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

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

(speaking effort-wise and time-wise)

well ok....

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

agreed.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something. They are forced to abide by a very
complicated system of laws and expenses that dont make sense. But since
it's
always been that way, they just accept it. Then after they land and drive
out of the airport in their

triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-susp
ension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

agreed.


---stuff clipped here---

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is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation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


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

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

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

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

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