Flying is Life - The Rest is Just Details

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:rkgQb.131202$I06.1149509@attbi_s01...
We don't even have strip joints in Washington. I think they are illegal.
So
much for Midwestern values. :-)

Hey, it gets very, very cold here, you know...

Too cold for the removing of clothes?

Paul

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Great. Yet another idiot reinforcing the public's opinion that we are
nothing but a bunch of spoiled romantics.
Believe it or not, there are a few of us around that take aviation
seriously
as transportation.

And some of us are just spoiled romantics!

:-)

Paul

But what if he survived the accident only
to be badly burned and disfigured for the
remaining 40 years of his life?

Aviation is very unforgiving of mistakes.
We are in the stone age of aviation.
Hopefully personal aviation will someday
be safe enough "for the rest of us."

And there will be a AAA for pilots.

--Ted


--
__
/ \___/ |
/ / |
/ _ |
/ / \ _|
__ / --- / |
\__/ \__ \/\


Gene Seibel wrote:

You got that right. Charles Lindbergh said, 'Who valued life more
highly, the aviators who spent it on the art they loved, or these
misers who doled it out like pennies through their antlike days? I
decided that if I could fly for ten years before I was killed in a
crash, it would be a worthwhile trade for an ordinary lifetime.'
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

What if he had lived 80 years and done nothing with his life? That
would have disfigured his soul, a much greater tragedy than
disfiguring of mere flesh. When aviation is 'safe enough' for
everyone, I may as well play a video game.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




Ted Huffmire wrote in message ...
But what if he survived the accident only
to be badly burned and disfigured for the
remaining 40 years of his life?

Aviation is very unforgiving of mistakes.
We are in the stone age of aviation.
Hopefully personal aviation will someday
be safe enough "for the rest of us."

And there will be a AAA for pilots.

--Ted


--
__
/ \___/ |
/ / |
/ _ |
/ / \ _|
__ / --- / |
\__/ \__ \/\


Gene Seibel wrote:

You got that right. Charles Lindbergh said, 'Who valued life more
highly, the aviators who spent it on the art they loved, or these
misers who doled it out like pennies through their antlike days? I
decided that if I could fly for ten years before I was killed in a
crash, it would be a worthwhile trade for an ordinary lifetime.'
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

The kinds of injuries people suffer in aircraft
accidents can inflict plenty of damage on the soul.

There is a cost-benefit continuum between the thrill
of flying and the risk of injury. Passengers might
hold a different opinion than pilots on this matter.
I think that passengers of Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft,
and other G.A. aircraft would prefer an accident rate
comparable to the airlines. In the future, technologically
superior aircraft will enable much higher safety than
today, even if the pilot is having a bad day.
It happens to the best of us.

Synthetic pilot vision is a first step, because IFR
flying requires the pilot to visualize the state of
his aircraft indirectly from the information provided
by the instruments. This cognitive task is prone to
error.

Yes, it is true that if we make flying as easy as
the Jetsons, more and more people will be attracted
to it. But there is no reason that we cannot address
the scalability problem of increased traffic.

Although pilots may disagree, there are many worthwhile
pursuits on the ground. Yes, watching the sunset over
half dome in Yosemite from an aircraft is fun.
So is flying from Honolulu
to Maui. The bay tour is a great experience.
A $100 hamburger at Jonesy's in Napa is grand. But
art, music, science, sports, technology, hiking,
nature, literature, theatre, travel, cycling,
academics, painting, photography, and many other
activities have tremendous rewards as well.

And your money can go much further as opposed to
spending $100 per hour on the Hobbs meter for a
Cessna 172.


--
__
/ \___/ |
/ / |
/ _ |
/ / \ _|
__ / --- / |
\__/ \__ \/\


Gene Seibel wrote:

What if he had lived 80 years and done nothing with his life? That
would have disfigured his soul, a much greater tragedy than
disfiguring of mere flesh. When aviation is 'safe enough' for
everyone, I may as well play a video game.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Ted Huffmire wrote:

Yes, it is true that if we make flying as easy as
the Jetsons, more and more people will be attracted
to it. But there is no reason that we cannot address
the scalability problem of increased traffic.

Even if we can address that problem, I hardly think it will be much fun to fly
in such an environment. It will get more like the Garden State Parkway - afraid
to glance at that Osprey haunting the inlet you're passing because the brake
lights on the car ahead of you will come on as soon as you do.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

In article , Ted Huffmire
wrote:

Although pilots may disagree, there are many worthwhile
pursuits on the ground. Yes, watching the sunset over
half dome in Yosemite from an aircraft is fun.

"fun"? "FUN"?!! even "grand" is a word that fails to describe it.

Not to mention the beauty of flying at night with CAVU
and a full moon.

darn little on the ground can compare.

--
Bob Noel

In article , Ted Huffmire wrote:
comparable to the airlines. In the future, technologically
superior aircraft will enable much higher safety than
today, even if the pilot is having a bad day.
snip
And your money can go much further as opposed to
spending $100 per hour on the Hobbs meter for a
Cessna 172.

There will hopefully always be gliders.

The problem is with the highly technically advanced light plane is that
it would be about as much fun as flying an airliner. Much of the danger
of flying a light plane comes from the freedom, and really the only way
of making it safer is to take away that freedom. At that point, you may
as well drive because it's cheaper.

Many GA pilots fly because it's something they enjoy first, and having
utility is merely a useful side effect. Why did I own a VFR Cessna 140,
without even a DG, instead of an IFR equipped Bonanza? (and I could have
afforded one too) and avoided the risk of groundloops and being grounded
due to low IFR? Because the C140 was more _fun_. My money went a long
way in that C140. It worked out at about $30/hr to fly it. It was worth
every penny and more. I flew that little plane coast to coast across the
United States, often deciding my destination just before getting in the
plane. Sure, crossing the Sierra Nevadas in an 85-hp plane was in no way
a 'safe' endeavour, but I can't put a price on the experience now I look
back on it. That little plane helped me set foot in 26 US states in two
years in an amazing journey that just can't be had any other way.

In an automated, cotton-coated GA world with airline-like safety, there
would be no soul or fun left because you'd have to take the freedom
away.

Then there's always gliders. Sure, gliding isn't a 'safe' sport
(although it's not that dangerous either compared to many sports. By
contrast, my Dad still races motorcycles in international events like
the Isle of Man TT, a very unforgiving road race).

But how many golfers or hikers get the opportunity to take a winch
launch (at our site, that costs 5 quid, or about US$7) and then fly with
no other energy source than what's in the atmosphere for over an hour?
I had a very memorable flight towards the end of last year's gliding
season. How many people get to soar wingtip to wingtip with birds of
prey, or even a seagull? How many people know what it's like to look out
of the canopy, at the seagull effortlessly soaring with you, watching
you watching him? The struggle to stay airborne on a weak soaring day?
The thrill of getting out all the way to Snaefell (the local mountain)
not knowing for absolute sure there will be lift there, and suddenly
finding yourself in 6 knots up and being able to see the entire kingdom
from coast to coast?
Take away the danger from flying and you must necessary take away most
of the fun of it - things like this would have to go.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Oh, if anyone in the UK (or anywhere else for that matter) wants
a very nice Cessna 140, I know someone who's selling one. He's
bought a 170 and now has both, but the 140 is up for sale.

Based at Bourne Park in Hampshire.

Paul

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
Why did I own a VFR Cessna 140,
without even a DG, instead of an IFR equipped Bonanza? (and I could have
afforded one too) and avoided the risk of groundloops and being grounded
due to low IFR? Because the C140 was more _fun_. My money went a long
way in that C140.

In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

Take away the danger from flying and you must necessary take away most
of the fun of it - things like this would have to go.

um, danger is not why I love flying. If I wanted danger I'd
do sport jumping or bungee-cords jumping or climb rock faces
(but I most definitely don't want the adrenilin rush from
these activities).

My flying became safer with the installation of a strikefiner,
but didn't become less fun.

My flying became safer with the installation of an engine analyzer
but didn't become less fun.

Having an instrument rating and being current makes my flying
safer but doesn't diminish the fun

My flying would become safer if I put in some sort of traffic
detection system, but wouldn't dimish the fun.

bottomline is that flying would not lose any enjoyment for me
if it was safer.

--
Bob Noel