersome, and risky. In Canada the
government fee for the certification of a new aircraft design starts
at something like $250,000 for a light airplane. How many people are
going to look at that and decide to certify it in Eastern Europe or
South Korea? Transferability of the certification is much simpler than
trying to satisfy and pay, pay, pay. Anything built here is subject to
easy litigation. Anything built here is subject to wages of $30 an
hour and a strike every couple of years. Any profits made here are
taxed heavily.
How many machine tool factories are in North America anymore? How
many of the cars sold here were made here? Where were your sneakers
made? Your skis? Your furniture? Your bicycle? Motorbike? Tools?

Dan

[gerrcoin]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
> by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

> ...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance,
> most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
> construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
> non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
> materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
> at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.
The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

[none]

Yep, you missed the point. There should be MORE people and companies - but
there are not due to collectivism and the like. (Or whatever/whomever Ayn
Rand believes is evil)


"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> >
> > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
> > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
> > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
> made
> > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
> the
> > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
> > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> innovation.
>
> Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
> for me.
>
> American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
> that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
> Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
>
> The point of the article was lost on me.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> >
> > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
> > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
> > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
> made
> > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
> the
> > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
> > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> innovation.
>
> Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
> for me.
>
> American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

Really?

> Try to say
> that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
> Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

There _are_ exceptions on the margin, no doubt.

> The point of the article was lost on me.

Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.
> >
> >
>
> Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
> criminal law is a "bad" situation...
>
> In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
> large part because of a "criminal" action.

And, hence, our idiotic, out of control tort system.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gerrcoin" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
> > by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)
>
> > ...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
instance,
> > most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
> > construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
> > non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
> > materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
> > at the same time.
>
> I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.

And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

> The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
> defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
> producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
> effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
> airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
> manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
> anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
> production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.
>
> It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
> times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
> Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
> very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.
>
> One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
> the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
> are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
> aircraft is ever increasing.

So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher" >
wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
which
> > > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at
the
> > > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
that
> > made
> > > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
admired
> > the
> > > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
> > > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> > innovation.
> >
> > Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
> > for me.
> >
> > American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to
say
> > that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
NASA,
> > Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
>
>
> It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.

It's alive, but it's hardly "well".

> Progress is
> definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
> part of slow progress.

Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been a
source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?

> They can make cost of entry into markets very
> high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
> introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
> for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
> costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

>
> But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

Nice contradiction there.

>
> >
> > The point of the article was lost on me.
>
> There wasn't much of a point just some emotional knee-jerk with a
> lot of fluffy talk.
>

Here's a dollar; buy a clue.

[Icebound]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
>
> Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our present
> course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.
>
>
>

My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:08:39 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher" >
> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
> which
> > > > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at
> the
> > > > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
> that
> > > made
> > > > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
> admired
> > > the
> > > > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
> without
> > > > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> > > innovation.
> > >
> > > Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
> article
> > > for me.
> > >
> > > American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to
> say
> > > that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
> NASA,
> > > Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
> >
> >
> > It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.
>
> It's alive, but it's hardly "well".

Innovation is doing fine. Progress is definitely hampered. But it inches
forward kicking and screaming.

>
> > Progress is
> > definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
> > part of slow progress.
>
> Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been a
> source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?

I don't know. Are you going to tell us? I never mixed innovation and
big corporations together.

>
> > They can make cost of entry into markets very
> > high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
> > introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
> > for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
> > costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.
>
> Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
> innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

Political clout is only a part of a monopoly.

And I have heard of the dark ages, do you have some examples of monopolitic
practices from the dark ages and how they stifled innovation?

>
> >
> > But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.
>
> Nice contradiction there.


Describe how that's a contradiction.

Innovation and progress are not the same just in case you were thinking
they were.

R. Hubbell

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
> > course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.
> >
> >
> >
>
> My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
> aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones,

You think so, huh?

> providing that you
> "innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
> wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
> medical costs.

Public school graduate, right?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
> > course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.
> >
> >
> >
>
> My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
> aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
> "innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
> wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
> medical costs.

I hope your descendants won't be as clueless and incapable of focusing as
you are (but I imagine that's how heredity works).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:cAxDb.15029$pY.12514@fed1read04...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:08:39 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:
>
> >
> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
> > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher"
>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
> > which
> > > > > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked
at
> > the
> > > > > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
> > that
> > > > made
> > > > > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
> > admired
> > > > the
> > > > > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
> > without
> > > > > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> > > > innovation.
> > > >
> > > > Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
> > article
> > > > for me.
> > > >
> > > > American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try
to
> > say
> > > > that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
> > NASA,
> > > > Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.
> >
> > It's alive, but it's hardly "well".
>
> Innovation is doing fine. Progress is definitely hampered. But it inches
> forward kicking and screaming.

If it's crawling along (especially after what we saw in this century), it's
definitely not "doing fine". I take it you don't run a business, and
certainly aren't an entraprenueur.

> >
> > > Progress is
> > > definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a
big
> > > part of slow progress.
> >
> > Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been
a
> > source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?
>
> I don't know. Are you going to tell us? I never mixed innovation and
> big corporations together.

You tell me who the monopolies are that you referred to above.

> >
> > > They can make cost of entry into markets very
> > > high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
> > > introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
> > > for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
> > > costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.
> >
> > Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
> > innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?
>
> Political clout is only a part of a monopoly.

Political clout is ALL THERE IS in a monopoly! So who are the monopolies
you keep referring to?

> And I have heard of the dark ages, do you have some examples of
monopolitic
> practices from the dark ages and how they stifled innovation?

The guilds, mercantilism, empire building...

> > >
> > > But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.
> >
> > Nice contradiction there.
>
>
> Describe how that's a contradiction.

Re-read your own words.

> Innovation and progress are not the same just in case you were thinking
> they were.
>

Well, in your own words; bullsquat.


Here's another dollar; buy some more clue (and quit trying to rationalize
your post).

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> Boeing,
>

You gotta be kidding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Markus Voget]

David Megginson > wrote:

> Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
> lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
> changes:
>
> 1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
> this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


Greetings,
Markus

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Markus Voget" > wrote in message
...
> David Megginson > wrote:
>
> > Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
> > lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
> > changes:
> >
> > 1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
> > this in Canada);
>
> That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
> Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially
as
> it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
> I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
> the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.
>

The USA is the ONLY nation that uses the "each side pays their own".

[Cub Driver]

>> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>
>Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
>reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.
Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior. Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
> >
> >Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
> >reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.
>
> Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.

Yup!

> Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
> are meant only to deter future behavior.

Not necessarily.

> Very sensible that they
> should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
> solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
> punitive damages pot.)

Why would that be "sensible"? I've heard two or three people claim it, but
no one has substantiated it.

A case could be made that that would breed the same "lining up at the
through".

If you wreck my car, and I have to take off days from work to get it, and
myself, fixed how would you determine "actual damages"?

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

[none]

Yeah right - those things have been around for about as long as people
have... (crime, war, rapes, poverty, etc)


"Icebound" > wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
> > course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.
> >
> >
> >
>
> My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
> aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
> "innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
> wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
> medical costs.
>
>
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> > Boeing,
> >
>
> You gotta be kidding.


Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.

I'll have one of those one day . . .

--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message

>
> Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
> course.

I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
(P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
is).

The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

. . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

--
Jim Fisher

[gerrcoin]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "gerrcoin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>>>America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
>>>by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)
>>
>>>...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
>
> instance,
>
>>>most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
>>>construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
>
> decade
>
>>>non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
>>>materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
>
> faster
>
>>>at the same time.
>>
>>I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.
>
>
> And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
can save money by employing a different process without overly
compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
to make a profit.

It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
"break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
reluctant to take such a long term risk.

>
>
>>The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
>>defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
>>producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
>>effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
>>airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
>>manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
>>anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
>>production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.
>>
>>It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
>>times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
>>Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
>>very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.
>>
>>One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
>>the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
>>are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
>>aircraft is ever increasing.
>
>
> So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?
>
> Interesting.
>
> Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?
>
>
>
Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies. However what I also see is that these
factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen. Direct
injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
to safety and running costs. We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
adoption of full engine management and control units.

And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks. Only in
this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
market.

When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
- even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

[Michael]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
> The Wrights
> and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
> Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
> scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
> achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
> rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention--and
> government left the field of aviation free to innovate.

Really? That sounds just a bit revisionist.

The courts did indeed grant a fairly broad patent to the Wrights -
they had the patent on three axis control. Their insistence on
enforcing said patent arguably made the machines of the first decade
of powered flight less safe than they could have been, and the death
toll higher. In the end, Curtiss developed the aileron as an end-run
around the Wright patent. A lengthy legal battle ensued. In the end,
the lawyers got everything, and the only possibility of survival for
the two companies was merger. It is for that reason that we all know
about the Curtiss-Wright company.

> Prior to 1926 there
> were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
> governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off.

Actually, the industry of the time consisted mostly of barnstormers
carrying passengers in WW-I surplus trainers.

> In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
> deathtraps to capable traveling machines.

No, pretty much all the machines of 1926 and prior (when certification
became required) were scary wooden deathtraps.

> Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
> planning route structures and suppressing competition.

But it was in the 1930's that real airliners (metal, multiengine,
capable of sustained single engine flight) were developed.

> Today, innovation has
> ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25
> years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
> barriers suppress the adoption of new technology.

Certainly, but I note that we're skipping the interesting 50 years in
between, which saw most of the important advances.

> For instance, most
> FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
> construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
> non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
> materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
> at the same time.

Composite materials have been a major staple in transport category
aircraft for decades. It's only the light GA fleet that remains
(mostly - there are exceptions like the Lancair and Cirrus) mired in
the past. There's no problem with getting new technology into
airliners, because the level of regulation for airliners is
appropriate to the money available and the risk to public safety.

> Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
> requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
> regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
> have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
> might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable service,
> aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

In fact, air transport (as a whole industry) has never been
consistently profitable.

> If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
> elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
> of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of
> existence.

But it's not the giants of industry that innovate. Pretty much all
innovation comes from the small companies. The last innovative thing
Boeing did was the 707, and the management bet the company to do it.
In today's financial climate, where Wall Street writes the rules, such
an action would be unthinkable. Cessna is still offering warmed-over
designs decades old, as are Piper and Beech. Only a handful of small
upstarts are offering anything new.

Michael

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
> present
> > course.
>
> I nevah said that. Never will. But as long as progress and innovation
> (P&I) are alive, yeah, we can "continue our present course" (whatever that
> is).
>
> The moment P&I stops, then nothing is hunky dorey and we will all die.

It's stopping. Isn't quite STOPPED, but P&I, our key to the future, is being
rapidly strangled.

> . . . All that said, I think this is a glass-half-empty/half-full debate.
> We're doin' all right as a nation and a world.

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gerrcoin" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "gerrcoin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.
> >
> >
> > And where does the "cost factor" derive from?
>
> The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
> can save money by employing a different process without overly
> compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
> there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
> hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
> to make a profit.

Being more efficient is, and always has been, a factor in progress. An
example would be the pin making machine of the late 1700's, or the assemply
lines of the early 20th century.


> It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
> have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
> "break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
> all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
> jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
> reluctant to take such a long term risk.

Quite so, but not only is the manufacturing process costly (where sold goods
are being created), but the R&D process where revenue is not assured and
legal claims ON THE SOLD GOODS can wipe out everything.


> >
> > So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?
> >
> >
> >
> Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
> do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
> State" governmental policies.

And an obscene legal system...

> However what I also see is that these
> factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
> community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
> should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

That's not even a point of issue.

> For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
> around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
> sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
> engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen.

Hell, turbochargers have been in GA planes for over 40 years.

See what TATurbo has been doing for turbo-normalization. See also what
they're doing for ignition systems (PRISM system).

>Direct
> injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
> with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
> the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
> to safety and running costs.

First, FI has been in GA a long time, but also the mandated costs of
converting from, say, a O-470 to a IO-470 has been prohibitive.

>We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
> into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
> adoption of full engine management and control units.

Consider if PC technology gains had mirrored GA engine and airframe
technology.

> And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
> regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
> production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks.

Evidently you're not considering the FAA and STC costs.

> Only in
> this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
> market.

By innovating...

> When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
> the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
> on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
> be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
> - even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
> allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
> design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
> it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
> unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
> are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
> of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

Those risks were market risks, not what the issue is here. Besides, the 747
was an extension of existing design and technology, not an entirely new
paradigm.

You're right in what you observe, but it's not the topic of the article. The
biggest detriment is our tort system first, and the regulatory system
second.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding
"negligence"
> > that doesn't necessitate omniscience?
>
> Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim
Fisher's
> computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to
assess
> damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

Where did I say a dollar amount?

[gerrcoin]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>>Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
>>do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
>>State" governmental policies.
>
>
> And an obscene legal system...
>

Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
> > The Wrights
> > and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
> > Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
> > scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
> > achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
> > rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their
invention--and
> > government left the field of aviation free to innovate.
>
> Really? That sounds just a bit revisionist.
>
> The courts did indeed grant a fairly broad patent to the Wrights -
> they had the patent on three axis control. Their insistence on
> enforcing said patent arguably made the machines of the first decade
> of powered flight less safe than they could have been, and the death
> toll higher.

How so?

> In the end, Curtiss developed the aileron as an end-run
> around the Wright patent.

You just answered your own point.


> A lengthy legal battle ensued. In the end,
> the lawyers got everything, and the only possibility of survival for
> the two companies was merger. It is for that reason that we all know
> about the Curtiss-Wright company.

Yup -- one with the innovation, another with the improvement. Like IBM and
Microsoft in 1980 an beyond.

>
> > Prior to 1926 there
> > were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
> > governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took
off.

BINGO! They called it "The Golden Age".

> Actually, the industry of the time consisted mostly of barnstormers
> carrying passengers in WW-I surplus trainers.
>
> > In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden,
scary
> > deathtraps to capable traveling machines.
>
> No, pretty much all the machines of 1926 and prior (when certification
> became required) were scary wooden deathtraps.

And no one was forcing people aboard at gun point. (Until they started
transfering prisoners).

> > Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines,
master
> > planning route structures and suppressing competition.
>
> But it was in the 1930's that real airliners (metal, multiengine,
> capable of sustained single engine flight) were developed.

And still there was virtually NO regulation outside of pilots licensing.

> > Today, innovation has
> > ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the
first 25
> > years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and
regulatory
> > barriers suppress the adoption of new technology.
>
> Certainly, but I note that we're skipping the interesting 50 years in
> between, which saw most of the important advances.

You're confusing "science" and "technology", and most of the technology was
a result of military research and war time activities. In that manner, we
can thank the Nazi's for rockets and jets.

> > For instance, most
> > FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
> > construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
> > non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
> > materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
> > at the same time.
>
> Composite materials have been a major staple in transport category
> aircraft for decades. It's only the light GA fleet that remains
> (mostly - there are exceptions like the Lancair and Cirrus) mired in
> the past. There's no problem with getting new technology into
> airliners, because the level of regulation for airliners is
> appropriate to the money available and the risk to public safety.

And the airlines and Boeing are nearly dead.



> > Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
> > requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
> > regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and
fees
> > have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation
one
> > might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable
service,
> > aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.
>
> In fact, air transport (as a whole industry) has never been
> consistently profitable.

Quite...it went from innovation to heavy regulation.

> > If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
> > elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
> > of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out of
> > existence.
>
> But it's not the giants of industry that innovate. Pretty much all
> innovation comes from the small companies. The last innovative thing
> Boeing did was the 707, and the management bet the company to do it.

> In today's financial climate, where Wall Street writes the rules, such
> an action would be unthinkable.

Wall Street doesn't write any rules, investors do. ANd investors are
hamstrung by regulation and TAX LAWS.

> Cessna is still offering warmed-over
> designs decades old, as are Piper and Beech. Only a handful of small
> upstarts are offering anything new.

Wonder why that is. You make a good history that's appropriate for "Trivia
Pursuit", but never get into the fundemantal issues of WHAT and WHY.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gerrcoin" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >>Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
> >>do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
> >>State" governmental policies.
> >
> >
> > And an obscene legal system...
> >
>
> Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
> what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
> I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.
>
> I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
> involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

Doesn't matter when the legal system (tort law) "requires" prescience and
omnipotence.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
> that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Colin Kingsbury]

Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their house
so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
member.

I wonder how much AOPA money is going to candidates? With the
McCain-Feingold BCRA thing now fully in effect groups like AOPA that can
bundle large numbers of hard money donations together are going to become
more important than ever. It may be corrupt to high hell but it's the way
the game is played.

Best,
-cwk.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> A few $$$millions in PAC money would help...
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message

> Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em half
full.

You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too. ;)

--
Jim Fisher

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> > Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...
>
> According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em
half
> full.
>
> You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too. ;)

Until....WHOMP!!

[Ash Wyllie]

David Megginson opined

<snip>

>2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> David Megginson opined
>
> <snip>
>
> >2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>
> Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
a
> source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
> punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...
>
BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

http://www.overlawyered.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
> much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?
>
> Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
> to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
> nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
> don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their
house
> so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
> equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
> means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
> member.
>
Would that be soft money?

(Ever wonder what would happen to "soft money" if Congress didn't have the
power to hand out favor/goodies and dispensations? Gee...where's the
Catholic Church when we need 'em?)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.
>

Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ash Wyllie]

Tom Sixkiller opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
>> David Megginson opined
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>>
>> Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
>a
>> source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
>> punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...
>>
>BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Ok, but not both at the same time ;).

>Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
>(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

>If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
>state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

>http://www.overlawyered.com





-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Colin Kingsbury > wrote:
: Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
: much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

How many of those 400,000 AOPA members are still in the land of the living?

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:52:39 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Just not *both* at the same time, eh?

Rob

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:52 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:cAxDb.15029$pY.12514@fed1read04...
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:08:39 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > > news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
> > > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher"
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
> > > which
> > > > > > flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
> > > that
> > > > > made
> > > > > > their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
> > > admired
> > > > > the
> > > > > > innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
> > > without
> > > > > > its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
> > > > > innovation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
> > > article
> > > > > for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try
> to
> > > say
> > > > > that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
> > > NASA,
> > > > > Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.
> > >
> > > It's alive, but it's hardly "well".
> >
> > Innovation is doing fine. Progress is definitely hampered. But it inches
> > forward kicking and screaming.
>
> If it's crawling along (especially after what we saw in this century), it's
> definitely not "doing fine". I take it you don't run a business, and
> certainly aren't an entraprenueur.


Until you know the differences between progress and innovation you won't
make any sense.


>
> > >
> > > > Progress is
> > > > definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a
> big
> > > > part of slow progress.
> > >
> > > Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been
> a
> > > source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?
> >
> > I don't know. Are you going to tell us? I never mixed innovation and
> > big corporations together.
>
> You tell me who the monopolies are that you referred to above.


Pick any monopoly.

>
> > >
> > > > They can make cost of entry into markets very
> > > > high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
> > > > introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
> > > > for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
> > > > costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.
> > >
> > > Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
> > > innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?
> >
> > Political clout is only a part of a monopoly.
>
> Political clout is ALL THERE IS in a monopoly! So who are the monopolies

Absolutely not.

> you keep referring to?


Pick any monopoly and what I said applies.

>
> > And I have heard of the dark ages, do you have some examples of
> monopolitic
> > practices from the dark ages and how they stifled innovation?
>
> The guilds, mercantilism, empire building...


What about them stifled innovation? I think you don't know the difference
between innovation and progress. They don't move hand-in-hand.

>
> > > >
> > > > But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.
> > >
> > > Nice contradiction there.
> >
> >
> > Describe how that's a contradiction.
>
> Re-read your own words.

You just don't know the difference between progress and innovation.
They're not the same. Look it up.

>
> > Innovation and progress are not the same just in case you were thinking
> > they were.
> >
>
> Well, in your own words; bullsquat.

Look up the definitions.


>
>
> Here's another dollar; buy some more clue (and quit trying to rationalize
> your post).


Where's the dollar? Where's the discourse? I guess you're done.
When the name calling starts then that means you've run out of arguments.


R. Hubbell

>
>

[Mark]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

[Jürgen Exner]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> 2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.
>
> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Quite right. Mixing criminal punishment and civil retribution is a very bad
thing.
That's exactly why punitive damage as a punishment should have no business
in a civil case.

jue

[Ash Wyllie]

Mark opined

>"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
>> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

>Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
>unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
>damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
>to its proper sphere.

If you really want punitive damages, donate them to charity. A charity that acts
to reduce what ever "caused" the tort. Snell and AOPA air safety are good
examples.

What ever you do, do not let governments get their hands on the monies.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Jim Fisher]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> > Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.
> >
>
> Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
> Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!


Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

--
Jim Fisher

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?
>

Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

This is fun <g>

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> > Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?
>
> Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
> bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Apparently Boeing figured out how to make it work properly

>
> This is fun <g>
>
> Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

Mark opined
>
> >"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> >> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.
>
> >Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
> >unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.

No, it is not.

>Reserving the punitive
>damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
>to its proper sphere.

....and make sure the the deep-pockets cases become even more prolific.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> > Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?
> >
>
> Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
> bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

Fly-by-wire WAS a bad idea for a LONGGGGG time until they got the kinks
worked out.

>
> This is fun <g>
>
> Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

Hopefully not foot-in-mouth!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim,
> >
> > > Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.
> > >
> >
> > Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
> > Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

Cheaper to buy (after MASSIVE subsidy from the taxpayers...an now Boeing is
getting into that as well), but more expensive to operate (since it was
designed for state run airlines).

[Dennis O'Connor]

Ranks right up there with having your embassy's 'high security rooms'
constructed by a foreign government...
Denny
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> >
> > Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
> > Airbus was cheaper?
>
> I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear
made by a
> foreign country is a *really* bad idea.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually
said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Fly-by-wire WAS a bad idea for a LONGGGGG time until they got the kinks
> worked out.
>

Says who? Or what?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> (after MASSIVE subsidy from the taxpayers...an now Boeing is
> getting into that as well)

Uh, now? Those defense contracts have been coming for decades.

> but more expensive to operate (since it was
> designed for state run airlines).
>

Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

G.R.,

> > Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
> > Airbus was cheaper?
>
> I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear made by a
> foreign country is a *really* bad idea.
>

You may want to look into the recent firings at Boeing and the relation to the
tanker contract, which, AFAIK, has been put on hold because of that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
> Airbus was cheaper?

I doubt they had to bribe anyone. Having your military use combat gear made by a
foreign country is a *really* bad idea.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Mark]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> Mark opined
> >
> > >"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> > >> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.
> >
> > >Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
> > >unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.
>
> No, it is not.

It is, if you believe that "compensation" should be in the sphere of civil
law, while "punishment" should remain in the sphere of criminal law.
Only the State can impose criminal penalties. "Punitive" damages
should only be imposed as a criminal sanction, and should require a
criminal trial--with appropriate rules of evidence and procedure.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> > Mark opined
> > >
> > > >"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> > > >> Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad
situation.
> > >
> > > >Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
> > > >unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law.
> >
> > No, it is not.
>
> It is, if you believe that "compensation" should be in the sphere of civil
> law, while "punishment" should remain in the sphere of criminal law.

That's the way is was until the tort system went to hell.

> Only the State can impose criminal penalties. "Punitive" damages
> should only be imposed as a criminal sanction, and should require a
> criminal trial--with appropriate rules of evidence and procedure.

That's a bit more precise explanation for the point I was making...thanks.

[Paul Sengupta]

Of course, you can feel better carrying a heavier load with
the tanks half empty.

Paul

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> > Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...
>
> According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em
half
> full.
>
> You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too. ;)