GA is priceless

On 1 Jan 2007 06:04:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,

I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
sinker.


Not at all.

I think you're responding to a mix of my comments and MX's. In the
narrative, above, I was tellihng HIM that *he* had fallen for it -- not
anyone else.

Damn attributes:-))

I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
learning a musical instrument.

I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

I think it, like skating is a mixture of both. There is a great deal
of rote learning at first, then there is the repetitive practice with
each maneuver building from what has gone before. Ground reference
maneuvers aid pattern work. Stalls not only help to keep the student
out of trouble they aid in learning to land. Eventually the pilot who
practices enough will get a "feel" for the maneuvers be they the basic
ones or aerobatic. I'd liken this stage to the pilots who never
progress beyond flying stabilized patterns and never gain the feel and
flexibility to have the controllers at Oshkosh tell them what to do
when and where to set down.


I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

I *knew* how to land one early on but it took a long time before I
could do a decent job of it. :-))

Which doesn't mean I was ever unsafe in the first 500 hours, BTW. But
I was playing chopsticks, instead of Beethoven's Fifth.

I think most "real" pilots can identify with that.

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. 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.

Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
you killed

Agree.

Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"

Here the pilot has to walk a fine line between sounding like a know it
all and projecting an air of confidence that will instill confidence
in the passenger(s)

Following a sudden bump with "Ohhhh...****! What the devil was that?,
or is that floppy thing still hooked on to the wind is not exactly the
thing to do either. :-))

OTOH I do have to plead guilty to having had at least a fleeting
though of doing such with a couple of passengers over the years.

attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing. It's taken me a long
time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
be terribly difficult.

That;s kinda, sorta, almost, showing confidence is arrogant while not
showing it is projecting incompetence. Damned if we do and damned if
we don't.:-))


I think this attitude is what gives many airports their intimidating
persona, which has always adversely affected new pilots. We, as
pilots, need to become more welcoming and positive about what we love,

If you pull into Midland's Barstow Airport (3BS) and spot a hanger
with a *bunch* of cars around it, all a newbie would have to do is go
over and introduce themselves, ask a few questions, and it's quite
likely some one would take them for a ride in any thing from a Sonex
to a Bonanza or even a 310.

if we hope to attract new believers. (This really IS a religious
thing, BTW... ;-)

Amen!
And it's a religion to which I can subscribe with a clear conscience.


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.

This too I disagree with.
Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
the training weed out the incompetents.

I try. We have a very active group of pilots here at Midland (3BS) and
I described the EAA Chapter 1093 activities in another post. When it
comes to the Young Eagles program I try to get a parent or two to go
along. Some members thing we should only be taking kids but when you
look at the fence hangers look at dad's or mom's eyes. You can tell
some of them want to go as bad or even worse than the kid. One of my
most rewarding projects was being chairman of the "Kids to Oshkosh"
program for quite a few years.



To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
bad attitude.

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. In

Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
thought I was crazy.

You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys? ;-)

I've noticed a lot of the young women with kids at the skating arena
don't think an old guy out on the ice is crazy. Some of the remarks
are better for the ego than flying and that's saying a lotLOL


You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

Oh no I don't. I think most drivers are idiots. However, that's
beside the point. I think everyone should have equal access to both
flying and driving, provided they can pass the tests. The trouble with
the driving test, as it stands today (in Iowa, anyway), is that it is
SO rudimentary that only the physically and mentally disabled can be
expected to fail. (And even they can get waivers.)

Michigan is the same. Miss a question and they'll give you the
answer.


And they've supposedly made the driving test harder in recent years.
Scary.

I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
staggering.

I agree that this is a problem. In my opinion, people with criminal
records should be exempted from many basic societal privileges,
including driving (and certainly flying). But then, I favor the death
sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.

To you and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

Come to think of it, I don't check the oil in the car either.:-))
I do look under it, just in case, but that's usually to make sure the
cat isn't sleeping there.


To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult. Imagine how hard
Some never manage but still get their licenses. Coming home from the
university one night in an ice storm where the roads were covered with
about an inch of black ice I watched the car ahead wiggle a little.
The driver immediately stomped on the brakes. This of course put the
car into a skid. She never took her foot off the brake until the car
came to a stop out in a field. Had she simply taken her foot off the
brake in about the first 10 seconds (we were moving really slow) the
car would have become controllable and straightened out on it's own.
That driver didn't have the faintest idea as to how to get out of a
skid and did an action opposite of what should have been done..


I started driving when I had to stand up to see out. OTOH cars were a
bit different back then and a floor shift was considered old
fashioned. I had a regular license, not a farm permit at 14. Of course
if a car had 40,000 miles it was almost over the hill.

it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
than learning to drive.

I think it's a mind set that may have developed with age rather than a
limitation placed by age. People are good at convincing themselves age
is going to slow them down. I quit work and went to college full time
at age 47. I did far better than an earlier try just out of high
school.

I did find it took more work than it did when I was younger, but I
didn't find that a hindrance. I did find it required I get by on less
sleep than I was used to. Also I was one of those kids who never had
to study to get good grades in my early years so when I entered
college I did not know how to study. At 47 I had learned how to study
even if it was more work.

One major surprise was how my abilities had changed. In high school,
English was my poorest subject. In college some 30 years later it was
an absolute breeze. In high school, Chemistry was my best subject. In
college it was my worst.

If I hadn't taken 8 hours of chemistry I'd have graduated with honors
at age 50. (just missed by a fraction of a point) I went into a good
job and retired just 7 years later.

As to age: After retiring, Joyce got me started in figure skating. I
picked up most of the moves far faster than all but two of the kids in
the classes. It took me about a year to learn to do a good scratch
spin that was fast, prolonged and controllable. I did have a couple
of very good coaches. My point is that with no preconceived
limitations I was able to tackle both mental and physical tasks that
are normally considered only for the young.


If you break down the tasks involved with driving on Chicago's
Interstate 294 in rush-hour traffic (basically close formation flight,
with infrequent and sudden stops and starts) and compare it to the
tasks involved with the average $100 hamburger flight, I don't think
there's any comparison. Once you've got the rote procedures down pat,
flying is MUCH easier.

I'd try to avoid driving in those conditions even if flying cost a lot
more.


Too few of our non-flying brethren know this. We need to tell them.

As I said, I keep trying.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 1 Jan 2007 15:19:21 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Is this an admission that you can't stay several minutes ahead of your plane?
You'd better let your wife do the flying from now on.

Ouch. That's low... ;-)

The point is, you don't have to stay that far ahead of any plane moving
at 130 knots. When you're moving at 250 knots, however, in a plane the
size of a 747, you make tiny little movements that make your aircraft
move to a spot in the sky a full minute or three ahead.

This is why simmers trying to land a 747 (myself included) usually
crash. We're trying to raise a wingtip with abrupt turns of the yoke
(as we would in a Cherokee, for example) -- and that just doesn't work
in an aircraft the size of a destroyer.

Our pro pilot NEVER made a motion that you could even see, yet the 747
ended up greasing the runway. It was fun to watch.

Get hooked up to fly a Bo for a few hours. They are light on the
controls and quick. I'll bet you'll enjoy it. As I've said before,
I've had experienced pilots put it into a PIO with 2 Gs out of the
bottom and zero over the top. Actually it's quite common. I can fix
it by telling them to look outside and put the horizon at a specific
spot in the windshield or covering the VSI which forces them to look
outside. The Bo, or Deb in this case is quick enough I can do a PIO
like that and keep the VSI pretty much centered.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims. So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing. It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

True enough.

After just 25 minutes of relatively low-G aerobatics, I was extremely
tired. I can't imagine what a dogfight with 6 - 8 G pulls must be
like. No sim can recreate that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard all year.

Har har...

;-)

Sure, you would quit your job and open an aviation themed hotel in the
midwest instead doing that, but that's not the point. If everybody did
that, nobody would staff your hotel, deliver your goods, or make the
fuel you fly with. If you pretend you =can't= change the scenario,
maybe you'll understand that real life isn't just living in Iowa running
a business. There are other people with =real= lives that are
different, and have to deal with those differences.

Aviation is a distant fifth to those differences.

Hey -- I didn't say aviation was for everyone. Nothing is for
*everyone*.

However, general aviation could easily be made to appeal to far more
people simply by changing a few basic perceptions, and a few basic
procedures.

I've given this some thought, however, and I don't see how it could
happen. For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
simpler, less litigious time. We, as a society, would have to
mentally accept and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
way that we treat travel by road -- and that means that people are
going to die.

We would simply have to *accept* the fact that upwards of 30,000 people
were going to be killed and maimed in general aviation flying EVERY
YEAR, and we would have to simply accept this risk as a matter of
course. Only then would we ever see a "plane in every garage".

Obviously, that won't happen. Even driving is becoming less and less
"free", as the lawyers and lawsuits increasingly constrict the free
flow of traffic in exchange for a false feeling of "safety". All you
have to do is look at the way traffic lights are currently set up to
realize that "traffic engineers" are no longer interested in the free
flow of traffic -- all they care about is covering their ass so that no
one will sue them.

Thus was born the "left turn only arrow", and stop lights that are
specifically timed to slow traffic.

So, given this state of affairs, we're going to have to settle for some
half-steps. We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
afraid of dying that they can never live.

The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
appreciate general aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Hey -- I didn't say aviation was for everyone. Nothing is for
*everyone*.

No, but what you do say is that you don't understand why aviation isn't
so much more popular, since after all, you love it so much.

For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
simpler, less litigious time.

That would help, but not the way I think you think it does.

We, as a society, would have to mentally accept
and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
way that we treat travel by road

We don't treat road travel in a casual, callous way. What we =do= do is
treat it as a necessity, a given, almost a right. And for driving, this
is a good choice. With people spread out all over the place, the
automobile is just about the most practical method of transportation
there is, in most cases. Even in the city, where driving is pretty
aggravating, it usually still beats the bus, the subway, and certainly
the airplane, for the kinds of trips most people take (which is to
commute to work, to school, to the store, and to visit friends). These
destinations are rarely in walking distance, only in the larger cities
is mass transit really practical, and as you know yourself, the midwest
is pretty spread out. If you want to get along in present day society,
most people need to be able to drive a car.

Thus, we (as a society) accept more collateral damage in order to
accomodate this basic necessity.

...almost callous way that we treat travel by road
-- and that means that people are going to die.

This is not the way society treats driving, and that is the reason for
all the (new) rules surrounding driving. It is an attempt to =reduce=
the number of people that die, while infringing as little as possible on
people's need for auto travel, and their percieved basic right to drive
a car. High risk, low necessity activities are curtailed, such as
driving home after a bender at the bar. I agree with this restriction.
Seat belt laws, while an infringement on people's personal freedom to
risk their own lives, are a counteraction to the other infringement on
people's rights to keep their money. MY money pays for YOUR injuries
when you crash unbelted, and this infringes on MY freedom. So, I don't
have a problem with seat belt laws (though I might favor a different
approach - crash unbelted and lose your health benefits). Laws that
make cars more crashworthy are also IMHO (mostly) a good thing, as it
brings economy of scale to something people want anyway (but don't want
to be the only one paying for).

I do find the strobes inside the red lights to be over the top, and rear
turn signals that can be seen for miles away are worse than silly. But
these are minor details - the need for which is probably driven not by
litigation, but rather, by the need to penetrate the fog of
overstimulation and underattention drivers are in now, be it from iPods
or from the increase in traffic.

Thus, another reason for what you view as restrictions on your freedoms
to drive are based on the simple fact that there just are more cars on
the road - exactly what you want to do to aviation. It creeps up
gradually, and we don't notice it happening, but I went to college in
Pasadena twenty years ago, and remember it being a certain way. I had
no trouble driving there, although there were a few busy streets, and I
had no trouble bicycling all over the place.

After twenty years, I went back. There is =no= =way= I would bicycle
there now, and it's damn near impossible to cross the street in a car
unless there is a traffic light. Driving on the streets that cross
avenues for more than a few blocks is well nigh hopeless unless there
are traffic lights.

All you
have to do is look at the way traffic lights are currently set up to
realize that "traffic engineers" are no longer interested in the free
flow of traffic -- all they care about is covering their ass so that no
one will sue them.

Please elaborate. I don't see that, nor do I hear about people suing
traffic engineers. Is this a new trend?

Thus was born the "left turn only arrow", and stop lights that are
specifically timed to slow traffic.

I know about left turn only arrows, but have no reason to believe that
this is ass-covering. I see it as a natural result of having too many
cars coming the other way, compared with twenty years ago, when there
probably wasn't even a light, and you could wait for hours before seeing
a single car.

I don't know of stop lights designed to =slow= traffic. There are those
that are set for a speed which is slightly less than the speed limit.
This is appropriate. There are those that are simply not syncronized.
This is unfortunate, and wasn't a problem until there were just too many
traffic lights, because there is just too much traffic. Because that's
the bottom line. There just is too much traffic. Too many people in cars.

We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
afraid of dying that they can never live.

I agree with you here, but I don't see it coming from the same place you do.

The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
appreciate general aviation.

Yes, that is very very true. However, were I to elaborate on that, we'd
argue about what this administration is doing to our freedoms, and how
our government is keeping us artificially scared and ignorant in order
to further its extremely damaging agenda.

But let's not get into that in this thread.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger writes:

I've had experienced pilots put it into a PIO with 2 Gs out of the
bottom and zero over the top.

I give up: What's a PIO?

Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

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

john smith writes:

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful). Movement is useful for enhancing realism (in
the best simulators, it's very easy to forget that it's all
make-believe). It _can_ help a bit with spatial disorientation,
although the movements of a full-motion sim aren't identical to those
of real life in some respects that can be significant for
disorientation. But mostly full motion is frosting on the cake.

So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing.

That is completely untrue.

Multiple people have already pointed out that some people are
naturally good at flying, even with zero experience. Others need
training. A few are so bad at it that no amount of training helps.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone. Pilots who are very accustomed to specific
aircraft types that provide control feedback, and depend on that
feedback, may also have trouble.

It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

Granted, but in the vast majority of aircraft, pulling Gs is so bad
for the airframe that you'll never do it, anyway, unless you are
already in serious trouble.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

I've given this some thought, however, and I don't see how it could
happen. For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
simpler, less litigious time. We, as a society, would have to
mentally accept and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
way that we treat travel by road -- and that means that people are
going to die.

But it also means that they would die in much greater numbers.

I'm sure most of us have heard that the sea is less forgiving than the
land, and the air is less forgiving than the sea (and space is less
forgiving than the air). This means that death rates go up with each
type of transportation. All else being equal, far more people will
always die in the air than on the ground. Commercial airlines reverse
this by fanatical devotion to safety (most of which is admittedly
forced upon them by the government), but fundamentally aviation is
many times more dangerous than travelling on land.

So, given this state of affairs, we're going to have to settle for some
half-steps. We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
afraid of dying that they can never live.

The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
appreciate general aviation.

I can fully agree with this part. Modern society is a culture of
fear, and a culture of fear is also one of diminishing freedoms.

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

Jose writes:

We don't treat road travel in a casual, callous way. What we =do= do is
treat it as a necessity, a given, almost a right. And for driving, this
is a good choice. With people spread out all over the place, the
automobile is just about the most practical method of transportation
there is, in most cases.

It is interesting to note that, based on what I've heard, air travel
in remote and rugged areas like Alaska has achieved a similar status.
Driving requires flat roads, but in places where flat roads are
impossible or impractical to construct, sometimes travel by air
becomes the more practical and widespread mode of transportation.
Unfortunately, it's still more dangerous than driving, but apparently
within certain limits it can be improved considerably.

Even in the city, where driving is pretty
aggravating, it usually still beats the bus, the subway, and certainly
the airplane, for the kinds of trips most people take (which is to
commute to work, to school, to the store, and to visit friends).

That depends. Here in Paris, which arguably has the best subway and
bus system in the world, these forms of transportation are superior to
travel by car. Once you're out in the suburbs where public
transportation is thin on the ground, though, the situation reverses.

Seat belt laws, while an infringement on people's personal freedom to
risk their own lives, are a counteraction to the other infringement on
people's rights to keep their money. MY money pays for YOUR injuries
when you crash unbelted, and this infringes on MY freedom.

I think it would be easier if insurance companies simply exempted
coverage for anyone not wearing a seat belt at the time of an
accident.

So, I don't
have a problem with seat belt laws (though I might favor a different
approach - crash unbelted and lose your health benefits).

Almost the same as above. It provides more freedom at lower cost.

I do find the strobes inside the red lights to be over the top, and rear
turn signals that can be seen for miles away are worse than silly.

Strobes inside red lights?

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

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

Oh nonsense. How would you know what "a lot of people" do anyway.

Because some aspects of human behavior are well established.

Actually most pilots I know are scared of using the chute and try
anything to avoid the situation.

I don't blame them. If you're in a position to use a chute, you're in
serious trouble.

Incidentally the European style microlight licence is valid in all
countries part of the JAR group, which includes many European
countries. It can be had at around 4000 EUR total costs, give or take.
Downsides are the inability to fly at night or in certain airspaces.

The restrictions would probably be unacceptable to me. That's a lot
of money just to exclude night flight and some controlled airspaces.

In any case, I wouldn't have much use for a European license, as I'm
mostly interested in flying in U.S. airspace. In the U.S., the rules
are the same from coast to coast.

Then again, the initial PPL VFR licence has the same regulations and
requires "upgrades" to do anything else.

See above.

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