On Jun 20, 8:27*pm, wrote:
* Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
* * * Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
conditions.
Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
ever.
* * * *So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

I think you post gets at the root of the matter.

I think many of the pilots who object to my point of view object on
the grounds that you outline above. Essentially, flying is a hobby
for them, and they take pleasure in the knobs, dials....

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

Then what? Will all the private pilots who like the feel of their
Bravo demand that state-of-art state remain stagnant?

Will you speak for those who might like a vehicle as outlined by NASA/
CAFE/PAV?

If some organization is successful in building such a vehicle, one
that relies mostly on computers, will you object? If the safety is not
as dire as indicated in this thread, on what ground will you object?
"Well, simply put Mr. Administrator, we do not like the idea of
someone flying a vehicle that is insufficiently complex and has too
few knobs and quite frankly is too cheap and does vibrate or make
enough noise or does not overheat or require hangar space or uses fly-
by-wire and has too much cockpit amusement and lends itself to highly-
commoditized components... you see, there is a process that one must
go throuhg, that requires years of hard work and financial
investment...and these new guys are cheating..."

None of these things have anything to do with technical feasibility.
It has more to do with how currents pilots feel about aviation.

At least it seems that way.

-Le Chaud Lapin-