Rec.Aviation OSH report

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:29:01 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Paul,

The article says the passenger was able to stay afloat using a seat
cushion,


Crossing the lake without life jackets?

People do it all the time. I had students up there who thought there
was NOTHING wrong with being outside of gliding range from shore.
"What's the big deal? I can land in water and just swim back..."

Depends on your risk tolerance level.


Unfortunately, it's very hard to teach intelligence.

I know many who cross the lake single engine and do it regularly
myself and have for years. Life jackets are a necessity as I can't
swim but the lake is too cold for long survival even in summer.

OTOH if I cross even at 8000 between Ludington and MTW I'm always
within gliding distance. 10,000 gives me lots of decision time.

Some consider it foolhardy and I consider it just a days flying.

I've flown across when visibility was legal VFR but over the lake
that's pretty much elstinko. Last time I headed across like that I
had a "whole bunch" of planes lined up behind me. I think they were
using me for the horizon.


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

Blueskies.,

Honda jet and Cessna...


Cessan vaporware, that is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Roger" wrote in message
...

I know many who cross the lake single engine and do it regularly
myself and have for years. Life jackets are a necessity as I can't
swim but the lake is too cold for long survival even in summer.


So you wear the life jacket so your body may be found?

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

Honda jet and Cessna...


Cessan vaporware, that is.

Two flying prototypes...vaporware?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

Honda jet and Cessna...


Cessan vaporware, that is.

Two flying prototypes...vaporware?

Yeah, not what I would consider vaporware, either.
--
Jim in NC

Dan,

Two flying prototypes...vaporware?


Proof of concept, not prototypes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
...

I know many who cross the lake single engine and do it regularly
myself and have for years. Life jackets are a necessity as I can't
swim but the lake is too cold for long survival even in summer.



So you wear the life jacket so your body may be found?



Sure, it gives the family closure.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Dan,


Two flying prototypes...vaporware?



Proof of concept, not prototypes.

No, they are prototypes. The concept of light jets was proven decades
ago so Honda isn't proving any concept with their Jet. Likewise,
composite light planes are a proven concept as well so neither is Cessna
proving any concept. I'll bet if they move to production the production
versions will look a lot like these prototypes, thus confirming that
they are prototypes.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Dan,


Two flying prototypes...vaporware?



Proof of concept, not prototypes.

No, they are prototypes. The concept of light jets was proven decades ago
so Honda isn't proving any concept with their Jet. Likewise, composite
light planes are a proven concept as well so neither is Cessna proving any
concept. I'll bet if they move to production the production versions will
look a lot like these prototypes, thus confirming that they are
prototypes.

Matt

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production model.

Ron Wanttaja