The following made the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle, the only
daily English paper in the 4th Largest US city.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3126650

The first few viewings are "free", after that, repeated browsing
requires a free registration. First couple paragraphs pasted.

On a side note, this article played out in the Chronicle's "This Week"
segment which is a weekly "community-specific" section of the paper -
stuff local interest, area Chamber of Commerce, school stuff..




Patients' 'angels' still flying high
Volunteer pilots offer free flights for out-of-towners treated in Texas
and 6 other states
By EDWARD HEGSTROM
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

In the big state of Texas, patients sometimes have to drive hours just
to get to the hospital.

So a group of volunteer small-plane pilots got an idea: Why not offer to
fly patients to the hospital?

That was in 1991. Fourteen years later, Angel Flight South Central has
flown 11,000 patient flights. The organization also provides service to
six nearby states.......

dave...thanks for posting that.. i'm a news junkie but i would have
missed that piece as it's in the "this week" and that's not part of my
on-line cruise.

i know a least one person around here who is very active in the angel
program and i've nothing but admiration for her for doin it.


dan

As much as some pilots hate to pat themselves on the back, IMHO the local
newsies should be notified about every Angel Flight. Gotta get the word out
that we are not rich playboys.

Bob Gardner

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The following made the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle, the only
> daily English paper in the 4th Largest US city.
>
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3126650
>
> The first few viewings are "free", after that, repeated browsing requires
> a free registration. First couple paragraphs pasted.
>
> On a side note, this article played out in the Chronicle's "This Week"
> segment which is a weekly "community-specific" section of the paper -
> stuff local interest, area Chamber of Commerce, school stuff..
>
>
>
>
> Patients' 'angels' still flying high
> Volunteer pilots offer free flights for out-of-towners treated in Texas
> and 6 other states
> By EDWARD HEGSTROM
> Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
>
> In the big state of Texas, patients sometimes have to drive hours just to
> get to the hospital.
>
> So a group of volunteer small-plane pilots got an idea: Why not offer to
> fly patients to the hospital?
>
> That was in 1991. Fourteen years later, Angel Flight South Central has
> flown 11,000 patient flights. The organization also provides service to
> six nearby states.......
>

If you've never done it, offer to go along as a waiver signing co-pilot.
You will no doubt be hooked. I LOVE any and all flights I'm able to take.
(Can't take as many as I would like.)

FWIW: Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic's annual banquet is the 16th in Virginia
Beach.
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> As much as some pilots hate to pat themselves on the back, IMHO the local
> newsies should be notified about every Angel Flight. Gotta get the word
> out that we are not rich playboys.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> The following made the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle, the only
>> daily English paper in the 4th Largest US city.
>>
>> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3126650
>>
>> The first few viewings are "free", after that, repeated browsing requires
>> a free registration. First couple paragraphs pasted.
>>
>> On a side note, this article played out in the Chronicle's "This Week"
>> segment which is a weekly "community-specific" section of the paper -
>> stuff local interest, area Chamber of Commerce, school stuff..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Patients' 'angels' still flying high
>> Volunteer pilots offer free flights for out-of-towners treated in Texas
>> and 6 other states
>> By EDWARD HEGSTROM
>> Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
>>
>> In the big state of Texas, patients sometimes have to drive hours just to
>> get to the hospital.
>>
>> So a group of volunteer small-plane pilots got an idea: Why not offer to
>> fly patients to the hospital?
>>
>> That was in 1991. Fourteen years later, Angel Flight South Central has
>> flown 11,000 patient flights. The organization also provides service to
>> six nearby states.......
>>
>
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> As much as some pilots hate to pat themselves on the back, IMHO the local
> newsies should be notified about every Angel Flight. Gotta get the word
> out that we are not rich playboys.

Bob, I volunteer for Angel Flight too; it's a worthy organization. But I
don't think that sort of volunteerism speaks as well for pilots as you
suggest. After all, if the main goal were to help others, there'd be *much*
more cost-effective ways to do so than by flying Angel Flight missions.
Angel Flight does make recreational flying a bit less uselessly hedonistic
than it would otherwise be--which is why I volunteer for the missions. But I
don't think we sould kid ourselves into thinking that Angel Flight
volunteering makes us especially humanitarian.

--Gary


>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> The following made the Sunday edition of the Houston Chronicle, the only
>> daily English paper in the 4th Largest US city.
>>
>> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3126650
>>
>> The first few viewings are "free", after that, repeated browsing requires
>> a free registration. First couple paragraphs pasted.
>>
>> On a side note, this article played out in the Chronicle's "This Week"
>> segment which is a weekly "community-specific" section of the paper -
>> stuff local interest, area Chamber of Commerce, school stuff..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Patients' 'angels' still flying high
>> Volunteer pilots offer free flights for out-of-towners treated in Texas
>> and 6 other states
>> By EDWARD HEGSTROM
>> Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
>>
>> In the big state of Texas, patients sometimes have to drive hours just to
>> get to the hospital.
>>
>> So a group of volunteer small-plane pilots got an idea: Why not offer to
>> fly patients to the hospital?
>>
>> That was in 1991. Fourteen years later, Angel Flight South Central has
>> flown 11,000 patient flights. The organization also provides service to
>> six nearby states.......
>>
>
>

Gary Drescher > wrote:

> But I
> don't think we sould kid ourselves into thinking that Angel Flight
> volunteering makes us especially humanitarian.

I disagree strongly. Angel Flight does not exist to fly a bunch of boy
scouts around to raise pennies for a hospital that in the end won't make a
dent in their deficit.

Instead, there are thousands of families in the US who *need* Angel Flight.
They simply have no other transportation choice to seek the medical care
that they need to live. Without the organization, there are some,
especially organ transplant patients, who might die much sooner.

As an Angel Flight pilot, I believe I finally found *my* way to give back
to the community. If your calling is to be knee high in mud pulling
survivors out of an earthquake-ravaged village, I have a lot of respect for
you. But for you to tell me that spending hours away from my family every
month and spending many hard dollars out of my pocket flying for Angel
Flight is not humanitarian, I say you are wrong.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote:
>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> But I don't think we sould kid ourselves into thinking that
>> Angel Flight volunteering makes us especially humanitarian.

> As an Angel Flight pilot, I believe I finally found *my* way to give
> back
> to the community. If your calling is to be knee high in mud pulling
> survivors out of an earthquake-ravaged village, I have a lot of
> respect for
> you. But for you to tell me that spending hours away from my family
> every
> month and spending many hard dollars out of my pocket flying for Angel
> Flight is not humanitarian, I say you are wrong.

I agree with Gary. In flying Angel Flights, I'm doing what I enjoy
most; the sacrifice is minimal. It is very heartwarming to feel the
gratitude of the pax and to know that I am helping them, but I don't kid
myself that I'm in the same humanitarian class as people who do
volunteer work in disaster areas, for example.

All that aside, I recommend that all pilots consider Angel Flight. It's
fun, rewarding, and will broaden your flying experience. Angel Flight
needs pilots!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke > wrote:

> In flying Angel Flights, I'm doing what I enjoy
> most; the sacrifice is minimal.

Who ever wrote that one had to be miserable to be humanitarian?

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
>
> I agree with Gary. In flying Angel Flights, I'm doing what I enjoy most; the sacrifice is minimal. It is very
> heartwarming to feel the gratitude of the pax and to know that I am helping them, but I don't kid myself that I'm in
> the same humanitarian class as people who do volunteer work in disaster areas, for example.
>
> All that aside, I recommend that all pilots consider Angel Flight. It's fun, rewarding, and will broaden your flying
> experience. Angel Flight needs pilots!
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM


And there are tax benefits too, right?

"Peter R." wrote:
>> In flying Angel Flights, I'm doing what I enjoy
>> most; the sacrifice is minimal.
>
> Who ever wrote that one had to be miserable to be humanitarian?

That seemed to be your point. You were the one going on about the
sacrifices you make for Angel Flight. Do they make you miserable?

Drescher minimized his stature as a humanitarian for being an Angel
Flight pilot, with which I agree. I don't think I'm making any
sacrifices; it's hard for me to pat myself on the back for doing
something that is so much fun.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke > wrote:

> That seemed to be your point.

No, it wasn't my point.

> You were the one going on about the
> sacrifices you make for Angel Flight. Do they make you miserable?

I never used the term sacrifice, as it was too strong a word for this
context. You were the one who used it first.

> Drescher minimized his stature as a humanitarian for being an Angel
> Flight pilot, with which I agree. I don't think I'm making any
> sacrifices; it's hard for me to pat myself on the back for doing
> something that is so much fun.

If my post were interpreted by you as a pat on my back, my apologies for my
poor attempt at communication. Tough medium here.

My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else. My point was that I disagreed with this
interpretation.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Gary Drescher > wrote:
>"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>> As much as some pilots hate to pat themselves on the back, IMHO the local
>> newsies should be notified about every Angel Flight. Gotta get the word
>> out that we are not rich playboys.
>
>Bob, I volunteer for Angel Flight too; it's a worthy organization. But I
>don't think that sort of volunteerism speaks as well for pilots as you
>suggest. After all, if the main goal were to help others, there'd be *much*
>more cost-effective ways to do so than by flying Angel Flight missions.
>Angel Flight does make recreational flying a bit less uselessly hedonistic
>than it would otherwise be--which is why I volunteer for the missions. But I
>don't think we sould kid ourselves into thinking that Angel Flight
>volunteering makes us especially humanitarian.

Gary:

I live in the Rocky Mountain area and Angel Flight here is really
necessary. All too many of our pax are nowhere near a major airport
or even a train station. And when they need to be in Denver (or
Phoenix or SLC or...) every week or every other week, it becomes
both an emotional and physical drain. One couple I've flown needs to
travel from middle Kansas to Denver every other week. It's
a 10-12 hour drive yet only 3-4 hours by Angel Flight. It's a 3 hour
drive just for them to get to an airport that's served by a commuter
flight. Yet there's a GA airport 30 min from where they live.

My memory is often faulty but IIRC Angel Flight was the only non-military,
non-govt. "airline" in the skies, moving blood to the East Coast
after 9-11. But I could be wrong. Often am.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
> humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
> fly and nothing else.

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
encourage others to do the same.

--Gary

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
> I live in the Rocky Mountain area and Angel Flight here is really
> necessary. All too many of our pax are nowhere near a major airport
> or even a train station.

True, my perspective is colored by my own local experiences with AF. Here in
the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience (albeit a significant
one!) rather than necessity.

--Gary

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:57:17 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>> My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
>> humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
>> fly and nothing else.
>
>Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
>especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
>is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
>encourage others to do the same.

I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.

Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
their medical conditions.

How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
finances to help them?

-Nathan

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
> what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
> enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.
>
> Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
> This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
> connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
> their medical conditions.
>
> How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
> finances to help them?

It's not that the same resources could necessarily be put to better use for
the *same beneficiaries* (although if they're close to bankruptcy, they
might actually benefit more if we stayed at home and just donated to them
what the cost of the flight would have been--including all expenses, plus
the value of our time). Rather, my point is that for the cost of a single
Angel Flight, we could e.g. buy antibiotics for children who would otherwise
die of easily preventable diseases, saving many lives.

Again, Angel Flights do accomplish a great deal of good, and it's not
necessarily unreasonable for us to act from a combination of altruistic and
selfish motivations. I just want to maintain a realistic perspective about
what that combination is.

--Gary

Gary wrote:

> Here in the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience
> (albeit a significant one!) rather than necessity.

A 4 year old child loses both kidneys and is on dialysis. He needs a
transplant and the doctor who is to perform the transplant is 8 hours
away by car. His family hears about Angel Flight and asks for help.
Angel Flight Northeast steps in and is able to fly this boy and his
mother to the transplant and for every follow-up appointment over the
next year (from Rochester, NY, to Boston) to see if the kidney is being
rejected.

Convenience or necessity?

A woman is in the late stages of cancer and is close to death. She
wants more than anything else to witness her daughter's wedding, which
is located in the middle of Maine, far from any commercial airport.
She is unable to make the seven-to-ten hour car ride and cannot fly the
airlines due to her lower immune system. She hears about Angel Flight
and is able to get a flight from Teterboro to mid-Maine. She
witnesses her child's wedding, then dies sometime soon thereafter.

Convenience or necessity?

Gary, I don't mean to stir the waters here with you, but I do perceive
flying for AF a bit differently than my interpretation of how you
perceive it. I perceive it as more of a necessity for these people
than a convenience. How many of AF's patients would opt to skip an
important follow-up appointment if they were faced with a long car ride
each month?

--
Peter R.
(via cumbersome Google Groups)

Gary wrote:

> Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
> and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.

I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.


To me flying for AF seems like it has a greater, direct impact on those
who utilize the service.

--
Peter R.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gary wrote:
>
>> Here in the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience
>> (albeit a significant one!) rather than necessity.
>
> A 4 year old child loses both kidneys and is on dialysis. ...
> Convenience or necessity?

Peter, I did say 'often', not 'always'.

In any case, I'm glad we both do volunteer for AF, even if we appraise the
effort slightly differently.

--Gary

Blueskies wrote:

> And there are tax benefits too, right?

Sure, take the cost of fuel and oil for the flight, divide by 50%, then
deduct the expense as a charitable contribution, which results in
perhaps 32% back on that amount.

In other words, spend $100 and receive back $15.

There are much better tax deductions in the US than charity, if one is
only looking to reduce taxable income. :(


--
Peter R.

> True, my perspective is colored by my own local experiences with AF.
Here in
> the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience (albeit a
significant
> one!) rather than necessity.

On the Gulf Coast, it's a matter of necessity. We're very spread out
here. There are major cancer facilities in Houston and San Antonio,
and effectively nowhere else in the area. I've flown patients in from
all over Texas, Arkansas, Missisippi, and Louisiana. They're looking
at 6-12 hour drives to make Houston - and usually flying them in by
airline is no faster (or cheaper!) because we're looking at commuter
airlines making connections. Many of these people simply can't make
the trip - it's just too rough. The only realistic option for them is
medical charter - which most insurance (including Medicare) won't pay
for.

What's more, medical charter is significantly more expensive than my
airplane - in part because their pilots and mechanics need to be paid,
while I fly and turn wrenches for free, and in part due to regulatory
costs (which have NOT given them a better safety record than Angel
Flight).

I agree that in the NE, Angel Flight is probably more a matter of
convenience than anything else, but here in the sparsely populated
parts of the country it's a matter of life and death for many.

Unfortunately, all too often they die anyway. Most of the patients I
fly are very old and very sick. I've flown for Angel Flight a little
over four years, and tonight I fly my 50th mission. Most of the people
I have flown are dead. Once, I actually took a woman home (to
someplace in Louisiana that was hours away from the nearest airport
with commuter service) who was told by her doctors that they had tried
all they had, and there were no more experimental treatments for which
she qualified. All they could give her was something to ease the pain,
and the local sawbones could do it just as well. They were sending her
home to die.

It is the nature of experimental treatments that most of the patients
don't make it. Some do. Sometimes the patient pulls through. I
recently heard from a patient who had not flown with us in months.
When I first started, he would be here every week or two and I flew him
several times. Then he sort of disappeared from the mission rosters,
and I assumed the worst. He had some sort of leukaemia, after all.
But it turned out he was simply down to a two visits a year now, for
monitoring. He is in remission. Sometimes, you win one. It makes it
easier to keep going.

Michael

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gary wrote:
>
>> Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
>> and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.
>
> I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
> cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.

It's a matter of relative benefit, which I think Gary already pointed out
reasonably well.

In developed nations, we spend an awful lot of resources (read, money)
keeping just one person alive (and in many cases, they even want to be kept
alive :) ), when those resources could be applied elsewhere to keep
thousands, tens of thousands, or more alive.

This sort of analysis can be applied to a variety of things we do as
developed nations; it's not unique to Angel Flight. But it definitely
applies to Angel Flight (and similar charity work).

I'm not passing judgment (nor does it appear that Gary is). But like Gary,
I agree that it's helpful to at least keep things in perspective.

Pete