Hurricane relief

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely
carry expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at
best, they file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a
crash.

At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate
to the area their flying in.

I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
more expense to be much better prepared.

So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately for
my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But that
adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation that the
SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That same
expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by some as
a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals wouldn't
exhibit.

In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue apparatus
did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly unprecedented level of
disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was to deploy the National
Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and protect other rescuers.
Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil authority frequently
precipitates violence by some; this has happened throughout the world and
throughout human history, so it should take no one by surprise. Nor should
it be misrepresented as unusually characteristic of impoverished people or
welfare recipients; sadly, it is universal.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
Three days is the average.

"john smith" wrote in message
. ..
Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
more expense to be much better prepared.

There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
Three days is the average.

I suspect that average may be jacked up by more challenging terrain than I
usually overfly here in the Northeast. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival kit. (I myself carry
just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror , rope, and . . .


Reading this led me to think back to the discussion some months ago of
laser dazzling incidents involving pilots.

My impression is that even a cheapo ballpoint-pen-sized 5 mW red laser
pointer ($20 variety), while absolutely no threat at any range, could
function as a very effective emergency signal light for a downed pilot
(or lost hiker or skier or . . . ) if they could point it at or close to
a search aircraft, at slant ranges up to ???several miles???, surely at
night, probably even in the daytime.

And one of the more expensive green versions ($100-$200 price range)
would be immensely more effective in the same situation, since the human
eye is much, much more sensitive at its wavelength.

In other words, either one might be essentially as effective as the
search mirror even with the sun out, and immensely more effective on
cloudy days or at night, at about the same weight and not a lot more
cost.

Of course if you really wanted to exploit this technology you'd have
pilots, hikers, etc, carry either type of laser pointer and observers in
the search planes wear special sunglasses that were close to opaque
across the visible, except for a notch-filter passband at the laser
wavelength. Assuming that the individual being searched for was able to
point the pointer at the search plane, or scan its beam across the
search plane, that signal would be near impossible to miss visually.

Anyone know if anything like this is in regular use?

Gary Drescher wrote:
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...


Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.
Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
whole, exceptionally self-reliant. Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers,
when exhibited by the hurricane victims, is extolled by some here as
evidence of the "gimme mentality" of the "welfare class" (without a shred of
evidence that most of the victims in question actually lacked employment).
People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what they
expect to see. (These remarks aren't directed at your comments, CJ; I'm just
using your post as a hook.)

--Gary

I understand what you are saying, Gary. One of the big problems that we
are dealing with is a culture of dependency. It is too easy to extend
our perceptions of that problem to a point where people don't realize
how inter-dependent they are. A culture of dependency is classless. I
see it in rich and poor alike, among all races and people. It basically
says, "I cannot do anything for myself. It is up to the government, or
the rich, or somebody else, to provide for all my wants and needs." It
is basically a refusal to grow up, to remain forever a child who is
taken care of by its parents. The liberal mind, quite rightly,
perceives this belief as the tool of oppression.

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me." Such a culture isolates people from one another. It is the culture
of the hermit. It does not recognize that your actions have an effect
on others, whether you wish it or not.

Both of these cultures are cultures of comparison. They dwell on the
concept of haves and have-nots, that what you are defined by how other
people perceive you, by your looks, your intelligence, your wealth,
etc. The culture of dependency views most people as children who are
taken care of by their wealthy and powerful mommies and daddies. The
culture of self reliance views people as competitors in a Darwinian
race where only the quick and powerful deserve to survive.

Many people pay lip service to a culture of inter-dependence, but in my
experience very few people really believe in it. No political
philosophy 'owns' the concept to a culture of inter-dependence. Both
modern liberalism and modern conservatism actually fight against it.
Politicians and governments for the most part are far more interested
in control than they are in helping people become better. So, like
lobsters in a pot, we keep pulling one another back into the boiling
water, and in the end we are all cooked. Far better to blame the
rescuers for being too slow, or not doing enough, than to help them out
or take what charge we can of our own lives. Far better to blame the
hurricane victims for being victims than to waste time and resources on
rescuing them. The actors come and go across the stage, but the script
is always the same.

"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:
"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.
2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Happy Dog wrote:
"cjcampbell"

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

Look in a mirror.


1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.
2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.


It's that piece you just created "Although it may be somewhat of an
improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards me."

Tom

"cjcampbell" wrote in message

Too many people try to fight the culture of dependency with a culture
of self-reliance. Although it may be somewhat of an improvement, the
culture of self-reliance says "I am responsible for myself. I have no
obligation to anyone else, nor does anyone have any obligation towards
me."

Really? I doubt you'll find many self-reliant people who would agree.
That's a strawman central to the rest of your argument.

moo

You are ignorant of a couple of things:

1) Self reliant people don't have to agree with me in order to be
wrong.

It isn't a right or wrong issue. You are mischaracterizing the position of
people who advocate self-reliance.

2) You do not have a clue what a straw man argument is.

Idiot. You have constructed a caricature of the "culture of self-reliance"
by defining it a hermit lifestyle. That is a textbook strawman argument.

moo