Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this
in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

I would argue that the winner's legal costs be paid from a pool created
from
the punitive damages.


Or better yet the losing lawyer pays the winner's legal fees.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message


American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

That may be true, but I think the point of the article is that the pace of
innovation and progress would be much greater without the regulatory and
litigious barriers that have been erected since the Wrights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ...

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

The point of the article was lost on me.


Other countries, notably China, North Korea, Japan, and
Ireland have built industries that thrive on production of items
either too expensive to make in North America because we demanded way
too much money to work in the factories, or because everyone here is
too scared to make something that might result in lawsuits by stupid
people who think there should be no risk in risky recreation. If we do
build them we have to charge exorbitant prices to cover liability
insurance against such litigation.
It's not that American (or Canadian, for me) innovation is dead.
It's that the process of getting good ideas into the hands of the
people is so difficult, cumbersome, and risky. In Canada the
government fee for the certification of a new aircraft design starts
at something like $250,000 for a light airplane. How many people are
going to look at that and decide to certify it in Eastern Europe or
South Korea? Transferability of the certification is much simpler than
trying to satisfy and pay, pay, pay. Anything built here is subject to
easy litigation. Anything built here is subject to wages of $30 an
hour and a strike every couple of years. Any profits made here are
taxed heavily.
How many machine tool factories are in North America anymore? How
many of the cars sold here were made here? Where were your sneakers
made? Your skis? Your furniture? Your bicycle? Motorbike? Tools?

Dan

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.
The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

Yep, you missed the point. There should be MORE people and companies - but
there are not due to collectivism and the like. (Or whatever/whomever Ayn
Rand believes is evil)


"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

Really?

Try to say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.

There _are_ exceptions on the margin, no doubt.

The point of the article was lost on me.

Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.

"Icebound" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

And, hence, our idiotic, out of control tort system.

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.

And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?