At Least He's Honest. Would This Attitude Have 'Saved' Light Airplane Business??

Ha! And in the real world, storytellers like you make a nice living
with their fiction!

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:05:30 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
wrote:


"LGHarlan" wrote in message
...
In the real world, Stanley would have lost all his private label customers
as
soon as I filed a motion-under any of half a dozen pretexts-that allowed
me to
deposition his customers' employees. Once he (and more importantly, they)
learned that the customers of any enterprise vaguely related to his
previous
business were going to have their employees subjected to interrogatories
and
depositions, he'd have to go to work at McDonalds.

Judges really, really, really hate being ignored.

In the real world you wouldn't file a motion since the likelihood of
recovery from Stanley isn't high enough.

In the real world you might soon have to learn how to file motions in
Bangalore or Shanghai.

In the real world your grandchildren probably will work in a "service"
industry (hospitality, medicine. law, financial or government) to purchase
hard goods from Asia and Latin America.

In the real world the next generation of lawyers won't be flying airplanes
because either effective tort reform will happen or the only Americans left
with enough assets remaining to be targets of suits will be other lawyers.

Howard
C182
"The best is the enemy of the good"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

LG, your post is a veritable primer on ATLA....

Denny

Sad, I suppose...but so are the companies who
sell split rim truck wheels, or for that matter, light twins that
won't climb
out at full legal gross from Denver to people (with families) they
know are not
Chuck Yeager. Are we any worse?

Yes. You're much worse. I don't know anything about split rim truck
wheels, but I know rather a lot about light twins that won't climb out
at full legal gross from Denver (which is most of them). I have
hundreds of hours in several of them. Do you?

The light twin that won't climb out on one engine at full gross from
Denver will cheerfully hold altitude 4000 ft above the hills of
Arkansas (and 500 ft above a cloud deck) after one engine takes a dump
in cruise - and you don't need to be Chuck Yeager to make it do it. In
fact, it was doing it while being flown by a very lightly coached
student pilot. If I had to have a twin that WOULD climb out from
Denver at full gross on one engine, I couldn't afford it and would be
flying a single. That would have made my life really interesting when
the engine failed 500 ft above a solid cloud deck over the hills of
Arkansas.

Or, to put it in general terms - you would take away from me the
capability to keep flying 95% of the time, in order to what? To keep
me from needing to make a decision no to try it the other 5% of the
time? When it's obvious from reading the flight manual that it won't
work anyway?

The company that made this light twin did something very useful - it
provided an airplane for me and people like me that would often (but
not always) give us options not available in a single engine airplane -
and you would fault them for not building the airplane so that it would
ALWAYS give those options - at a price and operating cost we can't
afford. That's nuts. They produced a valuable product, and it would
be a shame if some lawyer shut them down - which, unfortunately, is in
large part what happened.

Michael

I used to sell split rims in the '70s. They were no more dangerous
than one-piece rims if they were used properly, and there was the
catch: they weren't idiot-proof. There are many non-interchangeable
styles of side and lock rings, and stupid people would mix them up and
blow themselves to bits when the thing came apart. A 10.00-22
wheel/tire at 110 psi has enough energy to send a 160-pound man 600
feet into the air. Theoretically. In reality, his body parts are spread
over a similar area. So the wheel companies had to get away from those
things and tires are now much harder to change without the expensive
equipment.
But what can you do with people who insist on wrecking perfectly
good airplanes using bad judgement and then blaming, $ucce$$fully, the
manufacturer, and making flying so unnecessarily expensive for the rest
of us? Stop building airplanes?

Dan

The problem with split rim truck wheels was that when they failed, usually
innocent pedestrians or motorists were the ones killed. Had the wheel makers
Murphy-proofed their products or made them universally interchangeable, and if
truck tire personnel were required to be a grade above the epsilon minuses
usually in that position, the problem would not have existed. But it did,
because that's the customer base they sold to. The courts made the manufacture
of split rim wheels economically untenable and one piece wheels became the
standard. Of course, since there is no way for the five to ten people every
year who would have been killed if the use of split rims continued to be
identified, the courts and trial lawyers can't claim credit very easily.

Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling. It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured aircraft.
Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the 1950s.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance coverage.

Looking back, although it made my family a lot of money, product liability
insurance is like heroin. It doesn't fix the problem, it just numbs the user to
it. Outlawing liability insurance might be a good idea, even though it would
make me change careers.

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane, and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

The real reason recip-engine singles are no longer produced is not product
liability, in any case. It's the great profitability of corporate jet
manufacture, which uses the same floor space and workforce to make a product
with unequalled profit margins once the certification and tooling costs are
paid for. The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new personal
aircraft startups.

LGHarlan wrote:
Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael

On 21 Dec 2004 17:19:12 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

LGHarlan wrote:
Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael

I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes. If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

Another one for Snopes.com although not quite as well-concocted or
believable
************************************************** *********************
Interesting how the real world is never neat and perfect, eh...
Cheers ...

Denny

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes.

How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?

If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):

Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.

5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

Just buy a King Air or Citation. In fact, I think people with your
mindset should only fly as part of a two man crew, which means a Lear,
Gulfstream or MD-80 is probably a better choice. The weakest link in
aviation isn't the engines, it's the pilot. A two man crew operating as
such is the safest way to fly.

If you thought about it you would have figured that two is a bad
number of engines for an airplane anyway, because each engine has to be
fully able to fly the airplane, in effect, for transport category
minima to be reachable. If they are not reached a jury would probably
take that as evidence you could have built a safer airplane and didn't,
you mean company, so have a ten million dollar judgment. Three is much
better. (I see some good deals on 727's and you can always talk your
A&P into the FE seat...)

If a person with your way of thinking can't write a check for a G-III
or MD80 or 737-100 or -200 you are probably too busy playing with
yourself and need to put more attention into your business. You do own
one don't you??

_________________________________

Of course the above is what the BAD Captain Kirk would say, if you
remember that episode. naturally neither myself nor any other poster
here would be that rude.