Sport Pilot ever going to happen?

In article ,
says...



Cloud_dancer wrote:

The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
alked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
ing
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

Richard Carlisle wrote:



I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
almost mandatory that they are brought here.


They are not on the top MY list of favorite people. Add me to the list of
unemployed software people....thanks to the Indians.

Ross


You really should put the blame where it needs to go. The big
corporations lobbied congress with lies that they couldn't find any
Americans willing to do the work. Consequently, the H-1B quota was
raised year after year until virtually no American software person is
still employed. (80% actual unemployment in that field.)

The indians wouldn't be here if congress hadn't taken the bribes and
sold out the country. There are also H-1B's from other countries.
Countries like china and England. The H-1B's come here for 2 reasons:
1) to get work, and 2) to become American citzens. This makes them
into indentured slaves. They are treated badly. I have even seen
cases where they were physically beaten. They can't complain or
they'll be on the next plane to india.

Think of it this way. The indians are the knife that congress is
stabbing us in the back with. Blame congress, not the knife.

To solve the problem, vote out the congressional incumbants (the
people already in office). Send the scumbags a message that if they
don't abolish H-1B and L-1 visas that they will be replaced with new
scumbags.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Richard Lamb wrote:

wrote:

Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
work this thing."

I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
almost mandatory that they are brought here.

Dennis H.



Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
jobs off shore?

Offshoring is a different problem than H-1B and L-1 visas. Offshoring
mostly affects manufacturing and other, non-computer service jobs.
However, there are prime examples of where whole computer departments
are in india. Bank of America is a good example of a US company with
there entire computer department in india. In other words, India
knows all about your finances if you have an account with BOA.

In most cases, its far cheaper to rent an indian from TATA and have
the work done here. Most of the time, mamagers like to look over
programmer's shoulders and they can't do that when the programmer is
in india and the manager is in Dallas. This is why H-1B's and L-1
visas are more of a threat to computer people than offshoring.

The problem is that the honest corporations are forced to follow suit
because they can't compete with the crooked corporations.

Dennis H.


Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

wrote:

Its kind of like an Indian guy walks into your office with a pink slip
while you are writing code and says "Here, the boss told me to give
this to you....He layed you off...Now before you leave, show me how to
work this thing."

I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
almost mandatory that they are brought here.

Dennis H.



Did all this come about because of a tax break for businesses that moved
jobs off shore?

Offshoring is a different problem than H-1B and L-1 visas. Offshoring
mostly affects manufacturing and other, non-computer service jobs.
However, there are prime examples of where whole computer departments
are in india. Bank of America is a good example of a US company with
there entire computer department in india. In other words, India
knows all about your finances if you have an account with BOA.

In most cases, its far cheaper to rent an indian from TATA and have
the work done here. Most of the time, mamagers like to look over
programmer's shoulders and they can't do that when the programmer is
in india and the manager is in Dallas. This is why H-1B's and L-1
visas are more of a threat to computer people than offshoring.

The problem is that the honest corporations are forced to follow suit
because they can't compete with the crooked corporations.

Dennis H.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm


Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.

It's not a political move, or in reponse to the Indian situation.

It's just because their services have become so expensive.

Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
prices for the customers.

Richard

I guess it serves us right for taking their land and giving them those
infested blankets. But I guess they have those casinos so that makes
up for all that earlier bad stuff right? just kidding...

It sucks when your specific occupation is being globalized and you
still have to buy products and services from people who's occupations
haven't (e.g. legal drugs). In theory, as your wages are being
reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy. Your
neighbors make less money too, so when you go compete to buy that
house, you both offer less. It's called deflation, and when people
have borrowed all the cheap money they can, you'll see it in full
effect. When you call customer service, you're talking to someone
that makes $3/hr instead of $30/hr, and that, COULD reduce the price
of that service. Its a race to the bottom.

More likely, in the short term, it just boosts corporate profits.
Look at the stock market, going like gang busters. But anyone can be
a share holder, and many of us are. So some of that money goes in our
pockets.

In this environment people dig in and go to zones of protection. AMA
keeps foreign doctors from being down the price of doctors. Engineers
move back to aerospace jobs (and lower pay) that require citizenship.
Businesses collude to protect ther markets, and politicians are
"incented" to pass laws that further protect their markets.

Example: Normally globalization of the perscription drug biz would
mean that this cost would go down. It started to happen with people
going to Canada to buy the exact same drugs for a fraction of the
price they were being charged here. So if you're in the business of
selling drugs how do you counter that? You get politicians to make
drug a card for everyone to use where the counter price is about the
same as the Canada price. Then you collect the aggregate difference
in price (High price - card price) from the same individuals every
week in their paychecks, call it federal tax, and hand it over to the
drug sellers. You can't stop 'em from docking your wages, so ya might
as well use the card right? There's a word for a system like that:
"corrupt".

Regarding Canadian drugs, the FDA has stepped in and said its illegal,
and that they're protecting us from ourselves. Thats just total f'ing
BS because Canadians take those drugs and don't love life any less
than us. What is the health effect on somone that doesn't take a drug
because he couldn't afford it? I say give 'em a choice, they're
grown-ups and deserve, if nothing else, a fighting chance.

stepping off soap box


Richard Carlisle wrote in message news:BC8CD4CF.3CA6%rrc62remove_to_respond@adelphi a.net...

I don't hate Indians, just the corporations and laws that make it
almost mandatory that they are brought here.


They are not on the top MY list of favorite people. Add me to the list of
unemployed software people....thanks to the Indians.

Ross

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

Funny you mentioned Bank of America.
I've been closing down my BoA accounts.
All credit cards are paid off and I'm closing out once
my pension check starts showing up in my credit union account.

It's not a political move, or in reponse to the Indian situation.

It's just because their services have become so expensive.

Hmmm - go figure. Move the jobs out to save costs and raise
prices for the customers.

Richard

You forgot to figure in executive salaries and bonuses....

haven't (e.g. legal drugs). In theory, as your wages are being
reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy. Your
neighbors make less money too, so when you go compete to buy that
house, you both offer less. It's called deflation, and when people
have borrowed all the cheap money they can, you'll see it in full
effect. When you call customer service, you're talking to someone
that makes $3/hr instead of $30/hr, and that, COULD reduce the price
of that service. Its a race to the bottom.


You're kidding again right? Have you bought gas, steel, lumber, etc.
lately? Cost of "things we buy" are most certainly not going down. The
price of steel has doubled as of 6 months ago and they are predicting
another increase. Aluminum prices are doing the same and gas prices are
expected to top 2.50 this summer. While all of this is happening, people
are still losing jobs to outsourcing and H1B imports.

When was the last time you saw the cost of a product or service go down just
because the initial cost for the producing company went down. It doesn't
happen very often. Generally, as the cost to produce goes down the price
either stays the same or goes up and the quality of the product or service
goes down. I can see this pattern in just about everything I buy. The
reason they outsource is to increase the bottom line. Reducing prices
defeats that.

I doubt you'll find many executives sitting around the boardroom trying to
figure out how they can sell their products cheaper.

Ross

(Jay) writes:

In theory, as your wages are being
reduced, so are the costs of the things you have to buy.

Nice theory. But mine is that we are simply equilibrating with the
rest of the world; third-world countries are improving a little and we
are degenerating to their level.

sleepy6 wrote:

In article ,
says...

Cloud_dancer wrote:

The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
alked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
ing
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

I'm sorry but it's still folklore to me.

I believe my good friend Chuck has embellished the point
just a little bit here. If a story is repeated often enough
it begins to sound true. I cannot believe that some crafty
UL manufacturer managed to talk the FAA down from
500 lbs empty weight to the 200 lbs which they eventually
proposed.

The truth is that there was much disagreement about
how much weight should be requested. Many thought
we should start very high as a negotiating point and
Chuck was one of those. He was probably right.

The FAA actually offered 200 lbs and many feared that would
be the limit once FAR103 was issued. In some part
the final increase was due to the John Chotia fatality
in his prototype J-24 which was said to have been
built to the 200lb limit.

The only organization representing UL's at the time was EAA.
They pushed for 220 lbs instead of 200lbs and that was also
the opinion given in editorials in Glider Rider magazine
(which later became "Ultralight Flying")

Another interesting fact came directly Mike Sacrey the
author of FAR103 at the FAA. He was asked years later
about how they came up with the 254 number. It did not
correspond to any international standard and comes
out to be about 115 kilograms.

Mike said they simply surveyed all the product liturature
in 1982 and picked a number which would allow all of the
ultralights at the time to continue to fly under the
new FAR103 rules. They didn't intend to ground anyone.
Unfortunately some manufacturers had under-reported
their empty weights by quite a bit.

The model most affected in 1982 was the Goldwing which
claimed 240lbs but actually weighed closer to 270 lbs.
As a result, it was the only ultralight at the time
which was excluded by FAR103. This was just before
the introduction of the Challenger, CGS Hawk, and
the Mimi-Max.

There was a humourous irony in the Goldwing situation
because of their company slogan, "Alone in it's class".


--Dan Grunloh

In article ,
says...


sleepy6 wrote:

In article ,
says...

Cloud_dancer wrote:

The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And als
o
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they go
t t
alked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by s
ett
ing
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver
.
Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that lim
it
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if n
ot
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

I'm sorry but it's still folklore to me.

I believe my good friend Chuck has embellished the point
just a little bit here. If a story is repeated often enough
it begins to sound true. I cannot believe that some crafty
UL manufacturer managed to talk the FAA down from
500 lbs empty weight to the 200 lbs which they eventually
proposed.

The truth is that there was much disagreement about
how much weight should be requested. Many thought
we should start very high as a negotiating point and
Chuck was one of those. He was probably right.

The FAA actually offered 200 lbs and many feared that would
be the limit once FAR103 was issued. In some part
the final increase was due to the John Chotia fatality
in his prototype J-24 which was said to have been
built to the 200lb limit.

The only organization representing UL's at the time was EAA.
They pushed for 220 lbs instead of 200lbs and that was also
the opinion given in editorials in Glider Rider magazine
(which later became "Ultralight Flying")

Another interesting fact came directly Mike Sacrey the
author of FAR103 at the FAA. He was asked years later
about how they came up with the 254 number. It did not
correspond to any international standard and comes
out to be about 115 kilograms.

Mike said they simply surveyed all the product liturature
in 1982 and picked a number which would allow all of the
ultralights at the time to continue to fly under the
new FAR103 rules. They didn't intend to ground anyone.
Unfortunately some manufacturers had under-reported
their empty weights by quite a bit.

The model most affected in 1982 was the Goldwing which
claimed 240lbs but actually weighed closer to 270 lbs.
As a result, it was the only ultralight at the time
which was excluded by FAR103. This was just before
the introduction of the Challenger, CGS Hawk, and
the Mimi-Max.

There was a humourous irony in the Goldwing situation
because of their company slogan, "Alone in it's class".


--Dan Grunloh


Chuck has proven himself to be completely honest. You have proven
yourself to have a selective memory about more recent events that I
know about personally. I have to go with Chuck. Also Chuck was part
of the manufacturers group that dealt with the FAA at the time and was
present at the meetings.