I find it telling, that you do not mention safety at all.


On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:11:02 -0700, "H.J." wrote
in Message-Id: :

Actually getting a pilot license isn't any harder than getting Microsoft
Certified (MCSE) [sic], or getting a real estate license. (speaking
effort-wise and time-wise)

First, getting a "pilot license" in the US is IMPOSSIBLE, as the FAA
issues airman _certificates_, not licenses.

Your contention, that becoming MS certified or obtaining a real estate
sales agent's license requires the commensurate time and effort to
become an FAA certificated airman, overlooks the medical, visual,
physical and situational awareness aspects required of airmen.
Additionally, real estate sales agents do not require the courage and
judgement necessary for airmen. (The MSCE certificate is a
meaningless joke.) There is no question, that navigating the skies
requires far more of a person then filling out a pre-printed Offer to
Purchase form.

Restricting your argument to time and effort considerations
exclusively, intentionally overlooks the unique skills demanded of an
airman, and belies the unreasonable nature of the views you express.

What limits the numbers of new pilots is the insane cost.

True, the cost of training and aircraft operation does tend to prevent
many of those who desire to fly from becoming certificated. But
somehow 600,000 of us have managed to find the means to obtain a
certificate. Those individuals, whose hearts truly demand they take
to the skies, find a way. Those dilettantes who lack the
responsibility/maturity and dedication to motivate them, complain
about the price of civil aviation operation as the reason for their
lack of admission to plying the heavens. So those who will become an
asset to our ranks succeed in obtaining an airmans certificate; others
don't.

If the door to personal aviation could truly be opened with money
ALONE, we would see many more JFK, Jr. types (wealthy dilettantes)
among our ranks. Thankfully that is not the case.

Guys would buy planes like they buy Harleys if the price of ownership
wasn't so high.

You say that like it would be a good thing® for typical empty-headed,
dare-devil, types to take to the nation's skies; I couldn't disagree
more. Think of usenet before the likes of AOL opened the door to the
hoards of general masses, and diluted its intellectual content with
uninformed participants. AOL enticed largely unqualified people into
subscribing to their exploitative service by reducing the initial
price of admission to zero.

Formerly, it was necessary for a user desirous of participating in
usenet discussions to acquire the requisite skills and contacts to
administrate a UNIX based news-feed. This tended to limit
participants to the technically savvy, literate users who possessed
the requisite skills and dedication. The exceptions were college
freshmen who annually decreased the usenet signal to noise ratio; but
at least they were literate. Now usenet is awash in pornography,
guerrilla marketing, and generally unenlightened content. The
"quick-buck artist" rushes in to exploit any otherwise formerly
restricted situation, to fill their pockets at the expense of
eternally overwhelming it. In the case of aviation, that would result
in many deaths.

It seems like the guys who have 'made' it into aviation are sort of numbed
down, or brainwashed or something.

That sounds like the cry of one unable or unwilling to so dedicate
himself to aviation as to be an asset to it. One does not "make it
into aviation." One fulfills the training requirements, and
demonstrates his aviation skills to a pilot-examiner, and his physical
state to a medical examiner, and is found either qualified or
unqualified.

Aviation is not like jumping on a dirt-bike and decimating the fragile
desert ecology. Aviation may be recreational, but never trifling
frivolity. Aviation requires an airman to responsibly exercise his
skills. If pilot training fails to intensify an applicant's attitude
toward safety and responsibility in aircraft operation, it is flawed.
Aviation is a way of life, not merely fun.

They are forced to abide by a very complicated system of laws and expenses
that dont make sense.

There is no question that the federal aviation regulations make sense.
I, for one, would not care to share the skies with those who fail to
comprehend the logic of aviation regulations. Those who fail to
appreciate the logic of federal aviation regulations should, without
question, remain ground bound (much as those who are unable to
comprehend the simple arcana of MS Outlook should be prevented from
usenet participation).

But since it's always been that way, they just accept it.

Actually, it hasn't "always been that way." In the early days of
aviation, safety suffered due to ignorance and a lack of standards.
Thankfully, standards evolved to prevent the repetition of unsafe
practices.

Then after they land and drive out of the airport in their
triple-airbag-26-cpu-antilock-brake-digitally-monitored-emission-active-
suspension-awd-1.60-per-gallon-fuel-sipping-$30,000-window-sticker-SUV, they
dont even realize the irony of it.

Aircraft are not automobiles. Anyone who brings a highway mentality
to aviation soon learns that. When an automotive system fails, the
motorist pulls over to the side of the road and calls AAA. Airmen are
not afforded that convenience; airplane system failures are more often
than not fatal. How many inappropriately licensed motorists daily
exhaust their fuel supplies on the highway; what would happen if they
were flying over mountainous terrain instead? Piloting an aircraft is
so much more unforgiving of human failure than driving an automobile,
as to make them incomparable. (Imagine driving in zero visibility for
instance.) They even take place in different dimensions.

Because of weight considerations, aircraft cannot be built as robust
as automobiles. It is the rare "bugsmasher" that even boasts an air
conditioning system comparable to those installed in nearly all
automobiles. The necessity to build aircraft as light as possible
results in many innovations being inappropriate for use in them.

Aircraft are not automobiles. Their similarity ends at their utility
in transporting people to destinations. Beyond that function, they
are fundamentally and irrefutably dispirit. To fail to discern their
differences is to reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the
issues.

The strange part is, the pilots etc who could benefit the most from
'thinking outside of the box' are here in this group defending $2.62/gal gas

Autogas is available for aviation powerplants. Those pilots who
choose to ignore the safety benefits of aviation fuel (for lack of
accessability or economic reasons) can obtain a certificate permitting
its use in most aviation engines.

and $50K junk-heap-aircraft as if their pride depends on it or something.

The age of an aircraft does not qualify it to be regarded as a
junk-heap. There are no "junk-heap-aircraft" flying with valid
Airworthiness Certificates. Unlike automobiles, aircraft are annually
inspected by government certificated inspectors, and restored to
acceptable condition, or grounded.

The pilot orgs seem to be the same.

They comprehend the issues.

I heard Rutan once mention that if he could have seen into the future from
the 1960's and seen the current state of aviation in the 1990's - basically
the same old technology and performance born of 1960s, he would have
thought that some nuclear holocost had occured that had frozen progress in
it's tracks.

There is no question that Mr. Rutan is an innovative genius, but I
would dearly like to see his solutions to providing aviation operation
to the masses. NASA's Small Aircraft Transportation System is the
government's solution for the futu
http://sats.nasa.gov/
http://www.sdsmt.edu/space/SATSMay2000MeetingInfo.htm
http://sats.erau.edu/images.html

Perhaps that is what Mr Rutan had in mind.

There's no (technological) reason we couldn't have $35,000 200 kt.
Auto-fuel-burning composite aircraft with fully digital glass cockpits RIGHT
NOW!

With the exception of the price you mention, that hypothetical
aircraft is already in the air.

The cost of development, manufacture, and compliance with federal
safety standards, together with the limited market, conspire to drive
the cost of aircraft significantly beyond $35,000. The market for
$35,000 automobiles in the US is several orders of magnitude larger
than that for aircraft, as a result of the dearth of qualified pilots,
and the necessity of more stringent aviation safety standards. This
limited market prevents the development and safety costs of aircraft
from being amortized over a sufficient number units to permit the
profitable sale of aircraft at that price.

Are you suggesting, that millions of new aircraft with reduced safety
standards should take to the nation's skies annually? Jim Bede sold
that notion to the nation in the early '70s. Fortunately for all of
us, the mass market BD-5 was largely a failure, because it caused so
many deaths.

So that means the reason aviation is an overpriced, antique junk club
is because of the PILOTS themselves who protect this outdated aviation
environment

Civil aviation may not be perfect, but to date, better solutions have
not surfaced.

by telling me that 'Fuel is cheaper than milk or european fuel
so it's ok.'

Those pilots who present those arguments to you fail to discern the
true causes.

Or blaming ecomomies-of-scale etc.

Those who fail to discern the role of economy-of-scale in price
reduction, lack fundamental understanding of manufacturing realities.

So while necessary safety concerns and a restricted market cause the
price of aviation to be well beyond that of automobile operation, it
is the lack of proposed aviation solutions that possess comparable or
superior safety characteristics to those available today, that retard
the advancement of aviation accessability for the masses.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,