|
bango skank posted:I could see this being an issue. "Well, it's great that when your engine went out you were able to glide the plane to a landing with only moderate damage to the aircraft, but your policy requires you deploy the BRS in those circumstances so we won't be covering you." Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking and I don't know why I have been having such a hard time articulating it. Dr. Stab posted:I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything? This made me curious enough to search and apparently there is a theory called risk compensation. I don't know enough about it to argue with you, but it seems pretty interesting.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything? Its a huge problem in aviation. I can think of two fatal accidents involving Airbuses where the aircrews grossly mishandled the aircraft, thinking the magical fly-by-wire control system would prevent them from getting into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Its a huge problem in aviation. I can think of two fatal accidents involving Airbuses where the aircrews grossly mishandled the aircraft, thinking the magical fly-by-wire control system would prevent them from getting into trouble. The problem is that current control systems are so that pilot always has final decision. Even if the aircraft realizes that the pilot is pushing it into a stall/spin/something else, it cannot override the decision. I do research in flight envelope protection using adaptive controllers. Once we get to that point though (and it's a really long way off), pilots would just be accessories to the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Its a huge problem in aviation. I can think of two fatal accidents involving Airbuses where the aircrews grossly mishandled the aircraft, thinking the magical fly-by-wire control system would prevent them from getting into trouble. Though as Asiana proves if you don't know how airplanes work you're going to crash them regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
^^^That's also a good point; it doesn't matter how much safety you build in, if you have three idiots at the controls the outcome is going to be just as bad.Job Truniht posted:The problem is that current control systems are so that pilot always has final decision. Even if the aircraft realizes that the pilot is pushing it into a stall/spin/something else, it cannot override the decision. In the case of Airbus, the pilot really does not have the final say when operating in Normal Law. The aircraft sets hard limits on airspeed, pitch, yaw and bank angle that it will never exceed under any circumstances, and it will actively try to avoid those limits as well. That's all very well and fine (for what it's worth, I am a big fan of the Airbus system), but the problem is that the system can degrade in ways the aircrew might not notice until it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
MrChips posted:^^^That's also a good point; it doesn't matter how much safety you build in, if you have three idiots at the controls the outcome is going to be just as bad. I thought it was four idiots in the Asiana crash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:It took them 50 years to do that? The reason why the MU-2 was a cheap plane was because of the number of crashes made many operators not want to fly them, which drove down the price of the plane; and the reason why it crashed was because it was a cheap plane, which meant that the operators who actually did fly them were low-cost operators who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't pay for training specific to the plane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:So this isn't an idea that anyone is thinking of putting on major airliners, right? A Cessna 172 weighs about as much as a medium-sized car. A 747 weighs 730,000 pounds. You'd need an infeasibly large parachute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I thought it was four idiots in the Asiana crash. There were three crewmembers on the flight deck at the time of the accident, while the fourth was on his rest break back in business class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I really don't buy the idea that more safety equipment = more recklessness. Has that ever been a problem with anything? The problem is lack of proper education! Not as much in the commercial sector, but DEFINITELY in the private/general aviation sector.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Royal Hammer posted:The problem is lack of proper education! Not as much in the commercial sector, but DEFINITELY in the private/general aviation sector. I don't buy that it's that simple. I've noticed more than one person make comparisons to SCUBA diving in this discussion, and I think the comparison is actually very important to look at. One problem is that both general aviation and SCUBA tend to attract a lot of rich, risk-taker, adventurer types that feel like they can play fast and loose with the rules. The problem, then, is not the lack of education (at least in my certification for both, the education was top-notch) but rather that people are ignoring what they've been taught in a lot of cases. Having a flashlight should not be an issue for a diver that isn't a moron who goes past a cave -- unless you are trained in cave diving and have made preparations, a safe, smart diver would not attempt to do a cave dive. Likewise, the AFP should not provide any sort of temptation for a safe, responsible pilot to put their aircraft in any situation they wouldn't go into without the parachute. However, judging by what actually happens in both of these situations, not all divers/pilots are responsible enough to behave as they should when they feel they can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Having a flashlight should not be an issue for a diver that isn't a moron who goes past a cave -- unless you are trained in cave diving and have made preparations, a safe, smart diver would not attempt to do a cave dive. Likewise, the AFP should not provide any sort of temptation for a safe, responsible pilot to put their aircraft in any situation they wouldn't go into without the parachute. However, judging by what actually happens in both of these situations, not all divers/pilots are responsible enough to behave as they should when they feel they can get away with it. I was going to remark that the situations were a little different. An open-water diver, during daylight hours, has no real need for a flashlight. There's not really any realistic scenario where not having one adversely affects your survival chances. Even if the sun went out, a properly trained diver should be able to just pump their BC and go up, or even perform a controlled emergency ascent without any air. On the other hand, there are conceivable situations where an emergency parachute could be useful. I can see dismissing a large portion of them as "risk takers who did something dumb and got themselves into a situation they should never have been in", but there are definitely accidents where a parachute could have been a much lower risk option. We had one guy literally fly through the trees after he blew a night approach, he knocked out a good chunk of his wing without realizing it (beyond a generic idea of "I just caused major damage"), then managed to pull it back out and climb. Being able to pull a parachute and float down would have saved him a really high-risk landing afterwards. I don't remember the specifics of how he ended up in the trees in the first place, trying to dig up the accident report. Undoubtedly there were risk factors (flying at night, he undershot the approach without managing to realize it until he hit, etc), but you can say that about most accidents period - there's almost always risk factors and a chain of minor bad decisions that lead to some big ones. Once the mistake is made you'd be glad to have a way out of your night flight in a broken airplane. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's not the case. If you get into a situation, as a private pilot, where you have to deploy the chute, you probably shouldn't be a pilot. The last thing general aviation needs is more young rich people in flying around with their parachute planes causing accidents left and right thanks to some vague mental false equivalency of driving a car. Experts have long argued the best thing to do for general aviation is to say that: However, they are a pilot, and "well, we just won't let any stupid people near dangerous stuff" has never been a good excuse to leave out necessary safety periods. Besides, piloting isn't the only hobby or job with high barriers to entry or specific licensing requirements. It's just the only one where people routinely end up dead because they think they're too perfect to need safety features and are smarter than a computer. Pilots who whine about not having direct control remind me of people who swear by manual transmissions - no matter how much you jerk off about your awesome gear switching instincts, an automatic transmission is smarter and more efficient than any hot-shot wannabe sports driver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pilots who whine about not having direct control remind me of people who swear by manual transmissions - no matter how much you jerk off about your awesome gear switching instincts, an automatic transmission is smarter and more efficient than any hot-shot wannabe sports driver.  But for a long time that wasn't necessarily the case. EPA gas mileage numbers tended to still be a point or two better for manuals until just a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Let me know when an automatic transmission can read your mind and downshift in preparation for overtaking someone. Back on topic, GA aircraft are very stingy with payload. A 4-seater aircraft is really only suitable for 2 adults, fuel, and some camping gear. Adding a chute takes away some very precious weight. Additionally some aircraft manufacturers 'cheat' and rely on the chute instead of fixing problems with their airframe. In the case of Cirrus aircraft, if you get into a spin, you are supposed to pop the chute (which results in an uncontrolled landing, possibly hard enough to give spinal damage, possibly writing-off the airframe) instead of doing a fairly trivial spin-recovery with the normal controls. If you want to improve safety we'd be better off making it easier for manufacturers to legally upgrade designs (automatic mixture control, fuel injection etc) rather then stick with obsolete designs due to legal barriers. Sure engines designed circa WWII have a proven track record, but we'll never move forward if it's too difficult to bring new ones into service. Sure Light Sport Aircraft exist which have less red tape, but the airframe strength has to be compromised to meet an arbitrary weight restriction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Is there a reason small plane engines still have carbs vs being fuel injected? I'm guessing it has to do with power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:So this isn't an idea that anyone is thinking of putting on major airliners, right? The physics involved make fitting a parachute to an airliner pretty much impossible. The system Cirrus uses has to be deployed below about 140 knots, in an airplane that weighs no more than 3600 lbs. Even a small airliner is going to weigh somewhere between 40 and 60,000 lbs, and will be flying in excess 250kts for much of a given flight. Doubling the speed of an object means it has four times more energy to bleed off (to say nothing of the fact that the airliner weighs at least 10 times more than the Cirrus), so a parachute that could safely decelerate even a small airliner from anything faster than approach speed would have to be massively heavy and complex, and there are very few situations where it would be of any use. When you scale up to something like a 747 (which can weigh over 900,000 lbs on takeoff), an airframe parachute becomes basically impossible, unless you want to start jettisoning things like the wings and tail while deploying the parachutes, which opens up a bunch of other avenues for things to go catastrophically wrong. Sylink posted:Is there a reason small plane engines still have carbs vs being fuel injected? I'm guessing it has to do with power. A good chunk of it is cost. Newer engines are generally fuel injected, but for a lot of older aircraft (a huge number of small aircraft in the US were built before the mid 80's), fitting a fuel injection system would be incredibly expensive (not to mention the process of getting the FAA to certify it), and would likely never offset the gains in fuel economy over using carbs. Carburetors also have the advantage of being far less complex than a fuel injection system and requiring no electrical power, so for low powered piston singles that don't fly very often, converting an existing airframe to fuel injection wouldn't make financial sense. That said, there is a company planning to convert old Cessna 172's to modern diesel engines as part of a refurbishment program for flight schools, and in that situation, the change makes sense, although the conversion is expected to run in the $200K range. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Is there a reason small plane engines still have carbs vs being fuel injected? I'm guessing it has to do with power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Yah all the tiny Cessna's seem to be ancient as gently caress. I have a private license and learned on them. Even the newer ones they had with the glass cockpits were still the same old poo poo engine wise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The physics involved make fitting a parachute to an airliner pretty much impossible. I remember seeing some proposal years ago to have the passenger section basically blow out during an emergency and then turn into a flying can with parachutes on it. I can't find any record of that anywhere though so maybe I'm making things up. But again most of those accidents are during takeoff/landing not altitude so what does it matter? What you really need are retrorockets 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:However, they are a pilot, and "well, we just won't let any stupid people near dangerous stuff" has never been a good excuse to leave out necessary safety periods. Besides, piloting isn't the only hobby or job with high barriers to entry or specific licensing requirements. It's just the only one where people routinely end up dead because they think they're too perfect to need safety features and are smarter than a computer. Pilots who whine about not having direct control remind me of people who swear by manual transmissions - no matter how much you jerk off about your awesome gear switching instincts, an automatic transmission is smarter and more efficient than any hot-shot wannabe sports driver. Keep idiots away seems like a good plan, though. I knew a guy who had a Malibu Mirage, had an engine failure caused by shock cooling and landed it, landed it another time with a prop strike, landed again with an engine failure- totaling it that last time. I knew another guy who claimed to have accidentally flown into a Class 4 thunderstorm in a Bravo. In general, commercial aviation is a better alternative to chutes and GA should just be banned outright. Flying safely is dependent on traffic in the sky, the quality of the aircraft, the experience of the pilot(s), and their instrumentation. Things like better storm scopes and TCAS go a long way towards safety vs. some parachute. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:In general, commercial aviation is a better alternative to chutes and GA should just be banned outright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Reading that a safety feature is bad because it might make some people reckless made me feel like I was back in the vaccine idiots thread. Maybe we should make car crashes less survivable to increase traffic safety! There might be plenty of good arguments against this technology, but that one seems asinine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Trent posted:Reading that a safety feature is bad because it might make some people reckless made me feel like I was back in the vaccine idiots thread. Would you buy a safety device for a car that took up one seat and only really worked for 20% of crashes? Your two-seater car would become a one-seater, and so on and so forth, which is massively inconvenient. Weight is a big deal in aviation, and an even bigger deal when it comes to small airplanes only have a few hundred extra pounds of payload capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:In general, commercial aviation is a better alternative to chutes and GA should just be banned outright. That seems really excessive. With current fuel prices, commercial aviation barely makes any money with less than 50-seat aircraft unless it's subsidized, so air access would disappear from a lot of localities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:A good chunk of it is cost. Certification is more than half of the cost of any upgrade to an aircraft, and is the huge hurdle that keeps new technology from entering aviation in general, and GA in particular. The impending part 23 rewrite is supposed to streamline the certification process, but nobody really knows what the FAA will end up releasing. It might very well be WORSE than the current certification requirements. Bottom line, the current regulations put an undue financial burden on new technology, forcing all but the very top end of the market to continue using peak-of-1970s technology, because certifying a complex system like an IFR capable integrated glass cockpit costs so godamned much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
on the left posted:Would you buy a safety device for a car that took up one seat and only really worked for 20% of crashes? Your two-seater car would become a one-seater, and so on and so forth, which is massively inconvenient. My point was that the argument about Since you asked, though, I would at least seriously consider the device you described, yes. I put a pretty high value on my safety and it sounds like it might be a fair tradeoff. Also, you left out that the device in question might also save the lives of innocent bystanders in my crash, which most car safety systems don't really do. That also has value to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Trent posted:My point was that the argument about Instead, I propose the government calculates how much it would cost to outfit every GA plane in America with a parachute, and instead spends that money on free healthcare for the poor. This expenditure of $6,000 per plane would save some lives, at the cost of convenience, but it's such an inefficient way to protect public safety considering the costs and infrequent benefits. Although I will note that in Kerbal Space Program, you can make a hypersonic plane that ditches its landing gear after takeoff because a parachute is lighter. Mach 5.95, baby!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Instead, I propose the government calculates how much it would cost to outfit every GA plane in America with a parachute, and instead spends that money on free healthcare for the poor. This expenditure of $6,000 per plane would save some lives, at the cost of convenience, but it's such an inefficient way to protect public safety considering the costs andinfrequent benefits. *The prices you see quoted are for certification and development cost recovery and do not reflect the per-unit cost, which is what is actually relevant in this kind of discussion. If GPS units cost $100 to make and $1,000,000 to certify for aircraft navigation, then they cost $1100 each if you make a thousand of them but only $101 if you make a million. There's a huge profit margin too, and if we mandate total adoption of such a safety feature we shouldn't let Honeywell or whatever carry a sack of cash to the bank for each one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Although I will note that in Kerbal Space Program, you can make a hypersonic plane that ditches its landing gear after takeoff because a parachute is lighter. Mach 5.95, baby! Actually this strategy was employed by the Me-163 Komet rocket-powered fighter during WWII. It took off horizontally using a set of landing gear on a dolly, then dropped the landing gear shortly after takeoff. Landings were done with a set of skids, which were lighter and lower-drag than a fixed-gear or retractable-gear system (used on several X-plane designs as well). Dropping the dolly could be a bit of a problem, sometimes it bounced back up and impacted the aircraft One of the things I've always found funny is that the aviation community has resolved the age-old problem of two people who are in each other's way and keep moving the same way to avoid each other. In a head-to-head situation, everyone turns to their own right. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Why would we use taxpayer money to subsidize safer toys for rich people? It only adds 1-5% to the cost of a new airplane which is trivial for the buyer to pay. But yeah, it seems silly to mandate the presence of a BRS, unlike a TCAS system which should obviously be required on all aircraft. TCAS systems add negligible weight and cost*, and primarily serve to keep you from killing other people. ADS-b Transmitters are going to be required on all aircraft, but not the receiver or a way to display the data. There is also still a massive amount of airspace that will not require them at all by 2020, ClassG & E below 2500' AGL. This also goes back into the rich people with fancy toys safety problem. I've heard too many pilots and flight instructors mention tracking something on a TIS/TCAS system. That's where the transmitter was located, not where it is currently located. You also mentioned that that this is a fraction of the cost of new planes. A used lower end unit, Garmin 430, costs $4000. If you want to fly the plane past 2020 its another $1k for the transmitter. If you want to see the data, its around $3500 for a transceiver. Plus there is the ~1-2k install cost. So it's roughly $7.5k to install an old gps and see ADS-b. $10k if you want something like a g1000. Even more if you want something new. Not exactly trivial. There are currently more than 224,000 General aviation aircraft in the United States. Most people that buy a plane, buy the plane used on a 20 year loan. This $7+k can represent more than 20% of the total purchase cost, and the same amount or more than the downpayment. This goes back to, yes in an ideal world it would be nice, but aviation is really, really expensive. Take into account that mid-air collisions make up less than edit: 3% of the fatal statistics, and the argument falls back to 9/10 pilots would be better served spending that money on more flight time and more flight training. edit2: The mid air collision statistics also includes formation flying. Another situation where TCAS/TIS won't help a pilot. Entone fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Entone posted:ADS-b Transmitters are going to be required on all aircraft, but not the receiver or a way to display the data. There is also still a massive amount of airspace that will not require them at all by 2020, ClassG & E below 2500' AGL. This also goes back into the rich people with fancy toys safety problem. I've heard too many pilots and flight instructors mention tracking something on a TIS/TCAS system. That's where the transmitter was located, not where it is currently located. quote:You also mentioned that that this is a fraction of the cost of new planes. A used lower end unit, Garmin 430, costs $4000. If you want to fly the plane past 2020 its another $1k for the transmitter. If you want to see the data, its around $3500 for a transceiver. Plus there is the ~1-2k install cost. So it's roughly $7.5k to install an old gps and see ADS-b. $10k if you want something like a g1000. Even more if you want something new. Not exactly trivial. quote:Take into account that mid-air collisions make up less than edit: 3% of the fatal statistics, and the argument falls back to 9/10 pilots would be better served spending that money on more flight time and more flight training.  argument against commercial drones is that GA pilots don't have TCAS and can't see and avoid them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Alereon posted:There aren't really any alternatives to placing a full TCAS system on all aircraft. If transmitters aren't required on all aircraft you still have GA pilots flying right into commercial airliners as they try to take off and land without vigilant controllers yelling at them, and having transmit-only capabilities doesn't keep GA pilots from smashing into eachother and drones. Since we know "see and avoid" simply doesn't work as a concept we're just hoping that not too many close calls and accidents turn into fatalities, which only works if you assume the skies will only get less crowded, which is a poor assumption. If you increase the cost of flying by mandating full TIS/TCAS systems in planes; then yes, the skies will become less crowded. Pilots will also become more dangerous and kill themselves in larger number for dumb reasons by not being able to fly a healthy number of hours after being broke from purchasing a full GPS Suite + ADS-B transceiver. Also regarding drones: Why place the cost on recreational fliers instead of the commercial drone operator that's profiting off the use of the airspace. These drone are relatively cheap, can maneuver away from approaching aircraft quickly, and they do not have passengers to upset by an abrupt action. The current model of who has the right-of-way that is determined by the FAA: a) power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons; b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons; c) gliders shall give way to balloons; d) power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are seen to be towing other aircraft or objects. E should read drones should give way to all power-driven aircraft, airships, gliders, balloons and aircraft towing objects. This is of course commercial drones. Recreational drones should stay within class E/G airspace at 500ft agl within visual distance. If someone replies but my droones, they are not the person that gets killed in an accident. You can't protect one group without damaging another. I choose to protect the group that has people in the air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Instead, I propose the government calculates how much it would cost to outfit every GA plane in America with a parachute, and instead spends that money on free healthcare for the poor. : And I get a puppy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Reminder: (most) Gliders don't have engines yet can fly for 8 hours straight - whatever radio wizardry must not drain their batteries. Gliders themselves can cost under 10k so are hardly a "rich mans toy". There are also planes flying without electrical systems. See and Avoid does generally work given such a tiny percent of fatalities are due to mid-airs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:That seems really excessive. With current fuel prices, commercial aviation barely makes any money with less than 50-seat aircraft unless it's subsidized, so air access would disappear from a lot of localities. Avgas/Kerosene aren't cheap, nor are the aircraft that can, in some form, perform equivalently in some way to commercial aviation aircraft. To say that having a private plane and going somewhere is cheaper and faster than a commercial airliner are absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Luckily no-one is saying that then! e: Actually it can be faster for some short trips, given the lack of security processing on takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Avgas/Kerosene aren't cheap, nor are the aircraft that can, in some form, perform equivalently in some way to commercial aviation aircraft. To say that having a private plane and going somewhere is cheaper and faster than a commercial airliner are absurd. It really depends what you're talking about. In some cases, general aviation and commercial aircraft are one and the same, particularly in remote areas that are most reliant on air transport.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Reminder: (most) Gliders don't have engines yet can fly for 8 hours straight - whatever radio wizardry must not drain their batteries. Gliders themselves can cost under 10k so are hardly a "rich mans toy". There are also planes flying without electrical systems. You seriously think a multiple thousand dollar toy that requires a lot of other expenses to get to use isn't a "rich mans toy"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You seriously think a multiple thousand dollar toy that requires a lot of other expenses to get to use isn't a "rich mans toy"? Aircraft are only rich mens' toys if you consider a rich man to be anyone living above the loving poverty line. The whole "gently caress him, he can afford an airplane, soak him every time we need to change something" line is killing GA in the states. If you have the inclination, you can own and maintain an airplane for less than most people pay for their new car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:44
|
|