GA is priceless

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

In article . net,
"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.