Depression after Washing

Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?

Because people are often poor estimators of time. In the case of
partners/flying club members in aircraft, pilots are often high-achieving,
hard-working folks who lead busy lives. I call them "doers".

Doers *think* they're gonna fly every other day, just like they think they
can (and often do) accomplish anything, so they get involved in owning an
airplane -- only to discover that their lives are already full. So, flying
becomes something they can only do as time permits -- and there isn't a lot
of unused time in a doers life.

So, the planes tend to sit a lot. It's a sweet deal if you have more
available time than the other partners.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

Because people are often poor estimators of time. In the case of
partners/flying club members in aircraft, pilots are often high-achieving,
hard-working folks who lead busy lives. I call them "doers".

Doers *think* they're gonna fly every other day, just like they think they
can (and often do) accomplish anything, so they get involved in owning an
airplane -- only to discover that their lives are already full. So, flying
becomes something they can only do as time permits -- and there isn't a lot
of unused time in a doers life.

So, the planes tend to sit a lot. It's a sweet deal if you have more
available time than the other partners.

It certainly sounds like it would be great for someone who has reasonable
money _and_ some free time on their hands.

It's true that many people who have lots of money also have almost no free
time, and vice versa. Having both money and time is a hard problem. I know
that it's very easy to make millions of dollars, if one is willing to
sacrifice all waking hours to the task, but I don't see the point in having
millions if you spend 16 hours at work, seven days a week.

Being born into money gets around this issue, but unfortunately that is the
luck of the draw, not something one can arrange. Sometimes one can make lots
of money, invest it, and live off the proceeds without having to work, but
even where this is possible, it often occurs so late in life that health
concerns limit its utility. There's not much advantage in being able to buy
your own aircraft if you're confined to a wheelchair by the time you've
accumulated the money.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

Because people are often poor estimators of time. In the case of
partners/flying club members in aircraft, pilots are often
high-achieving, hard-working folks who lead busy lives. I call them
"doers".

Doers *think* they're gonna fly every other day, just like they think
they can (and often do) accomplish anything, so they get involved in
owning an airplane -- only to discover that their lives are already
full. So, flying becomes something they can only do as time permits
-- and there isn't a lot of unused time in a doers life.

So, the planes tend to sit a lot. It's a sweet deal if you have more
available time than the other partners.

It certainly sounds like it would be great for someone who has
reasonable money _and_ some free time on their hands.

It's true that many people who have lots of money also have almost no
free time, and vice versa. Having both money and time is a hard
problem. I know that it's very easy to make millions of dollars, if
one is willing to sacrifice all waking hours to the task, but I don't
see the point in having millions if you spend 16 hours at work, seven
days a week.

Being born into money gets around this issue, but unfortunately that
is the luck of the draw, not something one can arrange. Sometimes one
can make lots of money, invest it, and live off the proceeds without
having to work, but even where this is possible, it often occurs so
late in life that health concerns limit its utility. There's not much
advantage in being able to buy your own aircraft if you're confined to
a wheelchair by the time you've accumulated the money.


You're both idiots



Bertie

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

Totaling the aircraft is a non-issue. That's what insurance is for.
Damage
is a non-issue. That's what the pre-flight is for.

The greater the number of aircraft totaled, the higher the insurance
premiums,
so it's not quite a non-issue.

And you can miss things during a pre-flight inspection.

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
pre-flight.

My first partnership had 7 other owners. I was putting almost half the
yearly hours on the plane. Basically I was doing the flying and others
were
paying the bills. It was a beautiful arrangement.

Sounds nice. Why didn't the other owners use the plane much?

There were a lot of old guys who were part owners. They basically just
wanted access to a decent plane once or twice a year to go on a trip and
they would fly short trips every other month or so just to stay current. A
couple of them had let their medicals expire possibly because they suspected
they wouldn't pass and they didn't fly at all. I suppose being part owner
in a plane allowed them to stay in touch with their youth for a modest
monthly recurring charge. I don't know and I didn't bother asking. They
were paying their bills and that was good enough for me.

Mike writes:

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
pre-flight.

So the crash of Japan Air Lines flight 123 was the pilot's fault, since he
missed the damage to the bulkhead.

"Mike" wrote in message news:Imibk.517$HY.404@trnddc01...

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a pre-flight.

Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision, you can
miss damage on a preflight.

I teach my students that they are looking for damage for two reasons: 1) To
preserve their own lives. 2) So that they do not get blamed for something
someone else did.

For the average young student pilot (all young folks think they are immortal)
I feel that reason #2 is more motivating. I don't care WHY they do the proper
preflight, I just want them to do it.

Vaughn

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

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
pre-flight.

So the crash of Japan Air Lines flight 123 was the pilot's fault, since he
missed the damage to the bulkhead.

You mean the damage which was improperly repaired almost 10 years prior?

Do you even know what a bulkhead is?

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:Imibk.517$HY.404@trnddc01...

If you miss damage during the pre-flight, then you're not doing a
pre-flight.

Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision,
you can miss damage on a preflight.

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
are pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow
landing or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a safety
of flight issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if someone bangs
up a wing or a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or has a prop
strike this is going to show up during a proper pre-flight.

I teach my students that they are looking for damage for two reasons: 1)
To preserve their own lives. 2) So that they do not get blamed for
something someone else did.

For the average young student pilot (all young folks think they are
immortal) I feel that reason #2 is more motivating. I don't care WHY
they do the proper preflight, I just want them to do it.

So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?

"Mike" wrote in message
news:2Rrbk.459$713.307@trnddc03...
Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision, you
can miss damage on a preflight.

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue are
pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow landing
or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a safety of flight
issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if someone bangs up a wing or
a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or has a prop strike this is going
to show up during a proper pre-flight.

Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the more
tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the horizontal
stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a tremendous moment arm for
any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to stress the attachment points. This
shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas, and I have seen stressed and cracked
fittings from another airframe. How can this happen? Well on Cessnas it
happens from folks using improper procedures to back the plane into a parking
spot. It can also happen from innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers,
animal activity, or any of thousands of other posibilities.

Also, you don't know what happened on the last flight. Excessively hard
landing? Botched manuver? These and countless other things can cause
difficult-to-detect damage to an airframe.

One list item: The standard for passing a preflight inspection is not
"safety of flight in the near term". I would hope that you would consider an
airplane not airworthy long before that.


So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?

The most polite thing I can say is that was an unnecessary comment.

(I don't want this to turn into a flame war so you may have the last word.)

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
news:2Rrbk.459$713.307@trnddc03...
Nonsense. If you are human, and especially if you lack x-ray vision,
you can miss damage on a preflight.

The chances of any such 'invisible' damage being a safety of flight issue
are pretty much nil. Someone might crinkle a firewall with a wheelbarrow
landing or overstress the airframe, but the chances of that being a
safety of flight issue in the near term are next to nothing. But if
someone bangs up a wing or a tail against a hanger, flat spots a tire, or
has a prop strike this is going to show up during a proper pre-flight.

Obviously, you haven't seen some of the things I have seen. One of the
more tender, and more invisible spots on some airframes is where the
horizontal stabilizer connects to the fuze. Many designs allow a
tremendous moment arm for any non-balanced load on the stabilizer to
stress the attachment points. This shows up as cracked spars on Cessnas,
and I have seen stressed and cracked fittings from another airframe. How
can this happen? Well on Cessnas it happens from folks using improper
procedures to back the plane into a parking spot. It can also happen from
innocent (but ignorant) bystanders, mowers, animal activity, or any of
thousands of other posibilities.

I always give each side a good heave up and down for this very reason, so
such can easily be checked on the preflight for impending failure.

Also, you don't know what happened on the last flight. Excessively
hard landing? Botched manuver? These and countless other things can
cause difficult-to-detect damage to an airframe.

Certainly. But that's what pre-flight and annual inspections are for. My
A&P found a cracked bulkhead in the tail on my first annual after I bought
the plane. It had probably been that way for years. Such problems you
mentioned are common, but how many airframes do you see breaking up in
flight because of it?

One list item: The standard for passing a preflight inspection is not
"safety of flight in the near term". I would hope that you would consider
an airplane not airworthy long before that.

The preflight is just a simple way to find out if the aircraft is airworthy
to the best of the pilot's ability. I never suggested it was anything else,
so you should go back and check your inference for any degree of
reasonableness.

So what trick do you use to get them to do the runup?

The most polite thing I can say is that was an unnecessary comment.

(I don't want this to turn into a flame war so you may have the last
word.)

Vaughn

So why do you take a simple statement and take it to the nth degree? The
previous poster (who has no flight experience, btw) condemned partial
ownership because another owner might "damage" the airplane and not tell
anyone. It was a ridiculous statement to begin with because a proper
preflight and regular inspections make such a non issue to the safety of
flight. That was the context of my statement. Instead you want to turn
this into some obscure situation. Is it possible to have damage that goes
undetected during a preflight? Yes. Is such damage a concern? The
statistics suggest you should be more concerned about being hit by
lightning. If you don't want to get flamed, try working your way up the
thread and figuring out what the context is before you jump on a comment and
try to make it something it isn't.

My "comment" was far more valid than yours, BTW. If you have a student that
you can't even trust to do a preflight, how are you going to trust them to
do anything else that can save their lives? If you have such students you
can't trust to perform basic safety of flight tasks, you shouldn't let them
solo until they mature.