Two seats is all you need

[Bret Ludwig]

"Although many pilots wouldn't buy a plane with fewer than four seats,
the
dirty little secret is that many if not most of us fly alone a lot. An
Arizona ranch hand has introduced a downright neighborly concept for
putting
like-minded pilots together that not only helps people out, but can
reduce
costs and boost the fun factor. Baldy (which he comes by honestly) Ivy
established PilotShareTheRide a year ago and so far hundreds of pilots
have
connected with one another for trips, training and rides around the
patch.
"It's about sharing the love of flying and if you can share expenses,
then
so much the better." Pilots planning a flight register it on the Web
site
and describe their itinerary. If someone happens to be going their way
(or
just wants to get up in the air), he or she e-mails the pilot in the
posting
and they sort out the details between themselves. Ivy stresses that
he's not
arranging flights (that would be Part 135 work), he's just providing a
kind
of pilot matchmaking service that leaves it up to the individuals to
decide
when and where they fly. There are about 4200 pilots signed up and, at
any
one time, about 500 flight postings."

Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
Citations.)

Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
liability problems.

[Jerry Springer]

>
> Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
> new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
> aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
> pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
> That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
> Citations.)
>
> Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
> generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
> liability problems.
>

I think the manure is coming out of your a**.


Jerry

[Lou]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> >
> > Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
> > new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
> > aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
> > pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
> > That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
> > Citations.)
> >
> > Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
> > generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
> > liability problems.
> >
>
> I think the manure is coming out of your a**.
>
>
> Jerry


Since when did it become a matter of need?

[Gene Seibel]

One seat is all you need. It's not a secret. I'm guessing that just as
large a percentage of SUV's on our freeways are occupied by one person.
My extra 3 seats are there when I need them - whether it be for people
or cargo.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Robert M. Gary]

>Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
> generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
> liability problems.

What?? Where does that come from? Most all my flying is with my family.
I'm more likely to adjust my risk management assesemtn when I'm flying
by myself than with my family. Seems like you have some backwards logic
to me.
-Robert

[Bret Ludwig]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> >
> > Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
> > new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
> > aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
> > pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
> > That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
> > Citations.)
> >
> > Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
> > generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
> > liability problems.
> >
>
> I think the manure is coming out of your a**.
>

It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>>> Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
>>>new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
>>>aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
>>>pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
>>>That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
>>>Citations.)
>>>
>>> Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
>>>generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
>>>liability problems.
>>>
>>
>>I think the manure is coming out of your a**.
>>
>
>
> It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.
>


More manure

[Bret Ludwig]

Jerry Springer wrote:
<<snip>>

> More manure


Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
through. That is to say, gullible.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>> More manure
>
>
> Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
> What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
> who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
> through. That is to say, gullible.

Instead, Brett, why don't you offer proof of the *facts* you post. Start
with this one, which I copied from one of your posts earlier in this thread:

"It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
the issue to keep the full page spreads coming."

KB

[Roger]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:23:01 -0800, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>>
>> Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
>> new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
>> aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
>> pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
>> That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
>> Citations.)
>>
>> Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
>> generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
>> liability problems.
>>
>
>I think the manure is coming out of your a**.

Spose he got permission to reprint that article?

And... I need 4 seats. One for me and three for all the junk I carry
along.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
>Jerry

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>>More manure
>
>
>
> Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
> What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
> who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
> through. That is to say, gullible.
>
How about experience from being in aviation since I was two years old
when my father bought his first airplane? The experience of being around
aviation and aviation people all of my life. Or maybe from being a
flight instructor since 1976? Gullible, I don't think so.
"Get-home-itis" can be caused by many factors, I don't believe you can
pin it on just pilots with family as you eluded to in another post.

Jerry

[Jim]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > Jerry Springer wrote:
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >>More manure
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
> > What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
> > who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
> > through. That is to say, gullible.
> >
> How about experience from being in aviation since I was two years old
> when my father bought his first airplane? The experience of being around
> aviation and aviation people all of my life. Or maybe from being a
> flight instructor since 1976? Gullible, I don't think so.
> "Get-home-itis" can be caused by many factors, I don't believe you can
> pin it on just pilots with family as you eluded to in another post.
>
> Jerry

Get-home-itis is an affliction suffered by people with jobs. I don't have a
job and I never get it...........and I've got a family (but only a
2-seater). <G>

jim

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
>> generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
>> liability problems.
>
> What?? Where does that come from? Most all my flying is with my family.
> I'm more likely to adjust my risk management assesemtn when I'm flying
> by myself than with my family. Seems like you have some backwards logic
> to me.

When you are flying with your family aboard, your "home" is in the back
seat!!

[Matt Barrow]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>>
>> Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
>> What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
>> who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
>> through. That is to say, gullible.
>
> Instead, Brett, why don't you offer proof of the *facts* you post. Start
> with this one, which I copied from one of your posts earlier in this
> thread:
>
> "It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming."
>
And Bret, when responding to Kyle, remember that correlation is not
causation.

[Bret Ludwig]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > Jerry Springer wrote:
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >>More manure
> >
> >
> >
> > Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
> > What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
> > who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
> > through. That is to say, gullible.
> >
> How about experience from being in aviation since I was two years old
> when my father bought his first airplane? The experience of being around
> aviation and aviation people all of my life. Or maybe from being a
> flight instructor since 1976? Gullible, I don't think so.
> "Get-home-itis" can be caused by many factors, I don't believe you can
> pin it on just pilots with family as you eluded to in another post.

No, not just. But when the airplane is firmly placed in the toy
category, rational thinking about it is possible. So is the airplane
that is really and truly a business tool. But most light "business
aircraft" are actually an effort at tax-deductible (and therefore
subsidized) ego reinforcement and recreation. In that environment clear
thinking is impossible.

The GA industry has done a lot of very stupid things that have caused
a lot of long term damage because they were expedient at the time.
While a few of the much ballyhooed "devastating lawsuits" that impacted
the manufacturers were unjustified, many were fully justified and
indeed had the courts upheld even one good "plant key judgment"-you
just reach in your pocket and hand the plaintiff's attorney the keys to
the plant-the industry would have had to fix its problems.

Most GA pilots are not attorneys, business analysts or accountants,
and when magazines like Flying and Air Progress chose to parrot the
industry line, this was accepted without question. When I query
aircraft owners as to why airplanes are so expensive,one
word-"liability" comes out again and again. Even if they own a boat
and they will unquestioningly pay $300 for a $50 GM alternator because
it says MerCruiser, the $400 PMA'd $50 car alternator has to be the
fault of attorneys.

That's not to say we don't have a litigation crisis in this country
and that we don't need reform. We do, and do. But with the motorcycle,
scuba diving and skydiving businesses operating for the most part
without massive product liability litigation, there is absolutely no
reason to accept that you can't make small airplanes without getting
hauled into court all the time. If they do, the finger has to be
pointed first and foremost at corporate management. Further, while
there is unquestionably excessive amounts of product liability and
medical malpractice litigation, what is really clogging the courts and
killing American jobs is corporate litigation-mostly contract rather
than tort law-and none of the neo-con whoreson Bush Republicans is
going to go near that problem.

Sacred cows, really do make the tastiest burgers...

[Jim Carriere]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Most GA pilots are not attorneys, business analysts or accountants,

Similarly, the legal profession has a great deal of ignorance about
general aviation.

Do you know why Burt Rutan isn't in the homebuilding business anymore?
Because he broke even. He had been profitable, but had to spend money
defending himself in spurious lawsuits (he never lost, by the way).
This is a perfect example of the legal system being *******ized into an
extortion system and stifling innovation. Burt long ago turned his
talents to making his living in a different part of aviation.

Most engineers have to take humanities courses as part of their
education to make them "well rounded." Do litigation lawyers have to
take math and science courses? Hmm. I argue that the legal system has
a lot of "professionals" who have a poor technical background that
results in them accepting spurious cases. How many of them have a clue
who Burt Rutan is, never mind what is involved in building an airplane
yourself? This is just one example of one cause behind excessive
litigation.

> and when magazines like Flying and Air Progress chose to parrot the
> industry line, this was accepted without question. When I query
> aircraft owners as to why airplanes are so expensive,one
> word-"liability" comes out again and again. Even if they own a boat
> and they will unquestioningly pay $300 for a $50 GM alternator because
> it says MerCruiser, the $400 PMA'd $50 car alternator has to be the
> fault of attorneys.

I think they unquestionably pay for PMA'ed parts because the law
requires it on certificated aircraft, not because of a herd mentality.

> than tort law-and none of the neo-con whoreson Bush Republicans is
> going to go near that problem.

You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.

[Morgans]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote

> You know, resorting to course language degrades you and your arguments.
> It makes you seem like an angry, loud, drunk guy.

Agreed, with spades.

Also, interjecting political hatred and bashing does nothing to increase 50%
of the people's view of him. I'm loitering on the edge of "plonkdom."
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>>> Two seat aircraft should be the standard in sport aviation. And all
>>>new aircraft under 4000 lb should be required to be certified in the
>>>aerobatic category (in the case of production a/c) because training
>>>pilots requires aerobatics. (Say otherwise, you are blowing manure.
>>>That's why the Air Force BTT training programs do this-in beefed up
>>>Citations.)
>>>
>>> Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
>>>generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
>>>liability problems.
>>>
>>
>>I think the manure is coming out of your a**.
>>
>
>
> It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.
>

You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
>> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
>> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
>> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.
>>
>
> You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)

He's stuck on them.

[Roger]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:48:47 -0800, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> Jerry Springer wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>>
>>>More manure
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is your proof? How much original research on this have you done?
>> What primary sources can you quote? You are like all the other people
>> who believe whatever you are told instead of thinking the problem
>> through. That is to say, gullible.
>>
>How about experience from being in aviation since I was two years old
>when my father bought his first airplane? The experience of being around
>aviation and aviation people all of my life. Or maybe from being a
>flight instructor since 1976? Gullible, I don't think so.
>"Get-home-itis" can be caused by many factors, I don't believe you can
>pin it on just pilots with family as you eluded to in another post.
>
>Jerry

Getthereitis has a many causes as there are pilots or drivers.

What causes getthereitis in one pilot will cause stayputitis in
another.

If I take family and/or friends some where I tend to be more
conservative than when flying alone. I want their trip to be fun, not
scary. My wife has ridden on enough trips that IFR doesn't bother
her, but turbulence with the hard bumps (like chuckholes in a road)
do. When we go on vacation we plan on getting "there" today, or
tomorrow, or the day after and it's the same on the way home.

WE have 4 seats and long range, but normally I fly alone or with my
wife unless it's just short sight seeing trips. My wife and I in
front and the baggage compartment as well as the rear seats usually
ends up full. We've never learned to travel light. <:-))

"From many years of flying" I would say "in general" family and
friends will cause an experienced pilot to be more conservative while
a pilot who has to be at work Monday morning my push it instead of
taking another day of vacation. Some places require vacation be
scheduled months in advance and there may be repercussions if you
don't make it back on time. OTOH some pilots would jump at the
excuse of squeezing in another day off.<:-))

I've been thinking of taking a short trip just to shake out some of
the cobwebs as I've done little traveling in the past couple of years,
but with the wind forecast today being 30G60 I don't think it's going
to be this week end. OTOH I have flown over 500 miles on a day when
it was 30G50 and my wife was with me. I've never seen a ground speed
that high when flying that low, before or since. At 500 feet the winds
were over 100 at least for the first 100 to 150 miles. After that they
dropped to about a 40 knot tail wind.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger

[Bret Ludwig]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >> It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
> >> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists" as
> >> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
> >> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.
> >>
> >
> > You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)

No, I'm sure I'm angry at people like Collins, because probably I'm
naive and believe people should write the truth instead of what will
keep the full page ads flowing in. The fact is, looking back, all the
magazines published what the advertisers wanted said, and that's the
way they stayed in business. As I get older I realize that is the
natural way of life, and common not only to airplane publications, but
all periodicals that take advertising. Camera magazines don't tell you
the old cameras were better and you shouldn't buy the new plastic
camera. Guitar magazines don't tell you the new Fender guitars are
poorly made and sound terrible and need a fret job so you can play
them. (That isn't true today but it was for almost a decade.) What can
I say, I was crazy then.

I have no love for trial lawyers and I would loive to see their income
crimped off, too. But the fact is , if any industry needed a hiding it
was this one.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> >> It's well known the product liability crisis was an excuse to build
>> >> Citations instead of Skyhawks, and that such whore-ass "journalists"
>> >> as
>> >> the allegedly great Richard Collins spiked any serious discussion of
>> >> the issue to keep the full page spreads coming.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You gotta stop taking those stupid pills. :-)
>
> No, I'm sure I'm angry at people like Collins, because probably I'm
> naive and believe people should write the truth instead of what will
> keep the full page ads flowing in.

How about the truth of answering the question put to you? (i.e., proof of
your original contention)

Until you answer that, the rest of your posts are properly ignored.

[Jay Honeck]

>> >Limiting family trips in personal aircraft is good because that's what
>>> generates get-home-itis and the kind of crashes that cause the alleged
>>> liability problems.
>>
>> What?? Where does that come from? Most all my flying is with my family.
>> I'm more likely to adjust my risk management assesemtn when I'm flying
>> by myself than with my family. Seems like you have some backwards logic
>> to me.
>
> When you are flying with your family aboard, your "home" is in the back
> seat!!

For sure. Flying with my wife and kids -- my usual mission profile --
makes me the most cautious pilot on the planet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I'm more likely to adjust my risk management assesemtn when I'm flying
> by myself than with my family. Seems like you have some backwards logic
> to me.

That's the way it was for me. Much less likely to take chances with my family on
board.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.