MKSheppard wrote: ↑2019-10-27 09:00pm
Broomstick wrote: ↑2019-10-27 04:34pmWhat you're describing regarding horsepower and weight limits is more or less what's called "Sport Pilot" now. Yes, you have to fucking register your ass with the government to fly airplanes. What the fuck do you think a pilot's license is?
You analogy doesn't work the way you think it does.
Actually, yes it does. You seem to lack reading comprehension. I shall reduce it further to see if you can understand it.
What if the only way you could own a plane heavier than 1,500 lbs GTOW was for it to be manufactured before May 1986?
I have flown 17 different types of aircraft. Of those types, 9 were 1500 lbs or less, and five built after 1986. Note, that is not
total machines flown, that is
types of machines. Going by individual tail license numbers, more than half of what I've flown was built after 1990 and no more than 1500 lbs.
Frankly, if more of the old, 1970's and older ones were gone more people would buy the newer ones which are are lighter, more fuel efficient, with better handling characteristics and more safety features. Holy shit, give me a modern, computer-controlled fuel-injected engine over a clunky 1950's tech carborated engine any day. I never want to have to deal with carb ice ever again, thank you very much. I hate a silent engine. Let's hear it for the Diamond Katana 22:1 glide ratio, beats the hell out of the old Cessna and Piper 7:1
especially if the engine has gone quiet. Well, OK, the Katana is slightly over your designated weight limit so forget that one. The point is, post-1986 airplanes are in many many ways
better aircraft. Having had two engine failures in pre-1986 airplanes the older ones are losing some of their luster for me. An old airplane is NOT like an old gun, and airplanes as a general rule do NOT improve with age.
In other words - you have not convinced me. In no small part because the two areas of "guns" and "airplanes" are not as similar as you seem to think.
Can you work out the after effects of such a restriction on the General aviation market, particularly with the effects of metal fatigue and the deletion of about a hundred aircraft a year from the pool of General Aviation via fatal crashes
Well, you're talking to someone who has happily flown airplanes made out of primarily wood/cloth and also primarily carbon composite. So... yeah, we'd have more ragwings and carbonwings in the fleet. Flight is not dependent upon aluminum wings. Your scenario does not rule out new airplanes. It does suppose the gradual attrition of Cessnas and Pipers, but those are only two of the many types of general aviation airplane out there. The only pre-1986 airplane I've flown that comes close to the cruise speed numbers of the RV-6 was the Mooney... and the RV-6 burns a fraction of the fuel per unit time, has FAR superior visibility, more cabin room, AND I don't have to fuck with either retractable gear or getting a high performance sign off for a 200 mph cruise speed.
Post 1986 aircraft are, in general, lighter, cheaper, burn less fuel, go faster, are more comfortable inside, have better/safer seats and restraint systems, some even come with last-ditch emergency parachutes, and easier to use, and are more easy to fit with modern panel technology like HUD's and GPS.
Stop trying to make an analogy based on a topic you do not understand.
I started flying in ultralights and experimental homebuilts, which are notoriously the less regulated end of aviation in the US and, in the case of ultralights, have NO requirements to own and fly. And I used to bury fellow pilots on a regular basis, averaged out to about one every 12-18 months. Also on one occasion had to throw out my clothing when I got home because I was never going to get the blood out. Dangerous activity minus regulations/rules/sense = bloodshed and dead bodies. Rules, regulations, and oversight are not inherently bad things.
Guns are
at least as dangerous as airplanes, arguably more so. I like having the option to own/use guns but no right is unlimited, and neither should that one be. There are limits to free speech (no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). There are limits the practice of religion (like no human sacrifice). Why the fuck should the right to bear arms be unlimited when no other right is that way?
Everything you've proposed as onerous restrictions in your analogy are things
I have already agreed to and done. Clearly, I did not find any of them an insurmountable obstacle.
Frankly, the only thing that really stands between me presently flying airplanes OR purchasing a few firearms is lack of funds. Not absolute lack of funds, but rather I feel a need for proper shelter, food, and other more essential responsibilities and needs being fulfilled before I drop money on either props or bullets.
I have no need of machine guns, mortar, functional tanks, or grenades in my life. I don't even feel a need to own a semi-automatic. Everything I want a gun for can be fulfilled by either a break open shotgun, pump shotgun, or a revolver. I think heavily restricting fully automatic guns is a GOOD thing and have no problems with the present law.
You remind me of pilots I used to know who were pissed about regulations that actually made sense, like regular maintenance, using proper aviation hardware, following rules about weather and cloud avoidance, not flying when you're having a medical issue, and so on and so forth. The only difference I see between you and those guys is that you're not dead.
