Sun goes dark, rivers run red, Facetmobile webpage updated.

[Richard Riley]

If you've looked outside and found a rain of frogs, don't worry, it's
not Ragnarok.

Barnaby Wainfan has updated the Facetmobile web page.

http://members.aol.com/slicklynne/facet.htm

The best part is a study he's just written for NASA on a theoretical
composite super-Facetmobile as a Personal Air Vehicle. The weight,
interior volume and cost make it really interesting. You can download
the entire study as a PDF at:

http://members.aol.com/slicklynne/pavreport.pdf

[Dude]

Its amazing how many of us overlook the true impediment to increasing the
use of private air transport - lack of demand.

An airplane could easily be priced at close to the cost of a car IF you
could sell just a million a year. The price of a G1000 with autopilot could
easily drop to under ten thousand at that volume.

The engines and frames could also easily be produced for under ten thousand
at that volume.

Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails. Average guy just
cannot handle the responsibility. Therefore, he won't be buying a plane or
becoming a pilot.

Note, I did not say anything about the training, the complexity, or the
cost. I say we just cannot trust the average guy at the controls from
crashing due to poor decisions in the air or on the ground. For Pete's
sake, a large percentage of our drivers should not be on the road, and we
all know pilot's we worry about too.

And, the LIABILITY of the whole idea.

The air taxi idea, as well as the possibility of larger, nicer, more
available rental fleets could add to the volumes of aircraft in a positive
and useful way. Technology could one day get to the point that the plane is
in charge instead of the pilot, but that is not today. For now, it seems
the cattle car approach is best for those saving cash. If we are lucky, we
may be able to soon see where those willing to spend a little more can take
a taxi or charter, while those who are pilots can own or rent much more
cheaply.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
>well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
>system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Ron Wanttaja

[Veeduber]

>Actually, I don't agree with you, there.

----------------------------------------

Me too, but for a different reason.

Application and use of technology by humans reflects a kind of Moore's Law. To
obtain useful service from the first cars (circa 1880's) typically required a
driver, mechanic and 'boy.' (Duties of the latter were never defined very
well; he appears to have been a kind of gopher.)

Nowadays cars are virtual transportation appliances, the skills and experience
needed to start, steer and maintain them codified into electronic codes or
built-in to the structure of the machine.

The Wright's 'Flyer' was an astable handful to pilot. But it evolved to where
nowdays any idiot can drive a plane and most do.

I can't see any indications of something that might limit this evolution-of-use
in any field. Plenty of obstructions but history provides numerous examples of
that as well, allowing the thoughtful to catch an occaisonal glimpse of the
forest that lays ahead in spite of the trees.

-R.S.Hoover

[Ernest Christley]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
>>well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
>>system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.
>
>
> Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
> for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I'll side with Ron, but for a different reason. Even the people with
airplanes bought and paid for have to use the excuse of a $100 hamburger
as some sort of 'justification' of the enjoyment of getting off the
ground. Until Alcatel builds a runway that terminates in their parking
lot, the airplane will not be useful as a reliable mode of transportation.

Cars were only marginally useful until Uncle Sam decided that his troops
needed a better way to get their big guns to the sea ports. If the
decision had been that planes would do the job better than cars, we'd
all have a runway in the backyard now. And we'd live clustered around
steel tracks if the decision had been for trains.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Dude]

And it lands on someone's house at 1600 fpm?

We still need a big leap in tech.


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his
plane
> >well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant
autopilot
> >system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.
>
> Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
> for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Dude]

"Veeduber" > wrote in message
...
> >Actually, I don't agree with you, there.
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Me too, but for a different reason.
>
> Application and use of technology by humans reflects a kind of Moore's
Law. To
> obtain useful service from the first cars (circa 1880's) typically
required a
> driver, mechanic and 'boy.' (Duties of the latter were never defined very
> well; he appears to have been a kind of gopher.)
>
> Nowadays cars are virtual transportation appliances, the skills and
experience
> needed to start, steer and maintain them codified into electronic codes or
> built-in to the structure of the machine.
>
> The Wright's 'Flyer' was an astable handful to pilot. But it evolved to
where
> nowdays any idiot can drive a plane and most do.
>
> I can't see any indications of something that might limit this
evolution-of-use
> in any field. Plenty of obstructions but history provides numerous
examples of
> that as well, allowing the thoughtful to catch an occaisonal glimpse of
the
> forest that lays ahead in spite of the trees.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

From my own post _

"Technology could one day get to the point that the plane is
in charge instead of the pilot, but that is not today."

So we agree somewhat. Now all we have left to discuss is how long. I will
say that Moore's Law is too fast for aviation if history is any indication.
Also, if the private owner has to maintain it, can it be trusted?

BTW and totally OT is multithreading going to be available in time to keep
Moore's law? Last I checked it was not yet really there, and the MHz game
was hitting a ceiling in usefulness due to memory fetch times and that old
speed of light problem.

[Dude]

Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't trust
that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
citizen as owner.

I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more than
a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his
plane
> >well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant
autopilot
> >system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.
>
> Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
> for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
> pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.
>
> Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
> problem.

Oh, like U-haul???? Hmmmm
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:43:30 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>
>> Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
>> for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.
>
>Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
>pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Nor do most folks want 4,000 pound cars crashing through their house
walls...yet that occurs, fairly often.

Yet we don't hear cries calling for people to ban automobiles. Why?
Because people won't argue for more restrictions on their *own* freedoms
(well, other than ).

Why don't more people fly? Because they're afraid of dying.

You know, and I know, it's a (mostly) irrational fear. But the fact is, a
lot of people think "little airplanes" are dangerous. They don't get
enraged at stuff like TFRs, because it doesn't affect them, just those
"rich snobs with their Learjets".

That isn't going to change until more people are flying. But people aren't
even going to consider it until something changes their minds about the
safety aspects. It doesn't have to be a *logical* item... but the presence
of an aircraft recovery chute that automatically deploys when things go bad
is likely to be a big factor.

I'm not fond of automotive airbags...yet the marketers now seem to think
safety features help sell cars. Ever since I've been flying, non-pilots
have asked me, "Hey, why don't they invent a parachute that saves the
entire airplane?" Now they've got one.
[i]
>Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
>problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't trust
>that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
>citizen as owner.
>
>I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
>cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more than
>a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
>begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
>lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?

Dude, you're assuming an evolutionary approach. Quit that. Assume an air
vehicle (AV) that does not *require* a pilot. One in which the only way to
control the AV is via the computer.

You step inside, and press the "start" button. When the self-test is done,
you specify your destination, then press "depart."

BRS past its repack date? The AV refuses to take off. Ditto if the annual
inspection hasn't been accomplished.

And if you're in flight and the AV CPU locks up, the independent safety
system (ISS) fires the BRS and activates the ELT. Heck, there's no reason
a BRS chute can't be made someone steerable, and the ISS aims for the
nearest open space in its database.

Is it *flying*? Heck no. But it would probably make GA palatable for more
of the non-flying public.

Ron Wanttaja

[Regnirps]

So, why do such simple engines cost so darn much?

I rember way back when Eiper was going to do a deal with Lotus or someone to
mass produce an UL engine. Like always, nothing happened as far as I know. Same
with BD-5.

-- Charlie Springer

[Dude]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing
3000
> > pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.
> >
> > Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
> > problem.
>
> Oh, like U-haul???? Hmmmm
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I am assuming the FAA and insurance companies will be better at policing the
fleets than U-haul, but then again your local part 61 schools aren't all
exactly pictures of maintenance perfection.

Still, central to my point is that the populace at large will not want to
trust their neighbors to maintain aircraft properly.



>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004
>
>

[Dude]

>
> Yet we don't hear cries calling for people to ban automobiles. Why?
> Because people won't argue for more restrictions on their *own* freedoms
> (well, other than ).
>

The assumption in the minds of many is that the automobile is necessary.
Also, cars intruding homes tend to happen where you would expect them too (T
intersections, corners, off ramps). Houses that get hit, tend to get hit
several times. My present home is hardly more likely to get hit by a car
than a plane. Especially by a car with a mechanical problem.

Mostly though, I agree with your point about folks protecting their own
freedoms.

> Why don't more people fly? Because they're afraid of dying.
>
> You know, and I know, it's a (mostly) irrational fear. But the fact is, a
> lot of people think "little airplanes" are dangerous. They don't get
> enraged at stuff like TFRs, because it doesn't affect them, just those
> "rich snobs with their Learjets".
>
> That isn't going to change until more people are flying. But people
aren't
> even going to consider it until something changes their minds about the
> safety aspects. It doesn't have to be a *logical* item... but the
presence
> of an aircraft recovery chute that automatically deploys when things go
bad
> is likely to be a big factor.
>

Still following you, people who know nothing about planes are impressed by
BRS. It does help allay their fears, but will it continue to do so when the
facts about a BRS landing come out?

> I'm not fond of automotive airbags...yet the marketers now seem to think
> safety features help sell cars. Ever since I've been flying, non-pilots
> have asked me, "Hey, why don't they invent a parachute that saves the
> entire airplane?" Now they've got one.
>[i]
> >Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
> >problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't
trust
> >that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
> >citizen as owner.
> >
> >I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
> >cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more
than
> >a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
> >begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
> >lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?
>
> Dude, you're assuming an evolutionary approach. Quit that. Assume an air
> vehicle (AV) that does not *require* a pilot. One in which the only way
to
> control the AV is via the computer.
>
> You step inside, and press the "start" button. When the self-test is
done,
> you specify your destination, then press "depart."
>
> BRS past its repack date? The AV refuses to take off. Ditto if the
annual
> inspection hasn't been accomplished.
>
> And if you're in flight and the AV CPU locks up, the independent safety
> system (ISS) fires the BRS and activates the ELT. Heck, there's no reason
> a BRS chute can't be made someone steerable, and the ISS aims for the
> nearest open space in its database.
>
> Is it *flying*? Heck no. But it would probably make GA palatable for
more
> of the non-flying public.
>

I agree with you that this type of aircraft could change some people's
perception of flying small planes. Unfortunately, it will not change the
following mindsets:

[Insert your favorite idiot voice and accent]

"Flying is unnatural"

"I don't want that noisy thing flying over MY house"

"I don't trust those F'n computers"

"What happens if the computer fails"

etc.

There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for this
idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems with
it (which is admittedly my nature).

Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on one.
Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts on
leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't make
a new small piston plane.

I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:19:09 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

[Good stuff snipped]

>There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for this
>idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems with
>it (which is admittedly my nature).
>
>Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on one.
>Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts on
>leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
>have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
>just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't make
>a new small piston plane.
>
>I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
>prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

Oh, I don't think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. The whole problem
boils down to three questions:

1. CAN it be done?
2. WILL it be done?
and
3. SHOULD it be done?

We differ in the response to #1... I feel it's doable, within current
technology. But I agree there are problems. We can rely on the onboard
computer to not allow operation if certain maintenance parameters are out
of spec. But, such technology is open to spoofing. For instance, it'd be
cheaper to burn a ROM that says the BRS has been replaced instead of
actually replacing the BRS.

In any case, by the time we get to #2, we're in agreement. It's not going
to happen. A brand new Cirrus that depends on pilot skills dating from
1938 sells for almost a quarter-million dollars. To automate the piloting
process, even to the extent of duplicating the stall-avoidance features of
the Ercoupe (only doing it in software rather than hardware) won't be
cheap.

But that quarter-million dollars a pop puts the *current* Cirrus out of
financial reach of the average citizen. Even if the "Ercoupe NT" version
of the Cirrus merely *doubles* the price, you still aren't going to get too
many takers.

If the plane offered doorstep-to-doorstep service, you might get some of
the real well-heeled types picking them up. This may even have a
trickle-down effect, leading to lower-cost versions.

But the Ercoupe NT still will require conventional runways. Moller's VTOL
Skycar gets around this...but I suspect there are few millionaire
neighborhoods that'll long tolerate eight shrieking rotary engines hauling
the CEO to work at 7 AM.

Finally, we get to the point of *Should* it be done. Personally, I like to
manually operate the controls, but don't have any problem with someone who
just wants to punch the "Fly to Portland" button then sit back and nap.
However, such a system will probably require positive control of all but
the most out-of-the-way airspace. Which would kill General Aviation as we
know it...and as I prefer it.

So I guess I'll scrap that antigravity sled I've been building... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:


>Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
>well enough to keep it safe.

that is an unsubstantiated nonsense claim if ever there was one.
you ever heard of the EAA and all the similar organisations the world
over?

....maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society, but it does seem to me that you started on a
pessimistic error in that post.

Stealth Pilot
Australia
(happily maintaining my own aircraft in spite of the legislation)

[Veeduber]

>maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
>the rest of society,

---------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

[Dude]

We are pretty close together in the end it seems.

Much of the problems you see are cost related, and you point out some things
holding back demand. We could likely build planes for a fifth the current
price IF there were steady volume enough.

So we agree that demand may be the end problem, we just disagree on why :)


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:19:09 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> [Good stuff snipped]
>
> >There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for
this
> >idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems
with
> >it (which is admittedly my nature).
> >
> >Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on
one.
> >Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts
on
> >leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
> >have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
> >just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't
make
> >a new small piston plane.
> >
> >I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
> >prove me the unnecessary pessimist.
>
> Oh, I don't think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. The whole problem
> boils down to three questions:
>
> 1. CAN it be done?
> 2. WILL it be done?
> and
> 3. SHOULD it be done?
>
> We differ in the response to #1... I feel it's doable, within current
> technology. But I agree there are problems. We can rely on the onboard
> computer to not allow operation if certain maintenance parameters are out
> of spec. But, such technology is open to spoofing. For instance, it'd be
> cheaper to burn a ROM that says the BRS has been replaced instead of
> actually replacing the BRS.
>
> In any case, by the time we get to #2, we're in agreement. It's not
going
> to happen. A brand new Cirrus that depends on pilot skills dating from
> 1938 sells for almost a quarter-million dollars. To automate the piloting
> process, even to the extent of duplicating the stall-avoidance features of
> the Ercoupe (only doing it in software rather than hardware) won't be
> cheap.
>
> But that quarter-million dollars a pop puts the *current* Cirrus out of
> financial reach of the average citizen. Even if the "Ercoupe NT" version
> of the Cirrus merely *doubles* the price, you still aren't going to get
too
> many takers.
>
> If the plane offered doorstep-to-doorstep service, you might get some of
> the real well-heeled types picking them up. This may even have a
> trickle-down effect, leading to lower-cost versions.
>
> But the Ercoupe NT still will require conventional runways. Moller's VTOL
> Skycar gets around this...but I suspect there are few millionaire
> neighborhoods that'll long tolerate eight shrieking rotary engines hauling
> the CEO to work at 7 AM.
>
> Finally, we get to the point of *Should* it be done. Personally, I like
to
> manually operate the controls, but don't have any problem with someone who
> just wants to punch the "Fly to Portland" button then sit back and nap.
> However, such a system will probably require positive control of all but
> the most out-of-the-way airspace. Which would kill General Aviation as we
> know it...and as I prefer it.
>
> So I guess I'll scrap that antigravity sled I've been building... :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>

[Dude]

While I am admittedly pessimistic, there are a few things that make the
average EAA guy different from the average citizen.

Number one would be a love of building and flying. EAA people are
intimately involved in the way their planes work. They do not see them as a
bland appliance that gets them from point A to point B.

The guy I am worried about is the one that can't fix his car properly, but
thinks he can. Or he thinks that every mechanic is trying to rip him off,
and wants to use the cheapest repair he can get by with.

Now you want to put him in charge of a plane? For Pete's sake, have you
seen the cars on the road?




"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
>
> >Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his
plane
> >well enough to keep it safe.
>
> that is an unsubstantiated nonsense claim if ever there was one.
> you ever heard of the EAA and all the similar organisations the world
> over?
>
> ...maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
> the rest of society, but it does seem to me that you started on a
> pessimistic error in that post.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia
> (happily maintaining my own aircraft in spite of the legislation)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:18:06 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>We are pretty close together in the end it seems.
>
>Much of the problems you see are cost related, and you point out some things
>holding back demand. We could likely build planes for a fifth the current
>price IF there were steady volume enough.
>
>So we agree that demand may be the end problem, we just disagree on why :)

Yep. Since we don't have anything logical left to argue about, is this
where we switch to name-calling? :-)

Ron "Your father smelled of elderberries" Wanttaja

[Stealth Pilot]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>While I am admittedly pessimistic, there are a few things that make the
>average EAA guy different from the average citizen.
>
>Number one would be a love of building and flying. EAA people are
>intimately involved in the way their planes work. They do not see them as a
>bland appliance that gets them from point A to point B.
>
>The guy I am worried about is the one that can't fix his car properly, but
>thinks he can. Or he thinks that every mechanic is trying to rip him off,
>and wants to use the cheapest repair he can get by with.
>
>Now you want to put him in charge of a plane? For Pete's sake, have you
>seen the cars on the road?
>
>

your carbeques caused us some amusement on the trip from sandiego to
route 66 :-) :-) and watching something like 3 cars sitting there
calling out the road patrol to change a flat tyre was astonishing.
my last flat tyre took me 2 minutes to swap on the shoulder of a busy
freeway.
I'm sure urban americans dont realise how dumb they look to the rest
of the first world. :-)

relating to aviation.
look there is a pervasive view that all owners are into clueless
shonky maintenance. the hard evidence is quite different though.
South Africans have owner maintenance and discussing this with some of
the pilots who have emigrated tells the same story. when an old
aircraft enters owner maintenance you can watch it develop over the
next few years. the deterioration gradually winds back as the guy
fixes more and more of the effects of age on it. many aircraft in
owner maintenance end up as stunningly restored showcases that are
flown for real pleasure.
The Canadians north of you wouldnt stop maintaining their aircraft and
in their remoteness could operate an aircraft for it's entire life
away from civilisation. Transport Canada changed the rules when the
statistics for illicit maintenance proved to be no different than for
certified maintenance. The sky certainly hasnt fallen in for them.
The brits, we australians and the kiwis all have the same basic
pessimism in their regulatory authorities. they all still have a
mindset from 1918 when it really was dangerous. most of us just ignore
the authorities, close the hangar door, and just get on with it
anyway.

pilots are not the general unwashed of life. they have all been
trained and assessed as competent aviators. isnt it time you had some
confidence. all you need to do is put competent information before
them and they soak it up. pessimism and aviation are poor bedfellows.

Stealth (optimist) Pilot

[Gary Thomas]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> >While I am admittedly pessimistic, there are a few things that make the
> >average EAA guy different from the average citizen.
> >
> >Number one would be a love of building and flying. EAA people are
> >intimately involved in the way their planes work. They do not see them as a
> >bland appliance that gets them from point A to point B.
> >
> >The guy I am worried about is the one that can't fix his car properly, but
> >thinks he can. Or he thinks that every mechanic is trying to rip him off,
> >and wants to use the cheapest repair he can get by with.
> >
> >Now you want to put him in charge of a plane? For Pete's sake, have you
> >seen the cars on the road?
> >
> >
>
> your carbeques caused us some amusement on the trip from sandiego to
> route 66 :-) :-) and watching something like 3 cars sitting there
> calling out the road patrol to change a flat tyre was astonishing.
> my last flat tyre took me 2 minutes to swap on the shoulder of a busy
> freeway.
> I'm sure urban americans dont realise how dumb they look to the rest
> of the first world. :-)
>
> relating to aviation.
> look there is a pervasive view that all owners are into clueless
> shonky maintenance. the hard evidence is quite different though.
> South Africans have owner maintenance and discussing this with some of
> the pilots who have emigrated tells the same story. when an old
> aircraft enters owner maintenance you can watch it develop over the
> next few years. the deterioration gradually winds back as the guy
> fixes more and more of the effects of age on it. many aircraft in
> owner maintenance end up as stunningly restored showcases that are
> flown for real pleasure.
> The Canadians north of you wouldnt stop maintaining their aircraft and
> in their remoteness could operate an aircraft for it's entire life
> away from civilisation. Transport Canada changed the rules when the
> statistics for illicit maintenance proved to be no different than for
> certified maintenance. The sky certainly hasnt fallen in for them.
> The brits, we australians and the kiwis all have the same basic
> pessimism in their regulatory authorities. they all still have a
> mindset from 1918 when it really was dangerous. most of us just ignore
> the authorities, close the hangar door, and just get on with it
> anyway.
>
> pilots are not the general unwashed of life. they have all been
> trained and assessed as competent aviators. isnt it time you had some
> confidence. all you need to do is put competent information before
> them and they soak it up. pessimism and aviation are poor bedfellows.
>
> Stealth (optimist) Pilot

I'd like to address your first gratuitous whack at the way some
americans choose to fix a flat tire. Many pay an annual fee for
roadside assistance. It's a nice little card that goes into the wife's
pocket book that has an 800 number which along with a cell phone gets
the nice man out to fix the tire, bring gasoline, get the damn thing
started and/or tow it to the garage. It stops the need to leave work
and go listen to a diatribe about how SWMBO really should have a new SUV
instead of this crappy BMW/whatever. The diatribe is now put off to
when you return home and you can listen to it on your own unbillable
time. This saves the annual fee in one whack ;-)

Gary Thomas

[Rich S.]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> my last flat tyre took me 2 minutes to swap on the shoulder of a busy
> freeway.

Wow! The next time I need a "tyre" changed, may I call you? :^0

The tires needed to be rotated on my 1987 Ford 3/4 ton pickup. I cleared out
the 2-car garage/shop and spotted the truck in the center. The overhead
lights were brightly lighting up the work area, the compressor was charged
and I brought out the floor jack and jack stands.

It took but a few minutes to lift all four corners of the Ford off the
ground and secure it on the stands. I popped off all the hub caps and set up
the impact wrench. Great working conditions! Dry, warm and pneumatic tools -
what more could you want? No buttheads talking on cellphones whizzing past
three feet away; just the soothing tones of Rush Linbaugh on the radio,
"Talent on loan from Glaxo-Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals".

Ten minutes later, I finally had the spare tire down from its hiding place
under the bed. "Ooh - my back is starting to twinge already, I'd better pace
myself. Where's my Bud?" "Okay - spare's ready, now to spin those lugnuts."

Twenty minutes later, I have one nut unscrewed about four turns. It has now
stopped turning and no amount of force I can apply will budge it in either
direction. I believe it has welded itself to the lug. Before you ask, yes -
I wire brushed all the lugs and allowed plenty of time for the penetrating
oil to do its work. BTW, the rear lugs have an inch of excess thread beyond
the nut to allow for the installation of duallies, so four turns is just a
small beginning.

The hubcaps and the spare tire went in the truck bed. The jackstands were
put away and the truck taken to the local tire shop. That was fifty bucks
well spent. He even charged an extra fiver to stow the spare.

Rich "I'll never go *there* again!" S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:13:58 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>Ten minutes later, I finally had the spare tire down from its hiding place
>under the bed. "Ooh - my back is starting to twinge already, I'd better pace
>myself. Where's my Bud?" "Okay - spare's ready, now to spin those lugnuts."
>
>Twenty minutes later, I have one nut unscrewed about four turns. It has now
>stopped turning and no amount of force I can apply will budge it in either
>direction. I believe it has welded itself to the lug. Before you ask, yes -
>I wire brushed all the lugs and allowed plenty of time for the penetrating
>oil to do its work. BTW, the rear lugs have an inch of excess thread beyond
>the nut to allow for the installation of duallies, so four turns is just a
>small beginning.
>
>The hubcaps and the spare tire went in the truck bed. The jackstands were
>put away and the truck taken to the local tire shop. That was fifty bucks
>well spent. He even charged an extra fiver to stow the spare.

Conversely, my brother-in-law was in town last weekend, running his Camaro
in the SCCA races. I was visiting him on Sunday when he decided to swap
his slicks for rain tires. Took him all of about five minutes for all four
tires....all I did was roll the replacement units up and pull the removed
ones away.

Makes a difference when you do it four or five times every weekend. :-)

Ron "Rollaway" Wanttaja

[Pete Schaefer]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> 1. CAN it be done?

Hmm...yeah, probably, but the complexity of software that can handle what we
consider to be routine decision-making would be phenomenally high. Picture
what goes into a current state-of-the-art FBW software (incredibly
expensive......figure $80M for basic inner-loop and autopilot through to
certification) and take it up 2-3 orders of magnitude. We're talking about
stretching the limits of current AI tech, plus testing.

> 2. WILL it be done?

Nope. Not any time soon, anyway. There just isn't a strong enough tech push.

> 3. SHOULD it be done?

Not for GA alone. There just isn't a strong enough need.

The tech that you'd need to make it work are the same as those needed to
make UAVs trustworthy enough for "hands-off" operation within federal
airspace. If it will ever happen, it will start with UAVs, cuz that's where
the money is being spent. As long as UAVs are only adhering to their current
conops, this tech will never see enough attention to emerge into the
mainstream. It will remain the province of robotic deep-space exploration.

Pete

[Dude]

>
> Yep. Since we don't have anything logical left to argue about, is this
> where we switch to name-calling? :-)
>


Why call names when I can "Fart in your general direction."

[Stealth Pilot]

On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

>>maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
>>the rest of society,
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
>against another (yes, Oz is right in there).
>
>If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
>average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.
>
>A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
>'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.
>
>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
>closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
>'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
>a car) is probably more right than wrong.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
to. (thought of you instantly)

the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
85 - 100 is 34%
100 - 115 is 34% again.
115 - 130 is 14%
over 130 is 2%

traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
so IQ's dont tell all of the story.

if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
and actually maintaining their aircraft.

even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
maintaining their own aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

[Dude]

Is the point whether they are able, or that they will do it?

Many people just do not have the right attitude. Current aviation
populations are made up of enthusiastast who care about planes at least on
some level.

What happens when the average owner is less of an enthusiast and only sees
his plane as a transportation appliance?

Cars have gotten this way for many people. They just do not see it as an
important possession that deserves care and respect anymore. Those people
CAN take care of their cars, they just don't.






"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:
>
> >>maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
> >>the rest of society,
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
> >against another (yes, Oz is right in there).
> >
> >If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then
the
> >average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.
> >
> >A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
> >'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.
> >
> >It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our
society is a
> >closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion
the
> >'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or
even
> >a car) is probably more right than wrong.
> >
> >-R.S.Hoover
>
> the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
> to. (thought of you instantly)
>
> the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
> 0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
> 70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
> 85 - 100 is 34%
> 100 - 115 is 34% again.
> 115 - 130 is 14%
> over 130 is 2%
>
> traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
> talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
> linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
> natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
> so IQ's dont tell all of the story.
>
> if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
> fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
> covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
> 82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
> and actually maintaining their aircraft.
>
> even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
> maintaining their own aircraft.
>
> Stealth Pilot

[Brian Whatcott]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:32:24 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On 02 Jun 2004 05:13:22 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:
>
>>>maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
>>>the rest of society,
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
>>against another (yes, Oz is right in there).
>>
>>If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
>>average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.
>>
>>A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
>>'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.
>>
>>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
>>closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
>>'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
>>a car) is probably more right than wrong.
>>
>>-R.S.Hoover
>
>the other day in my studies I came across the graph of IQ's you refer
>to. (thought of you instantly)
>
>the graph is of Wechaler IQ's
>0 - 70 is 2% of the population.
>70 - 85 is 14% of the population.
>85 - 100 is 34%
>100 - 115 is 34% again.
>115 - 130 is 14%
>over 130 is 2%
>
>traditional IQ tests really only test logic, spatial and numeric
>talents. as Mr Gardiner pointed out there are 8 areas of intelligence.
>linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, body-kinesthetic,
>natuaralistic, social understanding and self understanding.
>so IQ's dont tell all of the story.
>
>if we take IQ's from 85 up as being either good with the hands (not
>fully appreciated in the IQ test) or intellectually able (fully
>covered by the IQ test) to build and maintain aircraft.
>82% of the population are theoretically able to handle learning about
>and actually maintaining their aircraft.
>
>even statistically there is no need for the pessimism about owners
>maintaining their own aircraft.
>
>Stealth Pilot

If one concludes from your data, that the median IQ is arranged to be
100 (which one should) then Bob is suggesting the AVERAGE
ought to be higher - so that the average citizen is well placed to fix
up a FG single, on this basis.
How about that! :-)

B

[Ernest Christley]

Veeduber wrote:
>>maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
>>the rest of society,
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
> against another (yes, Oz is right in there).
>
> If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
> average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.
>
> A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
> 'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.
>
> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
> closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
> 'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
> a car) is probably more right than wrong.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

BY DEFINITION....

50% of the world's population are of below average intelligence!!

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Veeduber]

>If one concludes from your data, that the median IQ is arranged to be
>100 (which one should) then Bob is suggesting the AVERAGE
>ought to be higher

------------------------------------------

Not quite.

The bell curve defined by Stealth Pilot supposedly represents the distribution
of intelligence for the entire human population.

This is not the same thing as the numerical mean of IQ scores for a specific
population, such as pilots, people on welfare or attendees at a conference on
astrophysics.

The popular 'national IQ' bull**** appears to use only data from students, a
population that is skewed toward the higher end. When the arithmetical average
of their IQ's is 100 the news isn't quite as good at it appears and is a
completely different subject than the statistical distribution of IQ for the
entire human population. I simply pointed out the flaw in comparing one to the
other.

IQ tests tend to reflect the people who create them. And then misuse them for
various purposes :-)

As Robert Heinlein pointed out many years ago, in the Kalahari if he survived
at all would be as the local equivalent to an idiot on welfare -- a zero on the
local IQ test -- because the set of northern European genes that resulted in
his 130+ IQ didn't happen to include the ability to smell water.

-R.S.Hoover

[Harry K]

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > my last flat tyre took me 2 minutes to swap on the shoulder of a busy
> > freeway.
>
> Wow! The next time I need a "tyre" changed, may I call you? :^0
>
> The tires needed to be rotated on my 1987 Ford 3/4 ton pickup. I cleared out
> the 2-car garage/shop and spotted the truck in the center. The overhead
> lights were brightly lighting up the work area, the compressor was charged
> and I brought out the floor jack and jack stands.
>
> It took but a few minutes to lift all four corners of the Ford off the
> ground and secure it on the stands. I popped off all the hub caps and set up
> the impact wrench. Great working conditions! Dry, warm and pneumatic tools -
> what more could you want? No buttheads talking on cellphones whizzing past
> three feet away; just the soothing tones of Rush Linbaugh on the radio,
> "Talent on loan from Glaxo-Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals".
>
> Ten minutes later, I finally had the spare tire down from its hiding place
> under the bed. "Ooh - my back is starting to twinge already, I'd better pace
> myself. Where's my Bud?" "Okay - spare's ready, now to spin those lugnuts."
>
> Twenty minutes later, I have one nut unscrewed about four turns. It has now
> stopped turning and no amount of force I can apply will budge it in either
> direction. I believe it has welded itself to the lug. Before you ask, yes -
> I wire brushed all the lugs and allowed plenty of time for the penetrating
> oil to do its work. BTW, the rear lugs have an inch of excess thread beyond
> the nut to allow for the installation of duallies, so four turns is just a
> small beginning.
>
> The hubcaps and the spare tire went in the truck bed. The jackstands were
> put away and the truck taken to the local tire shop. That was fifty bucks
> well spent. He even charged an extra fiver to stow the spare.
>

Ah yes, the lovely 'hide the spare' gimmick. Seeing as how my PU is a
'work' rig not a pussy wagon, I put an in-bed mount in and had the
underbed hanger removed (read torched) off (to eliminate rattles).
All I had to do after getting the PU was picture myself out in the
boonies and needing the spare to decide in bed was the only logical
place.

Harry K
> Rich "I'll never go *there* again!" S.

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> BY DEFINITION....
>
> 50% of the world's population are of below average intelligence!!

Well, at or below the median. Depends on the distribution

Ed "feeling hypothetical" Wischmeyer

[Corrie]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:13:58 -0700, "Rich S." >
> wrote:
>
> >Ten minutes later, I finally had the spare tire down from its hiding place
> >under the bed. "Ooh - my back is starting to twinge already, I'd better pace
> >myself. Where's my Bud?" "Okay - spare's ready, now to spin those lugnuts."
> >
> >Twenty minutes later, I have one nut unscrewed about four turns. It has now
> >stopped turning and no amount of force I can apply will budge it in either
> >direction. I believe it has welded itself to the lug. Before you ask, yes -
> >I wire brushed all the lugs and allowed plenty of time for the penetrating
> >oil to do its work. BTW, the rear lugs have an inch of excess thread beyond
> >the nut to allow for the installation of duallies, so four turns is just a
> >small beginning.
> >
> >The hubcaps and the spare tire went in the truck bed. The jackstands were
> >put away and the truck taken to the local tire shop. That was fifty bucks
> >well spent. He even charged an extra fiver to stow the spare.
>
> Conversely, my brother-in-law was in town last weekend, running his Camaro
> in the SCCA races. I was visiting him on Sunday when he decided to swap
> his slicks for rain tires. Took him all of about five minutes for all four
> tires....all I did was roll the replacement units up and pull the removed
> ones away.
>
> Makes a difference when you do it four or five times every weekend. :-)
>
> Ron "Rollaway" Wanttaja


Let's be fair, Ron, it also makes a difference when the machine is
DESIGNED to be owner-maintained, versus designed to be maintainable
only by a dealer with special equipment.

Back in the day, I rebuilt the carb for my old Datsun pickup on the
kitchen table. I rebuilt the master cylinder in a parking lot. Just
like building a model - follow the directions and don't bend the
little parts. A friend (Army-trained truck mech) sat on the fender of
her 70-something Impala and did the valves on the Indestructible Chevy
Straight Six. Feet dangling inside the engine compartment. I helped
another buddy weld the frame of his Triumph Spitfire. (He rebuilt the
electrical system after it burned. Electrics by Lucas - Prince of
Darkness; you KNOW it's going to catch fire at some point. A five-ohm
resistor on the schematic turned out to be two meters of wire running
from the dash to the bumper and back.)

Point being, those were machines designed to be maintained by
mechanically-competent owners and shade-tree mechanics, not
"factory-trained professional technicians." Nowadays I don't even
change my own oil. You can't dump it in the gutter anyway.

Corrie