NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Why don't you find a way to simulate a news group and quit whining to us.
You wouldn't fly if you had the money, and you would have the money if you
put as much effort in to earning a living as you so trying to convince the
WORLD that simulation compares to actual aviation.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Nathan Young writes:

The LSA industry certainly appears to be booming. Every flying
magazine I get has a new LSA listed each month. Most of the LSAs are
~$100k.

Flying magazines are perhaps not very objective sources of information.


Well even the worst ones be the heck out of listening to your head rattle.

Maxwell writes:

Then someone is buying way too much house!

How much house can you get for $60,000 (1.5 times the average salary in the
U.S.)?

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

writes:

For $150 you can easily rent a C-172.

For a month?

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

writes:

So all those ads are false advertising?

false != biased

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

For $150 you can easily rent a C-172.

For a month?

What an ass.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

So all those ads are false advertising?

false != biased

A number for a price is either true or false; it can't be "biased".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:26:47 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in
:

My personal theory is that flying is no longer the source of hero worship it
once was. Is there a current Lindberg? How about an Amelia Earhart? Maybe
a John Glenn? Not really. Flying has lost the public's imagination, and
therefore the publicity.

That is an interesting view.

I suppose there may be a disproportionate number of pilots who are
drawn to aviation for the perceived public esteem historically
conferred on airmen. And I agree, that the aura of the "daring young
man ..." has been somewhat tarnished by the less than magical,
cattle-car results of airline deregulation, notorious news stories and
jokes of pilot sleeping/rage/inebriation/... while on flight-duty, and
publicized/sensationalized blunders of less than qualified airmen.
After all, it is the exposé of heroes' clay feet, even more than their
stunning creative deeds, that titillates and boost ratings.

And if this loss of public esteem for airman discourages those who
seek to enhance their self-image through being regarded as pilots by
the public, other than its impact on our political influence due to
declining numbers, I fail to perceive a down-side. I would much
prefer to see competent, unassuming persons with the capacity and
understanding to perform to high standards while operating aircraft,
and a genuine love of the sky, displace the self-impressed, white
scarffed, showman of the past. But that's just me. Times change.

If one attempts a little prognostication, it's easy to see a future of
pilotless, fully automated space and air vehicles operating in a fully
computerized environment, and performing their pedestrian tasks with
all the alacrity and sagacity of an S-Tec System 65. With the
airliner manufacturers requiring ever increasing numbers of their
products to be in flight simultaneously in order to sustain their
market, and the finite nature of airspace (it's not so big a sky after
all), it's clear, that there will be increasing pressure to remove the
(somewhat unpredictable) human element from the system to facilitate
the ever tighter packing of airliners to the point of exceeding the
capabilities of mere humans.

But there will always be a cadre of exuberant and talented souls whose
love of the sky will fuel the development of innovative vehicles[1,2]
and the evolution of flight. So while aviation continues to mature,
it will also evolve. And it's likely that the 21st century will lack
the same warm naiveté, respect for human dignity, and awe of
technology characteristic of the last century, but it will have its
redeeming efficiency to distinguish it with the coming hoards[3]
(baring WWIII).



[1] http://www.cpinternet.com/sadkins/compare.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites
[3]
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...on/001720.html
Overall, the country’s population would continue to grow,
increasing from 282.1 million in 2000 to 419.9 million in 2050.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:31:10 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in :

people who can afford to fly today may still be
discouraged by the tremendous barriers to entry into the hobby, as compared to
other hobbies. It is ridiculously difficult to become a private pilot, and
unless one is among the very tiny minority of people who are truly obsessed
with flying, there are many other hobbies that provide similar levels of
satisfaction for far less money and with far less hassle and red tape.

That is as it should be, in my humble opinion. Folks who consider
aviation a hobby belong on the ground.

On 26 Apr 2007 18:57:24 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote
in .com:

Until we, as a people, come to grips with this
completely out of control, tax-consuming, inefficient monster of a
government bureacracy that we've created, we will find our freedoms
and our income ever more diminished.

Consider $3-billion a week in Iraq for five years, or much longer
depending..., and the money-sink of a blundering Department of
Homeland Security. It is those useless expenditures that are
consuming the wealth of our nation.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing --

If you fail to see the GOP's madness, you are blind.