On Mar 20, 12:50*pm, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson

wrote:
Denny wrote:
Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
"fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
etc...

As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.

No way can I find fault with the OP for making this observation. *

The Bo earned the title due to the group of pilots who were flying it.
That same group is now moving into the Cirrus. As the majority of the
pilots in these two planes come from the same groups *the title is
appropriate even if said planes were docile and forgiving which they
definitely are not.

Here's a couple of figures.
When I went to proficiency training there were 63 of us. Only 3 had
ever done full stalls in the Bo. Most of those pilots didn't even like
doing steep turns.

Over the years I have twice had to take evasive action from someone
being where they weren't supposed to be. * One was in the dark. *These
involved putting the plane in attitudes that certainly could be
considered unusual and maneuvering at the very limits for the airplane
close to the ground and in the pattern.

Just an observation *but at our airport (not the same one Denny flies
out of, but just a hop skip and a jump away) of the pilots who have
had an incident over the last 20 years over half have been Lawyers,
Doctors, judges and other professionals. *Right now I can only think
of two who were "normal people"



Me? I'm a professional, or rather a retired one, just not one of the
above.


Just an observation, but more aircraft accidents involve commercial
pilots than any other single profession.
But so what, why does one need to categorise aircraft accidents by the
profession of the pilot? why not the color of his skin or their sex?
So more than half of incidents involved professionals, but you can
only think of 2 that were "normal people" So from your own
admission , as a professional, you are a. not normal. and b. since
you only know 2 people who were normal who had incidents and yet you
know that more than half who had incidents were professionals you are
implying that there have only been been about 5 incidents, since if
you knew there were 6 or more and only 2 were normal you would have
said at least 2/3 or more were professionals. So 5 incidents in 20
years is hardly enough to make any statistically meaningful
observations on the link between ones profession and the likliehood of
having an accident. And of those 5 incidents , 3 of which involved the
professions of doctor, lawyer , judge and other profession ( hang on
thats 4 ?), are you able to further advise us on whether doctors or
lawyers are worse? And I am confused as to how you can be a
professional but not one of the above which included "other
professionals"? What use is it to state that more than half of
incidents involved professionals unless it is stated in comparison to
the % of pilots that are what you would define as professionals?
What I detect here is typical professional envy, which as usual gets
directed at those professions that are generally considered as being
above the other professions by virtue of the intelligence and
remuneration associated with them.

Me? Im a professional ( one of the above ) and a normal person.
Terry