GA is priceless

Jay Honeck writes:

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
dials as the simplest aircraft.

Aircraft also move in three dimensions, whereas automobiles move in
only two. Already motorcycles are more complex than cars because they
must also lean in turns, but they are still simpler than aircraft.

John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
this stereotype ever since.

Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
even without these exaggerations.

It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

It's only one of many reasons. The cost of flying in time and money
puts off a great many people, as do medical requirements and safety
issues.

Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier.

Are there still women falling for that?

In fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
truth.

Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

This involved:

1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
2. Loading the plane
3. Starting the plane
4. Programming two GPS's
5. Taking off, and turning to course.
6. Climbing to altitude
7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
hundred times) to Racine.
8. Land.

Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
literally as easy as falling off a log.

Going there in a car involves:

1. Loading the car.
2. Starting the car.
3. Driving onto the highway and following the signs.
4. Pulling into a parking place.

As you can see, it's a lot easier than flying.

I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious.

I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg


--
Scott Post

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
even without these exaggerations.

Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.
You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
themselves. Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like. I would go
on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly insult the very
people who have made this possible for you and on whom you depend.

Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

How would you know? Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give
out your credit card number first?

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Jay Honeck writes:

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the
general public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt
how cool they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
dials as the simplest aircraft.

Who needs a control panel in the simplest of aircraft?

http://www.jet-man.com/actuel_eng.html

Neil

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
training syllabus.

Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
relatively severe limitations on flying.

It's kinda like the old saying "An elephant is a horse designed by a
committee." After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
fail.)

Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
to support the GA infrastructure?

FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
and we need them NOW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation).

I doubt that sitting in front of your computer playing MSFS gives you the
same feeling that I get when I take a late evening flight after work. I
cruise along in the glassy-smooth air with the sun on the horizon and all my
problems left far below and gone from my concsiousness. I do not need to
actually go anywhere, the experience itself is enough - it is a freedom and
an internal peace that I cannot describe and that I cannot get from any
other activity.

I doubt that playing MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am
soaring my hang glider and a hawk joins me in the thermal off of my wingtip,
completely unafraid of the large "bird" he is sharing the thermal with, and
we rise to 6,000 feet together.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am in a
sailplane scratching for lift so I can make it back to the airport, or
looking down from 10,000 feet having gotten there using nothing more than
thermals.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I see the
runway appear out of the mist at DH on an ILS, or the feeling of a perfectly
executed loop or hammerhead.

There is mystical significance in the actual experience that you will never
understand because your mind is closed and you think you already know
everything there is to know. I feel sorry for you.

BDS

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:33:58 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

For example, to go somewhere in an elevator, all you have to do is
push a button. It's about the easiest type of discretionary
transportation (one that gives you a choice of destinations) that
exists. As a result, it is widely accepted and used--elevators
transport more people than any other forms of transportation.
However, the simplicity of an elevator's use also means that there are
very few elevator enthusiasts, as the enthusiast requires complexity
to retain his interest.

Apparently, you've not ever seen the behind the scenes equipment and
complexity that goes into play to make button push so easy and
effective. Especially in modern high-rise buildings, there are embedded
computer systems to handle queuing and parking of elevators on
particular floors at different busy times, electrical and hydraulic
systems, algorithms to avoid a sudden start or stop of the elevator to
improve passenger comfort.

I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
average general aviation aircraft. General aviation aircraft have the
advantage of allowing the pilot to travel literally anywhere in the
world, rather than just to the 6th floor. Part of the interest of
flying is visiting far away places, friends, family, and taking people
on a flight to see their world from a unique perspective. You can't get
that from a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

BDS writes:

Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.

A great many users of simulators for training in real-world flight
would disagree with you.

You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
themselves.

They owe their safety in the air to people like me, who design the
instruments and systems that allow them to stay alive while flying.
However, I don't expect them to salute me. And I don't salute them.

Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
activity.

I would go on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly
insult the very people who have made this possible for you and on
whom you depend.

Failing to bow and scrape before them is not an insult. And if one
tallies the personal attacks exchanged on this newsgroup, one finds
that I'm at the bottom of the list.

How would you know?

I have many female friends.

Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give out your
credit card number first?

Regularly. Virtually all of my friends are women. I wish more of
them were interested in aviation.

What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

My research into training requirements.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

Then it is not my imagination.

There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
training syllabus.

What parts could be safely removed? And what things (if any) should
be added?

Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
relatively severe limitations on flying.

I suppose the FAA has been conditioned to emphasize safety at all
costs. While I can understand and support this position, I think that
some allowances can be made for people who potentially endanger only
themselves. A solitary pilot is unlikely to kill anyone besides
himself through his own incompetence. Carrying passengers is a bit
different ... however, there are no special requirements to carry
passengers in a car, so I'm not sure why there should be in an
airplane. As long as it's not for hire, of course.

After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

Unfortunately, that fear is probably justified. Today's society is
based on fear.

I'm sure you've heard about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states
"You can fly without a medical UNLESS you have been denied a medical."

I've heard of it, and it mystifies me.

This has made an awful lot of older guys simply not try for the medical,
for fear that they will fail.

The medical requirements for private pilots are excessive in a number
of ways.

Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
to support the GA infrastructure?

From what I've read, the current system allows a lot of undertrained
pilots to slip through, while simultaneously locking out many
potentially good pilots.

FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
and we need them NOW.

There are cost issues that get in the way. But fear is a big factor:
it influences liability, insurance, licensing requirements,
regulation, and many other aspects of flying (and many other
activities in society). People need to stop being so afraid of
everything. No pain, no gain.

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

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

There are a few fields a fairly short flight away from you that ARE
teaching primarily sport pilots now.

http://www.stantonairfield.com/ in Stanton, MN is a very nice turf
field with a few FlightDesign CTs that have been extremely popular with
new pilots training for sport pilot and private pilots as well. The
Light Sport aircraft have also garnered very favorable stories in the
local news, both television and print. Everyone who sees or flies the
CT really enjoys the experience.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/