Hello All....

This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
presented to me this evening.

I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.

Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about flying
with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
family members until he had 300 hours....".

I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.

Comments?

Fred

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions

Tell 'em your kids are your kids, and they're probably a damn sight safer
flying with you than they are driving with anyone who would start a question
with "do you really think its a good idea....", or flying with someone with
such obviously low self confidence as "Larry".

Fred Choate wrote:

> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred
>
>
I took up my first passenger as soon as I got home from the checkride
(same day). If I had any family I would not hesitate to take them up
right away. No one ever knows it all. Even after thousands of hours
there is something new to learn. I found out that the license to fly
just tought me how to get the plane up and down safetly and not much
else. 4 years after I got my ticket, a friend taught me how to land.
Since then I haven't bounced a landing but theres always room for
improvement.....

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about
> flying with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you
> really think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get
> more hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly
> with family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred

Flew my first on the way back to the field after taking the check ride.

Actually, you can make a fairly good argument for a pilot being very sharp
right after passing the check ride. After all, you DID just demonstrate to
competent authority that you were both qualified and ready to accept this
responsibility. Do they REALLY think you'll become less competent 24 hours
later? :-)

There are stats that will show a definite area during your tenure as a pilot
based on hours and experience that will show a higher and lower accident
rate during these periods, but these are national averages. Your competence
was fine passing the test, and you should be just fine taking the kids for a
ride.
As for the "family" being concerned about your lack of "experience", I don't
think you want to get into the old counter argument to this that tells them
about the 20,000 hr ATP who flew his airliner into the ground and killed 300
people in the process! THAT will REALLY worry them!! :-)
I would approach the issue with a genuine concern for their "uneducated"
feelings about this, and calmly bring them up to speed with the reality that
you have finished what can easily be said to be a highly concentrated and
advanced training curriculum that has culminated in you taking an extremely
difficult and demanding flight test given by a test examiner. You have been
cleared as competent to fly safely with passengers, or you couldn't have
survived this gauntlet.
They should be very proud of you. You have earned the respect of your peers
in aviation, and if you walk them through a process that allows them to
realize this for themselves, this is EXACTLY what will happen for you.
Best of luck,
Dudley Henriques

Fred Choate wrote:
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.



I have mixed feelings. God grants a special dispensation to newbies and morons.
You are going to do some bone headed things in your next several hundred hours
of flying. With any luck, there'll be no consequence more serious than
embarassment.

So... what should you do? In my case, I flew my parents around sometime in my
first 100 hours or so but I didn't carry them any distance at all until I earned
an instrument rating. I had the added advantage of my dad being a command pilot
in the USAF, albeit retired.

You want to get your inlaws off your case? Get an instrument rating ASAP. I
got my private license in February of 1978 and finished my instrument rating
that November. The following May I took my commercial check ride. Why? It
wasn't so much that I wanted to fly for a living as I felt it added standing to
my flying ability in the eyes of my passengers. And it does.

Take your kids on passenger hops. Leave them for those cross country trips in
questionable weather.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about
flying
> with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
> think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
> hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
> family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred

About 30 minutes after the DE signed my temporary certificate I was up with
family members. It would have been sooner but I took time to get a sandwich
and an iced tea.

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All....
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred
>
My kids were my first passengers, right after my pvt. checkride.
Go for it! Have fun.

John Severyn
KLVK

Thank you for all the comments. I want to say that there is no question for
me as to what I will do, but I was curious about the general feelings in the
aviation community.

One of the biggest motivations for getting my license, was to enjoy the
experiences with my kids. My 9 year old daughter was completely thrilled
when she was sitting right seat, scanning the sky for other aircraft and
picking out landmarks. I am hoping that she will be inspired to pursue
aviation at a young age, rather than waiting until later in life, as I did.

As far as experience, most of you have stated exactly how I feel about it.
CERTAINLY, I have much to learn, and I look forward to learning it. But, as
with most everything else, learning is more fun when you can experience the
ups and the downs with those you care about. Making sound decisions is part
of being not only a pilot, but a parent as well. We all make the decision
to put ourselves and our kids at risk everytime we go to the grocery store
in our vehicle....(yes we have all heard that before).

I think the thing that struck a chord with me in this case, is that said
In-Laws are both aviation people. One was a multi engine, IFR rated pilot
(he hasn't flown for years however), and the other never finished. Thier
son is a captian of an ERJ-145 on the East Coast. They have many friends
that are pilots. So the comment made to me struck me a bit odd, and just
made me think about hidden adjenda's and things like that.

Thank you all for your comments, and support. My daughters birthday gift
this year will be her own flightbag and headset for those short hops with
Dad.

Looking forward to read more comments........thanks again.

Fred

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.

Good! I suppose a little bit of worry is a healthy thing, but the best
thing is for a new pilot to not only be competent and safe, but to FEEL
competent and safe. One of the worst things about new pilots is that they
don't have enough confidence in the skills that they actually DO have.

> Comments?

Your friend makes an excellent point. It is true that new pilots, having
less experience, are at greater risk for certain kinds of accidents. The
same thing is true of new drivers, of course.

So, it clearly follows that when your children obtain their respective
driver's licenses, you would NOT want them riding in a car with such an
inexperienced driver. So, if you refrain from flying with your children so
soon after getting your pilot certificate, make sure you are consistent and
refuse to let them be in the same car with themselves when they are driving
so soon after getting their driver's license.

If you can figure out how to do that in a practical way, let us know.
Otherwise, I think the bottom line is that many of the things you may do
with your children are probably dangerous, including driving around town or
on the highway in a car. For any given exposure, its' pretty well
established that driving carries a lower risk than flying, but your children
probably have a much greater exposure to that risk than they do to the risk
during flying.

In any case, life is not without risks, and if there were enough reason to
worry about killing your children in a plane crash, there would be enough
reason to worry about leaving your children fatherless in a plane crash.
IMHO, the solution is not to avoid the risk, but to do what you can to
minimize it. That means flying carefully, using good judgment to decide
when and where to fly, and to not push the limits too far, whether you are
solo or with your children.

As far as your in-laws are concerned, if they consider it reasonable for
them to second-guess your parenting decisions, it seems to me they should be
expected to submit to you their planned weekly activities, so that you can
review them and make sure they aren't exposing their children to any
significant risk.

Remind them that taking their children on one car ride per day exposes them
to roughly the same risk as you flying with your children on one flight per
week. That the playground is a very dangerous place and should be avoided
at all costs. That restaurants are known to violate (intentionally or not)
health code designed to protect them from food-borne pathogens and toxins.
That their children should not be drinking from any water source that has
not been tested thoroughly by them, whether that's a water fountain, bottled
water, tap water, or whatever.

Or, they can keep their mouths shut and let you make your own decisions
about raising your children. If and when your in-laws themselves are
pilots, and they have informed themselves about the risks involved, then
they *might* have reason to comment. In the meantime, they can safely be
told that they don't actually have any justification for thinking you flying
with your children is a bad idea, other than their own invalid
preconceptions about just how dangerous flying is in the first place.

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud. :)

Pete

Rock climbing is definitely out of the question........ ;)

Fred

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
>> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
>> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
>> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Good! I suppose a little bit of worry is a healthy thing, but the best
> thing is for a new pilot to not only be competent and safe, but to FEEL
> competent and safe. One of the worst things about new pilots is that they
> don't have enough confidence in the skills that they actually DO have.
>
>> Comments?
>
> Your friend makes an excellent point. It is true that new pilots, having
> less experience, are at greater risk for certain kinds of accidents. The
> same thing is true of new drivers, of course.
>
> So, it clearly follows that when your children obtain their respective
> driver's licenses, you would NOT want them riding in a car with such an
> inexperienced driver. So, if you refrain from flying with your children
> so soon after getting your pilot certificate, make sure you are consistent
> and refuse to let them be in the same car with themselves when they are
> driving so soon after getting their driver's license.
>
> If you can figure out how to do that in a practical way, let us know.
> Otherwise, I think the bottom line is that many of the things you may do
> with your children are probably dangerous, including driving around town
> or on the highway in a car. For any given exposure, its' pretty well
> established that driving carries a lower risk than flying, but your
> children probably have a much greater exposure to that risk than they do
> to the risk during flying.
>
> In any case, life is not without risks, and if there were enough reason to
> worry about killing your children in a plane crash, there would be enough
> reason to worry about leaving your children fatherless in a plane crash.
> IMHO, the solution is not to avoid the risk, but to do what you can to
> minimize it. That means flying carefully, using good judgment to decide
> when and where to fly, and to not push the limits too far, whether you are
> solo or with your children.
>
> As far as your in-laws are concerned, if they consider it reasonable for
> them to second-guess your parenting decisions, it seems to me they should
> be expected to submit to you their planned weekly activities, so that you
> can review them and make sure they aren't exposing their children to any
> significant risk.
>
> Remind them that taking their children on one car ride per day exposes
> them to roughly the same risk as you flying with your children on one
> flight per week. That the playground is a very dangerous place and should
> be avoided at all costs. That restaurants are known to violate
> (intentionally or not) health code designed to protect them from
> food-borne pathogens and toxins. That their children should not be
> drinking from any water source that has not been tested thoroughly by
> them, whether that's a water fountain, bottled water, tap water, or
> whatever.
>
> Or, they can keep their mouths shut and let you make your own decisions
> about raising your children. If and when your in-laws themselves are
> pilots, and they have informed themselves about the risks involved, then
> they *might* have reason to comment. In the meantime, they can safely be
> told that they don't actually have any justification for thinking you
> flying with your children is a bad idea, other than their own invalid
> preconceptions about just how dangerous flying is in the first place.
>
> It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud. :)
>
> Pete
>

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Looks like I'm in the minority here, but I think some self-imposed limits
> are
> in order. Yes, I would take family or friends up immediately after getting
> the
> ticket, IF it's a short ride, in good weather near your home field. If
> you're
> talking about going places though, I would be concerned about an
> inexperienced
> pilot placing unneeded performance pressure on himself. If you offer to
> fly
> your family to the inlaws' house, 200nm away, and they accept - then by
> the
> time they get belted in they have their minds set on getting there. This
> is
> the time when the less experienced pilot could make judgement errors,
> particularly regarding weather.

That kind of judgment error can be made by any pilot, any time.
Furthermore, perhaps I'm an anomaly (though I don't think so), but I made
just those kinds of decisions when I was a fairly new pilot myself. In one
case, we were at the airport practically ready to depart, with my friend and
his friend. The weather was great, and we'd planned a flight north to
Vancouver BC from Seattle. But his friend showed up with some kind of sinus
congestion. Having made the mistake of flying once during my training with
a cold, I knew what the potential harm might be, and scrubbed the flight.
The entire day's plan was a bust.

Performance pressure exists no matter how extensive your flight experience.
If anything, the more experienced pilot is expected to be able to do more.
At least a brand new pilot can use the more easily-understood (by non-flying
public) excuse of "I'm just not comfortable with that". Coming from an
experienced pilot, the passengers may not be so understanding. Even
children understand that when you are new to something, it's harder to do.

If performance pressure is the only reason you can think of for a new pilot
to avoid taking his children flying, local flight or no, I remain utterly
unconvinced.

Pete

Fred Choate wrote:
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about flying
> with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
> think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
> hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
> family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.

I took friends and family up right away, within probably a week or so,
I'd have to check my log to say for sure as that was 27 years ago. My
instructor, who was also the DE who gave me the flight ride, said that
his basic test wasn't the PTS, but was the grandchildren test. If he
didn't trust a candidate to take up his grandkids on the next flight
after the flight ride, then they didn't pass.

I figured afterwards that if he felt I was safe with his grandkids, then
I was safe with my own family. :-)

Matt

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Your friend makes an excellent point. It is true that new pilots, having
> less experience, are at greater risk for certain kinds of accidents. The
> same thing is true of new drivers, of course.

otoh - new drivers have not received much training nor have they been
tested to any meaningful standard. Pilots have (or should have).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> I'm sure my opinion is unpopular here, but when people ask me that question,
> I
> often say they should expect a pilot to have 200 hours before they plan to
> fly
> with him, for anything more than a local jaunt in fair weather.

I'm Ok with that attitude - the key point is to fly within the pilot's
capabilities. How much risk is there in a local flight with nice
benign CAVU weather?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In a previous article, "Fred Choate" > said:
>with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
>think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more

"The FAA says that I'm a safe pilot. What are your qualifications to
state otherwise?"

I took my wife and kids up for a short flight the day I passed my check
ride. I took my wife on an international flight at night to an airport
I'd never been two weeks later.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I don't have a sense of humour, merely an over-exaggerated sense
of revenge.
-- Stephen Harris

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I took my wife and kids up for a short flight the day I passed my check
> ride. I took my wife on an international flight at night to an airport
> I'd never been two weeks later.


You're a brave man. I remember my first solo nighttime cross country flight: I
hadn't seen any lights for a while so I assumed I was over the countryside just
to the west of Wilmington, NC. I called into ILM approach and reported my
position as about 20 miles west of ILM. They gave me a squawk code and then
confirmed my actual position as 15 miles EAST of the airport... out over the
Atlantic Ocean... heading for Burmuda!

Oops....

I guess you can say I learned about flying from that. As I said before, God
grants a special dispensation to newbies and morons. No harm was done... and
nobody was there to witness it except me. Thank you, Lord.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Peter Duniho > wrote:


> One of the worst things about new pilots is that they
> don't have enough confidence in the skills that they actually DO have.

IMO, being humble about one's piloting skills is not a detriment. Having
too much confidence in the skills one doesn't have is arguably much worse.

--
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 =----

In a previous article, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I took my wife and kids up for a short flight the day I passed my check
>> ride. I took my wife on an international flight at night to an airport
>> I'd never been two weeks later.
>
>
>You're a brave man. I remember my first solo nighttime cross country flight: I

As a former orienteering competitor (came 4th in the North American
championships once), I have no problems with navigation with all this
electronic stuff backing up my map and compass skills.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Get with the program, jeffrey. No one is 'wrong' on Usenet. They are
either 100% totally correct, or they are 'a lying, scum sucking weasel.'
There is no in-between. -- Garrett Johnson

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about
> flying with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you
> really think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get
> more hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly
> with family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred



I would just tell them that you think it is safe or that you think that the
risk is reasonable.. There is little point in trying to back up your
position with facts, which really aren't on your side anyway. Reality is
that you are fairly inexperienced and you won't be able to overcome that
objection. However, inexperience doesn't mean high risk of a fatal
accident. If the flight is from one paved airport to another in VFR
weather, I doubt that there is much difference in risk between 63hrs and
1000hrs, you can either make the flight safely or you can't. You just
demonstrated on the checkride that you can make such flights in reasonable
safety.

When asked if flying with me is safe, I just answer "No, its not safe".

Mike
MU-2

Nurse Schnerd:

How is is that you were 35 miles from where you thought you were? Is your
airplane equipped with GPS, or other guidance? Aren't the VORs supposed
to give a hint?

About God's special dispensation for "morons," there does seem to be some
truth to this, given the most recent dozen or so crashes over the past few
days were by experienced pilots.

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about
> flying with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you
> really think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get
> more hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly
> with family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred


I flew with a family member about 45 minutes after I had my SEL ticket. I
flew with a non-family meber about 15 after.

I flew with my son two hours after I got my R-H, and I'll fly with my son
about 30 seconds after the 40 hours is flown off my 601XL.

I love my son, I love my family and friends and I'm pretty damn fond of
myself. If I didn't think I would make it back safely to earth every time I
went up I wouldn't go up.

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> I love my son, I love my family and friends and I'm pretty damn fond of
> myself. If I didn't think I would make it back safely to earth every time I
> went up I wouldn't go up.

You are not thinking any differently than every other pilot. If there were
a way to interview every pilot killed in an aircraft crash, everyone
(excluding those who set out to commit suicide) would most likely respond
in the manner in which you did. No one launches on their last flight
expecting anything other than to return home safely.

Recall the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." All
pilots have good intentions, however, not all of these intentions transfer
into proper actions.

--
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 =----

3 days.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> I love my son, I love my family and friends and I'm pretty damn fond of
>> myself. If I didn't think I would make it back safely to earth every time
>> I
>> went up I wouldn't go up.
>
> You are not thinking any differently than every other pilot. If there
> were
> a way to interview every pilot killed in an aircraft crash, everyone
> (excluding those who set out to commit suicide) would most likely respond
> in the manner in which you did. No one launches on their last flight
> expecting anything other than to return home safely.
>
> Recall the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." All
> pilots have good intentions, however, not all of these intentions transfer
> into proper actions.
>
> --
> Peter
>

I understand what you are saying Peter, I don't think you understood what I
was saying.

I'm saying that if I didn't think it was safge enough for my family or
friends I wouldn't think it was safe enough for me.

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> I understand what you are saying Peter, I don't think you understood what I
> was saying.
>
> I'm saying that if I didn't think it was safge enough for my family or
> friends I wouldn't think it was safe enough for me.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying. My point is simply that every
pilot who was involved in a fatal accident (speaking of non-experimental GA
and excluding those who set out to commit suicide) most likely believed
what you and I believe.

The challenge we all continually face is putting our "money where our
mouths and keyhboards are." In other words, translate this belief into
actions (proper weather briefing, proper go/no-go/go-and-then-turn-
around-or-land decisions, proper fuel planning, practice or fly enough to
maintain proficiency, etc). Looking at GA accident statistics, this
clearly does not happen with enough regularity.


--
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 =----

> I think the thing that struck a chord with me in this case, is that said
> In-Laws are both aviation people. One was a multi engine, IFR rated pilot
> (he hasn't flown for years however), and the other never finished. Thier
> son is a captian of an ERJ-145 on the East Coast. They have many friends
> that are pilots. So the comment made to me struck me a bit odd, and just
> made me think about hidden adjenda's and things like that.

Sounds like you've got a tough row to hoe ahead with the in-laws...
Something ain't right there.

To answer your initial question, though, my first passenger was my wife,
Mary, the day after I got my ticket. My next passenger(s) were my kids,
ages 4 and 1.5... Been flying with 'em every since. (They're now 14 and
11)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Looks like I'm in the minority here, but I think some self-imposed limits
> are
> in order. Yes, I would take family or friends up immediately after getting
> the
> ticket, IF it's a short ride, in good weather near your home field. If
> you're
> talking about going places though, I would be concerned about an
> inexperienced
> pilot placing unneeded performance pressure on himself. If you offer to
> fly
> your family to the inlaws' house, 200nm away, and they accept - then by
> the
> time they get belted in they have their minds set on getting there. This
> is
> the time when the less experienced pilot could make judgement errors,
> particularly regarding weather. Lack of experience + external pressure . .
> .

Depends on the training. My instructor firmly planted the seeds of caution
on all cross-country flights, and I use his teaching to this day.

Maybe we were crazy, but Mary and I launched on a multi-state cross-country
flight just a few months after I got my ticket. In fact, I just found the
flight plan the other day, stashed in a forgotten file, and we both had a
great laugh when we found that I had written down EVERY SINGLE VISIBLE
LANDMARK, in a single-spaced, typed-out format, on a trip of a thousand
miles!

We're talking entries like "Power lines at a 45-degree angle" and
"smokestack on the right", for page after page! Shoot, I put more planning
into that trip than NASA put into the moon landings -- so perhaps we do it
*better* when we're newbies, eh?

At the other end of the spectrum, I know pilots with many years of
experience who *never* leave the airport environment, and seem perfectly
content with that. To them, simply going "up" is the thrill, I guess.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> You're a brave man. I remember my first solo nighttime cross country
>> flight: I
>
> As a former orienteering competitor (came 4th in the North American
> championships once), I have no problems with navigation with all this
> electronic stuff backing up my map and compass skills.


So how are you at map reading on hazy dark moonless nights at altitude?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

I guess I have a mixed opinion. I have recently completed my Commercial
Checkride. During that process I discovered that I did not know what I
thought I knew. In other words, there is always something to learn and
experience to be gained.

As far as the kids, I flew my children on a Private ticket. I was careful,
VFR only, and short hops only.

We all made it safely, I learned, they learned and we all had fun in the
process.

You are licensed to decide who goes and who does not. It is your decision
not the in-laws.

--
Bill Snow

Fred Choate > wrote:

> My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?

My kids have flown "since before they were born". My wife quit flying
solo when she was too pregnant to pull the yoke all the way back on a
C152.

Since 5 years old, each of the kids have been able to hold straight
and level, on course, IFR, in the soup. After all, all they could see
in the front seat was the instruments, and to them it was just a large
video game.

But, they are spoiled. Neither of the kids has "taken to" aviation.
They think "everyone" has an SUV at the airport and can go
wherever/whenever. For my wife, after she soloed, and knew that she
could land the airplane if something happened to me, she sits in the
back and reads a book while the world goes by.

So, since my family is not interested beyond the travel time, I
volunteer for Civil Air Patrol flight academies... power and glider.

Yes, I love to fly and teach!

In the mean time, I keep myself busy teaching mountain flying ground
school (5 of them this year), and then doing the flight training in
the mountains. I no longer do "mountain checkouts". What I do is
"mountain training to proficiency". The typical "2-3 hour mountain
checkout" is just enough to get some killed by attempting to operate
beyond their and their aircraft's capabilities.

After a full day ground school (Colorado Pilots Association), I have
3.5 full days of flying scheduled to take a pilot all over Colorado
and help them with operational experience and a high level of
proficiency and comfort in the Colorado Rockys! Many of my customers
return in later years for a "brush up" on proficiency and techniques.

After flying with me in Colorado, I recommend "McCall Mountain and
Canyon Flying Seminars" in McCall, ID. After that... Alaska!

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> I understand what you are saying Peter, I don't think you understood what
>> I
>> was saying.
>>
>> I'm saying that if I didn't think it was safge enough for my family or
>> friends I wouldn't think it was safe enough for me.
>
> Yes, I do understand what you are saying. My point is simply that every
> pilot who was involved in a fatal accident (speaking of non-experimental
> GA
> and excluding those who set out to commit suicide) most likely believed
> what you and I believe.
>
> The challenge we all continually face is putting our "money where our
> mouths and keyhboards are." In other words, translate this belief into
> actions (proper weather briefing, proper go/no-go/go-and-then-turn-
> around-or-land decisions, proper fuel planning, practice or fly enough to
> maintain proficiency, etc). Looking at GA accident statistics, this
> clearly does not happen with enough regularity.
>

Again I couldn't agree more but that wasn't what the OP was talking about.
He was asking a question related to piloting friends and family before he
has X hundred hours.

> wrote in message ...
> Fred Choate > wrote:
>
>> My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
>> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
>
> My kids have flown "since before they were born". My wife quit flying
> solo when she was too pregnant to pull the yoke all the way back on a
> C152.
>
> Since 5 years old, each of the kids have been able to hold straight
> and level, on course, IFR, in the soup. After all, all they could see
> in the front seat was the instruments, and to them it was just a large
> video game.
>
> But, they are spoiled. Neither of the kids has "taken to" aviation.
> They think "everyone" has an SUV at the airport and can go
> wherever/whenever. For my wife, after she soloed, and knew that she
> could land the airplane if something happened to me, she sits in the
> back and reads a book while the world goes by.
>
> So, since my family is not interested beyond the travel time, I
> volunteer for Civil Air Patrol flight academies... power and glider.
>
> Yes, I love to fly and teach!
>
> In the mean time, I keep myself busy teaching mountain flying ground
> school (5 of them this year), and then doing the flight training in
> the mountains. I no longer do "mountain checkouts". What I do is
> "mountain training to proficiency". The typical "2-3 hour mountain
> checkout" is just enough to get some killed by attempting to operate
> beyond their and their aircraft's capabilities.
>
> After a full day ground school (Colorado Pilots Association), I have
> 3.5 full days of flying scheduled to take a pilot all over Colorado
> and help them with operational experience and a high level of
> proficiency and comfort in the Colorado Rockys! Many of my customers
> return in later years for a "brush up" on proficiency and techniques.
>
> After flying with me in Colorado, I recommend "McCall Mountain and
> Canyon Flying Seminars" in McCall, ID. After that... Alaska!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard
>
> --
> Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
> CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
> C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
> CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

I went to the McCall school last week and had the most fun that I have ever
had flying!

Mike
MU-2

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Again I couldn't agree more but that wasn't what the OP was talking about.

I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to you. :-)




--
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 in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Again I couldn't agree more but that wasn't what the OP was talking
>> about.
>
> I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to you. :-)
>
>

That's one of the big problems of USENET. You have to take what I said in
context to the thread or you can pretty much make it mean anything you want.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> otoh - new drivers have not received much training nor have they been
> tested to any meaningful standard. Pilots have (or should have).

Well, a) the comparison was at least 50% facetious (the following paragraph
should have illustrated that), and b) regardless of the training offered, a
new pilot or driver is at greater risk for certain kinds of accidents than a
more experienced one. You can't necessarily compare a new driver to a new
pilot, but you can easily compare a new driver to an experienced driver, and
a new pilot to an experienced pilot.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> IMO, being humble about one's piloting skills is not a detriment. Having
> too much confidence in the skills one doesn't have is arguably much worse.

You're reading things into my post that I didn't write. I'm not talking
about being humble. I'm talking about being needlessly paranoid.

Likewise, I'm not talking about being OVER-confident. I'm talking about
having an appropriate and correct assessment of one's own skills.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [...]
> When asked if flying with me is safe, I just answer "No, its not safe".

And in making that absolutely true statement, assuming by "I just answer"
you mean it stands alone, you're doing aviation a disservice.

The problem isn't so much that aviation is unsafe (it certainly can be
dangerous, and as the saying goes, is unforgiving of mistakes). It's that
people fail to recognize how many *other* things in their life are also
unsafe. Things that they are exposed to with much greater frequency than
most pilots are exposed to the risk of flying.

Acknowledging the hazards of aviation is well and good, but doing so without
putting those hazards into perspective just perpetuates the myth that flying
airplanes is only for daredevils.

Pete

Peter Duniho > wrote:


> You're reading things into my post that I didn't write. I'm not talking
> about being humble. I'm talking about being needlessly paranoid.

Oh? When you typed "don't have enough confidence" you meant "needlessly
paranoid?" Ok, I'll take your word for it now that you explained it.

You have to admit that there was some wiggle room there. :)



--
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 =----

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> That's one of the big problems of USENET. You have to take what I said in
> context to the thread or you can pretty much make it mean anything you want.

My comments were not outside the context of this thread.

--
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 in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> That's one of the big problems of USENET. You have to take what I said in
>> context to the thread or you can pretty much make it mean anything you
>> want.
>
> My comments were not outside the context of this thread.
>


Peter R., two different people thought you took thier two different comments
out of context. You certainly took mine out of context.

RIF

> My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?

I think I had my private all of two weeks before I took my parents on a
weekend trip, New Jersey to Pennsylvania. We had friends there, and
the round trip of just under 4 hours in the rental C-172 eliminated a
round trip drive of over 10 hours in the family car. Of course at that
point I had already flown that rental C-172 from Indiana to New Jersey,
but I was still well under 100 hours.

I felt very comfortable and very safe making that weekend trip. The
weather was good VFR, it was a pleasant day in late spring, I had it
all planned out and hit every checkpoint, and I felt proud of myself
for spotting the nondescript little strip in Pensylvania, and for the
way I handled the busy Sunday afternoon arrival into Caldwell. The
plane performed flawlessly, flying the entire trip without a hiccup.
Truly it could not have been any better.

In retrospect, while I think the trip from Indiana to New Jersey days
after getting the ticket was great, taking the family on that weekend
jaunt wasn't such a hot idea. That was over a decade and over 2000
hours ago, and my perspective on proficiency is a little different now
than it was then. In other words - I know how little I knew, how
poorly maintained the plane was, how much riskier that flight was
(compared to driving in the family car), and how poorly I communicated
this risk to my parents.

Was the risk acceptable? To me, certainly. To my mother? She avoids
driving at night or in bad weather as much as possible to reduce the
risk, which is small by aviation standards. Would she have gone had
she understood how bad the risk really was? I doubt it. Driving is
the most dangerous thing most people do, but it is much safer than
personal flying by any reasonable statistical measure, regardless of
how you may feel about it.

Some say the good lord protects fools and madmen, and thus he must
surely protect the newly minted private pilots, hours still in two
digits, who pile the family into the airplane and take off.

So if not right after getting the ticket, when? Well, here's how I
look at it. I don't much enjoy flying in the back seat of a GA
airplane, but I'll do it for transportation. In the back seat, my
experience and proficiency means little - I have no accees to the
controls, and so I am at the mercy of the pilot. I think nothing of
getting into the back seat of a car with a stranger, but I won't do the
same with an airplane - the risk is much greater. Every pilot is
different, but there are quite a few that I know that I would get into
the back seat. Only one has less than 300 hours (I'm not sure he even
has 100), and he had unusually high quality training (I believe the
average experience level of the instructors who taught him was 5000+
hours).

>From what I've observed, most pilots will begin to understand their
limitations and the limitations of their aircraft (really understand
them, not just imagine them to be arbitrarily restrictive) somewhere
around the 300-600 hour mark, if ever. That's how long it takes for
them to scare themselves enough times. That's also about the point
where they gain a level of proficiency that makes it seem reasonable to
me to put my life in their hands, again if they're ever going to reach
it. My experience is also that a pilot who hasn't reached that point
in 600 hours isn't ever going to, unless he commits to long term,
intensive, high-quality training. This is highly uncommon in personal
aviation. I suspect it's because at that point the habit patterns are
set, and the pilot is either so conservative he has no idea where his
limits really are because he's never encountered them, or so reckless
that he sees every mistake he got away with as further proof that he is
the latest incarnation of Chuck Yeager. I won't fly with either kind -
the latter because I'm all too likely to be there when he says "Hey,
y'all, watch this" and the former because when the truly unexpected
happens to him (and it will), he will have no idea how to cope.

Having said all that - they're your kids. You make decisions about
what is and what is not safe enough for them all the time. Just
remember that when they get to be teenagers and want to drive (or ride
motorcycles), if you forbid it on the basis of safety you really
haven't a leg to stand on.

Michael

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Peter R., two different people thought you took thier two different comments
> out of context.

Coincidence.

> You certainly took mine out of context.

OK, please help me to understand something:

> I love my son, I love my family and friends and I'm pretty damn fond of
> myself. If I didn't think I would make it back safely to earth every time I
> went up I wouldn't go up.

There is your original quote that started this particular ****ing contest.

Since we are both educated individuals rather than Usenet trolls, I ask you
for the courtesy of an explanation. Specifically, how does *thinking*
that you would make it back safely to earth directly relate to the OP's
question of experience?


--
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 in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Peter R., two different people thought you took thier two different
>> comments
>> out of context.
>
> Coincidence.
>
>> You certainly took mine out of context.
>
> OK, please help me to understand something:
>
>> I love my son, I love my family and friends and I'm pretty damn fond of
>> myself. If I didn't think I would make it back safely to earth every time
>> I
>> went up I wouldn't go up.
>
> There is your original quote that started this particular ****ing contest.
>
> Since we are both educated individuals rather than Usenet trolls, I ask
> you
> for the courtesy of an explanation. Specifically, how does *thinking*
> that you would make it back safely to earth directly relate to the OP's
> question of experience?
>

It means that I (and he was asking for other pilot's opinions) wouldn't fly
unless I thought I was going to return to earth safely.

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> It means that I (and he was asking for other pilot's opinions) wouldn't fly
> unless I thought I was going to return to earth safely.

You didn't answer my question, but never mind.

Methinks you took something I wrote personally, which was not my intention.


--
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 =----

I took my son right after the checkride. But right now I haven't been in a
plane for a couple months due to work/weather/rental bird availability, so
wouldn't do it today if the plane was available. Would take a bit of time
with an instructor and some solo time first (even though I could *legally*
strap him in and go). Maybe that will change in a few hundred hours (<100
now), but right now I still prefer the reality check with the instructor
(or at least some solo practice) if I haven't been in the plane for more
than a month or so.


Fred Choate wrote:

> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about
> flying
> with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
> think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
> hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
> family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did
> you all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Oh? When you typed "don't have enough confidence" you meant "needlessly
> paranoid?" Ok, I'll take your word for it now that you explained it.

Yes, I consider not having enough confidence the exact same thing as being
needlessly paranoid. What is so difficult about that for you to agree with?

Furthermore, you forgot to quote the other part of that sentence: "in the
skills that they actually DO have". In other words, I'm simply talking
about an accurate evaluation of their ACTUAL abilities, not the
overconfidence you describe.

> You have to admit that there was some wiggle room there. :)

I have to admit no such thing.

Pete

I got my ticket at 60 hours and my kids were the passengers on my first
flight as a PP/ASEL.

Al Gilson
N3082U
SFF

Fred Choate wrote:
> Hello All....
>
> This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
> presented to me this evening.
>
> I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
> circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
> more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
> are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.
>
> Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about flying
> with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
> think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
> hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
> family members until he had 300 hours....".
>
> I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
> all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
> Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
> completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.
>
> Comments?
>
> Fred
>
>

> It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud. :)

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

Come on guys, after all the complaining about non-aviators being
ignorant about aviation matters (such as safety) you'd think people on
this groups would be a little more mindful of activities that they do
not know that much about.

I am an avid pilot and avid climber. In my mind they are *very* similar
activities. Both are inherently risky, but both can be very safe if you
know what you are doing. They also both offer an wide spectrum of
positions to take with respect to risk vs. action. For example, some
pilots do not fly IFR, or do not fly "hard" IFR, or fly own
twin-engine, or won't fly at night, etc.

Same is with climbers. Some will only climb at the gym, some will only
top-rope, some don't trust themselves to set anchors and will always
get a second opinion, some will climb only with partners they know very
well, some will only lead on sport routes, some will only attempt
"trad" climbing 3 levels below what they can do on top-rope, etc.

For example, if you are on a properly rigged "top-rope" climb (meaning
the rope is attached to a pully system anchored at the top of the
climb) and the anchor is triple redundant, and your belayer is
competent, there is *no way* you are going to fall more than a foot or
two. (that's not to say that can't lead to a bonked head or twisted
ankle) Oh, and the helmet protects against the bonked head.


All these adjustments weigh skill, intelligence, and knowledge against
"fun" and "adventure." You choose where you want to be.

Like flying safely, climbing safely is *all* about judgement.

-- dave j
-- PP-ASEL, Instr., working on commercial
-- climber, 5.10ish on top rope, leads 5.8 sport, 5.7 trad

Peter R. wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>
>>It means that I (and he was asking for other pilot's opinions) wouldn't fly
>>unless I thought I was going to return to earth safely.
>
>
> You didn't answer my question, but never mind.
>
> Methinks you took something I wrote personally, which was not my intention.
>
>

What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
seeing that?

Matt

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> Yes, I consider not having enough confidence the exact same thing as being
> needlessly paranoid. What is so difficult about that for you to agree with?

Your cantankerous persona in these aviation groups has become quite
tiresome.


--
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 =----

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
> seeing that?

No, you are not the only one seeing it.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel > wrote:

>> What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
>> seeing that?
>
> No, you are not the only one seeing it.

Do not adjust your set. Newsfeeds, my current news provider, adds their
own BS advertising to the bottom of all of their subscribers' posts. Other
than going with another news provider, there is nothing I can do about it.

As a form of protest, though, I do add a few carriage returns after my name
in my sig in an attempt to push their garbage way down and out of view of
most PC-based newsreaders.



--
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 in message
...
> Your cantankerous persona in these aviation groups has become quite
> tiresome.

Really? Do tell. Your insistence on misinterpreting other people's posts,
and then writing fallacious "corrections" to those posts isn't?

Okay then.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud. :)
>
> Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
the smiley for folks like you?

Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

The reason for this difference may be different between flying and rock
climbing, compared to between flying and driving. But nevertheless, as far
as I know the difference does exist (maybe it's changed recently?).

Pete

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> Really? Do tell.

Your argumentative, humorless posting history over the last three years of
my participation in these aviation groups is *so much* more pronounced than
I could ever hope to achieve.

Back in 2002 when I was a student pilot, I enjoyed reading your posts, as
they contained much relevant aviation content and tempered discussion.
However, these days the majority of your posts demonstrates nothing more
than a persona in constant need of one-upping all others.

I'll certainly concede that you do appear to know aviation and you seem
quite intelligent, but your humorless and combative presentation has
increased to the point where I certainly have grown tired of wading through
your thorns to find the fruit.

> Your insistence on misinterpreting other people's posts,
> and then writing fallacious "corrections" to those posts isn't?

I see nothing in my first few posts in this thread that even closely
represents your remark. But, call it as you do. That is your aviation
newsgroup persona and it has become predictable and boring.

--
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 =----

It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive. ;)

You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
even clear what would be comparative? Deaths per year per 100,000
practitioners? That would not distinguish between people who climb/fly
a lot or a little? Or deaths per 100,000 hours? That would not account
for the fact that people don't climb continuously for hours like pilots
fly. Also, how does one account for the level of training? (There's no
climber's certificate, though sometimes I think there should be.) So
it's hard.

You also could try to separate out certain types of particularly
dangerous climbing that that most climbers don't do, such as solo free
climbing. (ie, no rope, no mistakes allowed). Fact is, climbing often
attracts a certain type of risk taker, and to be honest, many climbers
are just not as thoughtful as pilots -- but that doesn't mean that
climbing is to blame.

What is definitely true is that your chance of injury (scraped skin,
twisted ankles, broken bones) is a good deal higher for rock climbing
than flying. Death, however, is going to be much closer.

In any case, I'm really pushing my luck, because I sometimes fly to go
climbing!
And do think, my mother used to joke that her precious children should
only be allowed to play checkers -- and then, only wearing goggles.

-- dave j

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive. ;)

I was thinking more just the poor eyesight. But if it's a sensitivity
issue, maybe the larger smiley would have helped that too. :)

> You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
> flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
> even clear what would be comparative?

Therein lies the rub. Even for the basic flying vs driving comparison,
there's debate as to the "correct" way to compare them. The relative ratios
don't come out the same for all methods (in fact, I'm pretty sure *none* are
the same).

The same thing is true for comparing flying to rock climbing, of course. Or
any other activity. Which comparison one chooses depends often as much on
what point the person making the comparison is trying to make, as it does on
any objective desire to provide the most relevant and accurate comparison.

I'm not saying I have a perfect way to compare the various activities. Just
that, for various measures, certain activities are consistently more or less
(depending on the activity) dangerous than flying.

Pete

I was instrument-rated and had 300 hours before I took my first
passenger.

I wanted to make very sure that I could handle whatever Mother Nature
(within reason) handed me before I flew with someone else.

The fact that you passed a checkride says pretty much nothing about
your safety or competence.

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
>I was instrument-rated and had 300 hours before I took my first
> passenger.
>
> I wanted to make very sure that I could handle whatever Mother Nature
> (within reason) handed me before I flew with someone else.
>
> The fact that you passed a checkride says pretty much nothing about
> your safety or competence.

Sorry Scott,

But having your IA and 300+ hours says nothing about yours either.

As other have pointed out, there are low-time pilots who fly as
professionally as ATPs and there are high-time pilots who are lucky to still
be alive.

IMO, it boils down to personal limits and not letting your ego write checks
your experience can't cash.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>> It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud. :)
>>
>> Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!
>
> I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
> the smiley for folks like you?
>
> Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
> rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
> risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
> far off from comparing flying to driving.

Per mile traveled? I'd certainly expect it to be different! :-) :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>> In terms of
>> risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is
>> not
>> far off from comparing flying to driving.
>
> Per mile traveled? I'd certainly expect it to be different! :-) :-)

Funny, yet exactly my point in a following post. :)

Peter R. wrote:

> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>
>>>What is with all of the extra lines in your .sig? Or am I the only one
>>>seeing that?
>>
>>No, you are not the only one seeing it.
>
>
> Do not adjust your set. Newsfeeds, my current news provider, adds their
> own BS advertising to the bottom of all of their subscribers' posts. Other
> than going with another news provider, there is nothing I can do about it.
>
> As a form of protest, though, I do add a few carriage returns after my name
> in my sig in an attempt to push their garbage way down and out of view of
> most PC-based newsreaders.

I understand, but since I usually use the "space bar" method of reading
in Netscape, I get to see it anyway and now require one more keystroke
for the "pleasure" of reading it.

Just an FYI.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> I get to see it anyway and now require one more keystroke
> for the "pleasure" of reading it.

Be careful. Wouldn't want you breaking a nail during that extra keystroke.

--
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:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>> I get to see it anyway and now require one more keystroke
>>for the "pleasure" of reading it.
>
>
> Be careful. Wouldn't want you breaking a nail during that extra keystroke.
>

What I expected. You'd rather inconvenience all of us with every
message rather than make a one-time modification to your signature.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> What I expected. You'd rather inconvenience all of us with every
> message rather than make a one-time modification to your signature.

You funny.

--
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:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>What I expected. You'd rather inconvenience all of us with every
>>message rather than make a one-time modification to your signature.
>
>
> You funny.
>

Plonk

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>What I expected. You'd rather inconvenience all of us with every
>>>message rather than make a one-time modification to your signature.
>>
>> You funny.
>>
>
> Plonk

And I thought we really bonded in that US Airways thread...

However, I agree that plonking was your only logical move, given the duress
those single keystrokes would have caused you down the road.

--
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 in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>> Plonk
>
> And I thought we really bonded in that US Airways thread...
>
> However, I agree that plonking was your only logical move, given the
> duress
> those single keystrokes would have caused you down the road.

I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little merit
as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.

I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.

Pete

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little merit
> as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.
>
> I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.

It ranks as one of the most trivial reasons I have seen.

--
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 in message
...
> Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
> > I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little
merit
> > as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.
> >
> > I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.
>
> It ranks as one of the most trivial reasons I have seen.
>

Didn't you say that the extra lines are added by your newsfeed provider?

If that is the case, not only was it trivial, but the response was asinine.

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Didn't you say that the extra lines are added by your newsfeed provider?
>
> If that is the case, not only was it trivial, but the response was asinine.

Well, to be fair to Matt W, only the last three lines at the bottom of my
sig are added automatically by Newsfeeds and I cannot do anything about
that. I added a few carriage returns (which adds a few blank lines) below
my sig to push that spam way below most PC-based news readers and I think
that is what irks him.

All he had to do was ask nicely and I would have considered the effects on
a newsreader of which I am unfamiliar. Instead, he resorted to immediate
hostility.

--
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 Duniho wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>Plonk
>>
>>And I thought we really bonded in that US Airways thread...
>>
>>However, I agree that plonking was your only logical move, given the
>>duress
>>those single keystrokes would have caused you down the road.
>
>
> I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little merit
> as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.
>
> I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.
>
> Pete
>
>

It wasn't a personal plonk, just one for convenience. It got really
annoying after a while to have to keep hitting the space bar to get to
the next message and to not see anything useful. Most entries in my
filter are for annoying sigs, folks that post in HTML, etc. I rarely
"killfile" anyone as I don't much care what anyone says, I just don't
like annoyances like fancy sigs, advertising, etc.


Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Duniho > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little
>
> merit
>
>>>as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.
>>>
>>>I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.
>>
>>It ranks as one of the most trivial reasons I have seen.
>>
>
>
> Didn't you say that the extra lines are added by your newsfeed provider?
>
> If that is the case, not only was it trivial, but the response was asinine.

My understanding is that the extra .sig lines were added by his ISP, but
all of the blank lines were added by him.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> It wasn't a personal plonk, just one for convenience. It got really
> annoying after a while to have to keep hitting the space bar to get to
> the next message and to not see anything useful. Most entries in my
> filter are for annoying sigs, folks that post in HTML, etc. I rarely
> "killfile" anyone as I don't much care what anyone says, I just don't
> like annoyances like fancy sigs, advertising, etc.
>

Oh, you poor little boy!!

You should spend some time in the Marines!!

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > Didn't you say that the extra lines are added by your newsfeed provider?
> >
> > If that is the case, not only was it trivial, but the response was
asinine.
>
> Well, to be fair to Matt W, only the last three lines at the bottom of my
> sig are added automatically by Newsfeeds and I cannot do anything about
> that. I added a few carriage returns (which adds a few blank lines) below
> my sig to push that spam way below most PC-based news readers and I think
> that is what irks him.
>
> All he had to do was ask nicely and I would have considered the effects on
> a newsreader of which I am unfamiliar. Instead, he resorted to immediate
> hostility.

MR. Whiting has (IME) a knack for sticking his foot in his mouth, then
expending copious time and effort in trying to spin lame excuses, instead of
having the guts to retract his remarks.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Peter Duniho > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I thought it was funny, personally. If I plonked folks on as little
> >
> > merit
> >
> >>>as he did you, he would've been in my killfile a long time ago.
> >>>
> >>>I guess some people just have a hard time dealing. With everything.
> >>
> >>It ranks as one of the most trivial reasons I have seen.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Didn't you say that the extra lines are added by your newsfeed provider?
> >
> > If that is the case, not only was it trivial, but the response was
asinine.
>
> My understanding is that the extra .sig lines were added by his ISP, but
> all of the blank lines were added by him.
>

Yes, and he explained why and it makes sense to me, but then Peter and I are
TN Bonanza pilots.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> It wasn't a personal plonk, just one for convenience. It got really
> annoying after a while to have to keep hitting the space bar to get to the
> next message and to not see anything useful.

That's even more hilarious.

First of all, it's pretty childish to post a "plonk" anyway. In almost all
cases, it amounts to "la la la la I can't hear you" with your fingers in
your ears. Almost every single person in my killfile has no idea that
they've been killfiled. Why bother?

Secondly, if you DO actually post your "plonk", that is always personal.
There's no non-personal reason to post something like that. If you think
it's *really* important to communicate to the individual that you've junked
their posts (though I can see no good reason to bother), private email is
better. A public newsgroup "plonk" is anything but impersonal.

Thirdly, as far as inconveniences go, I'd say folks who fail to trim their
quotes, and who top-post, represent MUCH greater inconveniences. Oddly
enough, you fall into the first category, and I'm sitting here wondering if
you bother to killfile everyone who falls into the second (they represent a
sizable portion of the participants of this newsgroup, and create FAR
greater inconvenience for you than one extra page (at most) of blank lines
does).

Anyway, thanks for the amusement...I am laughing my ass off. :)

Pete

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> but then Peter and I are TN Bonanza pilots.

I don't think I knew you flew a TN Bonanza. Where are you based?


--
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 in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > but then Peter and I are TN Bonanza pilots.
>
> I don't think I knew you flew a TN Bonanza. Where are you based?
>

Montrose, CO

I use a B36TC in which the TIO-520 has been replaced by a TNIO-550.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Montrose, CO
>
> I use a B36TC in which the TIO-520 has been replaced by a TNIO-550.

Now that you mention this, I remember. You had offered that info back in
early May when I was looking for advice on flying in the front range of
Colorado.

BTW, what appeared to be the most beautiful country over which I flew
during my trip was located in south central Colorado, just south of
Trinidad. Unfortunately I was VFR and dodging t-storms and cloud layers,
but I had a chance when flying north over the plateau there to enjoy a
moment of scenery. You are very fortunate to be based in such a scenic
state.

--
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 in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > Montrose, CO
> >
> > I use a B36TC in which the TIO-520 has been replaced by a TNIO-550.
>
> Now that you mention this, I remember. You had offered that info back in
> early May when I was looking for advice on flying in the front range of
> Colorado.

Weren't you going up by Longmont, or Firestone IIR?

How'd that work out?

>
> BTW, what appeared to be the most beautiful country over which I flew
> during my trip was located in south central Colorado, just south of
> Trinidad.

That would be the Raton Pass area (the CO/NM border).

Head a bit west and you'll see the Sangre de Cristo mountains...really
awesome.

> Unfortunately I was VFR and dodging t-storms and cloud layers,
> but I had a chance when flying north over the plateau there to enjoy a
> moment of scenery.

The San Juan moutains?

? You are very fortunate to be based in such a scenic
> state.

I agree. Perhaps the most gorgeous area _anywhere_ is just south of us in
Ouray.

It's a bit of a hassle, flying out of here (13K-14K terrain all around), but
it's worth it!

I waited until I was confident that the flight was as safe as it
possibly could be.

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Weren't you going up by Longmont, or Firestone IIR?

Yes.

> How'd that work out?

It worked out well. I landed at Platte Valley Airport and was able to rent
a cheap t-hanger for the two days I visited my brother in Firestone. Fuel
there was attractively priced and the weather remained docile.

However, the airport's 40 foot wide runway was interesting. Despite being
about 1,000 ft above the airport, the narrow runway gave the appearance of
being about 2,500 feet above the airport.

We had dinner and shopped over by Jeffco airport, so I was able to walk in
to one of the FBOs at that airport and have my O2 tanks refilled for a
reduced price versus walking in from the ramp.

--
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 in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > Weren't you going up by Longmont, or Firestone IIR?
>
> Yes.
>
> > How'd that work out?
>
> It worked out well. I landed at Platte Valley Airport and was able to
rent
> a cheap t-hanger for the two days I visited my brother in Firestone. Fuel
> there was attractively priced and the weather remained docile.
>
> However, the airport's 40 foot wide runway was interesting. Despite being
> about 1,000 ft above the airport, the narrow runway gave the appearance of
> being about 2,500 feet above the airport.

Like a spagetti farm, huh? :~)
>
> We had dinner and shopped over by Jeffco airport, so I was able to walk in
> to one of the FBOs at that airport and have my O2 tanks refilled for a
> reduced price versus walking in from the ramp.

Good deal!!

You've got to come back out in the fall and see the changing of the Aspen.
The fall colors in New England are grand, but the Aspen are awesome when
mixed with the mountainous terrain.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 06:56:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>Peter and I are TN Bonanza pilots.

Perhaps that was true once, but in October 2002 it would appear, that
Mr.Ricciardiello stepped up to a brand NEW airplane:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/thericcs1/flights/C172/

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Perhaps that was true once, but in October 2002 it would appear, that
> Mr.Ricciardiello stepped up to a brand NEW airplane:

I stepped up to the Bonanza. :)

--
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 =----

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:31:33 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Tell 'em your kids are your kids, and they're probably a damn sight safer
>flying with you than they are driving with anyone who would start a question
>with "do you really think its a good idea....", or flying with someone with
>such obviously low self confidence as "Larry".

Were you referring to moi?

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Scott Draper" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I was instrument-rated and had 300 hours before I took my first
> > passenger.
> >
> > The fact that you passed a checkride says pretty much nothing about
> > your safety or competence.
>
> Sorry Scott,
>
> But having your IA and 300+ hours says nothing about yours either.

Well, I think both of you are taking things to a bit of an extreme.

DEs are not generally in the habit of handing tickets out to those they
do not think competent, and DEs are about as well-prepared as anyone to
make that call. I don't think it's crazy to say that a newly-minted
pilot is reasonably safe to make sunny-day hops.

Likewise, the IR does indicate that you've obtained a basic competency
in managing flight in conditions that a non-rated pilot may not be able
to handle. However, it is a very specific education, and in many
circumstances you'd be better off with a pilot who learned aerobatics
than with an instrument pilot. To me, its first and foremost use is as
an indicator of attitude- all other things being equal, a pilot who has
earned the rating has demonstrated a commitment to mastering the arts
of aviation. YMMV.

-cwk.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps that was true once, but in October 2002 it would appear, that
> > Mr.Ricciardiello stepped up to a brand NEW airplane:
>
> I stepped up to the Bonanza. :)
>

[Warning:dumb cliché follows]

That's not a step, that's a giant leap.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Were you referring to moi?


Only if you're the in-law Larry refereed to in the original post :-)

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> Only if you're the in-law Larry refereed to in the original post :-)

Or Fred, even.

:)

The main reason for this is because your relatives have known you for a
long time as a non-pilot. It is difficult for them to change how they
view you. It is the same with friends. Those who knew you before you
were a pilot may have a hard time accepting that fact. It will be
different with friends you meet after you become a pilot. I face the
same situation with my relatives. I have been flying for 10 years, and I
am an accomplished CFII. Yet, when I tell my relatives that I am a
pilot, the most common question they ask is if I have soloed yet. My
advice is don't let their ignorant comments discourage you. This is your
time, your money, and your kids. Do what you think is best.





"Fred Choate" > wrote in
:

> Thank you for all the comments. I want to say that there is no
> question for me as to what I will do, but I was curious about the
> general feelings in the aviation community.
>
> One of the biggest motivations for getting my license, was to enjoy
> the experiences with my kids. My 9 year old daughter was completely
> thrilled when she was sitting right seat, scanning the sky for other
> aircraft and picking out landmarks. I am hoping that she will be
> inspired to pursue aviation at a young age, rather than waiting until
> later in life, as I did.
>
> As far as experience, most of you have stated exactly how I feel about
> it. CERTAINLY, I have much to learn, and I look forward to learning
> it. But, as with most everything else, learning is more fun when you
> can experience the ups and the downs with those you care about.
> Making sound decisions is part of being not only a pilot, but a parent
> as well. We all make the decision to put ourselves and our kids at
> risk everytime we go to the grocery store in our vehicle....(yes we
> have all heard that before).
>
> I think the thing that struck a chord with me in this case, is that
> said In-Laws are both aviation people. One was a multi engine, IFR
> rated pilot (he hasn't flown for years however), and the other never
> finished. Thier son is a captian of an ERJ-145 on the East Coast.
> They have many friends that are pilots. So the comment made to me
> struck me a bit odd, and just made me think about hidden adjenda's and
> things like that.
>
> Thank you all for your comments, and support. My daughters birthday
> gift this year will be her own flightbag and headset for those short
> hops with Dad.
>
> Looking forward to read more comments........thanks again.
>
> Fred
>
>