What GA needs

Maxwell wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred
pounds it will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And
before you answer we aren't just talking insullation here we are
talking a bigger engine to carry the weight of the insullation,
more fuel and fuel burn because of the bigger engine and probably
100 other things I haven't even thought of.
You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have
avoided it.

My last car was a Honda S2000. 2 Seats, good performance and a trunk
about the size of the cargo area in a 150.

Curb Weight 2,835 lbs.

And since you mention Lexus below.

Lexus GS450h Hybrid.

Curb Weight 4,134 lbs.


You're right. Most hybrids do weigh more.


That little S2000 wasn't a Hybrid.







You are right that there are probably some folks out there that
don't fly for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are
loud, ski and bass boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem.
The same goes for vibration.

Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
easily afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly
airplanes, ride jet skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however
seem to drive a Lexus, or something a whole lot like one.

I'm not really sure of your point on this. You seem to be comparing
GA as recreation to a auto for transportation.

Not at all. Just than in the last 30 years automobiles have gotten "A
LOT" quieter and GA aircraft haven't kept pace.

Because weight is an insignificant issue in autos but not in aircraft.

And while autos have gotten quieter there are a bunch of people out there
that will pay a premium to make them louder by getting them with a
convertable top. When I had that S2000 and was on the highway I had to
listen to my iPod via the earbuds because of the noise.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Maxwell"

wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

Nonsense. You cut the noise level on GA 50%, and pilots would be lining
up.


snip

I'm VERY sensitive to noise. I don't find cabin noise to be a problem at
all. I suppose if I had an issue with wearing headsets, I might not feel
this way. I do have a problem with some of the planes being as noisy as
they are on the outside, but I believe there really are just a few bad
apples in this regard.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
weather.

Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , "Maxwell"
wrote:

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets.

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

Well, to be fair, that's the primary reason my fiancee doesn't fly with me more. It's
loud and there's lots of vibration, and wearing headsets (or any kind of headphones, for
that matter) makes her nauseous after a little while.

Whatever I wind up building in the future, it'll take some very careful work to keep it
quiet enough...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
weather.

Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

I fly over the Rockies in an RV-6A (non-pressurized) at altitudes as
high as 17,500'. No problem.

Ron Lee

Jeff Dougherty writes:

We could argue about whether or not certain conditions should be
automatically disqualifying for quite some time. I have a few pet
peeves there myself. However, according to statistics at
http://aviationmedicine.com/articles...e&articleID=19,
only 1.5% of those seeking medical certificates in 1998 (the last year
they had available) were denied one, and that included applicants who
didn't fill out the forms completely or include the appropriate
documentation. When you take those away, there were about 800 denials
out of about 450,000 applications. It doesn't sound like getting a
medical is all that restrictive.

That surprises me, since a number of the disqualifying conditions are more
common than 1.5% of the population.

And has been pointed out, if you don't think you can get one, fly as a
sport pilot. It's what I'll probably do.

Sport pilot is so restrictive that I don't think it would be worth the trouble
(at least for me).

I'm afraid that I can't really say much to these unless you're more
specific. As far as I know, once you have the PPL you can fly any
single engine landplane without retractable gear or a variable pitch
prop. There are enough gear-up landings each year that some
retractable-gear training certainly seems to be a good idea, and I
don't think anyone would argue that seaplanes and multiengine
airplanes shouldn't have their own training requirements.

There are lots of things that can make an aircraft more complex to fly, not
just retractable gear. So I'm not sure why retractable gear justifies a
separate restriction if the other stuff doesn't.

Not only that, but I like twin-engine aircraft with retractable gear and all
the other "complex" and "high-performance" stuff.

Currency requirements? The only requirement for a VFR private pilot
is a checkride once every two years, requiring you to pay for a couple
hours of an instructor's time. It's every six months for IFR, but
only if you haven't logged a certain amount of instrument time. How
could those requirements be profitably reduced without compromising
safety?

I don't know. But conversely I'm not sure that they make instrument pilots
safer.

As for "heavy regulation"...well, any amount of regulation can be
claimed to be heavy. Unless you're more specific about which regs you
consider unnecessarily burdensome, I can't really offer
counterpoints.

Compare the length of the FARs (even Part 91 alone) to a typical motor vehicle
code.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school, I've gone through a
year of premed coursework (after finishing a bio major at a liberal
arts college), followed by a yearlong application process that
involves a lot of paperwork and some not inconsiderable fees to get me
the chance to fly at my own expense somewhere for an interview, after
which the school might or might not admit me. I've definitely spent
more than 90 hours on the application process, and my total bill
probably won't come out to be much less than a PPL once I'm done
interviewing all over creation. (With the amount of flying I need to
do soon, I'll have my multiengine pax rating in no time! ;~) ) It's
taken two years on top of the four I spent in college, a lot of money
and skull sweat...

...and that's just to get *into* medical school.

Sure, but a PPL is just to get _into_ flying. You still need other ratings
and certifications, an airplane, an airport, and so on.

When/if I start,
I'll then do four years worth of intensive coursework, followed by at
least three years of residency pulling 80-100 hour weeks. Followed by
a licensing process that will look at my health at least as closely as
an FAA medical.

You can't be a doctor if you're diabetic or an epileptic?

But in consideration of
the above, I would be interested to know what part of becoming a
doctor you consider easier than becoming a private pilot.

If all you want is a PPL, it's easier than becoming a doctor. If you want
something more complex than a PPL, and if you want to actually fly on a
regular basis, the time and expense starts to increase almost exponentially.

In my case, my favorite sim aircraft is a Beechcraft Baron 58. But becoming a
pilot of my own Baron in real life would be hideously time-consuming,
difficult, and expensive. I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and I'd
want to be instrument rated.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Tell me what is so restrictive about it. The type of flight it authorizes
would cover 90% of the recreational GA flight in the US.

It's restrictive because it wouldn't allow me to fly in a way that would make
flying worthwhile. I don't just want to putter around in a circle.

Because of the additional cost of the aircraft and the general lack of need
for it in recreational GA flying.

In other words, time, expense, and difficulty, QED.

So it is your stance that the requirements for a private pilot ticket are on
par with the requirements to be a lawyer or doctor?

They are certainly on a par with becoming a lawyer, which (surprisingly) isn't
that difficult in the U.S. They are comparable to becoming a doctor as well,
depending on how far you want to go.

Andrew Sarangan writes:

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing.

VERY slowly changing.

I figure that a private pilot is far less likely to take anyone with him if he
kills himself in an accident than is an automobile driver, so why the
restrictive medical requirements? A pilot's only victims are likely to be his
passengers, if any, but someone crashing on the highway can cause many
injuries and deaths.

A good first step would be to dramatically reduce the requirements for
piloting alone, while (perhaps) maintaining somewhat more stringent
requirements for pilots who want to take passengers with them. However, I'm
not convinced that the chances of sudden incapacitation are really high enough
to worry about in any case.

Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract.

I don't think insurance should be mandatory for pilots, either.

Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Yeah, I saw an ad for $42K. But I'm sure there are a great many prerequisites
for admission to the school.

Jon Woellhaf writes:

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

There have been cases of airline pilots dying suddenly in the cockpit from
severe cardiovascular disease even though they had passed their stringent
medicals. The medicals worry too much about some things while ignoring
others.

Adhominem writes:

Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.

We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

We can get those numbers from automobile accidents. How many accidents are
caused by sudden incapacitation of automobile drivers? How many are caused by
drivers having a sudden heart attack or seizure?