Kirk Stant wrote:

Mark, your attitude scares me a bit. Sorry, but flying should be a
bit intimidating -

Nowhere in my post did I say hang gliding or ultralight
flying, especially given the current rules, was safe. I simply
don't have enough time doing either to evaluate that. My
comments only referred to barriers to entry to the sport,
i.e. "hassle factor." If you think there was any claim
in that post that evaluated the safety or fatality rate in
either sport, please reread the post.

The whole ultralight scene totally scares me. Not that the majority
of ultralight pilots don't fly relatively safely, but the attitude
that "I can just jump into it and fly around, just like an ATV with
wings" leads to some really scary flying - and some sad, stupid,
unnecessary deaths, like we just had out at our glider field a few
weeks ago.

Can you tell me of any aviation accident with a pilot of
any training level that wasn't "sad, stupid, and unecessary" ?

As far as your particular affinity for ultralights goes, I hear
ya. I must say I spent sevral days and a lot of kicking dust
before flying it. I approached it just like any new aircraft:
read the manual, read the common accidents, inspect the craft
(castle nuts without cotter keys, is this wire supposed to be unloaded?,
what about negative G's? Stall speed? Crosswinds? Turbulence?
C.G.? This CG business was a real biggie).
Then find an A&P and BFI with umpteen accident free hours (any
idiot can have hours, how many are accident free?).
There were several other things that made me SUPER scared (no
shoulder harnesses or parachutes), and
some mistakes (open cockpit means hats get blown about and double
goggles are a good idea, good thing I wasn't the pilot). There
was also one amazing confidence builder (ballistic parachute).
If you haven't read about saves made by these things, I highly
recommend it. I don't think I'll become an avid ultralight
pilot, but it was an AMAZING eye opener and I'd highly recommend
one flight with someone you've evaluated to your level of
comfort. A wing that stalls at 18 mph is an amazing thing.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of useless regulation - what I
believe is needed (in all flying activities) is a lot of good training
and knowledge about what can kill you. Thats what all the check rides
are about - and without them anyone is just playing russian roulette
with wings.


I'm convinced the most interesting training absolutely does not
improve safety, but only maintains the same level of safety
while improving capability. Student pilots solo because they
are safe, then train to fly further, higher, and with passengers,
and in more interesting wind and weather (increasing capability).

I believe the FAA should divide a LOT of PTS stuff out as
endorsements. I believe all of these things should be
endorsements, and NOT part of the PTS for any
Sport Pilot license:

1. Radio use
2. Night flying
3. Instrument training
4. Airspace flying (D, C, B, A)
5. Cross-country flying
6. Flight at altitude over 12,500
7. Assembly/disassembly of aircraft (I mean beyond preflight)

I think the FAA has, over time, divided out a lot of stuff
as endorsements, and I think this is great. Launches,
high-perf, complex, tailwheel, pressurization, IPC,
solo in new cat/class, etc. I'm really excited about this
trend. When I talk about "hassle factor" I'm really
saying that it's a shame that a newbie pilot can't take
a passenger up in a 2-33 without a checkride covering 1-7.

Hassle factor? Name one really worthwhile activity that doesn't
require lots of time, dedication, money, sweat, studying, etc.

Sex. Think about it...

That's what makes it worthwhile! Who do you think gets more outa glider
flight, the guy who shows up at 9 am, rigs his ship, washes every bit
of it (even a 1-26!), takes the lowest tow possible, flies regardless
of the conditions (as long as it's safe) as long as he can, then puts
his ship away and hangs around BS-ing with the locals watching the sun
set - or the guy who only comes out to the field on a perfect day,
reserves a plane from a commercial operator, takes a high tow, flies
exactly 1.0 locally, lands, pays his bill, then leaves?

I think the pilot should chose how much he wants to get out of
flying, and if his flying simply doesn't involve 1-7, requiring
it is a burden. I know one pilot who has a Waco and a Citabria.
He was burdened by the 1-7, and the high-performance endorsement
was off the mark (he needed it to fly a 210 hp with fixed prop).

This guy flies day VFR in G and E airspace locally, and never
sees 5000 feet. He just loves going up at every chance
and making donuts in the sky.

Who gets more out of gliding is not mine to determine. If
someone likes a 1-26 because it can be left in the rain and
not disassembled (and doesn't even know how) then jolly for him.
If someone else wants to put lights on his glider,
fly in clouds at 22,000 feet, and go 500km+, hey, that's
cool too...

When flight
currency requirements start becoming hard to maintain, it's a good
sign to stop pretending to be current in that activity and stick to
something simpler.

I couldn't agree more. I've largely given up trying to
maintain my multi-engine currency, and my IFR is rusty enough
that my personal minimums are way up (I won't do an ILS to mins).
Trying to keep all those currencies has just been too
much of a hassle...

Think about it - a lot of times the instructor
giving the checkride has less time and experience than the pilot
getting the check - so teach him a thing or two!


Good idea, I hope so.

Bah Humbug (It's that season again - havn't flown in a couple of
weeks)

Merry Chrismas! I think for Christmas I might be getting
a tiny baby girl. What's in your stocking? :-P


Kirk
66

Mark
35 (but I always tell the ladies I'm 21)


"rec.aviation.soaring - BS free since Dec 11, 2003 at 10:55 PST"