GA is priceless [Archive] - AviationBanter

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 05:33 PM

> I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
> of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
> the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
> not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
> totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
> a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."

Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
actually want to do it. Just like automobiles in the early 1900s,
airplanes today are hand-built, luxury items, with prices to match.

If "Every Man" in America wanted to fly, airplanes would cost about
what a new car costs -- maybe less, given how little structure is
actually involved. (Don't ever look too closely at the stabilator
attachment points on a Cherokee, or the wing spar attachment points on
a Skyhawk, unless you're prepared to be shocked at how little "there"
is actually there.)

Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

> Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?

Sadly, (except for the weeks around Oshkosh, of course) less than 5% of
our guests are pilots, by my count. (A large proportion of that 5%
*are* aircraft owners, however.) Probably another 50% are interested
in aviation, or aviation history -- but pilots are a small, dying
breed, way too small a group to ever support a hotel. Even one as
small as ours... :-(

But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
gears start turning...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 05:36 PM

> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>
> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
> cellphone in his ear?

If that's the price we must pay to save all of our GA infrastructure,
yes.

I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
a pattern that's full, thank you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 05:43 PM

> > We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
> > a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
> > but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.
>
> Had the weather been bad, GA would have been useless to you. General
> aviation isn't consistently useful and convenient enough to be used as
> reliable transportation.

True, but irrelevant, since no one claims otherwise. Most times the
weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus turboprop level or
higher, weather will control your flying. (And even then you're not
invincible.)

Mary and I have flown our family coast to coast, all VFR, for over 12
years. The key is to be flexible in your planning, don't push the
limits of your aircraft and ability, and view the journey as the
adventure -- not the destination.

GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
way to go.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

December 28th 06, 05:44 PM

> And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

Because there isn't an airport at every garage. Change your situation a
bit. Suppose you lived forty miles from work, twenty miles from the
airport, and six miles from the train station that takes you three miles
from where you work. (This is not atypical). Chances are pretty good
you'd get a lot of use out of your car, and your car horn.

Now, imagine you have to give up either your plane or your car. Which
is it going to be?

Of course you can say "well, I'd just move closer to the airport...
yadda yadda", but not everyone can do that. There isn't enough room
even if they wanted to. So, there won't be an airplane in every garage.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

December 28th 06, 05:44 PM

> I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
> given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
> a pattern that's full, thank you.

Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

:) Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

December 28th 06, 05:46 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>> weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as
>> regulated as flying.
>
> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a license
> and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I can't think
> of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In aviation, it is legal
> to do things that require skill, and prudent not to if you don't have the
> skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it is illegal. For example,
> it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour, but it is perfectly legal to fly
> 210 feet above the ground while in clouds.
>

I know exactly what you mean and if they REALLY wanted to cut down on
traffic accidents they would require 40 hours of training supervised by a
professional instructor not by dad in the family truckster. The problem is a
lot of people would then not drive and cars would then be built in the
quantities that GA planes are and a Ford Fiesta would cost $500,000.

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 05:50 PM

> Of course you can say "well, I'd just move closer to the airport...
> yadda yadda", but not everyone can do that. There isn't enough room
> even if they wanted to. So, there won't be an airplane in every garage.

Oh, I know. Until the personal flight vehicle (AKA: "Flying Car") we
were all promised in the 1960s is developed, flying will never be as
popular as driving.

But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

We simply must figure out a better way to communicate the fun and
utility of flying to the masses.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

December 28th 06, 06:38 PM

> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

But sometimes "nowhere" is exactly where you want to go. The boat is
ideal for that.

The airplane is not ideal for everything. And not everything you think
is fun is actually fun for everyone.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

RomeoMike

December 28th 06, 07:24 PM

That may be part of the reason, but flying was considered expensive in
the late '40's, when I flew with my father, and in the mid '50's, when I
took my first lessons. During that period of time flying was more
popular and romantic, and airplane companies thought they were going to
sell a lot of airplanes. Veterans were getting free flying lessons on
the GI Bill. But it was still expensive to rent and buy and maintain
planes, even then. )-:

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
> actually want to do it.

john smith

December 28th 06, 08:54 PM

Jose wrote:

>> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
>> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
>> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...
>
>
> But sometimes "nowhere" is exactly where you want to go. The boat is
> ideal for that.
> The airplane is not ideal for everything. And not everything you
> think is fun is actually fun for everyone.

Sure you can! That's what floats are for.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 08:54 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The problem is a
> lot of people would then not drive and cars would then be built in the
> quantities that GA planes are and a Ford Fiesta would cost $500,000.

A large part of society would also grind to a halt, because in many
parts of the United States, you need a car to be a part of society (in
particular, you need a car and license in order to have a job).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 08:55 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> If that's the price we must pay to save all of our GA infrastructure,
> yes.

Fortunately, we don't need to pay that price. Our GA infrastructure
would be crushed under that weight of users, anyway.

Be careful what you wish for.

> I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
> given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
> a pattern that's full, thank you.

See above. A world in which everyone flew an aircraft would be
nothing like the world you know now.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 08:56 PM

Jose writes:

> Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 09:00 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> True, but irrelevant, since no one claims otherwise.

You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

This is why commercial aviation has invested so much over the decades
in making all-weather flying possible, safe, and practical.

> Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
> turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.

Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
time (or even within a span of several days).

> Mary and I have flown our family coast to coast, all VFR, for over 12
> years. The key is to be flexible in your planning, don't push the
> limits of your aircraft and ability, and view the journey as the
> adventure -- not the destination.

Naturally ... but that is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that GA
cannot be depended upon for transportation. Cars and buses and
commercial airlines can be seen as modes of transportation; GA is
still largely a fair-weather hobby. If GA allows you to actually
travel in a useful way, that's just a happy (and occasional)
coincidence.

> GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
> weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
> way to go.

Yes. But I was taught not to depend on motorcycles for
transportation, for exactly this reason.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 09:02 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
> actually want to do it.

In part, but there are also other obstacles. It's extremely hard to
get a pilot's license as compared to a driver's license, for example
(independent of the extremely high cost).

> Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
> Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
> from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Which is more comfortable across country?

> And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

Too expensive, too difficult, too inconvenient. This limits flying to
the real enthusiasts.

> But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
> wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
> shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
> gears start turning...

Until clocks, calendars, and wallets lock those gears in place again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 09:04 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Oh, I know. Until the personal flight vehicle (AKA: "Flying Car") we
> were all promised in the 1960s is developed, flying will never be as
> popular as driving.

There won't be any flying cars with the current state of technology.
The only way to make flying safe for large numbers of people would be
to automate it, which isn't likely any time soon.

> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

Most of our planet is covered by water and is thus navigable by boats.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Orval Fairbairn

December 28th 06, 09:10 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
> > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
>
> There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

Ron Lee

December 28th 06, 09:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>> Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
>> turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.
>
>Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
>your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
>time (or even within a span of several days).
>
I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
(twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
years while flying only VFR.

Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Ron Lee

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 10:04 PM

> > > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.
>
> Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
> pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

Both approaches are fine, unless the pattern is full.

Jose is referring to my vocal disdain for the (usually corporate)
pilots who come blasting into a full pattern from all angles, landing
on any runway, from any point in the pattern, without regard for
procedure or protocol, putting everyone at risk in order to save a few
gallons of Jet-A/Avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 10:08 PM

> > Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
> > Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
> > from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.
>
> Which is more comfortable across country?

Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 10:13 PM

Ron Lee writes:

> I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
> (twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
> Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
> years while flying only VFR.

Aviation is good for sightseeing.

> Sounds pretty useful to me.

Useful for sightseeing, not for transportation.

When I drive a car, I do so to get from point A to point B, not to
admire the sights along the way. That's what makes it transportation.
Similarly, I don't book a seat on a commercial flight so that I can
admire the Rockies outside the window.

> Can you claim to have driven to a
> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Why would I want to?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose[_1_]

December 28th 06, 10:13 PM

> Sure you can! That's what floats are for.

But the pilot can't down a sixpack while out there.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 10:14 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
> True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
> it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.

Do you sleep inside the aircraft, or do you land it inside the parking
lot of the hotel?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marco Leon

December 28th 06, 10:25 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
> neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
> weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

I fly my Warrior in any type of weather that's thrown at me. I've flown
in the worst icing conditions and terrible thunderstorms and I've made
it to my destination every single time. Don't give me that crap about
GA not being useful. If it get's too bad, I just hit "P" to pause
everything and rethink my options. When it gets really bad (or if I
just don't have the time), I use the all-powerful "Go to Airport"
function from the top menu bar and viola! I'm there with nary a
scratch. Sometimes, when I'm really up for an adventure, I even switch
to my trusty Pilatus and the icing becomes a cakewalk.

Sheees, these amateurs should learn how to fly their airplanes and use
basic Microsoft Windows skills before putting down GA.

Jay Honeck

December 28th 06, 10:27 PM

> > Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
> > True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
> > it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.
>
> Do you sleep inside the aircraft, or do you land it inside the parking
> lot of the hotel?

Personally, I have never slept in my plane(s). I know guys who do,
however, routinely.

It's not as uncomfortable as you might think. Interestingly enough
(and slightly OT), I can fit MORE stuff in our Pathfinder than I can in
our Subaru station wagon with the seats folded down. It doesn't *look*
like it should all fit, but it does.

We've got plywood sheets (from a previous owner) that have been cut to
fit from behind the front seats, all the way to the baggage compartment
bulkhead. (You take the back seats out to do this, obviously.) The
end result is a mini-van-sized area that would easily fit an air bed,
if desired.

Anyway, flying cross country will get me to Reno, NV by suppertime, or
to the east coast of the United States by mid-afternoon. Or, I can be
in Florida in six hours, and to Canada in three.

With GA, there is little need for too many intermediate en route
hotels!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Gene Seibel

December 28th 06, 11:01 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Naturally ... but that is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that GA
> cannot be depended upon for transportation. Cars and buses and
> commercial airlines can be seen as modes of transportation; GA is
> still largely a fair-weather hobby. If GA allows you to actually
> travel in a useful way, that's just a happy (and occasional)
> coincidence.

If one wants to be a spoiled little robot to whom all things must be
guarenteed, GA isn't for him. It is for me and my wife.

Just took a 4 day trip where we visited family in two states and
brought home a plane load of merchandise we had purchased on the
internet. Saved 8 hours over driving. Useful? Yes. Did we have a Plan
B? Yes. But still, in the middle of winter we had a great GA trip.

I work at home but travel to remote sites a couple times per month to
work, using either GA or commercial aviation depending on
circumstances. In the last year about 2/3 of such trips have been by
GA, and were usually faster and more convenient than commercial would
have been. Usually I could land closer to my destination and could
choose my own schedule. And it was all VFR. In only two cases did I
have to cancel a trip I had planned by GA and in each case I simply and
easily shifted to Plan B. Once I drove and once I went commercial. The
worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
commercial flights were grounded by ice.

We have learned and experienced more interesting and memorable things
when our plans have been challanged than we ever would have if our
every move was planned and results guarenteed. This is simply the icing
on the cake of the useful thing called GA. I am not a robot. I
experience life. GA gets me what I want. You can't convince me
differently because I'm living it. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 11:46 PM

Marco Leon writes:

> I fly my Warrior in any type of weather that's thrown at me. I've flown
> in the worst icing conditions and terrible thunderstorms and I've made
> it to my destination every single time.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

> If it get's too bad, I just hit "P" to pause everything and rethink
> my options.

That cannot be done in real life. Even in simulation, pausing the
simulation may only delay the inevitable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 28th 06, 11:48 PM

Gene Seibel writes:

> If one wants to be a spoiled little robot to whom all things must be
> guarenteed, GA isn't for him.

If a person wants reliable transportation on demand, GA isn't for him,
either.

> The worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
> commercial flights were grounded by ice.

How many GA flights were departing at the time?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gene Seibel

December 29th 06, 12:07 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > The worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
> > commercial flights were grounded by ice.
>
> How many GA flights were departing at the time?

Actually in that case I had planned on commercial because of the length
of the trip. If I had gone GA I'd have left a day earlier and gotten
out before the storm. The first day I spent in the airport was because
of ice. The second day was because of the incompetence of the airline
as they ran out of deicing fluid. The sky was blue and aircraft of
every description were flying. Commercial over GA was the wrong choice
that time.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Morgans[_5_]

December 29th 06, 12:23 AM

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Do you really want to be drawn into responding to this putz?
--
Jim in NC

Marty Shapiro

December 29th 06, 12:56 AM

Jose > wrote in
. net:

>> But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>> weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become
>> as regulated as flying.
>
> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
> license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
> can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
> aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
> to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it
> is illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour,
> but it is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in
> clouds.
>
> Jose

Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marco Leon

December 29th 06, 01:10 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> There are bold pilots and old pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

That's a catchy phrase full of wisdom! Never hear that before, I gotta
remember that one.

>
> That cannot be done in real life.

I get it, you've "been there, done that, got the T-shirt" right?

> Even in simulation, pausing the simulation may only delay the inevitable.

Ahh, not when you use the "Go to Airport" function! Microsoft even
makes it easy and pauses the simulation for you. You didn't know that?
Don't tell me you're one of those guys that "pretends" to fly the
simulator.

Jose[_1_]

December 29th 06, 01:14 AM

> Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?

It isn't. But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe). It's
also illegal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in clouds unless
you're on an instrument approach with an MDA of 210 or less. But that's
not my point.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Judah

December 29th 06, 02:43 AM

Jose > wrote in
. net:

> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
> license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
> can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
> aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
> to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it is
> illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour, but it
> is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in clouds.

One requires special training and certification in order to be able to
legally fly 210' above the ground in clouds, however a significant number of
pilots do not have this certification, and thus are not permitted to do so
legally.

In driving, there is no training or certification one can take in order to
drive 70MPH on a 55MPH road. The limitation is for one and all. They apply
the same to me as they do to Dale Earnhardt Jr. and to off-duty Police and
Military personnel who indeed have had high-speed driving training.

Ron Lee

December 29th 06, 02:52 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Ron Lee writes:
>
>> I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
>> (twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
>> Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
>> years while flying only VFR.
>
>Aviation is good for sightseeing.
>
>> Sounds pretty useful to me.
>
>Useful for sightseeing, not for transportation.

Getting from point A to Point B to see stuff and so things is what I
want. If all you wish to do is go to and from the grocery store that
is your choice.

>When I drive a car, I do so to get from point A to point B, not to
>admire the sights along the way. That's what makes it transportation.
>Similarly, I don't book a seat on a commercial flight so that I can
>admire the Rockies outside the window.
>
>> Can you claim to have driven to a
>> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?
>
>Why would I want to?

Good point. You live in a simulated world. I live in the real world
where I like to enjoy doing things and seeing parts of this great
country.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee

December 29th 06, 02:52 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
>> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?
>
>Do you really want to be drawn into responding to this putz?
>--
>Jim in NC

We have a snow period now and I need some excitement.

Ron Lee

Matt Whiting

December 29th 06, 02:59 AM

Marty Shapiro wrote:

> Jose > wrote in
> . net:
>
>
>>>But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>>>weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become
>>>as regulated as flying.
>>
>>It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
>>license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
>>can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
>>aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
>>to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it
>>is illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour,
>>but it is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in
>>clouds.
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?
>

Obviously it isn't, but many parts of the country have 65 MPH as the
highest posted speed limit.

Matt

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 03:02 AM

Jose writes:

> But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
> is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).

Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal, as long as
your speed is still reasonable and prudent. However, speeding tickets
are a source of revenue, and this is often allowed to override
considerations of fairness and justice.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose[_1_]

December 29th 06, 03:47 AM

> In driving, there is no training or certification one can take in order to
> drive 70MPH on a 55MPH road. The limitation is for one and all.

.... which is my point. Driving is set to the lowest common denomenator.
Flying is set to the highest standard.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Lee

December 29th 06, 04:32 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Jose writes:
>
>> But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
>> is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).
>
>Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
>driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal, as long as
>your speed is still reasonable and prudent. However, speeding tickets
>are a source of revenue, and this is often allowed to override
>considerations of fairness and justice.

Name one.

Ron Lee

Viperdoc[_4_]

December 29th 06, 04:51 AM

OK Jay, you have tolerated this guy, and have been one of the most open
minded and welcoming of the "regulars" on this NG.

Do you still feel the same way, or are you rolling your eyes or gnashing
your teeth yet at his imbecilic replies? I find it pretty intolerable to
accept responses from a person who admits that they are afraid to fly, yet
somehow makes pronouncements like a 5,000 hour pro.(example: "straight in
approaches are OK")

You're probably right in not responding, but I guess I'm more intolerant of
idiots and lunacy. I suppose it's better to feel sorry for him and accept
him for what he is, but when he argues with no factual basis, it becomes
hard to take.

I guess that's newsgroup at it's worst. It sure was nice not seeing his
posts for a few days.

Jay Honeck

December 29th 06, 05:18 AM

> You're probably right in not responding, but I guess I'm more intolerant of
> idiots and lunacy. I suppose it's better to feel sorry for him and accept
> him for what he is, but when he argues with no factual basis, it becomes
> hard to take.

I do feel sorry for him. He's built a reality that only he can
appreciate, and a strange intolerance for something he apparently
loves. Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

But the world is full of interesting folks, and anything that confuses
me I usually find difficult to ignore. So, I keep swinging for the
fence.

MX is obviously not stupid, yet his responses are stubbornly illogical
at times. In my experience with the public I have found that this
trait isn't unusual -- so perhaps I'm just more used to it than you
are?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

December 29th 06, 05:28 AM

> Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 08:34 AM

Ron Lee writes:

> Name one.

California, which is the model for a number of other States. Others
include Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island.

In these States, exceeding a posted speed limit may be taken as prima
facie evidence of speeding, but it is not actually illegal. A person
cited for speeding under this type of statute may successfully defend
against the citation by demonstrating that his speed was in fact
reasonable and prudent for conditions despite being above the posted
speed limit.

There are also absolute limits, which may be universal in some States,
but may apply only to certain situations in others. For example, in
Arizona, speed limits in school zones and on highways are absolute,
but most others are subject to the "reasonable and prudent" law.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 08:34 AM

Jose writes:

> ... which is my point. Driving is set to the lowest common denomenator.
> Flying is set to the highest standard.

If flying were set to the highest standard, you wouldn't need a
special rating to fly IFR. Instead, "non-IFR" would be a special
restriction applied only to those pilots who had demonstrated their
inability to fly IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Montblack

December 29th 06, 08:35 AM

("Ron Lee" wrote)
> We have a snow period now and I need some...

(NAC) Necessary Aviation Content:
"Super absorbent, designed with wings to fit the way..."

Mont-don't-eat-that-yellow-snow-Black
46 years in Minnesota and I have NO IDEA what a snow period is? <g>

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 08:37 AM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

Perhaps because you assume that flying in reality is unconditionally
preferable to flying in simulation. However, just as flying for real
has advantages that simulation does not, flying in simulation has
advantages that flying for real does not. Thus, it's entirely to be
expected that some people would prefer simulation to real flight.

I've given examples before, but I can repeat a few. One example is
that flying for real actually requires that one go somewhere. For
people who don't like to travel or commute, this is a huge drawback to
flying for real. Simulation takes you nowhere in real-world terms,
and so it's ideal if you don't actually want to go anywhere.
Simulation allows you to fly without paying the price of actually
moving from place to place, with all the inconveniences that the
latter brings.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 08:39 AM

Jose writes:

> Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.

Quite so, and many people do just that. Examples of simulation being
preferred over the real thing are legion. Many people enjoy
first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
in real life. Many people enjoy virtual football play, but have no
desire to play football for real. The list goes on and on.

Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
hobby. It all depends on what you want, and how well that matches
what you get.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin Hotze

December 29th 06, 09:08 AM

Montblack schrieb:

> 46 years in Minnesota and I have NO IDEA what a snow period is? <g>

maybe red snow? *pehehehe*

scnr, #m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

Ken Chaddock

December 29th 06, 12:52 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>
>>Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.
>
>
> Quite so, and many people do just that. Examples of simulation being
> preferred over the real thing are legion. Many people enjoy
> first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
> in real life. Many people enjoy virtual football play, but have no
> desire to play football for real. The list goes on and on.
>
> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby. It all depends on what you want, and how well that matches
> what you get.

One would think you've never flown in a *real* light aircraft...nothing
making real flying inherently superior to simulation...sheesh.
Ever had the wind in your face at 75 knots in a open cockpit bi-plane ?
Ever had that *wonderful* experience of an engine-out 50 miles from the
nearest airstrip ? Ever had the dizyiny execeleration of spinning in a
*real* aircraft ? Ever experienced the sudden terror of realizing that
you're in a sprial dive and rapidly nearing Vne ?
I've been in a "couple" of simulators in my time but have yet to find
one that can simulate a loop or an Himmelman...and let's not even talk
about "games" like Flight Simulator !

....Ken

mad8

December 29th 06, 01:35 PM

people said that about motorcycle riders for years, but stats show that
the "squid" factor is actually increasing...

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
> > > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> > > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
> >
> > Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
> > cellphone in his ear?
> >
> > Jose
>
> Darwin would take care of that!

Viperdoc[_4_]

December 29th 06, 01:48 PM

I agree, although it is frustrating to see an interesting discourse get
disrupted by argumentative comments and lack of logic or experience.

You almost sound like a closet democrat! It must come from living in that
liberal town!

Best wishes.
JN

Morgans[_5_]

December 29th 06, 01:58 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote

>I agree, although it is frustrating to see an interesting discourse get
>disrupted by argumentative comments and lack of logic or experience.

I agree, but it is clear that there a tons of people on this group that
don't seem to mind the constant interruptions.

I don't understand why; 1) They put up with him. 2) They don't understand
why they can't see that every response of any kind, keeps him around. 3)
This is trolling taken to the ultimate factor. He has done this to other
groups, including groups on breast feeding. His interest in aviation is
just an excuse to troll here.

The ONLY way to deal with a troll is to let them dry up on the vine. Don't
water, feed, or pick them.

Please everyone: Wake Up!!!
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck

December 29th 06, 02:24 PM

> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby.

I can name a dozen things that make flying inherently superior to
simulation as a hobby. But then, you already know what they are.

The Kiwi is a lot of fun, and MS Flight Sim is a terrific program, but
it'll never match flying as a hobby -- no matter *how* perfect I can
make the experience.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

mad8

December 29th 06, 02:57 PM

tell that to rec.sport.paintball

Mxsmanic wrote:
>Many people enjoy
> first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
> in real life.

Thomas Borchert

December 29th 06, 03:57 PM

Mxsmanic,

> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby.
>

Once again, you're showing your very serious psychological illness. Get
help! Real help, not simulated help.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 04:10 PM

Ken Chaddock writes:

> One would think you've never flown in a *real* light aircraft...nothing
> making real flying inherently superior to simulation...sheesh.

It's hard for some people to recognize the subjectivity of such
opinions.

> Ever had the wind in your face at 75 knots in a open cockpit bi-plane ?

No. I don't like being in high winds.

> Ever had that *wonderful* experience of an engine-out 50 miles from the
> nearest airstrip ?

No. I don't like unsafe situations.

> Ever had the dizyiny execeleration of spinning in a *real* aircraft ?

See above.

> Ever experienced the sudden terror of realizing that you're in a sprial
> dive and rapidly nearing Vne ?

See above.

> I've been in a "couple" of simulators in my time but have yet to find
> one that can simulate a loop or an Himmelman ...

Why would you want to simulate these?

> ... and let's not even talk about "games" like Flight Simulator !

At least in a simulator a bad pilot can survive his mistakes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 04:12 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> I can name a dozen things that make flying inherently superior to
> simulation as a hobby.

No, you cannot.

I'm sure you can easily name a dozen things that you personally prefer
about flying for real as opposed to flying in simulation. But that's
not the same thing as objective superiority, of course.

> The Kiwi is a lot of fun, and MS Flight Sim is a terrific program, but
> it'll never match flying as a hobby -- no matter *how* perfect I can
> make the experience.

You'll never die in a simulator, either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Buck Murdock

December 29th 06, 04:37 PM

Is anyone else picturing our resident troll playing Flight Sim when they
watch this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pgOmlHE2k

Orval Fairbairn

December 29th 06, 04:44 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
> > Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> > ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.
>
> Perhaps because you assume that flying in reality is unconditionally
> preferable to flying in simulation. However, just as flying for real
> has advantages that simulation does not, flying in simulation has
> advantages that flying for real does not. Thus, it's entirely to be
> expected that some people would prefer simulation to real flight.
>
> I've given examples before, but I can repeat a few. One example is
> that flying for real actually requires that one go somewhere. For
> people who don't like to travel or commute, this is a huge drawback to
> flying for real. Simulation takes you nowhere in real-world terms,
> and so it's ideal if you don't actually want to go anywhere.
> Simulation allows you to fly without paying the price of actually
> moving from place to place, with all the inconveniences that the
> latter brings.

I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
etc.

Morgans[_5_]

December 29th 06, 05:15 PM

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 05:26 PM

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
> thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
> etc.

I'm not interested in sex, and I'd prefer flying (real or simulated)
over it any day (provided there were no safety issues).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

BucFan

December 29th 06, 05:28 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee writes:
>
>> Name one.
>
> California, which is the model for a number of other States. Others
> include Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island.

Site the statute please.

> In these States, exceeding a posted speed limit may be taken as prima
> facie evidence of speeding, but it is not actually illegal. A person
> cited for speeding under this type of statute may successfully defend
> against the citation by demonstrating that his speed was in fact
> reasonable and prudent for conditions despite being above the posted
> speed limit.

This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
decided to fight his $5 ticket.

> There are also absolute limits, which may be universal in some States,
> but may apply only to certain situations in others. For example, in
> Arizona, speed limits in school zones and on highways are absolute,
> but most others are subject to the "reasonable and prudent" law.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 05:55 PM

BucFan writes:

> Site the statute please.

You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

> This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
> limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
> will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Some judges are corrupt. But reasonable and prudent speed is a valid
defense, and the corruption of individuals does not invalidate the
law.

> Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
> hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
> decided to fight his $5 ticket.

MCA 2005 61-8-803 still mentions reasonable and prudent speeds,
although they are quite restricted in application.

In any case, California and Arizona still have reasonable and prudent
laws, as I've just demonstrated, so Montana is not the "last state."
You can look up the specifics for other States yourself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 05:59 PM

Mxsmanic writes:

> In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

States = Statutes

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

john smith

December 29th 06, 09:05 PM

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> With GA, there is little need for too many intermediate en route
> hotels!
> :-)

And if you are an enterprising enturpreneur who happens to fly, you want
to believe that the middle of the continent is probably a good place to
put a hotel.

john smith

December 29th 06, 09:08 PM

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> MX is obviously not stupid, yet his responses are stubbornly illogical
> at times. In my experience with the public I have found that this
> trait isn't unusual -- so perhaps I'm just more used to it than you
> are?

Or possibly based on his virtual perception of reality.

john smith

December 29th 06, 09:15 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
> neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
> weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
missed an airshow because of a weather delay.

Newps

December 29th 06, 09:38 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>
>>But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
>>is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).
>
>
> Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
> driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal,

No states do.

Newps

December 29th 06, 09:44 PM

BucFan wrote:

>
> Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
> hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
> decided to fight his $5 ticket.

It wasn't a $5 ticket. He got a ticket for going about 120 mph on a two
lane highway. His car was a late 70's big hunk of steel, a big old
Caprice or similar. Ticket was well over $100. He went to court.
Judge upheld the ticket but threw out the reasonable and prudent law,
which forced the next legislature to set a speed limit. That's how we
have a 75 MPH limit and the first 10 over are still the $5 ticket that
does not get entered into the computer.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 10:27 PM

Newps writes:

> No states do.

I've already cited relevant statutes. I suggest you read them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 10:28 PM

john smith writes:

> Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
> week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
> missed an airshow because of a weather delay.

What is your point?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps

December 29th 06, 10:39 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No states do.
>
>
> I've already cited relevant statutes. I suggest you read them.

You links are irrelavant. No state has laws that allow drivers to speed
and then escape the ticket because I tell the judge 100 MPH is
reasonable. Not happening. Anywhere.

Mxsmanic

December 29th 06, 11:04 PM

Newps writes:

> You links are irrelavant. No state has laws that allow drivers to speed
> and then escape the ticket because I tell the judge 100 MPH is
> reasonable. Not happening. Anywhere.

Nobody has made this claim, so it's puzzling that you feel compelled
to refute it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

john smith

December 30th 06, 03:09 AM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> john smith writes:
>
> > Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
> > week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
> > missed an airshow because of a weather delay.
>
> What is your point?

You made a statement in an earlier posting to the effect that general
aviation was not practicle because weather delays prevent one from
getting to ones destination on time. I simply pointed out that you made
an inaccurate statement.

Mxsmanic

December 30th 06, 03:46 AM

john smith writes:

> You made a statement in an earlier posting to the effect that general
> aviation was not practicle because weather delays prevent one from
> getting to ones destination on time. I simply pointed out that you made
> an inaccurate statement.

No, you mentioned a person who had been lucky enough (or reckless
enough) never to be delayed by weather. There are many other unlucky
pilots who are dead because they would not tolerate weather delays.

The fact remains that weather is by far the most important obstacle to
GA as utility transportation, and that is not likely to change, unless
general aviation aircraft are equipped and built like airliners (and
GA pilots begin receiving the same training and experience as airline
pilots). The technology required for safe all-weather flight is
extremely expensive and is thus absent from GA aircraft. The training
required to successfully and safely fly in inclement weather is also
very expensive and tedious and most GA pilots have neither the
resources nor the ambition to undertake it.

I don't understand the irrational insistence that general aviation
provides some sort of utility transportation, in the way that cars,
trains, or commercial airlines do. That is manifestly untrue, and the
failure to acknowledge this mystifies me, and makes me wary of
anything else that is said to me by the people who refuse to see the
obvious.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck

December 30th 06, 03:53 AM

> And if you are an enterprising enturpreneur who happens to fly, you want
> to believe that the middle of the continent is probably a good place to
> put a hotel.

Well, for an ever-increasing number of pilots, it is!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom Conner

December 30th 06, 04:44 AM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

After reading what feels like 1000s of posts I have to ask just what in the
world does "Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail" mean?

Does it mean change " to "? Does it
mean change " to "? Or something
else?

Buck Murdock

December 30th 06, 05:16 AM

In article et>,
"Tom Conner" > wrote:

> Does it mean change " to "? Does it
> mean change " to "? Or something
> else?

Whatever it is, we can rest easy knowing the spambots have it now. Heh.

Roger[_4_]

December 30th 06, 10:50 AM

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:40:57 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>
>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>> cellphone in his ear?
>>
>> Jose
>
>Darwin would take care of that!

Yah, but all us pilots would be exposed to them thar drivers!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

December 30th 06, 11:14 AM

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:21:47 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Jose > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>>>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>>>
>>>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>>>> cellphone in his ear?
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>
>>> Darwin would take care of that!
>>
>> Once upon a time that was true. Lately the "Guvmint" won't let Darwin do
>> his thing so well anymore.
>>
>> Jay B
>>
>
>The "Guvmint" let's it happen all the time. This link
>http://www.nsc.org/issues/driving/memorial05fatality.htm at the National
>Safety Council was a look at traffic death during Memorial Day weekend 2005.
>They estimated there would be 25,400 disabling non-fatal auto accidents and
>3,747 fatalities. That's in one long weekend.

They will have about 12 times that number of deaths in a year. If the
multiplier holds true that is almost 400,000 disabling injuries per
year. However it depends on what they mean by disabling. Missed
work, broken bones, hospitalized, or permanent disabilities? That
makes the number sustaining injuries almost unbelievably large.
..
>
>But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO weakened
>this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as regulated as
>flying.
>
That is because the average driver isn't smart enough to know it can
happen to him/her/them. It'll always be the other guy. So they make
their own rules of the road and with every one driving by their own
rules who knows what the car ahead is going to do be it coming or
going. There was a note in the local paper a while back stating that
every one knew it was far safer to drive in the passing lane and
probably close to 50% around here do so. That means some one pulling
out from your right will probably cross in front of you and into the
passing land. Never mind when some one pulls out your natural tendency
is to go left to miss them. It's not uncommon to see one from the
left go to the passing lane while one from the right goes to the
driving lane when they pull out, crossing in front of you.

It's difficult enough to get them to wear seat belts let alone
shoulder harnesses. I think the figure is some where up around 75% are
finally wearing seat belts, or restraining devices. We had to have
more powerful air bags to protect *unrestrained* passengers compared
to other countries.

Of course in Midland the have most of the traffic signs painted on the
road surfaces instead of overhead. One snow and no one knows which
road or lane goes where.
Drivers will not put up with things they find inconvenient.

So far, bicyclists and pedestrians are still fair game. You hit
another car and kill some one it'll probably be manslaughter and jail
time. Run over a pedestrian of bicyclists and it the court is in a
bad mood you might get a 6 month suspension.

Highway deaths and injuries doesn't even garner a mention in the local
papers or TV news unless it's a really bad one or buss load of kids.
Most don't even give them a second thought unless some one they know
was involved.

They have become "the *accepted* cost of doing business with "I think
it was 43,000 plus change, killed last year. Multiply by many times
for personal injuries which totals up to many billions of dollars in
medical bills (not counting the suffering) and more billions of
dollars in lost wages and production in industry.

One type of plane has five fatals in a year and there is an
investigation, the results of which will most likely cost the rest of
us money.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Montblack

December 30th 06, 09:54 PM

("Buck Murdock" wrote)
> Whatever it is, we can rest easy knowing the spambots have it now. Heh.

I wouldn't want THE TROLL, Ms Maniac X, to do that to me ...or anyone else,
and I don't think one of us should do that to him.

I absolutely hate calling someone out (or whatever the term is). So, I'm
sorry if that's what I'm doing here Buck, but it was a line of civility that
I didn't think needed crossing.

As always, YMMV ...I guess.

Montblack :-(
I always get a little nervous around feeding frenzies

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

December 30th 06, 11:41 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
><...>
>> GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
>> weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
>> way to go.
>
> Yes. But I was taught not to depend on motorcycles for
> transportation, for exactly this reason.

Well, you were taught wrong. A car may be warmer and drier, but when push
comes to shove, a motorcycle will get through a lot more than a car. How do
I know? Because for years, ALL I owned was a motorcycle. Summer, (Michigan)
winter, rain, snow, no problem. There were lots of time when a snow storm
would pretty much shut down the city - so I always would take the
oppurtunity to go for a ride. Very little traffic. Plus I got to wave at all
the poor saps that were stuck in their cars. Now, cars are convienent, but
now that I don't own a bike any more, I have had to miss an occasional day
of work because I couldn't get in due to snow. That never happened on the
bike.

The funny thing is, when I sat down to type this, the talking heads on the
TV were going on and on about the National Gaurd having to rescue all the
stranded drivers in Colorado. If they were on small motorcycles with knobby
tires, they wouldn't be stranded.

The only thing tha twas a problem was ice. But cars don't do that well on
icy hills either.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Ken Chaddock

December 30th 06, 11:58 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
>
>>I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
>>thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
>>etc.
>
>
> I'm not interested in sex, and I'd prefer flying (real or simulated)
> over it any day (provided there were no safety issues).

What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
simulated member ?

....Ken

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

December 31st 06, 12:04 AM

"Buck Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Is anyone else picturing our resident troll playing Flight Sim when they
> watch this video?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pgOmlHE2k

Actually, I am reminded of the guy I sit next to at work. Except he swears
in English.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Roger[_4_]

December 31st 06, 12:51 AM

On 28 Dec 2006 14:04:14 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> > > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
>> >
>> > There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.
>>
>> Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
>> pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.
>
>Both approaches are fine, unless the pattern is full.

Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full.

>
>Jose is referring to my vocal disdain for the (usually corporate)
>pilots who come blasting into a full pattern from all angles, landing
>on any runway, from any point in the pattern, without regard for
>procedure or protocol, putting everyone at risk in order to save a few
>gallons of Jet-A/Avgas.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 03:40 AM

> Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full.

Sorry, Goose...but it's time to buzz the tower....

Great balls of fire!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, iA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 03:43 AM

> I wouldn't want THE TROLL, Ms Maniac X, to do that to me ...or anyone else,
> and I don't think one of us should do that to him.
>
> I absolutely hate calling someone out (or whatever the term is). So, I'm
> sorry if that's what I'm doing here Buck, but it was a line of civility that
> I didn't think needed crossing.

One really nice thing about Google Groups is that it hides email
addresses that are in the text of any message. Makes it impossible for
the Spambots to get them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, iA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 03:44 AM

> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
> simulated member ?

Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, iA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger[_4_]

December 31st 06, 03:54 AM

On 28 Dec 2006 09:33:53 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
>> of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
>> the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
>> not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
>> totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
>> a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."
>
>Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
>actually want to do it. Just like automobiles in the early 1900s,
>airplanes today are hand-built, luxury items, with prices to match.
>
>If "Every Man" in America wanted to fly, airplanes would cost about
>what a new car costs -- maybe less, given how little structure is

Unfortunately there are a number of things that doesn't take into
account. One is liability. Reportedly at least half the price of
each new airplane is for liability. Much of an increase in planes
flying and we'd be moving from the more hours we fly the cheaper out
insurance due to proficiency to the more we fly the more we pay due to
exposure.

Another are the regulations and certified parts. Production on a large
scale would reduce the cost of individual parts as the basic cost
would be spread over more numbers.

So, although the idea would certainly bring the price down, I doubt
it'd be possible to ever come close to price of a new car. Maybe on
the order of two to three times to cost.

Another problem would be proficiency: We kill between 40,000 and
50,000 per year with something as simple as the automobile. I doubt
we'd be able to bring many of those people in before we'd see a lot of
restrictive legislation. That is one of the reasons I see the
"personal" aviation, or plane in every garage as pure science fiction
even if NASA has a program working on it.

I seriously doubt that even 10% of the drivers would even be
interested in flying if a new plane cost no more than a new car.
Most people have no interest in flying, and most have no aptitude for
it. Although most of us have at one time or another told at least one
person, that if we could get our license any one could, that is
unfortunately a longggg way from being true. It's not that it takes
superior intelligence to fly as it doesn't, but it does take the
proper mind set, judgmental ability, and willingness to commit. We've
all seen students who just couldn't make the grade be it personality
problems, ability to commit, or the ability to take responsibility.
I'm sure most of us who have been around for a while have seen pilots
that made us wonder how they ever got through the system. Fortunately
for us all those are few. Still if you watch traffic arriving at
Oshkosh for even a day it can alter your view a bit.

Then assuming we get a large influx of new pilots and airplanes, comes
the problem of air space congestion. Busier small airports would mean
more neighborhood resistance. How many more VFR flights could the
class C and D airports take before it became a problem? Soon they'd
either limit VFR traffic into these airports or prohibit it which
would mean still more traffic for the small airports.

I think we could get away with doubling or even tripling the traffic
at our airport, but that would only put us back to where we were in
the 70's and I'll bet the neighbors would be constantly complaining.

>actually involved. (Don't ever look too closely at the stabilator
>attachment points on a Cherokee, or the wing spar attachment points on
>a Skyhawk, unless you're prepared to be shocked at how little "there"
>is actually there.)

They are all built like beer cans. Look at the heft in the main spar
itself. It's just a few sheets of aluminum on edge held in place with
caps. On the Bo the front and rear of the wing are held to the spar
with piano wire. Albeit that is a very strong connection.
Two locals were pushing a Cherokee 180 back into a hangar. The door
wasn't quite to the stop and the beacon light atop the tail hit the
door. It folded the rear of the fuselage about three feet forward of
the horizontal stab leading edge.

>
>Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.

You can buy an *old* airplane for the price of a high end car.

>Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
>from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Today you are still looking at basically $50,000 to $60,000 for a used
4-place airplane with a few going for a little less. Most aircraft
aren't known for having much shoulder room. The Deb is not bad, but
it sure snug with a couple of good sized guys up front. OTOH when I
last flew the old Cherokee 180 I used to fly I felt cramped and that
is spacious compared to the 172 which is absolutely gigantic compared
to a 150.

Actually in the Deb one of us can take the controls and the other step
over the carry through into the back seats. On long trips we've done
that when we were reminded not so pleasantly that it's much colder in
Michigan than Georgia or Florida. Our jackets and sweaters were in
back. We went from the 80's to just out of the teens in one hop. that
sure did make me appreciate that new heater.

>
>And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

There aren't very many of those old airplanes in that price range out
there unless they have many thousands of hours on the airframe. Still
there just aren't a lot of airplanes out there of any kind.

BUT even if we could ignore price completely, as I said earlier,
probably 90% of the drivers have absolutely no interest in flying
regardless of cost. Many of them would not even get in a small plane.
They do not share our view of flying and would rather take a new bass
boat or big SUV and go mudding even if they could get a plane for the
same money.

>
>> Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?
>
>Sadly, (except for the weeks around Oshkosh, of course) less than 5% of
>our guests are pilots, by my count. (A large proportion of that 5%
>*are* aircraft owners, however.) Probably another 50% are interested
>in aviation, or aviation history -- but pilots are a small, dying
>breed, way too small a group to ever support a hotel. Even one as
>small as ours... :-(

Even in its hay-day aviation was a drop in the bucket compared to the
automobile.

>
>But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
>wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
>shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
>gears start turning...

That certainly is a good feeling. Our EAA Chapter 1093 has an Aviation
Camp for teens, twice each summer. We have an aviation scholarship
which takes one all the way to their private license, and we have a
"Kids to Oshkosh" day where we fly three over for the day with all
expenses paid. That includes a years membership, flight line passes,
food, and $20 for spending. I think we've been doing that now for
around 14 years which would mean we've sent 41 kids over there. It
would be 42 but we got caught short one year and I had to fly them
over in the Deb which mean the copilot was also chaperon and we could
still only take two.

A while back one of those kids from the aviation camp who flew the Deb
on his Aviation Camp, dual cross country took me for a ride in the 172
he's now flying. I talked to a girl from one of the camps who is
getting ready for college. She has been accepted into Embry Riddle on
a scholarship. She went to the camp one year and has helped with the
camp for the past couple of years. Her involvement also made her one
of the "Kids to Oshkosh".

It is a wonderful feeling to see the magic when the interest takes
hold. Even more so when it actually becomes something.
>
>;-)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose[_1_]

December 31st 06, 05:04 AM

>>mile high club...even a simulated member ?
> Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!

A "profit center", no doubt. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 07:06 AM

Jay Honeck writes:

> One really nice thing about Google Groups is that it hides email
> addresses that are in the text of any message. Makes it impossible for
> the Spambots to get them.

The spambots don't use Google Groups.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley[_2_]

December 31st 06, 02:24 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Chaddock writes:
>
>> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>> simulated member ?
>
> No, I don't. I'm interested in aviation, not sex.

I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.

Fifteen hours and counting......

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 02:29 PM

> Real spambots don't harvest addresses using Google Groups. <G>

True enough. The point being that if ALL newsreader software truncated
in-line email addresses like Google Groups, perhaps the spammers would
start to wither...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 02:44 PM

> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,

I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
sinker.

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
this stereotype ever since.

It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
truth.

An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)

This involved:

1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
2. Loading the plane
3. Starting the plane
4. Programming two GPS's
5. Taking off, and turning to course.
6. Climbing to altitude
7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
hundred times) to Racine.
8. Land.

Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
literally as easy as falling off a log.

I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
far easier than driving, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Martin Hotze

December 31st 06, 02:58 PM

On 31 Dec 2006 06:29:26 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Real spambots don't harvest addresses using Google Groups. <G>
>
>True enough. The point being that if ALL newsreader software truncated
>in-line email addresses like Google Groups,

google groups is only a (free) nntp provider with a web frontend.

>perhaps the spammers would
>start to wither...

ha! and what keeps a spammer off from setting up his own nntp server?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

Scott Post

December 31st 06, 03:03 PM

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.
>

Until your kids have to pee and it's a holiday so you can't raise a
single UNICOM along your route. I'll always be indebted to the Mooney
who heard our plea and taxied back to unlock the FBO. :-)

--
Scott Post

john smith

December 31st 06, 03:51 PM

Hmm? A new suite in the offing?

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>>simulated member ?
>>
>>
>
>Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!
>
>:-)
>
>

Blueskies

December 31st 06, 03:56 PM

"Scott Post" > wrote in message ...
: In article om>,
: Jay Honeck > wrote:
: >
: >But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
: >pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
: >far easier than driving, IMHO.
: >
:
: Until your kids have to pee and it's a holiday so you can't raise a
: single UNICOM along your route. I'll always be indebted to the Mooney
: who heard our plea and taxied back to unlock the FBO. :-)
:
: --
: Scott Post

He heard our plea...
Our kid has to pee!!!!
so back to the FBO for thee....

;-)

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 03:58 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.

They are variations on the same theme.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 04:14 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
dials as the simplest aircraft.

Aircraft also move in three dimensions, whereas automobiles move in
only two. Already motorcycles are more complex than cars because they
must also lean in turns, but they are still simpler than aircraft.

> John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> this stereotype ever since.

Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
even without these exaggerations.

> It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

It's only one of many reasons. The cost of flying in time and money
puts off a great many people, as do medical requirements and safety
issues.

> Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
> God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
> destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier.

Are there still women falling for that?

> In fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
> truth.

Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

> This involved:
>
> 1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
> 2. Loading the plane
> 3. Starting the plane
> 4. Programming two GPS's
> 5. Taking off, and turning to course.
> 6. Climbing to altitude
> 7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
> hundred times) to Racine.
> 8. Land.
>
> Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
> that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
> maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
> literally as easy as falling off a log.

Going there in a car involves:

1. Loading the car.
2. Starting the car.
3. Driving onto the highway and following the signs.
4. Pulling into a parking place.

As you can see, it's a lot easier than flying.

> I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
> commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
> They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
> to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Scott Post

December 31st 06, 04:55 PM

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> they are under pressure.
>
>No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
>reality, for better or for worse.
>
>Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
>instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
>obvious.

I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg

--
Scott Post

BDS

December 31st 06, 04:58 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
> attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
> (as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
> even without these exaggerations.

Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.
You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
themselves. Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like. I would go
on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly insult the very
people who have made this possible for you and on whom you depend.

> Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
> girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
> aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

How would you know? Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give
out your credit card number first?

> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> is the training so complex and difficult?

What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

Neil Gould

December 31st 06, 05:08 PM

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the
>> general public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt
>> how cool they are under pressure.
>
> No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
> reality, for better or for worse.
>
> Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
> instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
> obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
> dials as the simplest aircraft.
>
Who needs a control panel in the simplest of aircraft?

http://www.jet-man.com/actuel_eng.html

Neil

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 05:14 PM

> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> is the training so complex and difficult?

Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
training syllabus.

Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
relatively severe limitations on flying.

It's kinda like the old saying "An elephant is a horse designed by a
committee." After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
fail.)

Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
to support the GA infrastructure?

FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
and we need them NOW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

BDS

December 31st 06, 05:18 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
> attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
> (as opposed to simulation).

I doubt that sitting in front of your computer playing MSFS gives you the
same feeling that I get when I take a late evening flight after work. I
cruise along in the glassy-smooth air with the sun on the horizon and all my
problems left far below and gone from my concsiousness. I do not need to
actually go anywhere, the experience itself is enough - it is a freedom and
an internal peace that I cannot describe and that I cannot get from any
other activity.

I doubt that playing MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am
soaring my hang glider and a hawk joins me in the thermal off of my wingtip,
completely unafraid of the large "bird" he is sharing the thermal with, and
we rise to 6,000 feet together.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am in a
sailplane scratching for lift so I can make it back to the airport, or
looking down from 10,000 feet having gotten there using nothing more than
thermals.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I see the
runway appear out of the mist at DH on an ILS, or the feeling of a perfectly
executed loop or hammerhead.

There is mystical significance in the actual experience that you will never
understand because your mind is closed and you think you already know
everything there is to know. I feel sorry for you.

BDS

Doug Spencer

December 31st 06, 05:21 PM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:33:58 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> For example, to go somewhere in an elevator, all you have to do is
> push a button. It's about the easiest type of discretionary
> transportation (one that gives you a choice of destinations) that
> exists. As a result, it is widely accepted and used--elevators
> transport more people than any other forms of transportation.
> However, the simplicity of an elevator's use also means that there are
> very few elevator enthusiasts, as the enthusiast requires complexity
> to retain his interest.

Apparently, you've not ever seen the behind the scenes equipment and
complexity that goes into play to make button push so easy and
effective. Especially in modern high-rise buildings, there are embedded
computer systems to handle queuing and parking of elevators on
particular floors at different busy times, electrical and hydraulic
systems, algorithms to avoid a sudden start or stop of the elevator to
improve passenger comfort.

I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
average general aviation aircraft. General aviation aircraft have the
advantage of allowing the pilot to travel literally anywhere in the
world, rather than just to the 6th floor. Part of the interest of
flying is visiting far away places, friends, family, and taking people
on a flight to see their world from a unique perspective. You can't get
that from a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 05:29 PM

BDS writes:

> Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.

A great many users of simulators for training in real-world flight
would disagree with you.

> You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
> actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
> themselves.

They owe their safety in the air to people like me, who design the
instruments and systems that allow them to stay alive while flying.
However, I don't expect them to salute me. And I don't salute them.

> Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
> the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
activity.

> I would go on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly
> insult the very people who have made this possible for you and on
> whom you depend.

Failing to bow and scrape before them is not an insult. And if one
tallies the personal attacks exchanged on this newsgroup, one finds
that I'm at the bottom of the list.

> How would you know?

I have many female friends.

> Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give out your
> credit card number first?

Regularly. Virtually all of my friends are women. I wish more of
them were interested in aviation.

> What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

My research into training requirements.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 05:35 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
> and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

Then it is not my imagination.

> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.

What parts could be safely removed? And what things (if any) should
be added?

> Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
> time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
> to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
> Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
> relatively severe limitations on flying.

I suppose the FAA has been conditioned to emphasize safety at all
costs. While I can understand and support this position, I think that
some allowances can be made for people who potentially endanger only
themselves. A solitary pilot is unlikely to kill anyone besides
himself through his own incompetence. Carrying passengers is a bit
different ... however, there are no special requirements to carry
passengers in a car, so I'm not sure why there should be in an
airplane. As long as it's not for hire, of course.

> After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
> recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
> of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

Unfortunately, that fear is probably justified. Today's society is
based on fear.

> I'm sure you've heard about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states
> "You can fly without a medical UNLESS you have been denied a medical."

I've heard of it, and it mystifies me.

> This has made an awful lot of older guys simply not try for the medical,
> for fear that they will fail.

The medical requirements for private pilots are excessive in a number
of ways.

> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?

From what I've read, the current system allows a lot of undertrained
pilots to slip through, while simultaneously locking out many
potentially good pilots.

> FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
> by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
> dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
> that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
> to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
> and we need them NOW.

There are cost issues that get in the way. But fear is a big factor:
it influences liability, insurance, licensing requirements,
regulation, and many other aspects of flying (and many other
activities in society). People need to stop being so afraid of
everything. No pain, no gain.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Doug Spencer

December 31st 06, 05:38 PM

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
> (yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
> more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

There are a few fields a fairly short flight away from you that ARE
teaching primarily sport pilots now.

http://www.stantonairfield.com/ in Stanton, MN is a very nice turf
field with a few FlightDesign CTs that have been extremely popular with
new pilots training for sport pilot and private pilots as well. The
Light Sport aircraft have also garnered very favorable stories in the
local news, both television and print. Everyone who sees or flies the
CT really enjoys the experience.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 05:40 PM

BDS writes:

> I doubt that sitting in front of your computer playing MSFS gives you the
> same feeling that I get when I take a late evening flight after work. I
> cruise along in the glassy-smooth air with the sun on the horizon and all my
> problems left far below and gone from my concsiousness.

You might be surprised.

> I do not need to
> actually go anywhere, the experience itself is enough - it is a freedom and
> an internal peace that I cannot describe and that I cannot get from any
> other activity.

There are often many roads leading to the same destination. Try to
accept the possibility that your way may not be the only way.

> I doubt that playing MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am
> soaring my hang glider and a hawk joins me in the thermal off of my wingtip,
> completely unafraid of the large "bird" he is sharing the thermal with, and
> we rise to 6,000 feet together.

Maybe. I doubt that the feeling you get is one that I'd want to
experience. But perhaps we're both wrong.

> I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am in a
> sailplane scratching for lift so I can make it back to the airport, or
> looking down from 10,000 feet having gotten there using nothing more than
> thermals.

I'm not into gliding, even in simulation. I've tried it, and it bored
me.

> I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I see the
> runway appear out of the mist at DH on an ILS ...

Actually, I suspect it may. The source of satisfaction in that case
may come from factors that have nothing to do with the reality or
irreality of the act. After all, some people are greatly pleased when
they win a chess game, even though it isn't anything more than an
extremely symbolic "battle."

> There is mystical significance in the actual experience that you will never
> understand because your mind is closed and you think you already know
> everything there is to know. I feel sorry for you.

I have to smile reading this. Whose mind is really closed? When have
I ever asserted that there are things you can never experience without
using a simulator? Ponder on this: Not everyone is like you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 05:50 PM

Doug Spencer writes:

> Apparently, you've not ever seen the behind the scenes equipment and
> complexity that goes into play to make button push so easy and
> effective.

Actually, I have looked into it, albeit not recently.

But that is irrelevant. The important complexity is that which must
be mastered by the "driver" or "pilot" of the vehicle. To use an
elevator, the "driver" need only push a button, so the complexity with
which he must cope is extremely low. In contrast, a great deal of the
complexity of aviation is exposed to pilots, and they must master it
directly.

For someone who is interested in the complexity itself--the mode of
transportation for its own sake--high complexity is a plus. For
someone who just wants transportation, any sort of complexity is a big
minus.

> Especially in modern high-rise buildings, there are embedded
> computer systems to handle queuing and parking of elevators on
> particular floors at different busy times, electrical and hydraulic
> systems, algorithms to avoid a sudden start or stop of the elevator to
> improve passenger comfort.

I know. But users still just push a button.

> I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
> average general aviation aircraft.

It's not the complexity of the system as a whole, it's the complexity
that is exposed to users ... the complexity that they must master in
order to use the system.

> General aviation aircraft have the
> advantage of allowing the pilot to travel literally anywhere in the
> world, rather than just to the 6th floor.

Not relevant. The aviation equivalent of an elevator would be an
aircraft in which you just push a button corresponding to your
destination, after which you are flown there automatically. The
elevator equivalent of an aircraft would be an old-fashioned elevator
with a bank of controls in the cabin, operated by a specialist in
elevator "driving."

> Part of the interest of flying is visiting far away places, friends,
> family, and taking people on a flight to see their world from a
> unique perspective. You can't get that from a simulator.

But you can get it from a car, and that's how most people do it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

john smith

December 31st 06, 06:05 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>>horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>>
>>
>
>I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
>sinker.
>
>The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
>the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
>the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
>this stereotype ever since.
>
>It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>
>Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
>fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
>truth.
>
>An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
>Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
>Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
>This involved:
>
>1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
>2. Loading the plane
>3. Starting the plane
>4. Programming two GPS's
>5. Taking off, and turning to course.
>6. Climbing to altitude
>7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
>hundred times) to Racine.
>8. Land.
>
>Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
>that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
>maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
>literally as easy as falling off a log.
>
>I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
>commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
>They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
>to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.
>
Aha! This is where we, as Americans, have the advantage (for the time
being).
We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/basic_unit_rates.html

Tony

December 31st 06, 06:20 PM

Jay, exactly what part of your training would you have liked to have
been reduced or eliminated?

Once I demonstrated I could fly straight and level under the hood,
nearly all of my IFR stuff was related to dealing with emergencies. I
still hire CFIIs to polish those skills, don't you?

Now, if you said getting legal in a car should be made harder, I'd
agree with that! For what it's worth, I think a car should be disabled
until the person in the driver's seat can pass some sort of a reaction
time test -- screw trying to blow a low number -- so that would keep
many of us too tired, or too old, off the roads.

On Dec 31, 12:14 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> > is the training so complex and difficult?Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
> and AOPA have grappled with for decades.
>
> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.
>
> Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
> time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
> to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
> Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
> relatively severe limitations on flying.
>
> It's kinda like the old saying "An elephant is a horse designed by a
> committee." After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
> recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
> of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.
>
> After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
> were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
> (yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
> more than full-fledged Private pilots are.
>
> (Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
> rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
> about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
> UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
> older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
> fail.)
>
> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?
>
> FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
> by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
> dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
> that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
> to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
> and we need them NOW.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 06:20 PM

john smith writes:

> Aha! This is where we, as Americans, have the advantage (for the time
> being). We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.

I didn't know about this, but it sounds very typically European. Just
one more step towards making Europe the world's backwater.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Stefan

December 31st 06, 06:41 PM

john smith schrieb:

> We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.
>
> http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/basic_unit_rates.html

Those fees are only for IFR flights. IFR is using the system and relying
on it. *Somebody* has to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

Steve Foley[_2_]

December 31st 06, 06:57 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> they are under pressure.
>
> No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
> reality, for better or for worse.
>
> Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
> instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
> obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
> dials as the simplest aircraft.

But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap is
loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.

Steve Foley[_2_]

December 31st 06, 07:00 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> They owe their safety in the air to people like me, who design the
> instruments and systems that allow them to stay alive while flying.

I owe you exactly nothing.

Matt Whiting

December 31st 06, 07:32 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>>horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>
>
> I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
> sinker.
>
> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> this stereotype ever since.
>
> It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

Yes, I think that is a very unhelpful myth.

> An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
> Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
> Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
> This involved:
>
> 1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
> 2. Loading the plane
> 3. Starting the plane
> 4. Programming two GPS's
> 5. Taking off, and turning to course.
> 6. Climbing to altitude
> 7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
> hundred times) to Racine.
> 8. Land.
>
> Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
> that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
> maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
> literally as easy as falling off a log.
>
> I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
> commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
> They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
> to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.
>
> But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
> pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
> far easier than driving, IMHO.

Living at the airport is a huge advantage in this regard. The biggest
problem I have is that I live 40 minutes from the airport. So, I spend
1:20 minutes of driving for every flight I make. Unless I'm flying at
least 120 miles away, I can't beat driving time-wise. I also live in a
rural area with no toll booths, etc., and traffic that would be
considered light by urban standards other than for summer holiday
weekends. By the time I add in preflight time, taxi time, tie-down at
the destination, etc., flying only makes sense for me time-wise if the
drive is 3 hours or more. And cost simply can't be compared so I don't
compare it! :-)

My hope is to retire to a home near an airport, but for now that isn't a
possibility given where I work and where my kids attend school.

Matt

Matt Whiting

December 31st 06, 07:39 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?

Unfortunately, I think we are already there. All of the airports near
me that used to have restaurants have at best a vending machine now. I
used to be able to fly to at least 6 nice airport restaurants within 80
nm and I know know of only two, and one is at my home field and thus not
all that attractive as a "fly to" destination. The other is at IPT, but
you now have to park a mile away as they closed the east ramp that let
you park right out front of the restaurant.

And the field I learned to fly at, N38, sells fuel (self service), but
has no flight instruction, no maintenance, etc. I fear that the
inevitable has already begun and we just haven't realized it yet. I
suspect that just as the airlines went to the hub structure, so soon
will GA have a similiar structure. There will be a few larger airports
where you can get maintenance done and the rest of the airports will
either disappear or have at most a self-service fuel farm.

Matt

Jay Honeck

December 31st 06, 07:51 PM

> http://www.stantonairfield.com/ in Stanton, MN is a very nice turf
> field with a few FlightDesign CTs that have been extremely popular with
> new pilots training for sport pilot and private pilots as well. The
> Light Sport aircraft have also garnered very favorable stories in the
> local news, both television and print. Everyone who sees or flies the
> CT really enjoys the experience.

That's cool!

I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it
were just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids,
plus luggage, to lug around with us...

;-)

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 09:06 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> I owe you exactly nothing.

Then we are even.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 09:07 PM

Steve Foley writes:

> But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap is
> loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.

Apparently I haven't made myself clear. The complexity in the system
is not the same as the complexity exposed to the user.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

December 31st 06, 09:09 PM

Stefan writes:

> Those fees are only for IFR flights. IFR is using the system and relying
> on it. *Somebody* has to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

It implies that pilots are an elite, rather than simply ordinary
people who like to fly. The same underlying social assumptions are
behind toll highways.

Some things that are truly specific to a small group of users are
logically billed to those users, but parts of a national
infrastructure are usually best paid for by the public at large.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley[_2_]

December 31st 06, 09:19 PM

You've made yourself perfectly clear (to me, at least).

Seven Hours, thirty eight minutes.

Bye-Bye

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap
>> is
>> loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.
>
> Apparently I haven't made myself clear. The complexity in the system
> is not the same as the complexity exposed to the user.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley[_2_]

December 31st 06, 09:20 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I owe you exactly nothing.
>
> Then we are even.

Not in my book.

Seven hours, fourty minutes

Bye Bye

Montblack

December 31st 06, 09:26 PM

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it were
> just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids, plus
> luggage, to lug around with us...

Q. Am I the only one who sees the solution here?
A. Thanks for the lift Atlas!

Three pilots - two planes!
CT#1 and CT#2 :-)

The Honecks are a throw-back to that 19th Century spirit of adventure, lived
fully (and written about) by the likes of Jack London and Samuel Clemens (to
name only two). IMHO, it's a uniquely American spirit, one of changing
scenery, limitless opportunities ...and, much the way the (1804) Lewis and
Clark Expedition learned about Grizzly bears: a new discovery around every
bend.

Unfortunately, it seems that a once potent Corps of Discovery spirit
eventually calcifies, in people, families, groups, institutions ...and
nations, over the course of enough time.

That's why Jay and Mary are so entertaining. They still have it ...that
'Westward' spirit. They make plans, sure, but will pull up stakes in a
heartbeat, and move on - if an interesting opportunity presents itself.

I see a CT (or two) in the Honeck's future. <g>

Montblack
And Jay, next time I say I'm thinking about buying a hangar at ANE - hold my
feet to the (branding iron) fire until I write the darn cheque!

Doug Spencer

December 31st 06, 10:48 PM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:26:07 -0600
"Montblack" > wrote:

> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> > I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it were
> > just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids, plus
> > luggage, to lug around with us...
>
>
> Q. Am I the only one who sees the solution here?
> A. Thanks for the lift Atlas!
>
> Three pilots - two planes!
> CT#1 and CT#2 :-)

The CT will haul 110lbs of stuff in the luggage compartment, 55lbs per
side. One of the CT's at Stanton Sport Aviation will haul 650 lbs of
fuel, people and baggage.

With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.

I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

It would be nice to see some of the success from Light Sport and Sport
Pilot carry over to recreational and private pilots and larger planes.
The requirement for a medical certificate for a private pilot for
personal flying is absurd considering all the open space when flying in
most areas. As for airframes, the market seems to be deciding pretty
well for itself which safety features desired in light sport. The CT,
for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
compartment during a crash. Why would allowing currently certificated
planes to be constructed to similar consensus standards be any worse?

I've seen the combination of features the CT provides really drive up
interest in aviation. I'd like to see similar innovations in larger
planes as well.

I know, preaching to the choir.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Bob Noel

December 31st 06, 11:35 PM

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.

What is so complex about it?

And what would you eliminate?

(i) Preflight preparation;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(ii) Preflight procedures;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(iii) Airport and seaplane base operations;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;
(seems reasonable to me and are these operations complex?)

(v) Performance maneuvers;
hey, what are these?

(vi) Ground reference maneuvers;
ok, these could probably be deep-sixed, but how much time
is wasted doing these?

(vii) Navigation;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(viii) Slow flight and stalls;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(ix) Basic instrument maneuvers;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(x) Emergency operations;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(xi) Night operations, except as provided in 61.110 of this part; and
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(xii) Postflight procedures.
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

have I missed something?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Montblack

December 31st 06, 11:43 PM

("Doug Spencer" wrote)
> The CT will haul 110lbs of stuff in the luggage compartment, 55lbs per
> side. One of the CT's at Stanton Sport Aviation will haul 650 lbs of
> fuel, people and baggage.
>
> With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
> about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
> that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
> the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.
>
> I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
> The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
> axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
> with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
> is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

What were your observed cruise speed(s) and climb rates? Thanks.

120mph = 2 miles/minute
30 miles takes 15 minutes ...and (~30mpg)

So, 1 gallon every 15 minutes? 4gph?

Were your numbers close?

Montblack

Ken Chaddock

January 1st 07, 12:57 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>
>>I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.
>
>
> They are variations on the same theme.

Hahahahaha....you have NO idea do you ?

....Ken

Ken Chaddock

January 1st 07, 12:58 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ken Chaddock writes:
>
>
>>What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>>simulated member ?
>
>
> No, I don't. I'm interested in aviation, not sex.

Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

....Ken

Ken Chaddock

January 1st 07, 01:08 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BDS writes:
<snip>
>>Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
>>the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

> It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
> activity.

Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

....Ken

Doug Spencer

January 1st 07, 02:19 AM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:43:28 -0600
"Montblack" > wrote:

> What were your observed cruise speed(s) and climb rates? Thanks.
>
> 120mph = 2 miles/minute
> 30 miles takes 15 minutes ...and (~30mpg)
>
> So, 1 gallon every 15 minutes? 4gph?
>
> Were your numbers close?

Yeah, it was pretty close to their claimed specs during that flight.
This was a three blade CT, which I've noticed to be slightly slower than
the 2 blade FlightDesign CT. The plane had about 20 hobbs hours at the
time. The prop is also ground adjustable, so some tweaking could be
done there.

After 650 statute miles, I filled 24 gallons. The round trip was 11.6
hobbs hours for 1300 miles total, with a quick stop to drop off and
pick up a friend/future pilot on each leg (doing my part to promote
aviation -- he really liked the plane and his first XC flight). It was
averaging a bit over 112MPH in flight. The fuel totalizer was
indicating 3-4.5GPH depending on the power setting selected. Usually I
was at 4700 RPM and burning 4.4GPH. I could pull power back and get it
to around 2GPH at around 70 kts indicated, so it would be great on
local flights as well.

Climbs at ~900+ FPM from KSYN (Stanton, MN - 920ft MSL) in the fall
fully fueled with 2 people and bags on board. I took it up to 7500 ft
on the trip and it still climbed very well, surprisingly little
performance loss at altitude. Take-off only takes a couple hundred feet
to break ground on the grass runway, especially with 15 degrees of
flaps.

It also burned no oil during the flight, a refreshing change from the
engines we're familiar with. There is no mixture control with the
altitude compensating dual carbs.

Overall, a very nice plane. It can be extremely efficient for local
flights, yet delivers about the same speeds as a Cessna 172 or Warrior
on cross country flights for about 1/2 the fuel burn. It ran very well
for the entire 1300 mile flight with no hiccups.

The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS. Apparently you can get it
with the 912S, which seems to be the exact same 100HP engine with more
paperwork and costs more AMUs, and fly at night as a private pilot. The
airframe can be equipped for night flight from the factory, though.

Everything on the plane looks easy to maintain. The ailerons are
controlled by pushrods and the ends are easily accessible, reducing
cable tensioning adjustments. The brakes are via a very effective and
easy to use hydraulic hand brake and the parking brake is a one-way
valve you can set and pump the brake lever to set, so no cables to
stick or parking brake problems. If used as a trainer, you won't likely
have student pilots riding the brakes on a CT, since the brake is
mounted in the center of the console. There are no gyroscopic
instruments to wear out. All the avionics except backup altimeter and
backup airspeed are solid state. Solid state equipment usually dies
during the warranty period or lasts forever. The airframe, built of
carbon fiber and Kevlar (the stuff bullet proof vests are made of),
should be very strong and long lasting. The cowling is easily removed
and everything on the engine is easy to get to. The fuel gauges are
tubes that show actual fuel and are visible in the cockpit, very simple
and effective with no pickups to go bad or anything. Even the position
and beacon lighting is LED based, so solid state and probably never has
to be replaced.

The TS Pictorial Pilot autopilot did GPSS off the GPSMAP 396, including
course intercepts and sequencing based on the programmed route. If it
weren't so fun to hand fly, you could have the autopilot do a whole
trip except the take off and landing.

Steep turns are very easy in the plane and stalls consist of a mushing
and the angle of attack indicator on the EFIS-D100 indicating in the
red area. Stalls are for the most part non-events.

The seats in the 2006 model were a bit nicer than the 2005. More
padding, better back support, and more comfortable seat belts, and even
more leg room. Visibility is incredible, there is a sunroof right over
the seats, so you can look to see what you're turning into even though
it is a high wing. The windshield wraps around the top of the plane, so
you can lean forward and see straight up there as well. The side
windows are great, with no struts or anything to block your view and
are large enough to easily see out of. The cabin is very roomy, with
lots of head room, leg room and elbow room.

The open and free feeling of the cabin has really helped to get people
interested in the freedom of learning to fly. It also looks "friendly."
People flock to the plane whenever I fly it somewhere. The instrument
panel is well configured without a myriad of cloudy dials to intimidate
prospective pilots.

Oh, and it doesn't leak oil or gas, doesn't have rivets that pop out,
aluminum to crack, or most of the things people have to overlook when
they go to train in a lot of the existing fleet. It feels solid. It
doesn't take a huge leap of faith for people to see themselves flying
in it. Oh, and moving it around on the ground is really easy for even
one person.

I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
about it for a while now.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Jay Honeck

January 1st 07, 04:30 AM

> I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
> about it for a while now.

Don't feel bad, Doug -- I did the same thing after my flight in a CT.
It's just a great airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tobias Schnell

January 1st 07, 05:51 AM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:41:37 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Those fees are only for IFR flights.

And there ae no fees for aircraft under 2 tons MTOW, so most of the
private IFR flights are excluded.

Tobias

Mxsmanic

January 1st 07, 08:46 AM

Doug Spencer writes:

> With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
> about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
> that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
> the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.
>
> I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
> The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
> axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
> with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
> is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

You can fly 650 or 1000 miles on a Light Sport license? I thought all
the ones other than Private Pilot were distance-limited (?).

> The requirement for a medical certificate for a private pilot for
> personal flying is absurd considering all the open space when flying in
> most areas.

Absurd is a strong word, but I'm not sure I see the need for a strict
medical certificate for anyone who isn't carrying paying passengers.
Even the medicals for people who are are a bit on the extreme side.

> The CT, for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
> great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
> straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
> construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
> compartment during a crash.

There isn't any kind of construction that can prevent the engine from
moving in a crash. These features do not harm, I suppose, and they
may help in a narrow range of survivable crashes, but they won't make
any different in a serious accident, or in a very minor accident.

As with cars, safety devices can create a false sense of security and
skewed priorities. The real objective, after all, is to avoid an
accident, not to try to find ways to survive it.

> Why would allowing currently certificated planes to be constructed
> to similar consensus standards be any worse?

The market isn't always the ideal party to evaluate safety. People
tend to sacrifice safety for price, often more than they realize.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

January 1st 07, 09:08 AM

Doug Spencer writes:

> The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
> manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS.

What is a 912ULS? How can nighttime be a problem for an engine??
Does it get scared in the dark?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

January 1st 07, 09:16 AM

Ken Chaddock writes:

> Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

In both a theoretical and practical sense.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

January 1st 07, 09:19 AM

Ken Chaddock writes:

> Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
> user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
> isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
> really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
> difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

The real thing isn't close to the real thing, either. Flying a tin
can is not the same as flying big iron, and flying big iron is not the
same as flying a fighter aircraft, and flying a fighter is not the
same as being a bush pilot, and being a bush pilot is not the same as
piloting a helicopter.

Flying a real aircraft is different from flying a simulator, but
flying different aircraft in different situations involve similar
differences, so despite what some pilots with circumscribed experience
may believe, flying one aircraft in one situation doesn't necessarily
say much of anything about flying other aircraft in other situations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Roger[_4_]

January 1st 07, 11:55 AM

On 31 Dec 2006 06:44:04 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>
>I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
>sinker.
>

Not at all.
I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
learning a musical instrument.

>The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
>the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
>the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
>this stereotype ever since.

Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
you killed

>
>It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

This too I disagree with.
Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

>
>Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In

Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
thought I was crazy.

>fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
>truth.

Now what I do and do not believe. I do not believe it takes any
special intelligence to lean to fly, nor do I believe in the macho
line as that can get a pilot killed, but it does as you have already
said, take dedication, time, and money.

You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
staggering.

I have no reason to think our area of the country is much different
than most others although I am sure there are exceptions in both
directions. But the statistics alone have eliminated a third of the
drivers from even being able to qualify for a license including the
sport license. Over a third in our county could not qualify for the
sport pilot license.

Having driven an average of over 30,000 miles a year since I was a
teen ager and I'm well on my way to 67 that makes about 50 years of
driving or 1.5 million miles. Given the people I have worked with,
socialized with, and just see around work and town I would eliminate
at least half of the 2/3rds left due to the reasons given in the
previous paragraph plus some are afraid to fly in anything be it large
or small. . They just are not suited for flying. None of these things
actually relate to intelligence or the need to be macho. They are
people I would be afraid to be around were they flying.

So we are down to 1/3 of the drivers out there that probably would be
capable of getting a license "If they wanted to do so", but only a
tiny fraction are, or would be interested. Of those interested a
portion would not follow through due to resistance from a spouse or
family. Part of them would not follow through due to cost even though
flying is not terribly expensive compared to some other "sports" or
pastimes but there are a lot of people out there that are just making
ends meet. . Part of them would not follow through as they would not
be willing to put in the time required to get the license and part of
them would not follow through just due to the inconvenience of no
airport close enough to suit them. Let's face it. There are few areas
where you could keep a plane in your garage and legally take off from
the road out front.

I would make an educated guess that no more than 10% of the drivers
would actually try to get a pilots license if time, money, family,
and qualifications were no problem.

However 10% is a lot of people but time, money, family, and
qualifications are in reality a problem for many of those. You only
need look at the number making poverty level wages to see that number
dwindel even more.

>
>An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
>Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
>Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
>This involved:
>
>1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)

You do have to know what to look for.

>2. Loading the plane

don't forget the weight and balance.

>3. Starting the plane
>4. Programming two GPS's

Where most people have a problem with VCRs?

>5. Taking off, and turning to course.

Don't forget the run up and all the checks prior to departure.
They are going to say: "You have to do all those checks to make sure
the engine is safe?"

>6. Climbing to altitude
>7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a

How many students have found the flight planning to be a daunting
task? We may do them in our heads now, but at one time they were
work.

>hundred times) to Racine.
>8. Land.

>
>Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
>that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
>maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
>literally as easy as falling off a log.

Again, to your and me.
How ever I've had ATC give me some routings that took me wayyyyy out
of the way. I've said before it seemed like they sent me half way to
Kentucky the one time I went around the south end of Lake Michigan
IFR.

To your and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

>I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and

There was nothing I found difficult, but a lot of it was time
consuming such as the flight planning and that was work. However I
don't figure work has to be difficult. It just took a lot of time.

>commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
>They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
>to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

If I can see to get up and I can see to get down without ice of
thunderstorms in between then I'll go. There is nothing like
descending into the clouds full of torrential rain, breaking out just
above minimums and seeing the runway right where the instruments say
it should be. I don't think I'll ever get over that feeling.
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.

To most who finally make the grade it is. To those who haven't
learned how it's a daunting task. OTOH I've set back and watched a 14
year old fly the Deb on a triangular course of roughly 60 miles, who
after just a bit of coaching could; hold altitude, hold altitude in
turns to the proper heading, and get us back home close to the flight
plan time. Conversely I've had experienced pilots having me say...I
will not get sick in my own airplane, I ... will... not... get ...
sick...inmyownairplane... from a PIO (2 Geeessss out of the bottom and
zzeeeroooo over the top) because they have been relying on the VSI to
hold altitude in the planes they fly.

I see only one real difference between most pilots and "ground
pounders'. It has nothing to do with intelligence or macho attitude.
It is one simple thing. Our love for flying which many can not
comprehend even when shown. Other times you take a non flyer up and
the transformation is miraculous.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

January 1st 07, 11:57 AM

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:55:51 -0600, (Scott Post)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>>> they are under pressure.
>>
>>No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
>>reality, for better or for worse.
>>
>>Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
>>instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
>>obvious.
>
>I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
>but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
because I have somebody else's airplane.
>
> http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

January 1st 07, 12:03 PM

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
>> is the training so complex and difficult?
>
>Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
>and AOPA have grappled with for decades.
>
>There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
>period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
>you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
>training syllabus.
<snip>

>After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
>were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
>(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
>more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

We must have about 8 or 10 planes on the field that qualify for light
sport aircraft and I'm guessing we have about a dozen pilots about
half of which are new.

>
>(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
>rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
>about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
>UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
>older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
>fail.)
Not necessiarily fear of failure. More likely a knowledge they would
be unlikely to pass.

We have a few of those too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jay Honeck

January 1st 07, 01:23 PM

> Terrorists kill the pilots and take over an airliner. Passengers overpower
> the terrorists. Two people come forward and say they will land the 747:
> One says he just learned to fly an ultralight.
> The other says he mostly stays in a room and pretends to fly a 747 on a
> borrowed computer and has 10,000 hrs in his pretend 747.
> Who has the best chance of landing the plane?
> Who would the other passengers want at the controls?

Personally, I'd vote for the sim pilot.**

In the scenario you have constructed, 10,000 hours flying a 747
simulator would be much more valuable than flying a hang glider.
Here's why:

Depending on how rigorous the sim pilot recreated "real life", he would
immediately be able to recognize proper approach speeds, where the
flaps and gear controls are, how to engage (or disengage) the
autopilot, etc. He may even know stall speed for a given load, proper
target deck angle for the approach -- the sim recreates all of this
stuff with amazing clarity and precision.

Coincidentally, just yesterday we had a REAL 747 pilot flying the Kiwi,
in a head-to-head test of Flight Simulator 2004 versus the new Flight
Simulator X. (FS2004 won the competition, BTW, thanks to much better
frame rates -- but that's another thread.) He gave the sim his stamp
of approval, with everything working as expected, just like the real
aircraft.

I doubt the hang glider pilot would know how to tune the radio, let
alone land. Flying an airliner is NOT "flying", in the GA sense of the
word. Watching our 747 pilot fly the Kiwi was an education in itself,
as his movements were barely perceptible, and he was thinking several
minutes ahead of the plane in order to accomplish a smooth approach and
landing.

** - Note: My vote is qualified, depending on the quality of the
simmer's equipment. If he's been running Flight Sim '98 on an old
Pentium I, with a 10" screen, using a mouse and keyboard to control it,
I'll throw my vote to the hang glider dude...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

January 1st 07, 01:24 PM

> if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
> because I have somebody else's airplane.
> >
> > http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg

Good one!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

January 1st 07, 02:04 PM

> >> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
> >> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
> >
> >I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
> >sinker.
> >
>
> Not at all.

I think you're responding to a mix of my comments and MX's. In the
narrative, above, I was tellihng HIM that *he* had fallen for it -- not
anyone else.

> I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
> It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
> takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
> population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
> disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
> is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
> learning a musical instrument.

I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

Which doesn't mean I was ever unsafe in the first 500 hours, BTW. But
I was playing chopsticks, instead of Beethoven's Fifth.

> >The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> >public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> >they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> >the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> >the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> >this stereotype ever since.
>
> Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
> few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
> are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
> mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
> you killed

Agree.

Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"
attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing. It's taken me a long
time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
be terribly difficult.

I think this attitude is what gives many airports their intimidating
persona, which has always adversely affected new pilots. We, as
pilots, need to become more welcoming and positive about what we love,
if we hope to attract new believers. (This really IS a religious
thing, BTW... ;-)

> >It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> >people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>
> This too I disagree with.
> Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
> set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
the training weed out the incompetents.

To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
bad attitude.

> >