I'm not a real Pilot?

Judah writes:

An ultralight leaves the ground. A simulator does not.

So does a hot-air balloon, but both would be a waste of time for me.

So personal interaction and development of relationships between people on a
USENET forum doesn't count?

Not really. People who use USENET for that need to get a life.

Some people don't understand society.

Some people think every venue is a treehouse club.

I didn't say it was justified. I just pointed out the obvious reality.

Some people abuse even in the absence of stabs.

One thing that's true about USENET is that it resembles alcohol in that it
causes people to show their true personalities. It turns out that there are a
lot of nasty people in the world, but most of them pretend to be nice in
face-to-face encounters. On USENET, they are less inhibited and one can see
how unpleasant they truly are. It's a bit sad.

How do you know?

I've looked at the requirements.

In your comments. For example this comment:
An ultralight is not an aircraft in my book. A simulator is closer to
the real thing.

What does that have to do with pride? I just don't see anything interesting
about an ultralight. Just being in the air by any means possible does not
interest me. Much of my interest in aviation is in aircraft and procedures,
not just having the wind in my hair.

The two sentences above are contradictory. You hold so much pride that the
opinion and respect of the pilots on this group is beneath you.

No, I just don't care. Trees don't care about opinions or respect, either,
but that doesn't mean that trees are proud.

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

Walt writes:

I once flew in an ultralight one August evening near Decorah, Iowa (my
daughter was going to Luther College at the time). Flying at near
treetop level in perfectly still air, taking in the sights and smells
of the woods and fields (and having the occasional bug smash into the
face mask of my helmet) it was, in my book, as close to pure flight as
I've gotten. And, while I don't have nearly the experience of many
people on this list, I've flown stuff from KC-135's to gliders.

Good for you. But I happen to take quite an interest in instrument flight.
How many ultralights are certified for IFR? How many have an FMC and can
autoland?

It's fine if you like strong sensations, wind and weather, and so on. But not
everyone who is attracted to aviation shares those preferences.

Nothing compares to real life, my friend.

A good simulation does.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

An ultralight leaves the ground. A simulator does not.

So does a hot-air balloon, but both would be a waste of time for me.

So personal interaction and development of relationships between
people on a USENET forum doesn't count?

Not really. People who use USENET for that need to get a life.

Some people don't understand society.

Some people think every venue is a treehouse club.

I didn't say it was justified. I just pointed out the obvious
reality.

Some people abuse even in the absence of stabs.

One thing that's true about USENET is that it resembles alcohol in
that it causes people to show their true personalities. It turns out
that there are a lot of nasty people in the world, but most of them
pretend to be nice in face-to-face encounters. On USENET, they are
less inhibited and one can see how unpleasant they truly are. It's a
bit sad.

How do you know?

I've looked at the requirements.

In your comments. For example this comment:
An ultralight is not an aircraft in my book. A simulator is closer
to the real thing.

What does that have to do with pride? I just don't see anything
interesting about an ultralight. Just being in the air by any means
possible does not interest me. Much of my interest in aviation is in
aircraft and procedures, not just having the wind in my hair.

The two sentences above are contradictory. You hold so much pride
that the opinion and respect of the pilots on this group is beneath
you.

No, I just don't care. Trees don't care about opinions or respect,
either, but that doesn't mean that trees are proud.

And they have brains made of wood!

Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com writes:

What are you talking about? We know that only rich people can afford to
fly,
right?

Ironically, some commercial pilots don't make enough to be able to fly on
their own for pleasure.

I'm not aware of anyone in that catagory. Not to say that there isn't, but
would seem to be the exception.


Why my nephew makes so much money on his two part time flying jobs (one
corporate and one charter - both right seat in King Air's) that he only
needs one other job (working the desk a FBO) to pay the rent.

Does he fly for pleasure?

Yes.

If he's really serious about flying, he'll skip the
rent and pay to rent an airplane instead.

I know another guy that's been a flight instructor for 25-30 years -
between
him and his wife, they make so much money that they actually own a
house!!!

They could sell the house and use the money to buy an aging small aircraft
...
if they were really serious about flying, of course.


He already has his own airplane.


--
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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

I don't hear anyone saying that about piloting either. To say that
would be as extreme as saying that one must be wealthy in order to fly.
Neither is accurate.

Many people here have said "you can fly if you really want to," the
implication being that if you are not willing to make heroic sacrifices
to fly, you don't deserve to be a pilot. If you aren't willing to take
out a second mortgage to pay for your lessons, you haven't got the Right
Stuff. If you aren't willing to undergo half a million dollars' worth
of tests to prove that you deserve a medical, you're not worthy to slip
the surly bonds of Earth. If you aren't willing to spend every
available waking hour studying or taking lessons, you're just not
serious about flying. All of this demonstrates a pretty extreme
viewpoint to me.

No one has implied anything of the sort. We simply have indicated that if one
were interested in learning to fly, one could do so even without being
wealthy. There is no heroic sacrifice required, and no pilot that I know
spent every waking hour studying or taking lessons. In fact most pilots learn
by taking at most a lesson or two a week, and usually far fewer.

You yourself posted an estimate that it would cost $17,000 to learn to fly.
In my local area, it's closer to $10,000, and I suspect one could do it in a
lower-cost neighborhood for as low as $6,000.

This cost would be spread out over a year or two even without financing
(since you typically pay as you go). With financing, it could be spread out
over a 5-7 year period. Even using your numbers, then, $17,000 over 60 months
at a 7% interest rate comes to $337/month. Using mine, $10,000 over 60 months
at 6% would be $193/month.

That's less than $7/day.

Certainly, these amounts are achievable for most people who might desire to
learn to fly, even someone who makes $30,000/yr. For someone who earns
$30,000/yr, there may be other priorities besides flying, and he may choose
to spend his money elsewhere. Certainly that is understandable.

But the belief that one must be wealthy in order to learn to fly is a falacy.
One must merely be willing to spend the money.

I don't see why any hobby should be accessible only to the most extreme
fanatics. Why is it unacceptable to be moderately interested in
aviation, and yet still have a life outside of flying?

One need not be an extreme fanatic to access the hobby of flying. One may be
moderately interested, and choose to fly only when he has funds available. He
might start off by spending just $50 to take an introductory lesson - he
might even do the same at several flight schools within a reasonable distance
to explore different types of aircrafts and different types of training.
Then, if he was able to save a few hundred dollars, he might go and take a
lesson or two. Hopefully, he would be able to save up a few hundred dollars
more than once in his lifetime.

As I said before, it could cost as low as $7/day. I know people who spend
that smoking cigarrettes, and certainly the benefits of flying far outweigh
the benefits of cigarrettes.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Good for you. But I happen to take quite an interest in instrument
flight. How many ultralights are certified for IFR? How many have an
FMC and can autoland?

Then apparently, you don't take interest in flight.

You take interest in avionics.

"Walt" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 31, 11:02 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:
Actually, there are avenues available that allow even people who have
failed
a medical to pilot an aircraft. Ultralights, for example.

An ultralight is not an aircraft in my book. A simulator is closer to
the
real thing.

Oh, man.

I once flew in an ultralight one August evening near Decorah, Iowa (my
daughter was going to Luther College at the time). Flying at near
treetop level in perfectly still air, taking in the sights and smells
of the woods and fields (and having the occasional bug smash into the
face mask of my helmet) it was, in my book, as close to pure flight as
I've gotten. And, while I don't have nearly the experience of many
people on this list, I've flown stuff from KC-135's to gliders.

Nothing compares to real life, my friend.


Can I ever relate to that. I can remember many cross country flights where
we often had to grab a little altitude from time to time, to cross power
lines and sometimes even fences. The lower and slower, the more real it
seems to become.

I have also had the opportunity on a few occasions to fly with the hawks. At
one of our hang gliding locations, it was not at all uncommon to either
follow or be followed, up and down the ridge line, by hawks often coming
within 50' of your wing tips.

But it doesn't take the fun out of GA either.

Thanks for refreshing the memories.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Walt writes:

I once flew in an ultralight one August evening near Decorah, Iowa (my
daughter was going to Luther College at the time). Flying at near
treetop level in perfectly still air, taking in the sights and smells
of the woods and fields (and having the occasional bug smash into the
face mask of my helmet) it was, in my book, as close to pure flight as
I've gotten. And, while I don't have nearly the experience of many
people on this list, I've flown stuff from KC-135's to gliders.

Good for you. But I happen to take quite an interest in instrument
flight.
How many ultralights are certified for IFR? How many have an FMC and can
autoland?

It's fine if you like strong sensations, wind and weather, and so on. But
not
everyone who is attracted to aviation shares those preferences.

Nothing compares to real life, my friend.

A good simulation does.


Nothing could possible be narrow than your mind, with the exception of your
real life experiences.

Not really. People who use USENET for that need to get a life.

As, by your definition, do Pen Pals, or people who talk on the telephone, or
people who send EMail.

Some people think every venue is a treehouse club.

The He-Man Pilot-Hater's club!
"Don't drink the avgas! It's Spoiled!"

What does that have to do with pride? I just don't see anything
interesting about an ultralight. Just being in the air by any means
possible does not interest me. Much of my interest in aviation is in
aircraft and procedures, not just having the wind in my hair.

So why is your comment any different than the comments from pilots about
"real flying" and simulation? Because you didn't mean to say what you said,
but instead meant just that you are not interested in ultralights? Perhaps
that is what the pilots who said that simulation is not real flying meant
too.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

vs. a simulator only gamer, that just thinks he is a pilot, and never
flys
at all.

Not really any different. As I've said, people always look for something
that
distinguishes themselves from others, and then set it as a threshold for
some
level of competence to which they wish to lay claim and from which they
wish
to exclude others. The actual distinguishing feature shifts constantly so
that it always falls in just the right place, and in most cases it is very
trivial indeed from an objective standpoint.


What would you know about objectivity, you can't even get a grip on reality.

And who gives a **** want you said, you make it crystal clear you know
absolutly nothing about people and human behavior by your complete inability
to participate in a public forum.

And we have done nothing to exclude you, you exclude yourself by refusing
EVEN a single, read *ONE*, flying lesson. Just an empty and endless list of
EXCUSES as to why you can't.

You're just and endless river of childish BS.