Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their
invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate.

Really? That sounds just a bit revisionist.

The courts did indeed grant a fairly broad patent to the Wrights -
they had the patent on three axis control. Their insistence on
enforcing said patent arguably made the machines of the first decade
of powered flight less safe than they could have been, and the death
toll higher.

How so?

In the end, Curtiss developed the aileron as an end-run
around the Wright patent.

You just answered your own point.


A lengthy legal battle ensued. In the end,
the lawyers got everything, and the only possibility of survival for
the two companies was merger. It is for that reason that we all know
about the Curtiss-Wright company.

Yup -- one with the innovation, another with the improvement. Like IBM and
Microsoft in 1980 an beyond.


Prior to 1926 there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took
off.

BINGO! They called it "The Golden Age".

Actually, the industry of the time consisted mostly of barnstormers
carrying passengers in WW-I surplus trainers.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden,
scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines.

No, pretty much all the machines of 1926 and prior (when certification
became required) were scary wooden deathtraps.

And no one was forcing people aboard at gun point. (Until they started
transfering prisoners).

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines,
master
planning route structures and suppressing competition.

But it was in the 1930's that real airliners (metal, multiengine,
capable of sustained single engine flight) were developed.

And still there was virtually NO regulation outside of pilots licensing.

Today, innovation has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the
first 25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and
regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology.

Certainly, but I note that we're skipping the interesting 50 years in
between, which saw most of the important advances.

You're confusing "science" and "technology", and most of the technology was
a result of military research and war time activities. In that manner, we
can thank the Nazi's for rockets and jets.

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.

Composite materials have been a major staple in transport category
aircraft for decades. It's only the light GA fleet that remains
(mostly - there are exceptions like the Lancair and Cirrus) mired in
the past. There's no problem with getting new technology into
airliners, because the level of regulation for airliners is
appropriate to the money available and the risk to public safety.

And the airlines and Boeing are nearly dead.



Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and
fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation
one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable
service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

In fact, air transport (as a whole industry) has never been
consistently profitable.

Quite...it went from innovation to heavy regulation.

If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our
giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued
out of
existence.

But it's not the giants of industry that innovate. Pretty much all
innovation comes from the small companies. The last innovative thing
Boeing did was the 707, and the management bet the company to do it.

In today's financial climate, where Wall Street writes the rules, such
an action would be unthinkable.

Wall Street doesn't write any rules, investors do. ANd investors are
hamstrung by regulation and TAX LAWS.

Cessna is still offering warmed-over
designs decades old, as are Piper and Beech. Only a handful of small
upstarts are offering anything new.

Wonder why that is. You make a good history that's appropriate for "Trivia
Pursuit", but never get into the fundemantal issues of WHAT and WHY.

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

Doesn't matter when the legal system (tort law) "requires" prescience and
omnipotence.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their house
so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
member.

I wonder how much AOPA money is going to candidates? With the
McCain-Feingold BCRA thing now fully in effect groups like AOPA that can
bundle large numbers of hard money donations together are going to become
more important than ever. It may be corrupt to high hell but it's the way
the game is played.

Best,
-cwk.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

A few $$$millions in PAC money would help...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em half
full.

You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

Fly a long way on half empty gas tanks...

According to my advanced Alabama math, you can go just as far with 'em
half
full.

You get to feel more optimistic about the flight, too.

Until....WHOMP!!

David Megginson opined

snip

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

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
David Megginson opined

snip

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

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

http://www.overlawyered.com

"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...
Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

Let's say the typical House election costs $2 million or so. We don't need
to underwrite that whole amount, because our interest is limited and not
nearly as hot politically as say guns or abortion or tobacco. Most people
don't care about small planes as long as they're not falling on their
house
so I figure we can buy a vote for, say, 5% of the election's cost, which
equates to $10,000. Now with 435 seats we need 218 to pass a bill, which
means $2,180,000, or about the cost of two Starbucks coffees per AOPA
member.

Would that be soft money?

(Ever wonder what would happen to "soft money" if Congress didn't have the
power to hand out favor/goodies and dispensations? Gee...where's the
Catholic Church when we need 'em?)