Flying is Life - The Rest is Just Details

In article , Paul Sengupta wrote:
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.

Argh. Just when I *don't* have the money to buy one!

--
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"

In article , Bob
Noel 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.

snip

I never said it was. I said if you were to make GA as safe as the
airlines you'd lose the fun.

My flying became safer with the installation of a strikefiner,
but didn't become less fun.
snip
bottomline is that flying would not lose any enjoyment for me
if it was safer.

Do you know how the airlines make it so safe? Mainly it's by having
extremely strict procedures and a LOT of equipment. Would you still find
flying fun if you had to file IFR flight plans for every flight,
required a minimum crew of 2, all the regulations that airlines operate
under? Or do you never look out the window, think "It's a nice day, I
think I'll fly for half an hour" at lunchtime?

The flexibility of GA is what carries some of the risk. With all that
equipment that you enumerated, your flight risks are still MUCH greater
than that of the commercial airlines. If you want airline safety - then
you have to have airline inflexibility and airline procedures. Going for
a mostly unplanned half hour sightseeing flight will always carry
inherent risks precisely because it's a half hour sightseeing flight -
NOT because you are seeking danger. The flexibility of GA carries
inherent risks, and the only way to get rid of those risks is to get rid
of the flexibility. To me, that flexibility is where the fun is. I can
fly formation with hawks if I want, but I recognise to be able to do
this there will be inherent risks - and I think the biggest problem is
many GA pilots live in denial over these inherent risks.

--
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"

Ted Huffmire wrote:

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

Bah. What's money for, if not to fly?

Rob

It's certain that each of us will have a different opinion on these
things. Cessnas, Pipers, and Beechcrafts aren't built for passengers.
They are built for pilots. Boeing and Airbus build airplanes for
passengers. It's not the risk we are after, but the challenge and the
opportunity to do something that few people do. Risk is only a
byproduct. I don't want to live in a virtual reality world. I want my
decisions to have real results and consequences. I want to accept
responsibility for those decisions. I agree that those who don't want
to accept responsibility for their decisions belong in a safe,
protected, boring environment. And yes, I enjoy numerous activities on
the ground.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.






Ted Huffmire wrote in message ...
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.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:34:01 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , Bob
Noel 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.

snip

I never said it was. I said if you were to make GA as safe as the
airlines you'd lose the fun.

My flying became safer with the installation of a strikefiner,
but didn't become less fun.
snip
bottomline is that flying would not lose any enjoyment for me
if it was safer.

Do you know how the airlines make it so safe? Mainly it's by having
extremely strict procedures and a LOT of equipment. Would you still find
flying fun if you had to file IFR flight plans for every flight,
required a minimum crew of 2, all the regulations that airlines operate
under? Or do you never look out the window, think "It's a nice day, I
think I'll fly for half an hour" at lunchtime?

The flexibility of GA is what carries some of the risk. With all that
equipment that you enumerated, your flight risks are still MUCH greater
than that of the commercial airlines. If you want airline safety - then
you have to have airline inflexibility and airline procedures. Going for
a mostly unplanned half hour sightseeing flight will always carry
inherent risks precisely because it's a half hour sightseeing flight -
NOT because you are seeking danger. The flexibility of GA carries
inherent risks, and the only way to get rid of those risks is to get rid
of the flexibility. To me, that flexibility is where the fun is. I can
fly formation with hawks if I want, but I recognise to be able to do
this there will be inherent risks - and I think the biggest problem is
many GA pilots live in denial over these inherent risks.

Flexibility and fun probably explains why we have two local British
Airways Pilots join our group (PA28-161).

David


E-mail (Remove Space after pilot): pilot

In article , Dylan Smith
wrote:

In article , Bob
Noel 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.

snip

I never said it was. I said if you were to make GA as safe as the
airlines you'd lose the fun.

ok, I misunderstood your point. But I still disagree with your
conclusion that a safe flight cannot be fun. I do understand
how the airlines achieve safety. Please understand that not
everything the airlines do are necessary for safety (e.g.,
every single flight being IFR), and that the airline approach
to safety is not the only to achieve that level of safety.

--
Bob Noel