28 years, 9000 hours

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:

his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.

Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
should be selling any of those airplane thingies.

I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:

his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.

Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
should be selling any of those airplane thingies.

I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.

- Andrew

Andrew,

I agree with you completely. The moral descision was just fluff and icing
for the real reasons that might be hard for him to admit as the sole causes.
The biggest thing was money and second to that was age and health. That's
just what I got from it. Personally, I don't think he needs to apologize
for either. Both of those reasons are good enough and I respect all that he
has and is accomplishing in aviation.

Kobra

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:10:50 -0500, Kobra wrote:

The biggest thing was money and second to that was age and
health.
[...]
Both of those reasons are good enough
and I respect all that he has and is accomplishing in aviation.

Those make good reasons to alter his flying, I agree. That's a very
responsible - if difficult - choice.

It still doesn't explain the decision to junk what at least appeared to
be a perfectly fine aircraft.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote in news:fqh8mi$ilk$3
@taco.int.tagonline.com:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:

his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.

Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
should be selling any of those airplane thingies.

I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.


Made perfect sense to me, though I would have been much more reluctant to
junk than he was.


Bertie