Re: Aviation crash videos on-line

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello Dudley,
> >
> > Just curious: Did I ever state I was pushing flight safety ?
>
> No you didn't. That's why I'm taking issue with you. If you had stated a
> flight safety relationship with your work you would have had no problem
> with me but you didn't do that, and you make absolutely no mention of
> any flight safety connection with your work on your site.
> The complete absence of the flight safety issue in your "hobby" of
> showing crash video indicates to me that your interest in filming and
> bringing attention to your work lies in other directions than the flight
> safety issue; something with which I, as an ex- demonstration pilot take
> VERY seriously!
> I've seen this type of exploitation done by both amatuer and
> professional photographers all through my professional career. You have
> cross posted your web site address along with an open invitation to view
> your "work" on at least 5 aviation related newsgroups; steering
> "interested parties" to your web site to partake in your "hobby" of
> filming and showing airplane crashes; all without one single word about
> flight safety.
> No...you're not the least bit interested in flight safety, and you'll
> never sell that line to me in a million years.
> You have every right to use bandwidth to state your case, and I can
> assure you I'll use the same bandwidth to state my answer to your case.
> You and I are natural enemies. I'll never buy what you're selling here.
> Including the jet teams from 2 countries, I've seen 32 of my close
> friends and fellow demonstration pilots die in crashes. I can assure you
> that to me, an airplane crash is a lot more than how you view
> them......what is it you said on your site......a HOBBY!!!
> Sorry; no sale with me anyway.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
>
30GB in bandwidth in 7 hours put a quick stop to it.

[Iwan Bogels]

Yep, it did. It just showed how many people are interested in the subject.

I understand Dudley's point of view, but I see things differently. No
problem, that's why we live in a free world.

And in case you are in doubt about my intentions, check
http://www.dappa.nl/photos.htm to see the work that I produce myself. I am
pretty sure that an ex-demonstration pilot like Dudley knows how to
appreciate that.

All the best from the Netherlands,

Iwan Bogels
DAPPA



"F.L. Whiteley" > schreef in bericht
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hello Dudley,
> > >
> > > Just curious: Did I ever state I was pushing flight safety ?
> >
> > No you didn't. That's why I'm taking issue with you. If you had stated a
> > flight safety relationship with your work you would have had no problem
> > with me but you didn't do that, and you make absolutely no mention of
> > any flight safety connection with your work on your site.
> > The complete absence of the flight safety issue in your "hobby" of
> > showing crash video indicates to me that your interest in filming and
> > bringing attention to your work lies in other directions than the flight
> > safety issue; something with which I, as an ex- demonstration pilot take
> > VERY seriously!
> > I've seen this type of exploitation done by both amatuer and
> > professional photographers all through my professional career. You have
> > cross posted your web site address along with an open invitation to view
> > your "work" on at least 5 aviation related newsgroups; steering
> > "interested parties" to your web site to partake in your "hobby" of
> > filming and showing airplane crashes; all without one single word about
> > flight safety.
> > No...you're not the least bit interested in flight safety, and you'll
> > never sell that line to me in a million years.
> > You have every right to use bandwidth to state your case, and I can
> > assure you I'll use the same bandwidth to state my answer to your case.
> > You and I are natural enemies. I'll never buy what you're selling here.
> > Including the jet teams from 2 countries, I've seen 32 of my close
> > friends and fellow demonstration pilots die in crashes. I can assure you
> > that to me, an airplane crash is a lot more than how you view
> > them......what is it you said on your site......a HOBBY!!!
> > Sorry; no sale with me anyway.
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >
> > For personal email, please
> > replace the at with what goes there and
> > take out the Z's please!
> > dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
> >
> 30GB in bandwidth in 7 hours put a quick stop to it.
>
>

[Aviv Hod]

Iwan Bogels wrote:

> Yep, it did. It just showed how many people are interested in the subject.
>
> I understand Dudley's point of view, but I see things differently. No
> problem, that's why we live in a free world.
>
> And in case you are in doubt about my intentions, check
> http://www.dappa.nl/photos.htm to see the work that I produce myself. I am
> pretty sure that an ex-demonstration pilot like Dudley knows how to
> appreciate that.
>
> All the best from the Netherlands,
>
> Iwan Bogels
> DAPPA
>

Iwan, your aviation photography is top notch - really beautiful stuff,
and it is apparent that you have a love for aircraft and aviation. What
I think Dudley takes issue with is context - you provided none. Not in
your original post, and not on your web page.

I think it's important to acknowledge that in some of these accidents
good people lost their lives or were hurt, and that this should be kept
in mind when watching this. If you put this stuff up on your website,
you have to accept that some people will download this and completely
miss the grave implications of what they are watching. So I think it
will be helpful if you provide a framework of why you are sharing these
videos if you don't want people to misinterpret what you are doing. I
happen to think, like Jay Honeck, that there is nothing wrong with
putting up a bunch of aviation crash videos on your web site in and of
itself. But if it's in the context of "here, check out these COOL
videos!!!" you'll upset people, and rightly so. Flesh out some more
context and make your intentions clearer, and you'll do better.

Having said that, in my own aviation video gallery
http://www.avivhod.com/gallery/AviationVideos
I decided that it's too difficult to convey the right message when
posting aviation crash videos, so I avoided posting them. Other people
can do that, but I decided that it's not for me.

Blue Skies,
Aviv

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:I8k_c.116580$Fg5.83066@attbi_s53...

> What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes for
reasons
> other than flight safety?

I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of viewing
aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
require you justify yourself to me.
I'm not demanding that people stop watching crash videos put on the net
.. I have merely commented on how I personally, view the practice.
What you and others watch and enjoy watching is your business, as is
what you feel you are "learning" from the experience; and you can do it
without demanding I justify "precisely" my feelings on the matter for
you.

I have simply stated my disgust with those who find this type of thing
"entertaining" from the viewing standpoint, and my disgust for those who
take these pictures and show them in public outside the flight safety
context as a "hobby", which is what has been done in this instance. I
base these feelings on a lifetime of airshow demonstration and flight
safety exposure. You and others as well of course have your own
perspective whatever that might be.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[F.L. Whiteley]

It's all the cross posting

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in
message ...
> Doug FM wrote:
> > And the site is down after one day, that's gotta be some sort of record
:)
> >
> >
>
> Ever hear of the "Slashdot effect?" When a link makes it to the front
> page of a popular website like slashdot.org , the web server of the
> relevant page has a tendancy to start combusting into a huge puff of
> vaporized silicon :-) They can take down a website in minutes... I was
> surprised that all those videos didn't take down the server earlier.
>
> -Aviv

[F.L. Whiteley]

US tax dollars at work and play

but also shows the risk and sacrifice of eternal diligence in the defense of
freedom

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:I8k_c.116580$Fg5.83066@attbi_s53...
> > No...you're not the least bit interested in flight safety, and you'll
> > never sell that line to me in a million years.
>
> What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes for
reasons
> other than flight safety?
>
> Humans are fascinated with video-taped accidents of ALL kinds, simply
> because they are so rare. The ability to capture an accident on video,
for
> later viewing, is one of the true marvels of the last 100 years.
>
> Personally, I view aviation videos for the thrill, as well as for any
> "flight safety" aspects I may glean from them. Quite frankly, the odds of
> my obtaining any useful information from watching an F-4 bolt over the
side
> of an aircraft carrier are almost nil -- but that doesn't make watching
the
> video any less fascinating.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Dear aviation enthusiast,
> > > >
> > > > Over the years we have collected loads of spectacular video footage.
> > This
> > > > includes about 100 video clips with aviation mishaps, accidents and
> > crashes.
> > > > Today we have opened http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm which shows the
> > first 15
> > > > videos. More videos will follow soon, so keep checking for updates !
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Iwan Bogels & Tieme Festner
> > > > DAPPA
> > >
> > > I visited the site and hope to see more of the clips. I find them to
> > > be of instructional value in accident prevention. There are clips I
> > > have seen in the past and have not been able to find since. Hopefully
> > > they will be available with your research and efforts.
> > > R. Kemp CFII/RAM
> >
> > These people are in no way whatsoever even remotely involved with
> > aviation flight safety. By their own word, they exist solely for the
> > purpose of enhancing their "hobby" of aviation photography. A crash to
> > them is nothing more than an opportunity to record the sensationalism
> > involved which is exactly what they are doing on their web site.
> > I see not ONE publication on their site that could be linked to the
> > subject of flight safety.
> > I suggest that if you want to view crash photography that IS related to
> > flight safety, you purchase a copy of "Zero Error Margin" by Gen Des
> > Barker, a book on air safety that weighs 7 pounds and is the complete
>
>
> snip....
> Hey Dudley
> Thats cool if we disagree. However, reading a 7 pound book takes a lot
> longer than seeing some of the clips. It doesn't matter to me how or
> why the clips were obtained unless they engineered the
> accidents/incidents purely for prurient interest. The fact remains the
> accidents/incidents happened and were captured on film, then gathered
> in one place for those of us who don't have time or desire to wade
> through any 7# book. Like you, I've been involved in aviation for
> about 50 years. We've exchanged credentials and I think have mutual
> respect for them so its a matter of personal opinion based on our
> personal experiences.
> The fact that so many people want to see these clips, regardless of
> their personal reasons or motivations indicates a tremendous interest.
> The clips work far better than trying to replicate them on a
> blackboard or with hand gestures. I feel they are a great training
> aid.
> Best professional regards
> R. Kemp
> > and definitive account of the air safety issues involved with many of
> > the videos and photographs these two people are putting up for viewing
> > on their site without any reference at all to the flight safety issue.
> > I've been involved directly with flight safety issues for fifty years
> > and am in fact deeply involved with Gen Barker's book on airshow safety.
> > I know the people involved in the safety business, and these two are NOT
> > pushing flight safety!
> > Please understand I have no problem with you having an opposing opinion
> > about what these people are presenting. I just don't agree with you.
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >
> > For personal email, please
> > replace the at with what goes there and
> > take out the Z's please!
> > dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

like you guys to take this off USENET though

[F.L. Whiteley]

Nah, drudgereport knocked over newscientist.com earlier this week with the
seti announcement long before it got /.ed

This site didn't get knocked over, they did it to themselves by cross
posting something that invokes a look and much curiousity without
understanding this web business. Now they can't afford the freight.
Bandwidth is not free.


"Doug FM" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> And the site is down after one day, that's gotta be some sort of record :)
>
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dear aviation enthusiast,
> >
> > Over the years we have collected loads of spectacular video footage.
This
> > includes about 100 video clips with aviation mishaps, accidents and
> crashes.
> > Today we have opened http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm which shows the first
> 15
> > videos. More videos will follow soon, so keep checking for updates !
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Iwan Bogels & Tieme Festner
> > DAPPA
> >
> >
>
>

[Jack]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Sorry; no sale with me anyway.

I see their URL finally disappeared from your responses, Dudley. Editing
is good.

The fact that they cross-posted to such a mix of NGs tells me their
discretion is questionable, and they may not appreciate your objections.
I would have had more respect for them had they presented these videos
in some sort of a safety-related context, but then a moral sense of
responsibility is not something held in high esteem these days.

On the other hand, I gain some insight into the physical dynamics of air
crashes from seeing this type of video, and I think that is valuable.

Cognizance of the human toll, about which you have correctly reminded
us, is essential.


Jack

[Dudley Henriques]

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in
message ...
> Iwan Bogels wrote:
>
> > Yep, it did. It just showed how many people are interested in the
subject.
> >
> > I understand Dudley's point of view, but I see things differently.
No
> > problem, that's why we live in a free world.
> >
> > And in case you are in doubt about my intentions, check
> > http://www.dappa.nl/photos.htm to see the work that I produce
myself. I am
> > pretty sure that an ex-demonstration pilot like Dudley knows how to
> > appreciate that.
> >
> > All the best from the Netherlands,
> >
> > Iwan Bogels
> > DAPPA
> >
>
> Iwan, your aviation photography is top notch - really beautiful stuff,
> and it is apparent that you have a love for aircraft and aviation.
What
> I think Dudley takes issue with is context - you provided none. Not
in
> your original post, and not on your web page.
>
> I think it's important to acknowledge that in some of these accidents
> good people lost their lives or were hurt, and that this should be
kept
> in mind when watching this. If you put this stuff up on your website,
> you have to accept that some people will download this and completely
> miss the grave implications of what they are watching. So I think it
> will be helpful if you provide a framework of why you are sharing
these
> videos if you don't want people to misinterpret what you are doing. I
> happen to think, like Jay Honeck, that there is nothing wrong with
> putting up a bunch of aviation crash videos on your web site in and of
> itself. But if it's in the context of "here, check out these COOL
> videos!!!" you'll upset people, and rightly so. Flesh out some more
> context and make your intentions clearer, and you'll do better.
>
> Having said that, in my own aviation video gallery
> http://www.avivhod.com/gallery/AviationVideos
> I decided that it's too difficult to convey the right message when
> posting aviation crash videos, so I avoided posting them. Other
people
> can do that, but I decided that it's not for me.
>
> Blue Skies,
> Aviv

In my opinion, this is EXACTLY the right attitude to express on this
issue if crash video is to be displayed in a public venue, ESPECIALLY a
pilot's venue. What was lacking in this instance was any reference to
the safety issue, which leaves only the prurient interest in attracting
viewers. You put something like this in front of a pilot who has felt
the consequences of these videos first hand without comment and you can
easily have some issues arise, as they did here.
There is absolutely no negative issue with using photography as a safety
tool, and using photography as an educational tool in the flight safety
context is a long accepted practice that I personally endorse.
The problem occurs when photographers fail to realize, as you have so
correctly stated, that these photographs and videos all involve people,
families, friends, and indeed, human suffering. To simply throw them out
there for the sole purpose of entertainment, or enhancing the
photographer's image within the peer group as having bragging rights to
the pictures is simply unacceptable, especially to those of us who are
involved in the flight safety business.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jack" > wrote in message
om...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Sorry; no sale with me anyway.
>
> I see their URL finally disappeared from your responses, Dudley.
Editing
> is good.
>
> The fact that they cross-posted to such a mix of NGs tells me their
> discretion is questionable, and they may not appreciate your
objections.
> I would have had more respect for them had they presented these videos
> in some sort of a safety-related context, but then a moral sense of
> responsibility is not something held in high esteem these days.
>
> On the other hand, I gain some insight into the physical dynamics of
air
> crashes from seeing this type of video, and I think that is valuable.
>
> Cognizance of the human toll, about which you have correctly reminded
> us, is essential.
>
>
> Jack

Admittedly, my perspective on the issue is personal, as I have seen many
close friends die in these crashes, and I agree with you, that presented
properly, crash video has tremendous capability in educating within the
flight safety context. This however, was not done in this case, and
hence, my strong objection.
All the best as always,
D

[Dudley Henriques]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...

> like you guys to take this off USENET though

Suggestion;
Take out the cross posting as I have done to eliminate all but the 2
groups I want to use for this issue, then simply resist the temptation
to hit the send key with a Usenet police post like this one.
Works wonders!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Jay Honeck]

> > What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes for
> reasons
> > other than flight safety?
>
> I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of viewing
> aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
> require you justify yourself to me.

Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.

I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is entertaining
to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly seen by the
success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of hundreds of
county fairgrounds across America.

Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's Worst Police
Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them depicting
auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.

It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest people like
that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:zem_c.101871$9d6.78381@attbi_s54...
> > > What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes
for
> > reasons
> > > other than flight safety?
> >
> > I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of
viewing
> > aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
> > require you justify yourself to me.
>
> Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.
>
> I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is
entertaining
> to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly seen
by the
> success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
> attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of
hundreds of
> county fairgrounds across America.
>
> Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's Worst
Police
> Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them
depicting
> auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.
>
> It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest
people like
> that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses is a
whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on the
net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".
You are simply going off topic and stating a possible reason for WHY
people might find crash video exciting and entertaining. Then you are
backing this up by telling me that YOU find these crash videos
"thrilling".
Thrilling isn't the issue here. Ethics is the issue, or more correctly,
the lack of ethics.
I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would argue
however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the net
for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of the
"thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.
Crash footage has a real and genuine use as a flight safety tool, and
presented in the correct context, BY PEOPLE IN THE SAFETY BUSINESS,
crash photography is welcomed by the safety community and the aviation
community at large. There is much to be learned from crash footage
presented in this manner.
But don't tell me above all people that some photographer out there
presenting his "wares" on the net that consist of gigs of crash video
that he clearly states is his "hobby" has been presented as a public
service or in a safety associated context. That's just plain bull ****!
These people are engaged in enhancing their images within their
community...that's it....that's all......nothing more than that. What's
important to them is the film speed.....the equipment used.......and
yes; the sheer excitement of the event itself...the more dramatic the
event, the more kudos for the photographer.
Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I stood
at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in 71.
His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag. I
held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking and
screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
"photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!
Crash video has a distinct place in our lives as pilots. We can learn
from it if it's presented in the proper context, but to allow ourselves
to be witness to a human tragedy for no other purpose than to enjoy our
"hobby" or satisfy our desire for excitement is not my idea of ethical
behavior.
BTW, in closing...that pilot friend's widow, I'll just call her Jere ,
remained a lifelong friend of ours. We finally lost her several years
ago to a stroke. We miss her very much.
Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a camera
who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a picture
he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal moment
of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
I hope he chokes on it!
And this is just ONE instance of many I've experienced through the years
concerning "crash photographers with a "hobby"!!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[wse]

I love WTC crash pictures!

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:zem_c.101871$9d6.78381@attbi_s54...
>
>>>>What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes
>
> for
>
>>>reasons
>>>
>>>>other than flight safety?
>>>
>>>I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of
>
> viewing
>
>>>aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
>>>require you justify yourself to me.
>>
>>Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.
>>
>>I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is
>
> entertaining
>
>>to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly seen
>
> by the
>
>>success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
>>attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of
>
> hundreds of
>
>>county fairgrounds across America.
>>
>>Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's Worst
>
> Police
>
>>Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them
>
> depicting
>
>>auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.
>>
>>It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest
>
> people like
>
>>that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
> You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
> the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses is a
> whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on the
> net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".
> You are simply going off topic and stating a possible reason for WHY
> people might find crash video exciting and entertaining. Then you are
> backing this up by telling me that YOU find these crash videos
> "thrilling".
> Thrilling isn't the issue here. Ethics is the issue, or more correctly,
> the lack of ethics.
> I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would argue
> however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the net
> for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of the
> "thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
> being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.
> Crash footage has a real and genuine use as a flight safety tool, and
> presented in the correct context, BY PEOPLE IN THE SAFETY BUSINESS,
> crash photography is welcomed by the safety community and the aviation
> community at large. There is much to be learned from crash footage
> presented in this manner.
> But don't tell me above all people that some photographer out there
> presenting his "wares" on the net that consist of gigs of crash video
> that he clearly states is his "hobby" has been presented as a public
> service or in a safety associated context. That's just plain bull ****!
> These people are engaged in enhancing their images within their
> community...that's it....that's all......nothing more than that. What's
> important to them is the film speed.....the equipment used.......and
> yes; the sheer excitement of the event itself...the more dramatic the
> event, the more kudos for the photographer.
> Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I stood
> at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in 71.
> His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag. I
> held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
> climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking and
> screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
> "photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
> standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!
> Crash video has a distinct place in our lives as pilots. We can learn
> from it if it's presented in the proper context, but to allow ourselves
> to be witness to a human tragedy for no other purpose than to enjoy our
> "hobby" or satisfy our desire for excitement is not my idea of ethical
> behavior.
> BTW, in closing...that pilot friend's widow, I'll just call her Jere ,
> remained a lifelong friend of ours. We finally lost her several years
> ago to a stroke. We miss her very much.
> Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a camera
> who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a picture
> he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal moment
> of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
> I hope he chokes on it!
> And this is just ONE instance of many I've experienced through the years
> concerning "crash photographers with a "hobby"!!!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
>
>
>
>

[Mike]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:zem_c.101871$9d6.78381@attbi_s54...
>> > What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes for
>> reasons
>> > other than flight safety?
>>
>> I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of viewing
>> aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
>> require you justify yourself to me.
>
> Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.
>
> I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is
> entertaining
> to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly seen by
> the
> success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
> attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of hundreds
> of
> county fairgrounds across America.

Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
(soccer)?

>
> Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's Worst
> Police
> Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them
> depicting
> auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.
>
> It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest people
> like
> that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
> (soccer)?

I have no way to verify that -- it's just what the media has been spouting.

I suppose it's not surprising, since a single race can have several hundred
thousand "fans" in attendance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
> the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses is a
> whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on the
> net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".

I see them as different sides of the same coin. One begets the other, IMHO.

> I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would argue
> however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the net
> for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of the
> "thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
> being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.

If it's hypocrisy you're angry about, I'm with you. But I don't think the
original poster was trying to pass his site off as being associated with
flight safety in any way.

> Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I stood
> at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in 71.
> His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag. I
> held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
> climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking and
> screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
> "photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
> standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!

Some of the greatest photographs of our time -- many Pulitzer Prize
winners -- have been snapped in just such a fashion.

Not to defend that photographer's actions, or to minimize your friend's
anguish -- personally, I couldn't do such a thing, emotionally or
technically -- but this event would clearly be labeled as "breaking news" by
most journalists, and there are writers and photographers out there whose
main job it is to cover these types of events.

> Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a camera
> who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a picture
> he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal moment
> of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
> I hope he chokes on it!

I understand your emotion, but I think it's misplaced. Flying airplanes in
an air race, wing-tip to wing-tip, is INCREDIBLY dangerous. The odds of an
accident or incident are high, the odds of violent death are not good. Your
friend knew the risks, and knowingly took them.

He also knew -- as did you -- that the race course was ringed with
spectators and journalists with cameras. To expect photographers to turn
away from a spectacular airplane crash is pretty unreasonable. To expect a
photographer NOT to snap a picture of someone trying to run toward a plane
wreck is unrealistic.

To expect these same photographs to be destroyed, or never published, is
even less realistic. The internet is just the newest form of publishing, a
natural progression from Guttenberg until today. This guy's website is
just an electronic book -- photos printed with electrons instead of ink.

Although I understand your distaste, Dudley, you are railing against human
nature. A darker side of it, for sure -- but it's human nature nonetheless.
You're not going to change it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:40p_c.102614$9d6.102101@attbi_s54...
>> Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
>> (soccer)?
>
> I have no way to verify that -- it's just what the media has been
> spouting.
>
> I suppose it's not surprising, since a single race can have several
> hundred
> thousand "fans" in attendance.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jay, I checked the NASCAR site
(http://www.nascar.com/2004/promos/2004/imax/02/25/world_drivers/) and I can
only see them claiming to be the US's top spectator sport. I'll buy that -
like you, I have no way to verify it.

However, I can't believe it's the *world's* top spectator sport:
football/soccer must pull in many more, whether on TV or at the stadiums.

[Casey Wilson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:40p_c.102614$9d6.102101@attbi_s54...
> > Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
> > (soccer)?
>
> I have no way to verify that -- it's just what the media has been
spouting.
>
> I suppose it's not surprising, since a single race can have several
hundred
> thousand "fans" in attendance.
> --
> Jay Honeck

The media out here in SoCal are claiming that the weekend's
attendance at the Fontana Raceway will exceed the count at three NFL Super
Bowls.

According to:
http://netscape.nascar.com/2004/news/features/btn/04/30/california/
"92,000 -- The announced grandstand seating capacity of California
Speedway. "

The actual count is 92,109 according to the Speedway officials, but hey.....

Oh, I should also point out that is the number of seats in the
grandstands -- it does not include all the RVs parked around the infield.

[Chuck]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:AEq_c.1640$PK3.445@trnddc08...
>

<snip>

> According to:
> http://netscape.nascar.com/2004/news/features/btn/04/30/california/
> "92,000 -- The announced grandstand seating capacity of California
> Speedway. "
>
> The actual count is 92,109 according to the Speedway officials, but
hey.....
>
> Oh, I should also point out that is the number of seats in the
> grandstands -- it does not include all the RVs parked around the infield.
>
>

Texas Motor Speedway has a total capacity of 204,861. The actual seating
capacity is 154,861 and the infield capacity is 53,000.
http://www.texasmotorspeedway.com/speedway_info/trackspecs.asp

If I remember correctly, TMS has sold out *every* NASCAR event to date. They
have finally received a second NASCAR date, so now I bet they sell out 2
races per year!

Go Dale Jr!!!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.751 / Virus Database: 502 - Release Date: 9/2/2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vip_c.291091$eM2.269081@attbi_s51...
> > You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
> > the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses
is a
> > whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on
the
> > net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".
>
> I see them as different sides of the same coin. One begets the other,
IMHO.
>
> > I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would
argue
> > however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the
net
> > for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of
the
> > "thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
> > being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.
>
> If it's hypocrisy you're angry about, I'm with you. But I don't think
the
> original poster was trying to pass his site off as being associated
with
> flight safety in any way.
>
> > Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I
stood
> > at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in
71.
> > His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag.
I
> > held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
> > climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking
and
> > screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
> > "photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
> > standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!
>
> Some of the greatest photographs of our time -- many Pulitzer Prize
> winners -- have been snapped in just such a fashion.
>
> Not to defend that photographer's actions, or to minimize your
friend's
> anguish -- personally, I couldn't do such a thing, emotionally or
> technically -- but this event would clearly be labeled as "breaking
news" by
> most journalists, and there are writers and photographers out there
whose
> main job it is to cover these types of events.
>
> > Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a
camera
> > who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a
picture
> > he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal
moment
> > of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
> > I hope he chokes on it!
>
> I understand your emotion, but I think it's misplaced. Flying
airplanes in
> an air race, wing-tip to wing-tip, is INCREDIBLY dangerous. The odds
of an
> accident or incident are high, the odds of violent death are not good.
Your
> friend knew the risks, and knowingly took them.
>
> He also knew -- as did you -- that the race course was ringed with
> spectators and journalists with cameras. To expect photographers to
turn
> away from a spectacular airplane crash is pretty unreasonable. To
expect a
> photographer NOT to snap a picture of someone trying to run toward a
plane
> wreck is unrealistic.
>
> To expect these same photographs to be destroyed, or never published,
is
> even less realistic. The internet is just the newest form of
publishing, a
> natural progression from Guttenberg until today. This guy's website
is
> just an electronic book -- photos printed with electrons instead of
ink.
>
> Although I understand your distaste, Dudley, you are railing against
human
> nature. A darker side of it, for sure -- but it's human nature
nonetheless.
> You're not going to change it.

I'm not arguing that these things don't exist. Nor am I arguing their
reasons for existence. YOU ARE!!!
Apparently for some reason you just can't grasp the fact that what I
posted initially was simply a personal statement of distaste. It's YOU
who keep arguing a position for crash photos outside the flight safety
context. I'm simply responding to YOUR seeming objection that I find the
use of these photos distasteful to me personally and feel the need to
"educate" me in the finer points of life.

One more time Jay; I'm saying that it's DISTASTEFUL to me personally and
that I for one don't wish to associate with it. Whether or not YOU have
an opposing viewpoint is of absolutely no consequence to me or how I
view the situation at all. I appreciate the fact that you do however,
obviously have an opposing viewpoint and I respect your right to express
it. But when you start branching your "opinions" out of your puddle
jumper cockpit and into my world as a demonstration pilot as an equal,
I'm afraid you have crossed the line with me. You are not my equal, and
on issues like these I will never see you as such.
That being said, and considering I don't particularly relish being
lectured by a pleasure pilot on the idiosyncrasies and dangers involved
in a business I have known thousands of hours in as a participant and
you know only as a spectator, if you don't object I'll just allow you
your feelings on the matter whatever they are,and bid you a fond
farewell.
I don't mean this last comment in a particularly mean way Jay; actually
it's kind of sarcastically humorous as I see it; but If I ever need an
"expert" opinion on flying high performance airplanes in a dangerous
environment, I'll be sure to notify you right away. Until then, I'll
just have to struggle by on what I know about the subject already :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Jay Honeck]

> Apparently for some reason you just can't grasp the fact that what I
> posted initially was simply a personal statement of distaste.

No, you didn't tell the original poster "I find you personally
distasteful" -- you said "I detest people like you."

That's not a subtle difference.

>But when you start branching your "opinions" out of your puddle
> jumper cockpit and into my world as a demonstration pilot as an equal,
> I'm afraid you have crossed the line with me. You are not my equal, and
> on issues like these I will never see you as such.

What you can't seem to grasp is that your inflammatory statement (and my
following post) was NOT about demonstration flying, or even about
puddle-jumper flying -- it was about ethics. And on this subject, sir, I am
at least your equal.

Apparently you have no interest in explaining the ethical logic that must
underlie your somewhat bizarre response to the initial post -- and that, of
course, is your prerogative. But then don't complain to me about being
lectured to about flying -- because that's not what is happening here.

Far from it.

> That being said, and considering I don't particularly relish being
> lectured by a pleasure pilot on the idiosyncrasies and dangers involved
> in a business I have known thousands of hours in as a participant and
> you know only as a spectator, if you don't object I'll just allow you
> your feelings on the matter whatever they are,and bid you a fond
> farewell.

*sigh*

Since I've obviously failed to make my point -- and this is a topic I REALLY
don't care much about -- I will also bid you a fond "Adios" as well...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yLr_c.103907$9d6.76039@attbi_s54...
> > Apparently for some reason you just can't grasp the fact that what I
> > posted initially was simply a personal statement of distaste.
>
> No, you didn't tell the original poster "I find you personally
> distasteful" -- you said "I detest people like you."
>
> That's not a subtle difference.

I see.... depends on the meaning of what "is" is; right? Don't know
about you Honek, but if I detest somone, you can be fairly certain that
whatever they might be doing that illicits this response, I would find
personally distasteful, don't you think? Seems like a simple equation to
me!

>
> >But when you start branching your "opinions" out of your puddle
> > jumper cockpit and into my world as a demonstration pilot as an
equal,
> > I'm afraid you have crossed the line with me. You are not my equal,
and
> > on issues like these I will never see you as such.
>
> What you can't seem to grasp is that your inflammatory statement (and
my
> following post) was NOT about demonstration flying, or even about
> puddle-jumper flying -- it was about ethics. And on this subject,
sir, I am
> at least your equal.

Well, maybe in your opinion anyway. But not in mine; not if you enjoy
watching crash video for....as you have said....the "thrills"
involved.... was it? I believe what you said exactly was " Personally,
I view aviation videos for the thrill". (I should note here that when
you made this statement, we were discussing aviation crash video outside
the flight safety aspect specifically and not aviation videos per se')

>
> Apparently you have no interest in explaining the ethical logic that
must
> underlie your somewhat bizarre response to the initial post -- and
that, of
> course, is your prerogative.

I believe I've explained the logic behind my reaction to purient crash
video quite plainly. To reiterate, it's based on fifty years of exposure
to flying airplanes in the environment depicted in these crash videos;
direct involvement as a participant working with the issues involved in
the safety aspects of this scenario; personal experience with the greif
and suffering of friends and associates killed in this scenario; and my
total dislike for those who treat crash video as a hobby, presenting it
in the public forum for sheer entertainment with no regard to the safety
issue and/or the lives they touch by so doing; and my total dislike for
those who willingly partake of these crash videos "for the thrill" they
get from watching them. Need I continue, or is this enough?


But then don't complain to me about being
> lectured to about flying -- because that's not what is happening here.

Really.....what's this then?
Honek lectures;
"Flying airplanes in
an air race, wing-tip to wing-tip, is INCREDIBLY dangerous. The odds of
an
accident or incident are high, the odds of violent death are not good."

No kidding....REALLY!!! Why, I NEVER would have known this had you not
taken the time to explain it to me.......and so thoroughly too!!!!! :-))



> *sigh*

Yes, a "sigh" is what I would expect from someone who would feel the
need to supply this tidbit of more or less obvious information to
someone else who has spent a lifetime directly involved with the
environment and hardly needs the information explained by someone who
hasn't.
>
> Since I've obviously failed to make my point -- and this is a topic I
REALLY
> don't care much about -- I will also bid you a fond "Adios" as well...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Yes, you have failed to make your point, with me at least; whatever that
was, but you did make one point perfectly clear in your last comment.
You obviously "don't care much about the topic" and I do. That's the
basic difference between us and the crux of our disagreement.
I have no desire to end this with you on a bad note Jay. It's just not
worth it for either one of us. Let's end this now before it crosses over
into something it need not become.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Newps]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:40p_c.102614$9d6.102101@attbi_s54...
>
>>>Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
>>>(soccer)?
>>
>>I have no way to verify that -- it's just what the media has been
>
> spouting.
>
>>I suppose it's not surprising, since a single race can have several
>
> hundred
>
>>thousand "fans" in attendance.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>
>
> The media out here in SoCal are claiming that the weekend's
> attendance at the Fontana Raceway will exceed the count at three NFL Super
> Bowls.
>
> According to:
> http://netscape.nascar.com/2004/news/features/btn/04/30/california/
> "92,000 -- The announced grandstand seating capacity of California
> Speedway. "
>
> The actual count is 92,109 according to the Speedway officials, but hey.....
>
> Oh, I should also point out that is the number of seats in the
> grandstands -- it does not include all the RVs parked around the infield.
>

A NASCAR race gets more than any ONE footbal game. But more spectators
than the NFL on any weekend? Not in a million years.

[Morgans]

"Mike" > wrote

> Jay, I checked the NASCAR site
> (http://www.nascar.com/2004/promos/2004/imax/02/25/world_drivers/) and I
can
> only see them claiming to be the US's top spectator sport. I'll buy
that -
> like you, I have no way to verify it.
>
> However, I can't believe it's the *world's* top spectator sport:
> football/soccer must pull in many more, whether on TV or at the stadiums.
>
>

Figures lie, and liars figure. With that in mind, they could claim to be
the #1 spectator sport, on the basis of # of fans per event, viewing it.
That could be justified. Also, given the fact that fans throughout the
country view the same NASCAR event at one time via TV, while other sports'
fans are viewing their individual local games, would also stack stats in
their favor...
--
Jim in NC

[Iwan Bogels]

Dear Mr. Henriques,

I am beginning to get fed up with your moralistic lections. I have put the
videos on-line to share them with other people, and hoping to receive some
new videos from other collectors. The reason that I used the aviation safety
newsgroup to announce the video webpage was because I know that crashes have
everything to do with aviation safety and people in this group may be extra
interested to look at them for many different reasons.

Whatever my intentions are to share the videos, it is not something that
requires your approval. The fact is that aviation crashes are fully ON-TOPIC
on this newsgroup. I don't have to put up with the opinion of some hypoctit
pilot who is involved in demonstration flights and air races, intended to
push flying to the limit. If it wasn't for guys like you, about 50% of all
crash videos would have never been shot because the crashes simply didn't
occur.

Flying is relatively safe, but pushing flight to the limit for the fun of it
just isn't. Don't complain if something goes wrong when guys like you are
willingly taking more risk than necessary during air races and demonstration
flights. And stop pointing fingers at people who are interested to see
thrilling aviation just because it simply exites them. Pilots like you
provided it to them in the first place!

And regarding the photographer that shot the photos of your friend's widow,
these guys are called journalists. It is people like them that fill the
newspapers with eye catching photos that make the readers feel the emotion
involved in incidents and accidents. It gives face to the cold text of the
news. For example: Just think of what 9/11 would have looked like to the
world without photos or video. The world just wouldn't be half as upset as
it is now.

I will continue to try and shoot beautiful and artistic aviation photographs
like can be seen at my photogalleries, and I will also continue to try and
keep the aviation videos on-line. Having learned from the first publication,
I think I will create a webpage at which I will publish one new video every
week. With about 100 videos available already, I have enough material to
publish for two years straight. Just keep checking
http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm for the videos, or to see my photogalleries.

To all other readers: If you have any aviation crash videos for me, please
send them to .

Fly safe,
Iwan Bogels




"Dudley Henriques" > schreef in bericht
ink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:zem_c.101871$9d6.78381@attbi_s54...
> > > > What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft crashes
> for
> > > reasons
> > > > other than flight safety?
> > >
> > > I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of
> viewing
> > > aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than I
> > > require you justify yourself to me.
> >
> > Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.
> >
> > I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is
> entertaining
> > to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly seen
> by the
> > success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
> > attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of
> hundreds of
> > county fairgrounds across America.
> >
> > Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's Worst
> Police
> > Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them
> depicting
> > auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.
> >
> > It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest
> people like
> > that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
> the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses is a
> whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on the
> net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".
> You are simply going off topic and stating a possible reason for WHY
> people might find crash video exciting and entertaining. Then you are
> backing this up by telling me that YOU find these crash videos
> "thrilling".
> Thrilling isn't the issue here. Ethics is the issue, or more correctly,
> the lack of ethics.
> I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would argue
> however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the net
> for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of the
> "thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
> being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.
> Crash footage has a real and genuine use as a flight safety tool, and
> presented in the correct context, BY PEOPLE IN THE SAFETY BUSINESS,
> crash photography is welcomed by the safety community and the aviation
> community at large. There is much to be learned from crash footage
> presented in this manner.
> But don't tell me above all people that some photographer out there
> presenting his "wares" on the net that consist of gigs of crash video
> that he clearly states is his "hobby" has been presented as a public
> service or in a safety associated context. That's just plain bull ****!
> These people are engaged in enhancing their images within their
> community...that's it....that's all......nothing more than that. What's
> important to them is the film speed.....the equipment used.......and
> yes; the sheer excitement of the event itself...the more dramatic the
> event, the more kudos for the photographer.
> Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I stood
> at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in 71.
> His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag. I
> held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
> climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking and
> screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
> "photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
> standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!
> Crash video has a distinct place in our lives as pilots. We can learn
> from it if it's presented in the proper context, but to allow ourselves
> to be witness to a human tragedy for no other purpose than to enjoy our
> "hobby" or satisfy our desire for excitement is not my idea of ethical
> behavior.
> BTW, in closing...that pilot friend's widow, I'll just call her Jere ,
> remained a lifelong friend of ours. We finally lost her several years
> ago to a stroke. We miss her very much.
> Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a camera
> who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a picture
> he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal moment
> of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
> I hope he chokes on it!
> And this is just ONE instance of many I've experienced through the years
> concerning "crash photographers with a "hobby"!!!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
>
>
>
>

[John Mullen]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Casey Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:40p_c.102614$9d6.102101@attbi_s54...
>>
>>>>Is this true? Do NASCAR attendances really exceed those of football
>>>>(soccer)?
>>>
>>>I have no way to verify that -- it's just what the media has been
>>
>> spouting.
>>
>>>I suppose it's not surprising, since a single race can have several
>>
>> hundred
>>
>>>thousand "fans" in attendance.
>>>--
>>>Jay Honeck
>>
>>
>> The media out here in SoCal are claiming that the weekend's
>> attendance at the Fontana Raceway will exceed the count at three NFL
>> Super
>> Bowls.
>>
>> According to:
>> http://netscape.nascar.com/2004/news/features/btn/04/30/california/
>> "92,000 -- The announced grandstand seating capacity of California
>> Speedway. "
>>
>> The actual count is 92,109 according to the Speedway officials, but
>> hey.....
>>
>> Oh, I should also point out that is the number of seats in the
>> grandstands -- it does not include all the RVs parked around the infield.
>>
>
> A NASCAR race gets more than any ONE footbal game. But more spectators
> than the NFL on any weekend? Not in a million years.

Let alone proper football, what you guys call soccer.

John

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, a "sigh" is what I would expect from someone who would feel the
> need to supply this tidbit of more or less obvious information to
> someone else who has spent a lifetime directly involved with the
> environment and hardly needs the information explained by someone who
> hasn't.

I'll say one last thing about this, Dudley, and then we'll move on:

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but my "obvious" examples were meant to
expand on my ethical point -- not to "educate you" about air racing.

Remember, I wasn't the one expressing dismay and surprise that someone would
actually take a picture (or video) of a plane crash and its aftermath.
Since, to me, this is the ultimate in "more or less obvious information" --
I was quite surprised that you were upset that someone would do this.

Which is why I asked about your logic in the first place.

Sorry I asked.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0_B_c.296222$eM2.104090@attbi_s51...
> > Yes, a "sigh" is what I would expect from someone who would feel the
> > need to supply this tidbit of more or less obvious information to
> > someone else who has spent a lifetime directly involved with the
> > environment and hardly needs the information explained by someone
who
> > hasn't.
>
> I'll say one last thing about this, Dudley, and then we'll move on:
>
> Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but my "obvious" examples were meant
to
> expand on my ethical point -- not to "educate you" about air racing.
>
> Remember, I wasn't the one expressing dismay and surprise that someone
would
> actually take a picture (or video) of a plane crash and its aftermath.
> Since, to me, this is the ultimate in "more or less obvious
information" --
> I was quite surprised that you were upset that someone would do this.
>
> Which is why I asked about your logic in the first place.
>
> Sorry I asked.

You don't have to be sorry you asked. The "problem" didn't occur because
you "asked". The problem occurred because what you were "asking" and the
reasons I have for objecting are two different issues that you see as
one simple issue involving a simple definition of the ethics involved.
The "ethics" that I was attacking and will always continue to attack are
not as clearly cut as you would like to have them. The physical act of
taking a picture at an air show disaster is only the tip of a large
iceberg. The REASON for taking that picture, and what the photographer
does with the picture after it's been taken is the area of my concern,
NOT the fact that the picture was taken per se, which seems to be the
crux of everything you have been attempting to "explain" to me.
There is nothing improper about taking photographs or filming a video
during an air race or air show disaster IF the reason for taking these
pictures isn't prurient. A video shot as a record of the event or to be
used as news of the event is one thing. That's ethical. A video of a
crash used in a safety program designed to help prevent the same
accident from happening again is more than ethical. It's advisable!
On the other hand, there are those who take these photographs and film
these videos for no other reason than their own prurient interest; a
record for them personally to "enjoy" watching and to pass on to others
in the public forum as their " the thrill of the day". Photographers who
use these photographs in their "hobby" and present them to the public
seeking only acclaim for their skill as photographers are completely
unethical to us in the airshow community. These people, displaying an
aspect of human nature that will unfortunately always be with us, are in
my opinion unethical. On the airshow circuit we think of them as human
leeches standing there with their cameras waiting for one of us to die
so they can catch the moment on film to later be released by them for
their own purpose unrelated to anything but their own amusement or
profit.
The only ethics involved with this issue are the ethics involved for the
reasons the camera shutter clicks. There are good reasons and there are
bad reasons. The photographers I have so strongly objected to are the
one's with the "bad" reasons; the thrill seekers; the "hobbyists".
Any race or airshow pilot will tell you that the existence of crash
video is a given, and we understand that there will be pictures if
something goes wrong for us. In a way, we welcome it, because it might
help save another pilot's life, but none of us accept the leech
photographers, the paparazzi type, who come to exploit us when something
goes wrong.
These "hobby" video people fit into the unethical category for us, and
yes, we detest them!
As for people outside the airshow community discussing an issue like
this one with us; everyone of course has the right to an opinion, but
it's better that you ASK, rather than TELL when you get into something
as close to the show community as this issue. That's just a friendly
suggestion. Pilots from the community don't mind opposing viewpoint. We
do however, like a pilot to have some actual experience with what we do
before expressing that opinion too loudly :-)
I hope you and I have no hard feelings after this issue has been put
down and can continue our Usenet association in a friendly manner.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope you and I have no hard feelings after this issue has been put
> down and can continue our Usenet association in a friendly manner.

That, sir, is a given.

You'll have to work harder than this to **** me off!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:poF_c.583$vy.480@attbi_s52...
> > I hope you and I have no hard feelings after this issue has been put
> > down and can continue our Usenet association in a friendly manner.
>
> That, sir, is a given.
>
> You'll have to work harder than this to **** me off!
>
> ;-)

Fair enough.

Take care,
DH

[Richard Smith]

"wse" > wrote in message ...
> I love WTC crash pictures!
>

Of course you do dear, all top posting trolls-in-training do.

Now give mommy her computer back and run along. The cat needs to be set
afire.

Richard

[Dudley Henriques]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> Dear Mr. Henriques,
>
> I am beginning to get fed up with your moralistic lections. I have put
the
> videos on-line to share them with other people, and hoping to receive
some
> new videos from other collectors. The reason that I used the aviation
safety
> newsgroup to announce the video webpage was because I know that
crashes have
> everything to do with aviation safety and people in this group may be
extra
> interested to look at them for many different reasons.
>
> Whatever my intentions are to share the videos, it is not something
that
> requires your approval. The fact is that aviation crashes are fully
ON-TOPIC
> on this newsgroup. I don't have to put up with the opinion of some
hypoctit
> pilot who is involved in demonstration flights and air races, intended
to
> push flying to the limit. If it wasn't for guys like you, about 50% of
all
> crash videos would have never been shot because the crashes simply
didn't
> occur.
>
> Flying is relatively safe, but pushing flight to the limit for the fun
of it
> just isn't. Don't complain if something goes wrong when guys like you
are
> willingly taking more risk than necessary during air races and
demonstration
> flights. And stop pointing fingers at people who are interested to see
> thrilling aviation just because it simply exites them. Pilots like you
> provided it to them in the first place!
>
> And regarding the photographer that shot the photos of your friend's
widow,
> these guys are called journalists. It is people like them that fill
the
> newspapers with eye catching photos that make the readers feel the
emotion
> involved in incidents and accidents. It gives face to the cold text of
the
> news. For example: Just think of what 9/11 would have looked like to
the
> world without photos or video. The world just wouldn't be half as
upset as
> it is now.
>
> I will continue to try and shoot beautiful and artistic aviation
photographs
> like can be seen at my photogalleries, and I will also continue to try
and
> keep the aviation videos on-line. Having learned from the first
publication,
> I think I will create a webpage at which I will publish one new video
every
> week. With about 100 videos available already, I have enough material
to
> publish for two years straight. Just keep checking
> http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm for the videos, or to see my
photogalleries.
>
> To all other readers: If you have any aviation crash videos for me,
please
> send them to .
>
> Fly safe,
> Iwan Bogels
>
>
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > schreef in bericht
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:zem_c.101871$9d6.78381@attbi_s54...
> > > > > What, precisely, do you see wrong with viewing aircraft
crashes
> > for
> > > > reasons
> > > > > other than flight safety?
> > > >
> > > > I feel no need to justify my reasoning to you on the subject of
> > viewing
> > > > aircraft crash videos outside the safety context, any more than
I
> > > > require you justify yourself to me.
> > >
> > > Actually, I was just curious as to your reasoning.
> > >
> > > I don't pretend to understand *why* viewing vehicle crashes is
> > entertaining
> > > to the masses -- but it clearly is. Evidence of this is clearly
seen
> > by the
> > > success of NASCAR (now the number one sport in the world, based on
> > > attendance), or the popularity of "demolition derbies" at any of
> > hundreds of
> > > county fairgrounds across America.
> > >
> > > Further evidence can be seen by the proliferation of "America's
Worst
> > Police
> > > Chases"-type of programming. These police videos -- many of them
> > depicting
> > > auto wrecks and gunfights -- are hugely popular.
> > >
> > > It's a peculiar phenomenon, I'll give you that -- but to "detest
> > people like
> > > that" is to despise a huge percentage of Americans.
> > > --
> > > Jay Honeck
> > > Iowa City, IA
> > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> > You are injecting oranges into an apples discussing here.
> > the issue of whether or not crashes are entertaining to the masses
is a
> > whole different issue than the ethics of putting crash video out on
the
> > net for entertainment or to project one's "hobby".
> > You are simply going off topic and stating a possible reason for WHY
> > people might find crash video exciting and entertaining. Then you
are
> > backing this up by telling me that YOU find these crash videos
> > "thrilling".
> > Thrilling isn't the issue here. Ethics is the issue, or more
correctly,
> > the lack of ethics.
> > I would not argue that crash footage isn't "thrilling". I would
argue
> > however, that those who engage in both providing such footage on the
net
> > for general viewing , and viewing such footage for the purpose of
the
> > "thrill" involved, and trying to pass their prurient interest off as
> > being associated with flight safety are not my kind of people.
> > Crash footage has a real and genuine use as a flight safety tool,
and
> > presented in the correct context, BY PEOPLE IN THE SAFETY BUSINESS,
> > crash photography is welcomed by the safety community and the
aviation
> > community at large. There is much to be learned from crash footage
> > presented in this manner.
> > But don't tell me above all people that some photographer out there
> > presenting his "wares" on the net that consist of gigs of crash
video
> > that he clearly states is his "hobby" has been presented as a public
> > service or in a safety associated context. That's just plain bull
****!
> > These people are engaged in enhancing their images within their
> > community...that's it....that's all......nothing more than that.
What's
> > important to them is the film speed.....the equipment used.......and
> > yes; the sheer excitement of the event itself...the more dramatic
the
> > event, the more kudos for the photographer.
> > Don't try selling ME this crap as a safety issue. I know better. I
stood
> > at the crash site of a close friend during the Cape May Air Races in
71.
> > His body was still in the cockpit of his AT6 crushed like a dishrag.
I
> > held his wife in my arms as she tried hysterically to break away and
> > climb in the cockpit with her husband. I can still feel her shaking
and
> > screaming to this day. I watched as a spectator....one of these
> > "photographers" we're discussing here....ran over to where we were
> > standing and took a picture, not of the wreck, but of HER!!!!
> > Crash video has a distinct place in our lives as pilots. We can
learn
> > from it if it's presented in the proper context, but to allow
ourselves
> > to be witness to a human tragedy for no other purpose than to enjoy
our
> > "hobby" or satisfy our desire for excitement is not my idea of
ethical
> > behavior.
> > BTW, in closing...that pilot friend's widow, I'll just call her Jere
,
> > remained a lifelong friend of ours. We finally lost her several
years
> > ago to a stroke. We miss her very much.
> > Somewhere on this planet, a complete stranger, a person with a
camera
> > who didn't know her, and could have cared less about her, has a
picture
> > he took without her permission, at the most horrible and personal
moment
> > of her life,that allows him to share that moment in time with her.
> > I hope he chokes on it!
> > And this is just ONE instance of many I've experienced through the
years
> > concerning "crash photographers with a "hobby"!!!
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >
> > For personal email, please
> > replace the at with what goes there and
> > take out the Z's please!
> > dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

This post is so filled with your generalities about race and airshow
pilots that I don't believe it even requires an answer from me one way
or the other. You have made a complete case that shows anyone with half
a brain exactly what I was talking about when I first confronted you.
As for the "journalist" that shot the photo of my friend's widow; he was
no journalist; he was a spectator with a camera. He dragged his two
small children over with him to see the wreck. I took the camera from
him personally and smashed it on the ground. He was at that point
confronted by two more of our friends and barely escaped with his bones
intact.
So much for your "journalism"!
As I said, feel free to spew your stuff anywhere you like, and you're
right; you don't need my approval to do it. But you'll find me there
when you do just the same.
Welcome to Usenet! You don't dictate policy here. You'll get your share
of positive reaction and have to take the negative along with it, or
you'll get VERY frustrated around here my friend. Unfortunately for you,
I go with your territory, so get used to me. Anytime I see you pushing
crash video without a stated reason for doing so, I'll comment anyway I
please.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[For Crying Out Loud]

A twently line reponse.
An 8 line SIG file
Then you quote back three posters including
yourself including your own SIG file for a grand
total of over 230 lines of quoted text.

DUDLEY -------> WHY WON'T YOU TRIM YOUR POSTS...??????

[Dudley Henriques]

"For Crying Out Loud" > wrote in message
...
> A twently line reponse.
> An 8 line SIG file
> Then you quote back three posters including
> yourself including your own SIG file for a grand
> total of over 230 lines of quoted text.
>
> DUDLEY -------> WHY WON'T YOU TRIM YOUR POSTS...??????

Because I want people to actually READ what this guy is selling, that's
why!
If it bothers you, pass it up!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[John Mullen]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "For Crying Out Loud" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A twently line reponse.
>> An 8 line SIG file
>> Then you quote back three posters including
>> yourself including your own SIG file for a grand
>> total of over 230 lines of quoted text.
>>
>> DUDLEY -------> WHY WON'T YOU TRIM YOUR POSTS...??????
>
> Because I want people to actually READ what this guy is selling, that's
> why!
> If it bothers you, pass it up!

Fair enough. So why don't you just apply the same advice to the video site
if it bothers you?

John

[Dudley Henriques]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "For Crying Out Loud" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> A twently line reponse.
> >> An 8 line SIG file
> >> Then you quote back three posters including
> >> yourself including your own SIG file for a grand
> >> total of over 230 lines of quoted text.
> >>
> >> DUDLEY -------> WHY WON'T YOU TRIM YOUR POSTS...??????
> >
> > Because I want people to actually READ what this guy is selling,
that's
> > why!
> > If it bothers you, pass it up!
>
> Fair enough. So why don't you just apply the same advice to the video
site
> if it bothers you?
>
> John

Objecting to the photographer who set up this site is not an attempt to
sway people from visiting the site. That is an individual decision. My
objection was simply stated to express my personal feelings about people
who take these photos for entertainment. Nothing more. If the thread
provokes people into giving some thought to the entire issue of crash
photos for entertainment, I have been successful in what I wished to
say...that's it....nothing more exciting than that.
It's not a cause with me.....just a sentiment expressed then followed up
..
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Jim Rosinski]

"Richard Smith" > wrote

> Of course you do dear, all top posting trolls-in-training do.
>
> Now give mommy her computer back and run along. The cat needs to be set
> afire.

Top-posting, bottom-posting. Who gives a damn?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>
> > Objecting to the photographer who set up this site is not an attempt
to
> > sway people from visiting the site. That is an individual decision.
My
> > objection was simply stated to express my personal feelings about
people
> > who take these photos for entertainment...
>
>
> Since you object to people shoot photos/film of such things for
> commercial (entertainment) entertainment purposes can we expect to see
> you rail on Discovery Channel et al? Or do you support the coverage
when
> its all positive...but reject it when it portrays the periodic
mishaps?
>
>
>
> --Mike

This, and your other post to me asking continuisly for an explanation of
my objections to the specific context of crash videos being discussed in
this thread are a perfect example of why I don't answer posts like
yours.
The answer has been plainly stated in other posts and is clear to anyone
with reasonable intelligence. Your constant demand that I repeat these
reasons because you "can't find the answer" isn't enough incentive for
me to repost an entire thought process for your personal conveinence.
That being said, I've pasted in below the EXACT answer to your constant
requests for that answer. If you can't get what I'm saying from this,
I'm sorry, I can't help you any further.

From a prior post by me and quite clear on the "why's";
The "ethics" that I was attacking and will always continue to attack are
not as clearly cut as you would like to have them. The physical act of
taking a picture at an air show disaster is only the tip of a large
iceberg. The REASON for taking that picture, and what the photographer
does with the picture after it's been taken is the area of my concern,
NOT the fact that the picture was taken per se, which seems to be the
crux of everything you have been attempting to "explain" to me.
There is nothing improper about taking photographs or filming a video
during an air race or air show disaster IF the reason for taking these
pictures isn't prurient. A video shot as a record of the event or to be
used as news of the event is one thing. That's ethical. A video of a
crash used in a safety program designed to help prevent the same
accident from happening again is more than ethical. It's advisable!
On the other hand, there are those who take these photographs and film
these videos for no other reason than their own prurient interest; a
record for them personally to "enjoy" watching and to pass on to others
in the public forum as their " the thrill of the day". Photographers who
use these photographs in their "hobby" and present them to the public
seeking only acclaim for their skill as photographers are completely
unethical to us in the airshow community. These people, displaying an
aspect of human nature that will unfortunately always be with us, are in
my opinion unethical. On the airshow circuit we think of them as human
leeches standing there with their cameras waiting for one of us to die
so they can catch the moment on film to later be released by them for
their own purpose unrelated to anything but their own amusement or
profit.
The only ethics involved with this issue are the ethics involved for the
reasons the camera shutter clicks. There are good reasons and there are
bad reasons. The photographers I have so strongly objected to are the
one's with the "bad" reasons; the thrill seekers; the "hobbyists".
Any race or airshow pilot will tell you that the existence of crash
video is a given, and we understand that there will be pictures if
something goes wrong for us. In a way, we welcome it, because it might
help save another pilot's life, but none of us accept the leech
photographers, the paparazzi type, who come to exploit us when something
goes wrong.
These "hobby" video people fit into the unethical category for us, and
yes, we detest them!
As for people outside the airshow community discussing an issue like
this one with us; everyone of course has the right to an opinion, but
it's better that you ASK, rather than TELL when you get into something
as close to the show community as this issue. That's just a friendly
suggestion. Pilots from the community don't mind opposing viewpoint. We
do however, like a pilot to have some actual experience with what we do
before expressing that opinion too loudly :-)

If this doesn't answer what you keep "demanding" than you will just have
to get by on whatever floats your boat.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

For personal email, please
replace the at with what goes there and
take out the Z's please!
dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet

[Iwan Bogels]

Dear Dudley,

I notice that you only reply to the few parts of messages of which you FEEL
to have the right on your side. Any other parts of the message you just
leave unanswered. To me it is clear that you are only shouting your opinion,
and are not ready to discuss the arguments that are put forward by anybody.
I call that ignorant.

Furthermore I would like to take the opportunity to thank everybody who have
sent personal replies, especially since most of them were very positive.

Cheers,
Iwan




"Dudley Henriques" > schreef in bericht
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Objecting to the photographer who set up this site is not an attempt
> to
> > > sway people from visiting the site. That is an individual decision.
> My
> > > objection was simply stated to express my personal feelings about
> people
> > > who take these photos for entertainment...
> >
> >
> > Since you object to people shoot photos/film of such things for
> > commercial (entertainment) entertainment purposes can we expect to see
> > you rail on Discovery Channel et al? Or do you support the coverage
> when
> > its all positive...but reject it when it portrays the periodic
> mishaps?
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mike
>
> This, and your other post to me asking continuisly for an explanation of
> my objections to the specific context of crash videos being discussed in
> this thread are a perfect example of why I don't answer posts like
> yours.
> The answer has been plainly stated in other posts and is clear to anyone
> with reasonable intelligence. Your constant demand that I repeat these
> reasons because you "can't find the answer" isn't enough incentive for
> me to repost an entire thought process for your personal conveinence.
> That being said, I've pasted in below the EXACT answer to your constant
> requests for that answer. If you can't get what I'm saying from this,
> I'm sorry, I can't help you any further.
>
> From a prior post by me and quite clear on the "why's";
> The "ethics" that I was attacking and will always continue to attack are
> not as clearly cut as you would like to have them. The physical act of
> taking a picture at an air show disaster is only the tip of a large
> iceberg. The REASON for taking that picture, and what the photographer
> does with the picture after it's been taken is the area of my concern,
> NOT the fact that the picture was taken per se, which seems to be the
> crux of everything you have been attempting to "explain" to me.
> There is nothing improper about taking photographs or filming a video
> during an air race or air show disaster IF the reason for taking these
> pictures isn't prurient. A video shot as a record of the event or to be
> used as news of the event is one thing. That's ethical. A video of a
> crash used in a safety program designed to help prevent the same
> accident from happening again is more than ethical. It's advisable!
> On the other hand, there are those who take these photographs and film
> these videos for no other reason than their own prurient interest; a
> record for them personally to "enjoy" watching and to pass on to others
> in the public forum as their " the thrill of the day". Photographers who
> use these photographs in their "hobby" and present them to the public
> seeking only acclaim for their skill as photographers are completely
> unethical to us in the airshow community. These people, displaying an
> aspect of human nature that will unfortunately always be with us, are in
> my opinion unethical. On the airshow circuit we think of them as human
> leeches standing there with their cameras waiting for one of us to die
> so they can catch the moment on film to later be released by them for
> their own purpose unrelated to anything but their own amusement or
> profit.
> The only ethics involved with this issue are the ethics involved for the
> reasons the camera shutter clicks. There are good reasons and there are
> bad reasons. The photographers I have so strongly objected to are the
> one's with the "bad" reasons; the thrill seekers; the "hobbyists".
> Any race or airshow pilot will tell you that the existence of crash
> video is a given, and we understand that there will be pictures if
> something goes wrong for us. In a way, we welcome it, because it might
> help save another pilot's life, but none of us accept the leech
> photographers, the paparazzi type, who come to exploit us when something
> goes wrong.
> These "hobby" video people fit into the unethical category for us, and
> yes, we detest them!
> As for people outside the airshow community discussing an issue like
> this one with us; everyone of course has the right to an opinion, but
> it's better that you ASK, rather than TELL when you get into something
> as close to the show community as this issue. That's just a friendly
> suggestion. Pilots from the community don't mind opposing viewpoint. We
> do however, like a pilot to have some actual experience with what we do
> before expressing that opinion too loudly :-)
>
> If this doesn't answer what you keep "demanding" than you will just have
> to get by on whatever floats your boat.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
> For personal email, please
> replace the at with what goes there and
> take out the Z's please!
> dhenriquesZatZearthZlinkZdotZnet
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> Dear Dudley,
>
> I notice that you only reply to the few parts of messages of which you
FEEL
> to have the right on your side. Any other parts of the message you
just
> leave unanswered. To me it is clear that you are only shouting your
opinion,
> and are not ready to discuss the arguments that are put forward by
anybody.
> I call that ignorant.

I believe I've made my point about both you and your site quite clear.
I've freely engaged all comers on the issues both pro and con as they
have come up. As for avoiding dialog, I'll be happy to engage you on any
comment you wish to make. Go on; make your case!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired

[Iwan Bogels]

All right, I'll put it to you as straight forward as possible:

How can you be a demonstration pilot and object to people shooting and
shearing photos and videos of your actions, even if these include ultimate
****-ups resulting in many casualties ?

I'm very curious about your reply !

Iwan



"Dudley Henriques" > schreef in bericht
ink.net...
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dear Dudley,
> >
> > I notice that you only reply to the few parts of messages of which you
> FEEL
> > to have the right on your side. Any other parts of the message you
> just
> > leave unanswered. To me it is clear that you are only shouting your
> opinion,
> > and are not ready to discuss the arguments that are put forward by
> anybody.
> > I call that ignorant.
>
> I believe I've made my point about both you and your site quite clear.
> I've freely engaged all comers on the issues both pro and con as they
> have come up. As for avoiding dialog, I'll be happy to engage you on any
> comment you wish to make. Go on; make your case!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>
>
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> All right, I'll put it to you as straight forward as possible:
>
> How can you be a demonstration pilot and object to people shooting and
> shearing photos and videos of your actions, even if these include
ultimate
> ****-ups resulting in many casualties ?
>
> I'm very curious about your reply !
>
> Iwan

In the demonstration community we have no objection whatsoever to crash
video being used for the purpose of crash investigation or news
reporting. These things relate directly to the issues of flight safety.
Where on earth did you get the idea we objected to video being used in
this manner...surely not from me. I've stated this quite clearly in
prior posts.
As for the "****ups"; yes, they happen unfortunately, and when they do,
it's good to have a filmed record of the event.... which equates
completely with my above comment. In fact, we in the community encourage
filming of events for just this purpose. The photographers that take
these pictures however, don't push them on the net as you are doing, as
entertainment, with no news value or safety connection associated with
that effort.
Next!

[Iwan Bogels]

Well Dudley,

In that case you could have simply written: "I hate it when people spread
aviation crash videos for other purpose than aviation safety issues". It
would have saved you a lot of unnecessary discussion.

As you will have understood, I see things a little differently. Having
witnessed a major aircraft crash in which 70 people got killed because a
demonstration pilot misjudged the situation, I use it for other purposes.

I hope more people are willing to share their crash video footage with me,
and I will continue to share it with other people via my website.
Furthermore I will keep announcing the video wepage at the newsgroups where
people might have an extra interest in viewing my videos. That would best
serve my personal purpose.

People can download the videos at http://www.dappa.nl-crash.htm and use it
for safety issues, viewing pleasure, collecting purposes or whatever other
goal they have. I won't judge them for the reason they look at it.

Iwan



"Dudley Henriques" > schreef in bericht
ink.net...
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All right, I'll put it to you as straight forward as possible:
> >
> > How can you be a demonstration pilot and object to people shooting and
> > shearing photos and videos of your actions, even if these include
> ultimate
> > ****-ups resulting in many casualties ?
> >
> > I'm very curious about your reply !
> >
> > Iwan
>
> In the demonstration community we have no objection whatsoever to crash
> video being used for the purpose of crash investigation or news
> reporting. These things relate directly to the issues of flight safety.
> Where on earth did you get the idea we objected to video being used in
> this manner...surely not from me. I've stated this quite clearly in
> prior posts.
> As for the "****ups"; yes, they happen unfortunately, and when they do,
> it's good to have a filmed record of the event.... which equates
> completely with my above comment. In fact, we in the community encourage
> filming of events for just this purpose. The photographers that take
> these pictures however, don't push them on the net as you are doing, as
> entertainment, with no news value or safety connection associated with
> that effort.
> Next!
>
>
>

[Peter R.]

Iwan Bogels wrote:

> People can download the videos at

LOL! Dead link...

--
Peter

[Iwan Bogels]

Well, not 20 seconds ago.....presh "refresh" , because you might have the
old link in your cash....

:-)

Iwan




"Peter R." > schreef in bericht
...
> Iwan Bogels wrote:
>
> > People can download the videos at
>
> LOL! Dead link...
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.dappa.nl-crash.htm

/

Paul

[mike regish]

I really prefer reading top posts.

;-/

mike regish

"Jim Rosinski" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Top-posting, bottom-posting. Who gives a damn?
>
> Jim Rosinski
> N3825Q

[mike regish]

Like you're not answering this one?

:-)

mike regish

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
news:S1P_c.7159>
> This, and your other post to me asking continuisly for an explanation of
> my objections to the specific context of crash videos being discussed in
> this thread are a perfect example of why I don't answer posts like
> yours.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> Well, not 20 seconds ago.....presh "refresh" , because you might have the
> old link in your cash....
>
> :-)
>
> Iwan
>

Dead link for me too.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Dudley Henriques]

"Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
...
> Well Dudley,
>
> In that case you could have simply written: "I hate it when people
spread
> aviation crash videos for other purpose than aviation safety issues".
It
> would have saved you a lot of unnecessary discussion.

I don't believe you quite understand what's been happening here.
I have absolutely no problem at all with people downloading to their
heart's content from your site and viewing all the crash footage they
can cram onto their computers. I merely saw what you are doing and
posted a simple one line statement that expressed my personal feelings
for both you and what you do. To reiterate, that statement was "I detest
people like you". Everything that has transpired since then is simply
the usual result on Usenet of people reading a comment like that and one
by one,
checking in with totally irrelevant comment. I say irrelevant because
what they have to say is related to THEM, not to me. I took the trouble
to engage the posters I wished to engage dealing with the reasons I had
personally for "detesting you". This wasn't done to change anything, or
even change anyone's opinions; simply to expand for clarity on MY
feelings for what you do.
I'm a slightly different poster than the usual you will find on Usenet
because when I post, I'm not looking for agreement. Agreement isn't
important to me when it comes to Usenet. I post what pleases me. If
someone gains from what I say, that's fine. If they hate my guts and
want me dead, that's fine too. Couldn't care less either way.
So you see, all this fuss about crash video being good or bad is of no
consequence to me personally at all. I could care less who watches crash
videos and who photographs it and why.
By all means, push your video and enjoy your hobby.
It's quite humorous to me that this thread demonstrates in exact clarity
the total reality of Usenet.
You posted for your site......I posted that I detest people like you
(note that this statement doesn't even address the "why" question or the
video question)......then come the masses to opine with their own
"opinions" on the matter, none of which by definition can address why I
detest you, which is really funny to me........finally here we are
again, after all this expended bandwidth, right back at the beginning.
You have your site. They have their opinions. I still detest you.
Nothing solved.
Welcome to Usenet! :-)


>
> As you will have understood, I see things a little differently. Having
> witnessed a major aircraft crash in which 70 people got killed because
a
> demonstration pilot misjudged the situation, I use it for other
purposes.

Bull****! You make no mention anywhere on your site of being even
remotely interested in the safety issues involved with our work but as
I've said, I'm not trying to change what you do. I simply detest what
you do.
>
> I hope more people are willing to share their crash video footage with
me,
> and I will continue to share it with other people via my website.
> Furthermore I will keep announcing the video wepage at the newsgroups
where
> people might have an extra interest in viewing my videos. That would
best
> serve my personal purpose.

I'm sure you will, as I'm sure there will be no end of people who will
make your efforts worthwhile. No problem with me at all Iwan. Go for it.
>
> People can download the videos at http://www.dappa.nl-crash.htm and
use it
> for safety issues,

I'm sorry, but just the video alone without a corresponding report does
little to serve the safety issue. To serve the safety issue, video must
be viewed in an investigative context by people who know how to evaluate
that video. Putting crash video on the net for viewing by the general
public with no expert comment directed at the safety issues involved
with the crash does little but allow an uneducated replay of the crash.
If you are indeed interested in flight safety, I would expect that the
video from every crash you have ever shot had been turned over to crash
investigation immediately after the crash, or at least a copy made and
distributed immediately to proper investigative authority.
When you can show me that this has been done by you, I'll consider not
"detesting" you all that much. Until that point, you don't fit any
description of a photographer interested in flight safety at all. You're
just one more web site junkie pushing your wares to enhance your own
image as a photographer.

viewing pleasure, collecting purposes or whatever other
> goal they have. I won't judge them for the reason they look at it.


I'm sure you won't, and I won't either. What people do is their own
business, even you Iwan. I just happen to detest you that's all; no big
deal....never was!! :-)
If this thread had any purpose at all, it has served to enlighten a few
to how we in the airshow community view the issue of crash video. For
some, that will have been interesting. For the rest, who cares. Surely
not me. I learned a long time ago that the way to change the world was
DEFINITELY not on Usenet!

Enjoy!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[John Mullen]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iwan Bogels" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, not 20 seconds ago.....presh "refresh" , because you might have the
>> old link in your cash....
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Iwan
>>
>
> Dead link for me too.
>
> Keith

http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm

John

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm sorry, but just the video alone without a corresponding report does
> little to serve the safety issue. To serve the safety issue, video must
> be viewed in an investigative context by people who know how to evaluate
> that video.

This is an excellent point, Dudley, and I would like to propose an idea that
could help all pilots, AND improve the utility of my website.

As I'm sure you are aware, I, too, have an aviation video page on our
hotel's website. (See it at
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) It is chock-full of
fascinating aviation videos, some that are just plain cool, some that show
landing in Iowa City for potential guests -- and others that depict terrible
crash footage.

In some cases I have included commentary from people who were actually
involved in the situations depicted. (The B-52 crash, for example.) With
most, however, I have no way to identify the people and pilots involved,
since most of the videos have been sent to me by fellow pilots from all over
the world.

You are an aviation expert with a unique expertise in aviation safety. You
are also obviously incensed at the notion of aviation crash videos being
viewed outside of the aviation safety context. As I've read your posts,
I've come around to see that there is much truth in your convictions.

I, on the other hand, am interested in maintaining (and expanding) a very
popular page on our website, not because it nets me any money (it does not)
but because I personally find these videos to be fascinating.

Perhaps we can meld the two together?

How would you like to provide a short commentary on each crash video, for
inclusion on our website? Perhaps a paragraph or two, with your expert
opinion on what happened, how the incident could have been prevented, what
steps have been taken since the accident to prevent a recurrence, etc., etc.

Really, you would have carte blanche to write whatever you felt was
appropriate, as a service to your fellow (and future) pilots.

What do you say? Want to help fix the problem?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EY%_c.306956$eM2.73249@attbi_s51...
> How would you like to provide a short commentary on each crash video, for
> inclusion on our website? Perhaps a paragraph or two, with your expert
> opinion on what happened

Regarding your video of the "tragic" mid-air crash between the two
Migs, I was there, it was RIAT Fairford '93. Both pilots walked away.
Literally. One walked back to the commentary box and apologised to
the crowd.

I have a half hour programme recorded about this incident with a lot of
comment from the pilots involved. If I can get hold of an analogue TV
adaptor for my PC, I'll digitise it and send it over.

Basically the no.2 says it was his fault. The leader went into cloud at
the top of a loop while the no.2 was flying in close formation. The no.2
pulled over harder to avoid going into cloud. He was now doing a
loop of a smaller dimension than the leader. Rather than knock it
off, he continued. The leader came around and not seeing the no.2,
decided to break up and out, the standard formation break. Not sure
I've got that 100% right but it's something similar. There was a no.3
guy on the ground in a transport plane and made a radio call to separate
the aircraft but happened to transmit the same time as someone else on
frequency.

Paul

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EY%_c.306956$eM2.73249@attbi_s51...
>> I'm sorry, but just the video alone without a corresponding report
>> does
>> little to serve the safety issue. To serve the safety issue, video
>> must
>> be viewed in an investigative context by people who know how to
>> evaluate
>> that video.
>
> This is an excellent point, Dudley, and I would like to propose an
> idea that could help all pilots, AND improve the utility of my
> website.
>
> As I'm sure you are aware, I, too, have an aviation video page on our
> hotel's website. (See it at
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) It is chock-full
> of fascinating aviation videos, some that are just plain cool, some
> that show landing in Iowa City for potential guests -- and others that
> depict terrible crash footage.
>
> In some cases I have included commentary from people who were actually
> involved in the situations depicted. (The B-52 crash, for example.)
> With most, however, I have no way to identify the people and pilots
> involved, since most of the videos have been sent to me by fellow
> pilots from all over the world.
>
> You are an aviation expert with a unique expertise in aviation safety.
> You are also obviously incensed at the notion of aviation crash videos
> being viewed outside of the aviation safety context. As I've read
> your posts, I've come around to see that there is much truth in your
> convictions.
>
> I, on the other hand, am interested in maintaining (and expanding) a
> very popular page on our website, not because it nets me any money (it
> does not) but because I personally find these videos to be
> fascinating.
>
> Perhaps we can meld the two together?
>
> How would you like to provide a short commentary on each crash video,
> for inclusion on our website? Perhaps a paragraph or two, with your
> expert opinion on what happened, how the incident could have been
> prevented, what steps have been taken since the accident to prevent a
> recurrence, etc., etc.
>
> Really, you would have carte blanche to write whatever you felt was
> appropriate, as a service to your fellow (and future) pilots.
>
> What do you say? Want to help fix the problem?

Well, first of all, and not to sound too sarcastic, I've been "helping
to fix the problem" all through my career.
That being said, I believe your site the video displayed there are well
within my definition for ethical presentation, not that this matters all
that much.
You have obviously made an effort to present these images in a proper
context, including safety related data whenever and wherever possible.
In other words, it's obvious from knowing you personally and being aware
of your genuine interest in aviation safety, including what you are
asking me to do, that your intent is to better the safety scene.
You should be aware however, in asking someone like me to offer comment
on a crash where I'm not involved with the investigation, that although
I might have a degree of experience in air safety matters, my opinion on
a video where I am not directly involved, or have not been directly
involved with the specifics of the accident, would simply be one more
opinion, no matter how "educated" from the sidelines.
In addition, I have just finished, along with a hand picked group of
pilots specializing in airshow and demonstration expertise, over a
year's direct involvement with Gen Barker's fine manual on airshow
safety, "Zero Error Margin". Included in this book is detailed
information on most of the videos on your site. This information is
accident specific and includes the official reports and notation from
professional pilots who are directly involved in our business. I highly
recommend that interested parties obtain a copy of this book, as I
consider it indispensable as a source of exactly the information you are
seeking from me.
In light of these circumstances, and also because I have little use for
the back and forth on these matters that occurs on Usenet, I will
respectfully decline your kind offer and refer you and all others
interested in the safety issues involved with these videos to Gen
Barker's book.
I will be most happy to supply the information needed to purchase this
volume...and before anyone on Usenet asks me.....NO, I didn't get paid
for my contributions to the book, NOR do I gain financially from the
sale of the book. All work on this volume was by invitation only and was
complete voluntary by all concerned!
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[John Mullen]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EY%_c.306956$eM2.73249@attbi_s51...

(snip)

First of all, thank you for posting the videos.

After downloading and viewing them all (thank goodness for broadband!), some
comments:

May I suggest that 'Cool Videos' might give the wrong impression, when quite
a few people die in the incidents depicted?

The MiG 29 crash, OTOH, was in no sense tragic. Nobody was hurt even, as
someone else has pointed out.

The Airbus crash was nothing to do with the FBW system, except in the sense
that the pilots trusted overmuch in it to keep them from crashing. It was
also not the first fully automatic aircraft, or whatever the exact form of
words you use are. Basically they flew too slow and low and their planning
was poor.

What the hell is the fake bird ad for the Ford Ka doing there?

Respectfully yours

John Mullen

[lowflyer]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<EY%_c.306956$eM2.73249@attbi_s51>...

>
> I, on the other hand, am interested in maintaining (and expanding) a very
> popular page on our website, not because it nets me any money (it does not)


Could you possibly be a little disingenuous here? You are much too
clever to have not realized how a "popular" web site might be an
advertisement for the "Inn." :-)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jim Rosinski wrote:
> "Richard Smith" > wrote
>
>> Of course you do dear, all top posting trolls-in-training do.
>
> Top-posting, bottom-posting. Who gives a damn?

It's often harder to follow a discussion where a respondant top posts
because it's not as clear what points they are responding to. To add to
this, most top poster never bother to trim the quotes.

There are still many people on dialup at rates somewhat below 56K. Top
posts tend to add up until a thread contains mostly just quoted
material, in a massive trail underneath each 2 or 3 line response. In a
busy NG like this one, this can add a significant amount of download
time to those poor dialup users who want to read the NG offline (perhaps
because they have to pay telephone charges by the second).

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

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, John Mullen wrote:
> What the hell is the fake bird ad for the Ford Ka doing there?

It does have a very tenuous flying connection, and it is hilarious.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I have a half hour programme recorded about this incident with a lot of
> comment from the pilots involved. If I can get hold of an analogue TV
> adaptor for my PC, I'll digitise it and send it over.

That would be great, Paul. Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > What the hell is the fake bird ad for the Ford Ka doing there?
>
> It does have a very tenuous flying connection, and it is hilarious.

It is the sickest, most warped advertisement I've ever seen. It truly makes
me wonder about European consumers, if this ad actually works to sell cars.

And, God help me, I love it! It's the funniest danged thing I've ever seen.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> May I suggest that 'Cool Videos' might give the wrong impression, when
quite
> a few people die in the incidents depicted?

Good point.

The "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now on
that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I get a
minute.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:soh%c.18352$vy.11013@attbi_s52...
> > > What the hell is the fake bird ad for the Ford Ka doing there?
> >
> > It does have a very tenuous flying connection, and it is hilarious.
>
> It is the sickest, most warped advertisement I've ever seen.

Apart from the cat one I sent you the link for...

Though that one didn't make the grade for actually being shown on TV.

> It truly makes
> me wonder about European consumers, if this ad actually works to sell
cars.
>
> And, God help me, I love it! It's the funniest danged thing I've ever
seen.

Paul

[Jay Honeck]

>> I, on the other hand, am interested in maintaining (and expanding) a very
>> popular page on our website, not because it nets me any money (it does
>> not)
>
> Could you possibly be a little disingenuous here? You are much too
> clever to have not realized how a "popular" web site might be an
> advertisement for the "Inn." :-)

Although it may serve as something of an advertisement, it is -- at best --
an ineffective one.

And when you factor in the number of hours I've spent on that stupid page
(both creating it, maintaining, and helping people from all over the world
view the videos), I'd have been better off wallpapering a suite with
hundred-dollar bills...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fjl%c.2819$%y.2415@attbi_s51...
>>> I, on the other hand, am interested in maintaining (and expanding) a
>>> very
>>> popular page on our website, not because it nets me any money (it
>>> does not)
>>
>> Could you possibly be a little disingenuous here? You are much too
>> clever to have not realized how a "popular" web site might be an
>> advertisement for the "Inn." :-)
>
> Although it may serve as something of an advertisement, it is -- at
> best -- an ineffective one.
>
> And when you factor in the number of hours I've spent on that stupid
> page (both creating it, maintaining, and helping people from all over
> the world view the videos), I'd have been better off wallpapering a
> suite with hundred-dollar bills...
>
> ;-)

Yes, but it's the THOUGHT that counts though, doesn't it?

"Cool Videos" is just the right term to pick for depicting people dying
in airplane crashes.....why it's JUST the thing for a guy who's
everyone's equal in the 'ethics" department!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Jay Honeck]

> "Cool Videos" is just the right term to pick for depicting people dying in
> airplane crashes.....why it's JUST the thing for a guy who's everyone's
> equal in the 'ethics" department!!

This issue has already been addressed in other posts in both threads. You
might consider checking them out before shooting off your electronic mouth.

However, for your sake I'll reiterate the point: The "Cool Videos" page
name pre-dates most of the videos. When I started the page, it WAS just cool
videos, with aerobatics, supersonic passes, and landings in Iowa City
depicted.

Over time, the page has grown to include accidents, miscalculations, and
mechanical failures, as well as video of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade
Center.

As I stated earlier, the point (already made by an earlier poster) is well
taken, and I will be changing the name of the page to something more
appropriate when I get a minute.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> "Cool Videos" is just the right term to pick for depicting people dying
> in airplane crashes.....why it's JUST the thing for a guy who's
> everyone's equal in the 'ethics" department!!

************************************************** ***

TO THE GROUP..... Regarding Iwan Bogels" >


> Michael > wrote:

> As it is, you have a freak show and little else.

For the last number of days Iwan Bogels" >
has crossposted the same or similar message into a variety of
groups like this inviting you to visit his site, and view his videos,
so that you may become educated, and learn from the mistakes
of others.

In the piloting newsgroups he has been trying to justify his freakshow
with a number of the regulars who surprising enough for the most part
didn't see all that much wrong with it.

For the groups information.

A few years ago when the reality TV programs started to hit the air,
there was someone named Jeremy Peevers ( I believe ) and others
who were posting to the aviation newsgroups looking for footage
similar to what Mr. Bogels is showing on his website.

In the rec.aviation.homebuilt, and rec.aviation.rotorcraft groups
(where I generally lurk) they were basically told to **** off by the
majority or regulars who were offended that someone was looking for
death and destruction videos so they could be shown of national TV for
a profit under the guise of entertainment.

I personally asked on numerous times (in the group) if Real TV would be
interested in clear, well lit, sharply focused, footage of a young girl
being decapitated by a helicopter rotor and how much they would be
willing to pay.

That usually shut them up.

They didn't want videos of people out actually enjoying a day at the
airport, with shots of airplanes taking off, flying and landing.

They wanted videos of total destruction, fireballs, cartwheels,
well ........ you get the picture.

The other day Iwan Bogels" > crossposted
his message into this set of newsgroups looking for hits to his site.

alt.disasters.aviation, fr.rec.aviation, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.soaring

Yesterday he decided to crosspost his message into this set of
newsgroups.

alt.aviation.safety, aus.aviation, rec.aviation.homebuilt,
rec.aviation.ifr, rec.aviation.student

And today he is crosspoting to this set of newsgroups

rec.aviation.rotorcraft, rec.aviation.student, rec.models.rc.helicopter

God knows where he will be tomorrow.

I'm certainly not telling anybody what they should or shouldn't look at
on the Web but let's not delude ourselves into believing the pitch from
Mr. Bogels this his site is for educational purposes so that pilots,
etc., can learn from the mistakes of others by watching these videos.

As another poster has stated..... And I am quoting him below.

> As it is, you have a freak show and little else.

Mr. Bogel...... In my humble opinion the above quoted statement is
hitting the nail squarly on the head and you can dress your site up any
way you want, and explain anyway you want.... but in my opinion you
are promoting a freak show site and nothing else.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:gwn%c.19949$vy.3595@attbi_s52...
>> "Cool Videos" is just the right term to pick for depicting people
>> dying in airplane crashes.....why it's JUST the thing for a guy who's
>> everyone's equal in the 'ethics" department!!
>
> This issue has already been addressed in other posts in both threads.
> You might consider checking them out before shooting off your
> electronic mouth.
>
> However, for your sake I'll reiterate the point: The "Cool Videos"
> page name pre-dates most of the videos. When I started the page, it
> WAS just cool videos, with aerobatics, supersonic passes, and landings
> in Iowa City depicted.
>
> Over time, the page has grown to include accidents, miscalculations,
> and mechanical failures, as well as video of the 9/11 attacks on the
> World Trade Center.
>
> As I stated earlier, the point (already made by an earlier poster) is
> well taken, and I will be changing the name of the page to something
> more appropriate when I get a minute.

Well, I'll give you this much Honek. I missed your "cool" sign for some
reason the first time I checked out your site and posted back on your
"request" that I join you in "changing" things I've already been
changing for the last fifty years; not realizing that sign was there. My
mistake!
I don't give a rat's ass how many posts have addressed this issue. One
fact remains for me when dealing with you on this, and that is the
simple fact that of all the titles you could have used for a site
showing people dying in airplanes you actively thought about it and
CHOSE the phrase "COOL".
Then, knowing you had this heading on your site on top of these people
dying in crashes, you had the audacity to engage someone who has spent
a lifetime in flight safety and has been published all over the world on
the subject who's dealing with another moron with a "crashes that are
"cool" to watch site, and state that you have ethical equivalence;
all the time knowing your site is geared to steering people toward you
pushing a ****ing hotel for profit.
Get lost you GD creep and if you still believe that picking the heading
"COOL" for that ****ing site was a good idea, you just leave it there
while I steer every GD contact I have in the aviation world over there
to see it with my comments added for flavor!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dudley Henriques]

Thank you for posting this. On these groups it probably won't change
anything, but thank you anyway.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> "Cool Videos" is just the right term to pick for depicting people
>> dying
>> in airplane crashes.....why it's JUST the thing for a guy who's
>> everyone's equal in the 'ethics" department!!
>
> ************************************************** ***
>
> TO THE GROUP..... Regarding Iwan Bogels" >
>
>
>> Michael > wrote:
>
>> As it is, you have a freak show and little else.
>
> For the last number of days Iwan Bogels" >
> has crossposted the same or similar message into a variety of
> groups like this inviting you to visit his site, and view his videos,
> so that you may become educated, and learn from the mistakes
> of others.
>
> In the piloting newsgroups he has been trying to justify his freakshow
> with a number of the regulars who surprising enough for the most part
> didn't see all that much wrong with it.
>
> For the groups information.
>
> A few years ago when the reality TV programs started to hit the air,
> there was someone named Jeremy Peevers ( I believe ) and others
> who were posting to the aviation newsgroups looking for footage
> similar to what Mr. Bogels is showing on his website.
>
> In the rec.aviation.homebuilt, and rec.aviation.rotorcraft groups
> (where I generally lurk) they were basically told to **** off by the
> majority or regulars who were offended that someone was looking for
> death and destruction videos so they could be shown of national TV for
> a profit under the guise of entertainment.
>
> I personally asked on numerous times (in the group) if Real TV would
> be
> interested in clear, well lit, sharply focused, footage of a young
> girl
> being decapitated by a helicopter rotor and how much they would be
> willing to pay.
>
> That usually shut them up.
>
> They didn't want videos of people out actually enjoying a day at the
> airport, with shots of airplanes taking off, flying and landing.
>
> They wanted videos of total destruction, fireballs, cartwheels,
> well ........ you get the picture.
>
> The other day Iwan Bogels" > crossposted
> his message into this set of newsgroups looking for hits to his site.
>
> alt.disasters.aviation, fr.rec.aviation, rec.aviation.military,
> rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.soaring
>
> Yesterday he decided to crosspost his message into this set of
> newsgroups.
>
> alt.aviation.safety, aus.aviation, rec.aviation.homebuilt,
> rec.aviation.ifr, rec.aviation.student
>
> And today he is crosspoting to this set of newsgroups
>
> rec.aviation.rotorcraft, rec.aviation.student,
> rec.models.rc.helicopter
>
> God knows where he will be tomorrow.
>
> I'm certainly not telling anybody what they should or shouldn't look
> at
> on the Web but let's not delude ourselves into believing the pitch
> from
> Mr. Bogels this his site is for educational purposes so that pilots,
> etc., can learn from the mistakes of others by watching these videos.
>
> As another poster has stated..... And I am quoting him below.
>
>> As it is, you have a freak show and little else.
>
> Mr. Bogel...... In my humble opinion the above quoted statement is
> hitting the nail squarly on the head and you can dress your site up
> any
> way you want, and explain anyway you want.... but in my opinion you
> are promoting a freak show site and nothing else.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:gwn%c.19949$vy.3595@attbi_s52...

>> However, for your sake I'll reiterate the point: The "Cool Videos"
>> page name pre-dates most of the videos. When I started the page, it
>> WAS just cool videos, with aerobatics, supersonic passes, and
>> landings
>> in Iowa City depicted.
>>
>> Over time, the page has grown to include accidents, miscalculations,
>> and mechanical failures, as well as video of the 9/11 attacks on the
>> World Trade Center.

Give me a ****ing break Honek. You HAD to know this heading was there
when you added these pictures of people being killed, ESPECIALLY the WTC
stuff! Who the hell do you think you're kidding anyway?
Regardless of how you started this site, adding death and dying to it
without changing that heading only tells me one thing as a thinking
person; you either did it knowingly, or by not realizing how this would
read to a normal person, you are way too stupid to fly a ****ing
airplane. Give it up before you become one of your own videos.! Oh
yeah.....that would be "COOL" wouldn't it???
You ****ing moron!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dudley Henriques]

> As I stated earlier, the point (already made by an earlier poster) is
> well
> taken, and I will be changing the name of the page to something more
> appropriate when I get a minute.

Hey asshole; you forgot and left the word "enjoy" on the site. You might
consider getting rid of that as well. "Enjoying" people dying is just as
bad as viewing it as "cool"...to normal people anyway!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> I will be changing the name of the page to something more
> appropriate when I get a minute.

Jay with all due respect it's not the name.

You can call it anything you want.

I know you and I don't see eye to eye - But in my opinion you
have sunk to a new low for which you should be ashamed of.

Your in this newsgroup every day as an INNKEEPER, who is a pilot,
and you are here daily to actively promoting your business. That's
why you always have your business addy as part of your SIG file.

When I visit your website and click on the COOL STUFF link the heading
of the page says this.

> The Alexis Park Inn & Suites is far more than a hotel!**
> In many ways we are more like an aviator's dream come true,
> with historical memorabilia, photos, and collectibles literally EVERYWHERE.**
> Over time we have become nearly equal parts museum and hotel! **
*
> Click the links below to see more information about the inn, as well as to
> view some really cool aviation stuff...

Not everyone who visits your website is into aviation Jay.

I gotta tell you that posting a bunch of pictures of airplanes sent to
you by aviation enthusiasts is one thing and in the overall scheme of
things will offend nobody.

Posting videos of crashes where people are being killed at that instant
is quite something else.

I would think that the American families of those innocent passengers
on that fatefull flight of the B-52 that cartwheeled into the ground
because of the stupidity and arrogance of the pilot, may be getting
just a little tired of running into that piece of video when they
happen to be surfing the web looking for something totally unrelated,
like a room to rent in IOWA City ......

Don't you.....???????????

In my opinion there is absolutely no difference between you as an
INNKEEPER promoting your business here with death videos and that
guy promoting the aircrash video site over in Europe, who has been
spamming his message about educational videos into a dozen
newsgroups these past few weeks.

Please tell the group..... your peers and friends, as well as the rest
of us from around the world, just why you feel it is necessary to show
a laser guided bomb killing a bunch of people on the ground, some of
whom might be just absoluty innocent bystanders, and just how that
promotes your business which is renting rooms to the general public.

When someone visits your website looking for general information as to
what sort of services you provide, is the below quoted message really
the message that you want any potential customers to get.

> This incredible video, taken from an F-16 that is dropping a 500 lb.bomb
> on a safe-house in Fallujah, Iraq, shows how flexible and precise laser-guided
> munitions have become.* As the house is targeted, and the bomb in en route,
> dozens of insurgents run outside, on their way to join a nearby battle against
> U.S. Marines.** The pilot moves his laser-designator onto these new, moving
> targets -- with impressive results.*

Get as mad as you want Jay...... and call me anything you want, but ask
yourself this one question.

Is business really that good, that as an INNKEEPER you can afford to
offend even one potential customer, who after viewing what your posting
on your website, will decide to take their business to another hotel.

[mike regish]

Actually, it was the autoland feature that crashed that plane. The computer
wouldn't let the pilot go around.

mike regish

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:EY%_c.306956$eM2.73249@attbi_s51...
>
> The Airbus crash was nothing to do with the FBW system, except in the
sense
> that the pilots trusted overmuch in it to keep them from crashing. It was
> also not the first fully automatic aircraft, or whatever the exact form of
> words you use are. Basically they flew too slow and low and their planning
> was poor.
>
> What the hell is the fake bird ad for the Ford Ka doing there?
>
> Respectfully yours
>
> John Mullen
>
>

[mike regish]

As much as I disagree with Jay about politics, I've got to congratulate him
on getting Dudley to break the cuss barrier.

Way to go Jay! :-) 3 in a row!!!

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > As I stated earlier, the point (already made by an earlier poster) is
> > well
> > taken, and I will be changing the name of the page to something more
> > appropriate when I get a minute.
>
> Hey asshole; you forgot and left the word "enjoy" on the site. You might
> consider getting rid of that as well. "Enjoying" people dying is just as
> bad as viewing it as "cool"...to normal people anyway!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Iwan Bogels wrote:
>
> Dear Dudley,
>
> I notice that you only reply to the few parts of messages of which you FEEL
> to have the right on your side.

This is calledf "cutting". You REALLY ought to learn to do it yourself.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Dudley Henriques]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:KAr%c.50146$3l3.38818@attbi_s03...
> As much as I disagree with Jay about politics, I've got to
> congratulate him
> on getting Dudley to break the cuss barrier.
>
> Way to go Jay! :-) 3 in a row!!!

That's just the tip of this iceberg.

Take a look at his post asking me to make comment on his website on each
accident to "help flight safety".
Christ, I lecture all over the damn world on flight safety. I'm
published internationally on the subject. I'm a professional pilot who
has taken an active role in airshow safety for over fifty years. In
other words I'm a bit known in this area.
If I hadn't noticed the "cool" and "enjoy" on his GD site and posted on
it with my name and noticed that afterwards, I can guarantee you that at
least several dozen VERY angry people from various venues of the
professional aviation world including the military fighter community,
the test pilot community, the air race community, AND the air show
community would have marched into his GD hotel office one sunny morning
along with me politely asking as a group that he take my damn name off
his GD web site.
He's damn lucky I caught it, and you can take that one to the bank!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Jay Honeck]

> In my opinion there is absolutely no difference between you as an
> INNKEEPER promoting your business here with death videos and that
> guy promoting the aircrash video site over in Europe, who has been
> spamming his message about educational videos into a dozen
> newsgroups these past few weeks.

Think what you will. I receive more positive feedback from that video page
than from any other single page on our website, with the exception of the
Rogue's Gallery.

> Please tell the group..... your peers and friends, as well as the rest
> of us from around the world, just why you feel it is necessary to show
> a laser guided bomb killing a bunch of people on the ground, some of
> whom might be just absoluty innocent bystanders, and just how that
> promotes your business which is renting rooms to the general public.

My business is secondary to my love of aviation -- plain and simple. If I
wanted to make a lot of money, I wouldn't have sold my last two businesses.

I personally find all aviation videos fascinating, and educational. I also
like to showcase the amazing technological capabilities of our new military
hardware. That video is amazing, fascinating, and educational.

To address your point, the odds of a casual hotel-hunter actually digging
down three levels into the menu system of our webpage to find ANY of my
extraneous pages (I.E.: Videos, the Rogue's Gallery; pictures from Oshkosh;
etc.) are virtually nil.

In fact, the ONLY people I know that have found the video page are pilots
and aviation enthusiasts.

> I would think that the American families of those innocent passengers
> on that fatefull flight of the B-52 that cartwheeled into the ground
> because of the stupidity and arrogance of the pilot, may be getting
> just a little tired of running into that piece of video when they
> happen to be surfing the web looking for something totally unrelated,
> like a room to rent in IOWA City ......

Personally, if one of my family members was killed by the arrogant idiot who
was piloting that B-52, I would want every person in America to see it,
every damned day. I can think of no greater punishment for the so-called
pilot who killed those innocent people.

But that's just me, I guess.

> Get as mad as you want Jay...... and call me anything you want, but ask
> yourself this one question.
>
> Is business really that good, that as an INNKEEPER you can afford to
> offend even one potential customer, who after viewing what your posting
> on your website, will decide to take their business to another hotel.

It doesn't work that way, and I won't get mad at you -- but if it did work
that way the answer to your question would be "yes."

Go to Yahoo. Type "Iowa City Hotel" into the search screen. See which of
the zillion hotels in our area pops up as Number One at the top of the list,
at the very top of the page.

You may find it amazing that a tiny, independent, non-chain hotel can be
rated most popular in the area, ahead of the Sheraton's and Holiday Inn's,
no? Well, outstanding service + outstanding rates + outstanding aviation
theme suites = success. We do whatever it takes to make sure our guests are
supremely pampered, and it shows in our bottom line.

It ain't rocket science, and a video page of unique and fascinating aviation
videos isn't going to change that equation one way or the other.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, I'll give you this much Honek. I missed your "cool" sign for some
> reason the first time I checked out your site and posted back on your
> "request" that I join you in "changing" things I've already been
> changing for the last fifty years; not realizing that sign was there. My
> mistake!
> I don't give a rat's ass how many posts have addressed this issue. One
> fact remains for me when dealing with you on this, and that is the
> simple fact that of all the titles you could have used for a site
> showing people dying in airplanes you actively thought about it and
> CHOSE the phrase "COOL".

You know, Dud, your hypocrisy is really starting to irk me.

1. I've tried to spoon-feed you the explanation for how the page -- an
insignificant page in a gigantic website -- evolved from "cool" videos to
what it is today -- an explanation you have disdained.

2. I have given you every opportunity to explain your ethical (and bizarre)
opposition to the viewing of these videos -- which you have refused to do.

3. I have put up with your condescending tone and sanctimonious attitude --
despite the fact that you quite obviously don't have a clue what you're
talking about.

4. Despite all this, I EVEN GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PUT YOUR PERSONAL
IMPRIMATUR ON EACH GOD DAMNED VIDEO, so that they would be truly "safety
oriented" -- an action which you decided you were not qualified to perform.

I have exercised extreme patience with someone I thought was worthy of
admiration and honor over the last several years, hoping that perhaps logic
and good spirits would prevail over irrationality and surliness.

Now you have the audacity and impudence to insult and threaten me, in this
public forum (AND in private email)?

At last your true colors are showing, sir. What a shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3mh%c.141658$Fg5.61596@attbi_s53...
> > I have a half hour programme recorded about this incident with a lot of
> > comment from the pilots involved. If I can get hold of an analogue TV
> > adaptor for my PC, I'll digitise it and send it over.
>
> That would be great, Paul. Thanks!
> --
> Jay Honeck

Another choice is to take the tape over to a local community college, and
see if they can convert it for you. Most of the better ones have the
equipment, and are glad to do it for a 12 pack of soda pop (or something)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[Jay Honeck]

> Another choice is to take the tape over to a local community college, and
> see if they can convert it for you. Most of the better ones have the
> equipment, and are glad to do it for a 12 pack of soda pop (or something)

Man, I've got a couple of dozen hours of video, taken since 1990, all
analog. Everything from the birth of my two kids, to flights over the
Grand Canyon.

I'd love to convert them to digital, and put 'em on DVD. I wonder how many
12-packs *that* would cost?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Give me a ****ing break Honek. You HAD to know this heading was there
> when you added these pictures of people being killed, ESPECIALLY the WTC
> stuff! Who the hell do you think you're kidding anyway?
> Regardless of how you started this site, adding death and dying to it
> without changing that heading only tells me one thing as a thinking
> person; you either did it knowingly, or by not realizing how this would
> read to a normal person, you are way too stupid to fly a ****ing
> airplane. Give it up before you become one of your own videos.! Oh
> yeah.....that would be "COOL" wouldn't it???
> You ****ing moron!
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>
>

Dudley, step back a moment, and look how you are coming off. It is you that
are looking like the ass now, and I happen to agree with you on most
accounts.

Your point has been *more* than made for the time being. Give it a rest, or
you will be put on many's kill files, and NO ONE will hear your viewpoint,
ever again. You have no control over other's actions here.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Nuu%c.1949$D%.1269@attbi_s51...
>> Well, I'll give you this much Honek. I missed your "cool" sign for
>> some
>> reason the first time I checked out your site and posted back on your
>> "request" that I join you in "changing" things I've already been
>> changing for the last fifty years; not realizing that sign was there.
>> My
>> mistake!
>> I don't give a rat's ass how many posts have addressed this issue.
>> One
>> fact remains for me when dealing with you on this, and that is the
>> simple fact that of all the titles you could have used for a site
>> showing people dying in airplanes you actively thought about it and
>> CHOSE the phrase "COOL".
>
> You know, Dud, your hypocrisy is really starting to irk me.
>
> 1. I've tried to spoon-feed you the explanation for how the page -- an
> insignificant page in a gigantic website -- evolved from "cool" videos
> to
> what it is today -- an explanation you have disdained.

I asked you NOT to post under me again, but I can see that's useless.
I'll engage you.
Your bull**** statement above STILL doesn't explain how you added crash
video with people dying in aiplanes and STILL allowed the two words
"COOL" and "ENJOY" to remain on your site. Those two words were there
every time you looked at the site and could have been removed at any
time.....but you DIDN'T remove those two insane words did you? You left
them there knowing full well that you were putting death scenes on the
site with these two words an active part of the presentation.
You're full of **** Honek, and a phoney of the first order. You were
using that page for the "interest" it would generate in your GD hotel,
and I don't give a damn how much you say the page wasn't seen. You
obviously wanted it just the way it was or you would have changed it!
>
> 2. I have given you every opportunity to explain your ethical (and
> bizarre)
> opposition to the viewing of these videos -- which you have refused to
> do.

Then I'll do it again for you here and now, just as I've done it several
times before this.
I don't object to crash video. I object to idiots like you presenting it
under the words "COOL" and "ENJOY". Is that plain enough for you you
jerk?
>
> 3. I have put up with your condescending tone and sanctimonious
> attitude --
> despite the fact that you quite obviously don't have a clue what
> you're
> talking about.

Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want to
retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>
> 4. Despite all this, I EVEN GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PUT YOUR PERSONAL
> IMPRIMATUR ON EACH GOD DAMNED VIDEO, so that they would be truly
> "safety
> oriented" -- an action which you decided you were not qualified to
> perform.

Right! I'm not qualified. What you did was conviently forget to inform
me that this "video" of yours was appearing under the words "COOL" and
"ENJOY". You'll never know how lucky you were I caught this before
putting my name on that site. Your hotel lobby would have become a
meeting place for some very angry people with a lot to say to you
personally.
>
> I have exercised extreme patience with someone I thought was worthy of
> admiration and honor over the last several years, hoping that perhaps
> logic
> and good spirits would prevail over irrationality and surliness.

Oh give me a ****ing break! You tried to con me into coming on your site
with you in one of your "put up or shut up deals" and it didn't work.
Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>
> Now you have the audacity and impudence to insult and threaten me, in
> this
> public forum (AND in private email)?
....and I'll repeat it for you here, exactly as I wrote it to you. In
fact, I'm pasting it in here word for word. If you have any "threats"
that are different, feel free to post them with my name on them.
I wrote to you; ver batum;
> Congratulations moron; a wonderful job of hotel marketing...simply
wonderful.

In one swell swoop, you have shown the world that you not only allow,
but CHOOSE adjectives such as "cool" and "enjoy" to appear on your web
site along with video of people dying in airplanes and the WTC to
boot.
You're simply brilliant fella...REAL Mensa material.
As if this isn't enough, in the same thread, you invite one of the
world's most involved pilots on the subject of flight safety to join
you in this endeavor bringing his personal attention to the site. Then
you manage to **** off that pilot so badly he downloads the site and
is sending it out to every aviation contact he has to be used to bring
attention to the issue along with suitable remarks.
Yes Honek, thank you so much for bringing your wonderful web site to
my attention!
BTW, I'm sending it out both showing it before and after the changes.
and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
I guess you didn't know Mark McGeehan did you asshole?
Great guy......Bud Holland's right seat. He's dead of course!
'"COOL" "ENJOY"
Do yourself a favor Honek. Post under me in the future at your own
risk.
I won't EVER post to you again unless posted first by you, and if you
do, post under me on ANY subject, consider me totally hostile, and
this will NEVER change as long as I'm on Usenet!
Enjoy your hotel!
Dudley

Plain enough for you. I don't see any "threats" there. Just some actions
I've taken concerning my reaction and comment on a web site that is
completely public domain.
God, what a ****ing moron you are. Threatening my ass! The only threats
you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use of
the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would have
marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my name
and any reference of me from your website!
Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!


> At last your true colors are showing, sir. What a shame.

Yeah; RIGHT! My colors!! Give it a rest Honek.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

.....and of course the always present hotel link!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> God, what a ****ing moron you are.

> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship


I had always thought you to be a bit sanctimonious, but I put up with it for
the knowledge you brought. It just isn't worth it any longer.

Plonk. Sigh.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Give me a ****ing break Honek. You HAD to know this heading was there
>> when you added these pictures of people being killed, ESPECIALLY the
>> WTC
>> stuff! Who the hell do you think you're kidding anyway?
>> Regardless of how you started this site, adding death and dying to it
>> without changing that heading only tells me one thing as a thinking
>> person; you either did it knowingly, or by not realizing how this
>> would
>> read to a normal person, you are way too stupid to fly a ****ing
>> airplane. Give it up before you become one of your own videos.! Oh
>> yeah.....that would be "COOL" wouldn't it???
>> You ****ing moron!
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>
>>
>
> Dudley, step back a moment, and look how you are coming off. It is
> you that
> are looking like the ass now, and I happen to agree with you on most
> accounts.
>
> Your point has been *more* than made for the time being. Give it a
> rest, or
> you will be put on many's kill files, and NO ONE will hear your
> viewpoint,
> ever again. You have no control over other's actions here.
> --
> Jim in NC

"You have no control over other's actions here"

Think about this for a moment. They'll be a multiple choice test in the
morning. :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Jay Honeck]

> God, what a ****ing moron you are. Threatening my ass! The only threats
> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use of
> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them;

Dudley -- if this really IS you -- this is just another display of
irrationality. For example, you might stop to consider that your
participation in the re-design of the website would have meant the
elimination of any potentially offensive words, like "cool" and "enjoy."

After all, YOU would have been writing the captions.

To any internet experts who might be reading this: Is it possible that
someone has hijacked Dudley's email address and Usenet signature? I find
it absolutely impossible to believe that the bizarre posts I'm reading here
under his name are from the same guy who has been posting here for all these
years.

Between the profanity and bizarre leaps of illogic, they don't appear to be
written in Dudley's same style and manner.

It's either criminal, or sad -- I don't know which.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>
>
> I had always thought you to be a bit sanctimonious, but I put up with
> it for
> the knowledge you brought. It just isn't worth it any longer.
>
> Plonk. Sigh.
> --
> Jim in NC

Thank God! I'm done with at least one idiot anyway! Now if a few more of
you out there who have "put up with me" through the years while learning
something from me like this idiot says he did will only go "plonk",
perhaps I'll be left after I've cooled off with the people who are
worthwhile around this place. Go on gang, let's clean this up once and
for all. All you "plonkers" who can't deal with my anger about this go
on and get it done. The rest of you out there have been a pleasure for
me through the years and I'm sure that you realize that tomorrow, when
I'm not quite so angry as I am right now, my dialog will return to it's
usual non aggressive manner. In the meanwhile, the plonkers are welcome
to plonk as they see fit.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1gv%c.112$LT5.78@attbi_s52...
>> God, what a ****ing moron you are. Threatening my ass! The only
>> threats
>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use
>> of
>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them;
>
> Dudley -- if this really IS you -- this is just another display of
> irrationality. For example, you might stop to consider that your
> participation in the re-design of the website would have meant the
> elimination of any potentially offensive words, like "cool" and
> "enjoy."
>
> After all, YOU would have been writing the captions.
>
> To any internet experts who might be reading this: Is it possible
> that
> someone has hijacked Dudley's email address and Usenet signature? I
> find
> it absolutely impossible to believe that the bizarre posts I'm reading
> here
> under his name are from the same guy who has been posting here for all
> these
> years.
>
> Between the profanity and bizarre leaps of illogic, they don't appear
> to be
> written in Dudley's same style and manner.
>
> It's either criminal, or sad -- I don't know which.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Sorry, no sale! You made no mention to me about any ability to change
your wording on your site until this moment, and it was by sheer
accident I discovered those two words before joining you, which would
have been a HUGE mistake for me.
I've cooled off enough now to clean up my language with you, but I
haven't changed my mind one iota about either you or the site.
You have yet to explain, not necessarily to me, but to everyone here,
how you allowed the words COOL and ENJOY to CONTINUE UNCHANGED as you
were putting crash video with people dying, on your site. You have the
option to do that now if you wish. If not, I'll let it be!
Just be advised that you and I are not on friendly terms any longer. I
will not post to you unless posted to by you. If you can abide by that,
you will hear no more from me on this issue.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dave Kearton]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iXu%c.130211$9d6.82112@attbi_s54...
| > Another choice is to take the tape over to a local community college,
and
| > see if they can convert it for you. Most of the better ones have the
| > equipment, and are glad to do it for a 12 pack of soda pop (or
something)
|
| Man, I've got a couple of dozen hours of video, taken since 1990, all
| analog. Everything from the birth of my two kids, to flights over the
| Grand Canyon.
|
| I'd love to convert them to digital, and put 'em on DVD. I wonder how
many
| 12-packs *that* would cost?
|
| :-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|


G'day Guys,


This is the device that use on my notebook and it's got to be one of dozens
of similar USB capture cards on the market.


I don't work for this crowd and I'd assume that you'd find somewhere more
local to buy it from anyway.

In short, this beast digitizes real time video into real time mpegs, wmv
etc and also has a TV tuner, so I can record from live or cable TV -
directly onto the hard disk.


http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/index.php?redir=http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show_product_info.php?code=MU-LTTVUSB2
--


It's a time consuming process - even with a fast computer - and if you want
your videos converted without copies being made without your consent - do it
at home.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Morgans]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote

> G'day Guys,
>
>
> This is the device that use on my notebook and it's got to be one of
dozens
> of similar USB capture cards on the market.
>
>
> I don't work for this crowd and I'd assume that you'd find somewhere more
> local to buy it from anyway.
>
> In short, this beast digitizes real time video into real time mpegs, wmv
> etc and also has a TV tuner, so I can record from live or cable TV -
> directly onto the hard disk.
>
>
>
http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/index.php?redir=http://www.auspcmarket.com.au/show_product_info.php?code=MU-LTTVUSB2
> --
>
>
> It's a time consuming process - even with a fast computer - and if you
want
> your videos converted without copies being made without your consent - do
it
> at home.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton

Test drive before you buy. I have found that these things, in that price
range have CRAPPY resolution. DAMHIKT
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[Dave Kearton]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|

| >| Test drive before you buy. I have found that these things, in that
price
| range have CRAPPY resolution. DAMHIKT
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|
| ---


I must admit, that's something I didn't do, not that I could afford to
throw away $165 - but it's not that easy to do with an online store.
This crowd has a generous returns policy - if you're not happy with the
product.



I'm more than happy with the resolution, performance and the
associated editing software and I've since used half a dozen more (of this
brand) for work.



Certainly, yes, if you're buying it from a shopfront, see it first.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Jay Honeck]

> Sorry, no sale! You made no mention to me about any ability to change
> your wording on your site until this moment, and it was by sheer
> accident I discovered those two words before joining you, which would
> have been a HUGE mistake for me.

The only mistake you have made was not thinking before typing.

I invited you to write an "expert" safety commentary on each video. This
would have included pretty much anything you wanted to write.

> Just be advised that you and I are not on friendly terms any longer.

I'll still be here, and there will still be a cold one waiting for you
whenever you come to Oshkosh or Iowa City -- but not till after they've
adjusted your meds.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iXu%c.130211$9d6.82112@attbi_s54...
> Man, I've got a couple of dozen hours of video, taken since 1990, all
> analog. Everything from the birth of my two kids, to flights over the
> Grand Canyon.
>
> I'd love to convert them to digital, and put 'em on DVD. I wonder how
many
> 12-packs *that* would cost?

You should have bought a card before the school holidays and got
your son to do it. 25 cents per hour of video?

Paul

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%wC%c.132129$9d6.177@attbi_s54...
>> Sorry, no sale! You made no mention to me about any ability to change
>> your wording on your site until this moment, and it was by sheer
>> accident I discovered those two words before joining you, which would
>> have been a HUGE mistake for me.
>
> The only mistake you have made was not thinking before typing.
>
> I invited you to write an "expert" safety commentary on each video.
> This
> would have included pretty much anything you wanted to write.

Listen up Jay, and see if you can get once and for all what I'm telling
you about you, your site, and how that relates to all this crap you're
trying to soft sell around here about flight safety being a "concern" of
yours and how I could have "contributed" to your site simply by
accepting your idiotic offer to me. I made it quite plain in my initial
answer to you but since flight safety was never really your reason for
making your "offer" in the first place, it must have gone right over
your head.
In viewing crash video in a flight safety context, to even begin to get
useful data from that video, it takes weeks of intensive work by a team
of experts using eye witness accounts coupled with more expert technical
opinion from factory reps and technicicans before even a glimmer of
factual information begins to emerge. There are literally hundreds of
factors to be considered before one...yes, I said ONE single useful
detail emerges that can be truthfully considered as a probable cause.
After THAT has taken place, the same experts have to gather again and
prepare a report that suggests the changes necessary to help prevent
that SPECIFIC accident from happening again.
Now, perhaps you can see why people in the flight safety business frown
on people like you pushing the flight safety issue as the excuse for
showing crash video on a public web site. The plain simple truth is that
there is no flight safety benefit derived from viewing these videos
simply from the video itself.
Sure, any moron can comment on the video. That doesn't take any brains
at all; but it's just conjecture, even if it's from an "expert" like me!
So don't try and push this "all you had to do was comment" thing at me
pal, I know better, and I hope some of the rest of the pilots around
here know better as well.
Crash video put up on a public web site is simply crash video. You can
spout off all day long about getting "experts" to comment for safety
reasons, but all that is from a professional viewpoint is an excuse for
showing the videos.
You "invited" me to join you on your web site and I declined for several
reasons. The above are the professional reasons. The personal reason was
because I realized your "invitation" to me was simply a "put up or shut
up" scenario, and I don't respond to that to begin with. Then, when I
discovered you had the words COOL and ENJOY on the site, your
"invitation" became the ultimate insult! No ligitimate person even
remotely involved in flight safety issues would even consider being
involved on a site like yours. If you doubt this, go find another
ligitimate safety expert who will accept your "offer" to comment on
crash video showing people dying on the same page as the words COOL and
ENJOY; then come back and let us now who he or she is. I'd like to meet
that person, and I'm betting there are others on this group who would
like to meet them too.

>
>> Just be advised that you and I are not on friendly terms any longer.
>
> I'll still be here, and there will still be a cold one waiting for you
> whenever you come to Oshkosh or Iowa City -- but not till after
> they've
> adjusted your meds.

No thank you. I have no control over who I have to deal with on Usenet,
but I can still pick with whom I want to share a drink. People who show
crash video on commercial hotel websites under the heading COOL and
ENJOY trying to involve my expertise to help sell hotel rooms I don't
drink with.
In closing, I have an invitation for you in front of this entire group.
If you're all that enamoured with my expertise as a flight safety
expert, and you have all this unbounded respect for my opinion on the
issue that caused you to invite me on your crash page with you; and have
so stated this high regard for my opinion on this newsgroup ; then after
what I've told you in this post about the uselessness of viewing crash
video on a public web page for safety reasons, let me now suggest that
you remove all crash video from your web site nor that you know it has
so little value in the flight safety context.
As they say in chess......CHECK!!!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dean Wilkinson]

Hi Jay,

I'm with you on this one. The fact of the matter is that those events
happened and were recorded on video. The act of watching that video
won't change the fact that the event happened, and is not in itself an
act of disrespect.

I think that Dudley's extreme reaction is probably due to a
realization that he has spent his life performing risky flight and
could have wound up in one of those videos. I recall reading a post
of his describing how he almost took a dirt bath while following a
lead plane through a low altitude loop and had to roll knife edge to
miss some trees. I don't understand the kind of mentality that would
lead someone to take such a risk as that, but he is definitely a
hypocrite to cry foul when someone else wants to watch video tapes of
accidents, or to make them available for viewing. Censorship is the
first step in the road to tyranny.

So Jay, just remember, "sticks and stones will break my bones by names
will never hurt me"! That's about as mature a response as Dudley
deserves for his rant.

Dean

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<Nuu%c.1949$D%.1269@attbi_s51>...
> > Well, I'll give you this much Honek. I missed your "cool" sign for some
> > reason the first time I checked out your site and posted back on your
> > "request" that I join you in "changing" things I've already been
> > changing for the last fifty years; not realizing that sign was there. My
> > mistake!
> > I don't give a rat's ass how many posts have addressed this issue. One
> > fact remains for me when dealing with you on this, and that is the
> > simple fact that of all the titles you could have used for a site
> > showing people dying in airplanes you actively thought about it and
> > CHOSE the phrase "COOL".
>
> You know, Dud, your hypocrisy is really starting to irk me.
>
> 1. I've tried to spoon-feed you the explanation for how the page -- an
> insignificant page in a gigantic website -- evolved from "cool" videos to
> what it is today -- an explanation you have disdained.
>
> 2. I have given you every opportunity to explain your ethical (and bizarre)
> opposition to the viewing of these videos -- which you have refused to do.
>
> 3. I have put up with your condescending tone and sanctimonious attitude --
> despite the fact that you quite obviously don't have a clue what you're
> talking about.
>
> 4. Despite all this, I EVEN GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PUT YOUR PERSONAL
> IMPRIMATUR ON EACH GOD DAMNED VIDEO, so that they would be truly "safety
> oriented" -- an action which you decided you were not qualified to perform.
>
> I have exercised extreme patience with someone I thought was worthy of
> admiration and honor over the last several years, hoping that perhaps logic
> and good spirits would prevail over irrationality and surliness.
>
> Now you have the audacity and impudence to insult and threaten me, in this
> public forum (AND in private email)?
>
> At last your true colors are showing, sir. What a shame.

[Jay Honeck]

> Now, perhaps you can see why people in the flight safety business frown
> on people like you pushing the flight safety issue as the excuse for
> showing crash video on a public web site. The plain simple truth is that
> there is no flight safety benefit derived from viewing these videos
> simply from the video itself.

First of all, I never claimed that my website had ANYTHING to do with
"flight safety" -- although I offered you the chance to help change that.

Putting that aside for the moment, let's see if I've got your new story
straight.

1. You started this thread by commenting that you "detest" people who show
aviation accident videos on the internet, because the videos have no
connection to flight safety.

2. You went on to say that you were fine with these videos, IF they were
presented in the context of flight safety. In other words, with proper
commentary.

3. You describe yourself as a "flight safety expert" -- but freely admit
that you're not "qualified" to intelligently comment on ANY of the videos.
How is this possible? The videos on our website depict some of the most
famous air disasters in recorded history -- yet you, an avowed "expert" in
the field, with 50 years of experience, cannot comment?

4. NOW you're stating that there can be NO flight safety benefit derived
from viewing these videos on-line, anywhere, ever?

Pardon me, but your slip is showing.

> Crash video put up on a public web site is simply crash video. You can
> spout off all day long about getting "experts" to comment for safety
> reasons, but all that is from a professional viewpoint is an excuse for
> showing the videos.

I had no intention of getting any "experts" to comment on any videos, until
you made your entry into this thread. The videos are on the site because
(a) I find them to be fascinating, and (b) they are extremely popular.

Whether you -- or any other "flight safety expert" comments on any of the
videos is of no consequence. I thought adding commentary was an idea with
some merit, as long as you and I happened to be discussing the issue --
nothing more, nothing less.

> You "invited" me to join you on your web site and I declined for several
> reasons. The above are the professional reasons. The personal reason was
> because I realized your "invitation" to me was simply a "put up or shut
> up" scenario, and I don't respond to that to begin with.

Doncha just hate that when someone calls your bluff? You were given the
opportunity to prove to the world (or, at least, this little worldwide
newsgroup) that you were indeed some sort of a "flight safety expert." You
had a perfect opportunity to correct what you had announced was a horrible
injustice, by helping to change our video page into a truly useful (rather
than just mildly interesting) web page -- but, as expected, you instead have
come up with a dozen bogus reasons why you can't do it.

Then, when THAT bluff was called, you went off on wild, raging tantrums,
simply to divert attention away from the fact that you really have no
interest in changing ANYTHING -- you just want to sit on the sidelines, and
throw stones.

Put up or shut up, indeed. Your chance has come, and -- thankfully -- gone.

> In closing, I have an invitation for you in front of this entire group.
> If you're all that enamoured with my expertise as a flight safety
> expert, and you have all this unbounded respect for my opinion on the
> issue that caused you to invite me on your crash page with you; and have
> so stated this high regard for my opinion on this newsgroup ; then after
> what I've told you in this post about the uselessness of viewing crash
> video on a public web page for safety reasons, let me now suggest that
> you remove all crash video from your web site nor that you know it has
> so little value in the flight safety context.

My respect, admiration, and honor were sadly and clearly misplaced. After
reading your diatribes of the last several days, I can only thank God that
you declined my invitation.

As I've already stated, I will be making some minor changes to the wording
on the page, as my time permits.

> As they say in chess......CHECK!!!!

Have a nice life, Dudley.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kgF%c.2399$LT5.1907@attbi_s52...
>> Now, perhaps you can see why people in the flight safety business
>> frown
>> on people like you pushing the flight safety issue as the excuse for
>> showing crash video on a public web site. The plain simple truth is
>> that
>> there is no flight safety benefit derived from viewing these videos
>> simply from the video itself.
>
> First of all, I never claimed that my website had ANYTHING to do with
> "flight safety" -- although I offered you the chance to help change
> that.

You began "pushing" the flight safety issue when you attempted to
involve me.
>
> Putting that aside for the moment, let's see if I've got your new
> story
> straight.
>
> 1. You started this thread by commenting that you "detest" people who
> show
> aviation accident videos on the internet, because the videos have no
> connection to flight safety.

>
> 2. You went on to say that you were fine with these videos, IF they
> were
> presented in the context of flight safety. In other words, with
> proper
> commentary.

Yes. Crash videos are useful, but NOT on the net outside the flight
safety context. I wasn't referring to web site videos when I said this.
>
> 3. You describe yourself as a "flight safety expert" -- but freely
> admit
> that you're not "qualified" to intelligently comment on ANY of the
> videos.
> How is this possible?

Actually, it's YOU who have described me as a flight safety expert. If
my involvement with flight safety issues makes me an "expert" so be it.

The videos on our website depict some of the most
> famous air disasters in recorded history -- yet you, an avowed
> "expert" in
> the field, with 50 years of experience, cannot comment?

Don't wish to comment. Big difference! Don't like the venue.
>
> 4. NOW you're stating that there can be NO flight safety benefit
> derived
> from viewing these videos on-line, anywhere, ever?

Exactly. Unsubstantiated conjecture is the enemy of flight safety, and
the tool for web sites wishing to exploit carnage for the interest
value. >

> Pardon me, but your slip is showing.

I don't wear a slip.
>
>> Crash video put up on a public web site is simply crash video. You
>> can
>> spout off all day long about getting "experts" to comment for safety
>> reasons, but all that is from a professional viewpoint is an excuse
>> for
>> showing the videos.
>
> I had no intention of getting any "experts" to comment on any videos,
> until
> you made your entry into this thread.

Obviously! You just put them out there for the interest value which is
what I've been saying all along isn't it?


The videos are on the site because
> (a) I find them to be fascinating, and (b) they are extremely popular.

Obviously!
>
> Whether you -- or any other "flight safety expert" comments on any of
> the
> videos is of no consequence.

Then why invite me on the site to comment?


I thought adding commentary was an idea with
> some merit, as long as you and I happened to be discussing the
> issue --
> nothing more, nothing less.

No you didn't. You and I had already established our vast differences of
opinion about sites showing crash video for the interest factor. Your
"invitation" was nothing more that a weak attempt at a "put up or shut
up" routine and it didn't work.

>
>> You "invited" me to join you on your web site and I declined for
>> several
>> reasons. The above are the professional reasons. The personal reason
>> was
>> because I realized your "invitation" to me was simply a "put up or
>> shut
>> up" scenario, and I don't respond to that to begin with.
>
> Doncha just hate that when someone calls your bluff? You were given
> the
> opportunity to prove to the world (or, at least, this little worldwide
> newsgroup) that you were indeed some sort of a "flight safety expert."

Good God; you REALLY don't know me do you? I have nothing to "prove" to
anyone, least of all on this newsgroup :-)

You
> had a perfect opportunity to correct what you had announced was a
> horrible
> injustice, by helping to change our video page into a truly useful
> (rather
> than just mildly interesting) web page -- but, as expected, you
> instead have
> come up with a dozen bogus reasons why you can't do it.

Take out the term "bogus" and you have the dozen ligitimate reasons I
don't wish to be a part of your site.
>
> Then, when THAT bluff was called, you went off on wild, raging
> tantrums,
> simply to divert attention away from the fact that you really have no
> interest in changing ANYTHING -- you just want to sit on the
> sidelines, and
> throw stones.

Nope. I just lost my temper. People do that from time to time you know.
They're human.
I've already explained that unassociated comment by anyone, me, or
anyone else not involved with a specific incident is just useless
conjecture. That is obvious to all who are involved in flight safety and
I won't state it again here.
>
> Put up or shut up, indeed. Your chance has come, and -- thankfully --
> gone.

Yes, I hope we can end this and go our separate ways now.
>
>> In closing, I have an invitation for you in front of this entire
>> group.
>> If you're all that enamoured with my expertise as a flight safety
>> expert, and you have all this unbounded respect for my opinion on the
>> issue that caused you to invite me on your crash page with you; and
>> have
>> so stated this high regard for my opinion on this newsgroup ; then
>> after
>> what I've told you in this post about the uselessness of viewing
>> crash
>> video on a public web page for safety reasons, let me now suggest
>> that
>> you remove all crash video from your web site nor that you know it
>> has
>> so little value in the flight safety context.
>
> My respect, admiration, and honor were sadly and clearly misplaced.
> After
> reading your diatribes of the last several days, I can only thank God
> that
> you declined my invitation.

People should be close to God, that's true.
>
> As I've already stated, I will be making some minor changes to the
> wording
> on the page, as my time permits.

Excellent idea!
>
>> As they say in chess......CHECK!!!!
>
> Have a nice life, Dudley.

I already have. Full rich career, retired; fine home; wonderful family;
financial security; active in my field of expertise all around the
world; the whole nine yards :-)
Thank you for the kind thought anyway .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Dudley Henriques]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> (...)
>> Then I'll do it again for you here and now, just as I've done it
>> several
>> times before this.
>> I don't object to crash video. I object to idiots like you presenting
>> it
>> under the words "COOL" and "ENJOY". Is that plain enough for you you
>> jerk?
>> (...)
>
> PLONK!

Hey...another one!! Thank you. After all this is over, what's left will
be worth knowing. If you can't take the heat, or if it bothers you in
any way at all, you're doing the right thing. PLONK IT! The trouble with
you plonk people is that you never stay "plonked". For some reason you
just have to make that one more assertion of disgust for the world to
see.
Let's see if you REALLY stay plonked. I don't think you'll make it :-)))
Anyway...here's hoping!!!!! :-)
All the best to you,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want to
> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.

Then he professionally advises:
> Oh give me a ****ing break!
....and...
> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

He attempts to threaten:
> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!

Continues professionally:
> God, what a ****ing moron you are.

....and then retracts the threat:
> Threatening my ass! The only threats
> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use of
> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would have
> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my name
> and any reference of me from your website!
> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!

Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.

Chris

(I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
"Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now
on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I
get a minute.')
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[John Mullen]

"mike regish" > wrote in message news:<1Aq%c.148766$mD.109922@attbi_s02>...
> Actually, it was the autoland feature that crashed that plane. The computer
> wouldn't let the pilot go around.

Actually, you are totally wrong.

"The newly delivered aircraft was to perform a charter flight on
behalf of the Mulhouse Flying Club. The crew was to overfly
Mulhouse-Habsheim airport two times (first at low speed, gear down at
100ft and the other at high speed in clean configuration) as part of
an airshow. The aircraft took off from Basle-Mulhouse at 2:41pm local
time and climbed to 1000 feet. The crew started the descent three
minutes later and Habsheim was in sight at 450ft agl. The first
officer informed the captain that the aircraft was reaching 100ft at
14:45:14. The descent continued to 50ft 8 seconds later and further to
30-35ft. Go-around power was added at 14.45:35. The A320 continued and
touched trees at the end of the runway at 14:45:40 with a 14° pitch
attitude and an engine speed of 83% N1. The plane sank slowly into the
forest and a fire broke out. Failure of the Captain to maintain
sufficient altitude and airspeed for recovery after a low approach to
a runway with obstacles near the departure end."

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=06261988&reg=F-GFKC&airline=Air+France

[John Mullen]

"Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
> First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want to
>> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>
> Then he professionally advises:
>> Oh give me a ****ing break!
> ...and...
>> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>
> He attempts to threaten:
>> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
>> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
>
> Continues professionally:
>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>
> ...and then retracts the threat:
>> Threatening my ass! The only threats
>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use of
>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would have
>> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
>> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my name
>> and any reference of me from your website!
>> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!
>
> Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
> sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.
>
> Chris
>
> (I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
> "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now
> on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I
> get a minute.')

And I see he has changed it now. I agree with your coments about Dudley's
posts; I cannot see either jsut why he got so very angry either. I suppose
we all have our triggers...

John

[Dudley Henriques]

This is a reasonable response offered intelligently. You are right, and
I apologize to you for the upheaval. The reasons are complicated and I
don't feel the need to expand on them, but you are right, and I was
wrong.
Thank you for the post.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

"Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
> First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want to
>> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>
> Then he professionally advises:
>> Oh give me a ****ing break!
> ...and...
>> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>
> He attempts to threaten:
>> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
>> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
>
> Continues professionally:
>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>
> ...and then retracts the threat:
>> Threatening my ass! The only threats
>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use
>> of
>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would
>> have
>> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
>> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my
>> name
>> and any reference of me from your website!
>> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!
>
> Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
> sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.
>
> Chris
>
> (I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
> "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now
> on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I
> get a minute.')
> --
> Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
>
> Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[Dudley Henriques]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>>> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want
>>> to
>>> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>>
>> Then he professionally advises:
>>> Oh give me a ****ing break!
>> ...and...
>>> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>>
>> He attempts to threaten:
>>> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
>>> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
>>
>> Continues professionally:
>>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>>
>> ...and then retracts the threat:
>>> Threatening my ass! The only threats
>>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted
>>> to
>>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use
>>> of
>>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would
>>> have
>>> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
>>> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my
>>> name
>>> and any reference of me from your website!
>>> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!
>>
>> Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
>> sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> (I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
>> "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now
>> on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I
>> get a minute.')
>
> And I see he has changed it now. I agree with your coments about
> Dudley's posts; I cannot see either jsut why he got so very angry
> either. I suppose we all have our triggers...

The "triggers" are quite strong and go very deep. Sorry for the trouble.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[John Mullen]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>>>> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want to
>>>> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>>>
>>> Then he professionally advises:
>>>> Oh give me a ****ing break!
>>> ...and...
>>>> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>>>
>>> He attempts to threaten:
>>>> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
>>>> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
>>>
>>> Continues professionally:
>>>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>>>
>>> ...and then retracts the threat:
>>>> Threatening my ass! The only threats
>>>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted to
>>>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your use of
>>>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would have
>>>> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
>>>> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove my
>>>> name
>>>> and any reference of me from your website!
>>>> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!
>>>
>>> Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
>>> sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> (I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
>>> "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are now
>>> on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when I
>>> get a minute.')
>>
>> And I see he has changed it now. I agree with your coments about Dudley's
>> posts; I cannot see either jsut why he got so very angry either. I
>> suppose we all have our triggers...
>
> The "triggers" are quite strong and go very deep. Sorry for the trouble.

No trouble at all. I enjoy reading your posts. I know there must be a reason
you flew off the handle.

John

[Dudley Henriques]

It's complicated, but basically I shouldn't have lost my temper like I
did. I don't do it very often, but when I do, I don't tread lightly.
It's a fault of mine.
I don't come from the world of pleasure flying. That doesn't mean I'm
better than pleasure pilots...just different. I've been pushing
airplanes to the limits of both their and my own maximum performance
limits for many years and survived. It's not a forgiving world. I've
been witness to many people dying in airplanes, a lot of them extremely
close friends. I've served on a few accident investigation teams,
basically within the airshow community.
We're a fairly close community. With us, life's real priorities get put
in order pretty fast. You learn pretty quick what's important and what's
not important in life when you're inverted half way through a slow roll
at 100 feet and you blow an oil line.
Certain things are very sensitive to us; one of these things is the use
of crash video by people outside the professional aviation community for
purposes other than a bonafide crash investigation or a news scenario.
We realize we can't stop it, but we don't like it just the same. For
example, Bud Holland was an idiot; a total disaster. His ultimate death
was considered a foregone conclusion in our little world. It was just a
matter of when it would happen. Bud finally killed himself through
overconfidence and by pushing his airplane too far into the left side of
his envelope. It was a horrible thing to watch. But Bud Holland wasn't
the only person on that airplane. He had a crew, and I knew the co-pilot
on Czar 52.
It's hard to explain how someone coming from my background feels about
seeing this crash and others displayed on a web site. Granted, the site
owner went to the trouble of attaching some related safety notation to
this particular video, and I commend that, but then I saw the two words
COOL and ENJOY.
The only thought that runs through the mind of someone with my
background at such a moment is that this web site owner, even if his
motives were fair and not prurient, had invaded into my personal world.
He hadn't paid the dues required to be in that world. He's just a guy
showing a film that represents the last moments on this earth of a
friend of mine, a nice guy who isn't even mentioned in the accompanying
text.
I don't know the right and wrong of it all. All I know is that to us, in
the airshow community, the showing of our deaths on a page where COOL
and ENJOY are showing as part of the accompanying marquee is like waving
a red flag at a bull.
I know that these videos will be shown, and nothing I can say or do will
prevent them from being shown, but the very least these web sites could
do, simply out of respect for the people who have died in these
accidents, is to remove words like COOL and ENJOY from the site.
The owner of the site has removed the word COOL from the site, and I am
grateful and commend him for doing that, but the word ENJOY, although
I'm sure meaningless to him personally, still leaves that awful taste in
my mouth when I see it there. There was nothing for me to enjoy about
Mark McGeehan's death.
I was wrong to lose my temper with the owner. I really don't think in
reflection that his motives were and are unethical. It's just more than
I can handle I guess, to see an old friend die and know that others are
seeing him die under the word ENJOY!
I guess in the end, you would just have to know someone like me
personally, or be from my little corner of the professional aviation
world to appreciate how I feel about something like this.
Anyway, thank you for your post, and I can assure you, I don't fly off
the handle like that all that often, so hang in there; I'm not REALLY as
dangerous as I must have appeared on this thread. Sometimes I even have
moments of sanity!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship



"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> First "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>>>>> Right! I'll inform the rest of the world immediately! They'll want
>>>>> to
>>>>> retract fifty years of sought after professional advice.
>>>>
>>>> Then he professionally advises:
>>>>> Oh give me a ****ing break!
>>>> ...and...
>>>>> Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
>>>>
>>>> He attempts to threaten:
>>>>> and oh yes, you have ****ed off the worst person you could have
>>>>> possibly picked to confront on this issue...trust me!!!
>>>>
>>>> Continues professionally:
>>>>> God, what a ****ing moron you are.
>>>>
>>>> ...and then retracts the threat:
>>>>> Threatening my ass! The only threats
>>>>> you have received from me is the threat that had I actually posted
>>>>> to
>>>>> your site in the interest of flight safety; then discovered your
>>>>> use of
>>>>> the two words "COOL" and "ENJOY" with my name under them; I would
>>>>> have
>>>>> marched into your GD lobby with several dozen other "interested"
>>>>> parties from the aviation community and demanded that you remove
>>>>> my name
>>>>> and any reference of me from your website!
>>>>> Go on moron, show us some more threats other than that!
>>>>
>>>> Some unsolicited advice: think, _then_ post. You will come off
>>>> sounding much more reasoned and professional if you do.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> (I happen to believe that Jay actually meant it when he said 'The
>>>> "Cool Videos" title pre-dates many of the tragic videos that are
>>>> now
>>>> on that page. I shall change it to something more appropriate when
>>>> I
>>>> get a minute.')
>>>
>>> And I see he has changed it now. I agree with your coments about
>>> Dudley's posts; I cannot see either jsut why he got so very angry
>>> either. I suppose we all have our triggers...
>>
>> The "triggers" are quite strong and go very deep. Sorry for the
>> trouble.
>
> No trouble at all. I enjoy reading your posts. I know there must be a
> reason you flew off the handle.
>
> John
>

[Tex Houston]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> I had always thought you to be a bit sanctimonious, but I put up with it
> for
> the knowledge you brought. It just isn't worth it any longer.
>
> Plonk. Sigh.
> --
> Jim in NC

Your loss!

Tex Houston

[Morgans]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote >
> I must admit, that's something I didn't do, not that I could afford to
> throw away $165 - but it's not that easy to do with an online store.
> This crowd has a generous returns policy - if you're not happy with the
> product.
>
>
>
> I'm more than happy with the resolution, performance and the
> associated editing software and I've since used half a dozen more (of this
> brand) for work.
>
> >
> Certainly, yes, if you're buying it from a shopfront, see it first.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>

I must admit, the unit you are talking about is something I was unaware of,
until I saw one on the shelf tonight. The kind I have experience with is a
video capture card on the computer, itself.

It does look interesting.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[John Mullen]

Dudley

Thanks for your post.

Unlike you, I am not a pilot, though I have been in love with planes and
flying since I was a wee boy. I have done quite a few hours of instruction
in Pipers and Cessnas but cannot really afford on my salary to get a
licence.

I did use to drive motor bikes professionally as a despatch rider and have
lost a few friends over the years that way.

I know how the fairly flippant portrayal of your friend's death must have
offended you. I think I would have felt the same way. I tried to point that
out to the OP as well. Death casts a shadow.

By a weird coincidence, I was reading just last night for the nth time the
story of the crash in which your friend was killed in Andrew Brookes' book.
If you haven't seen it, it is worth a look. He says the same as you about
it. He and Macarthur Job are highly prized resources on aviation safety;
thoughtful and insightful. If you want a good book on aviation safety, you
could do worse than read it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071102765X/qid=1094711919/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/202-9175441-4003826

He was an RAF pilot. Great writer.

In his version he claims that several of the crew on that plane were
instructed to go by their superiors because they themselves knew Holland was
a disaster waiting to happen. If that is true, it is a f***ing disgrace.
They would have been braver to ground Holland than themselves I would think.

May I extend my symapthy for your loss.

John

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi John;

From your post, you sound very much like my good friend David Francis
from the U.K.
He speaks a lot like you and has the same sense of intelligent
reasoning. Nice to know you!

I have a few moments this morning, so let me delve into this a bit
deeper for you.

I think the issues involved in this thread probably go much deeper than
just the videos and my personal reaction to them, although that reaction
obviously is a large part of it. I'm fairly convinced that the original
poster (Bogels) pushing all the videos has motives that are not totally
up front. Perhaps I'm reading it because of my sensitivity to the basic
issue, but I've seen this pattern before. It usually has to do with the
enhancement of reputation by supplying what has been conceived by the
photographer as a basic constant of the human nature factor to view
video like this as a "hook". Actually, it's an effective technique and
is part and parcel of a basic advertising concept known in advertising
101 at the grade school level. It practically guarantees generation of
the excitement needed to attract and steer the viewer toward the real
reason for the video being used. Basically, it's in the same category as
using sex in advertising to generate impact interest.
The other web site involved in the thread, (Honek) I don't believe has
these motives. In other words, I don't believe that if Honek actually
KNEW some of, or even one of the people killed in the videos he's
showing on his site, he would have put the words COOL and ENJOY there to
begin with. So that part of the equation deals with perspective; his,
and naturally my own.
So where does that leave us in the judgment area? Should Honek refrain
from showing his crash videos because they offend me personally? I don't
believe that's a fair solution. He has a right to do whatever he pleases
regardless of the fact that there are those the showing of the video
might offend. And we can add to this that there are indeed many out here
who see no problem whatsoever with showing crash video. Many actually
believe that they can learn something from watching. This of course is
nonsense to anyone with accident investigation experience. Simply
watching a crash video without any explicit knowledge...and I mean
EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE od the accident being shown yields little in the way
of useful flight safety related data.
For example, if it were possible for the average GA pilot to view a
video of the Thunderbird Diamond crash at Indian Springs Nevada on 18
January 1982 that killed all four T38 positions, absolutely nothing
would be gained from this viewing except to walk away thinking "I won't
be doing low altitude line abreast loops in the T38 any more. It's not a
safe thing to do" Nothing of a safety value would have been gained by
these people watching such a crash video. They just wouldn't be expert
enough to gain useful information from it if that indeed was their
intent in the first place.
To someone like me however, seeing the video would have had meaning. I
know this crash very well. In fact, having flown tests in the T38 prior
to the crash dealing with slab stall and vertical apex penetration speed
vs. altitude, plus knowing the Thunderbird routine myself, I would have
seen something immediately that would have indicated clearly what had
caused this accident.
The point I'm making here is simply that for a layman (layman being
defined as someone not cognizant of specific accident data...including
pilots) to watch a crash video thinking that there's a safety lesson in
doing it.....well, let's just say the time could be better spent
practicing your flying at the local airport. Those of us who deal in
this scenario have long known this to be a fact.
There will always be those pilots who believe that watching a crash
video allows them to come away with a strong safety lesson, but this
just isn't true for the uncontrolled web site viewing environment. It IS
true however, in a CONTROLLED environment, where skilled safety experts
completely familiar with a specific accident using the video along with
expert commentary allow a tremendous safety value to exist for that
video. Anything else other than this scenario is just not an honest
reason for watching the video.
But be that as it may. I can't control human nature. The videos exist,
and people have a right to view both show them and view them as well.
It is my hope that the hotel owner (Honek) will eventually change two
remaining things on his site, if not for me personally, for those who
have died in the videos he has there.
On the left side of the main screen is the link "cool stuff". I would
make a small change there to something more appropriate. I would also
take the word ENJOY off the site, or at least move it to some place
where in context, it remain unattached to the viewing of people dying in
these crashes.
Personally, I would like to believe that Honek is the type of person who
would stop and re-think these two small things and change them. Not that
my opinion of him is all that important, but I think I read some honesty
and integrity in his posts regardless of our somewhat heated discussion.
Anyway, you have taken a ride with me this morning and had a small look
into my world.
Enjoyed having you along.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship





"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> Thanks for your post.
>
> Unlike you, I am not a pilot, though I have been in love with planes
> and flying since I was a wee boy. I have done quite a few hours of
> instruction in Pipers and Cessnas but cannot really afford on my
> salary to get a licence.
>
> I did use to drive motor bikes professionally as a despatch rider and
> have lost a few friends over the years that way.
>
> I know how the fairly flippant portrayal of your friend's death must
> have offended you. I think I would have felt the same way. I tried to
> point that out to the OP as well. Death casts a shadow.
>
> By a weird coincidence, I was reading just last night for the nth time
> the story of the crash in which your friend was killed in Andrew
> Brookes' book. If you haven't seen it, it is worth a look. He says the
> same as you about it. He and Macarthur Job are highly prized resources
> on aviation safety; thoughtful and insightful. If you want a good book
> on aviation safety, you could do worse than read it.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071102765X/qid=1094711919/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/202-9175441-4003826
>
> He was an RAF pilot. Great writer.
>
> In his version he claims that several of the crew on that plane were
> instructed to go by their superiors because they themselves knew
> Holland was a disaster waiting to happen. If that is true, it is a
> f***ing disgrace. They would have been braver to ground Holland than
> themselves I would think.
>
> May I extend my symapthy for your loss.
>
> John
>

[Jack]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

[....]

> I'm fairly convinced that the original
> poster (Bogels) pushing all the videos
> has motives that are not totally up front.

[....]

> It is my hope that the hotel owner (Honek)
> will eventually change two remaining things
> on his site, if not for me personally, for
> those who have died in the videos he has...
> "cool stuff"...[and "ENJOY"]....


Dudley,

Reading this thread, I have thought back over the losses of friends and
associates and wondered, since I was not present at their destruction,
if I now had videos of their final seconds would I -- could I -- watch
them? Maybe I could, but I probably wouldn't -- not without some very
important goal in mind, perhaps to work directly with others in order to
prevent a similar future occurrence. And it would always be hard -- always.

Have I watched videos of other fatal crashes? Sure, and I will again --
and I can when I don't know the people involved. I want to know how
airplanes come apart, what others at those moments would have witnessed,
and a host of other curiosities -- some professional and some just
human. But when the victims are introduced to me posthumously, in
descriptions by those who knew them, and especially when they are
described as decent competent people, the feeling changes and I become
uncomfortable with the viewing.

In fact, the older I get the less pleasant is the viewing even of old
combat footage. Though I applaud our aerial victories, I am sobered by
the implications, as I now have a better developed sense of the ultimate
reality of the images on the film. Maybe some of it is from an
understanding of how easily my own end could have been similar. Or maybe
it's just knowing how small are the differences between us, no matter
what uniform we wear.

I remember when our squadron lost an F-100F with one fatality and one
very badly burned. At the crash site, where a crowd of locals had
gathered, it seemed so wrong to me that these gawkers could just stand
nearby and watch the removal of our victims in their awful state. I
wanted to herd them all away from the site so that viewing of those
damaged bodies could be prevented. It seemed so disrespectful of my
squadron-mates and friends that outsiders, who knew nothing of their
character and their accomplishments and probably little understood the
value of such men to our nation, should be present at such an awful
moment. But now, who knows? Some of the onlookers may have understood as
well as I, but back then it seemed they couldn't possibly comprehend or
accept the obligation such knowledge placed upon them. And it sure hurt
at the time.

These feelings are not unique I know, and I suspect that they are like
yours WRT to the subject of the crash videos. If pictures of the last
moments of my friends were displayed on a web-site, I would _at the very
least_ want there to be some solemnizing of the display and a strong
indication of a sincere desire to avoid the slightest suspicion of
exploitation. Though I think you may have gone overboard a bit in
Honeck's case, I respect your need to seek Justice, or what passes for
it on USENET.


Jack

[Dudley Henriques]

Thank you for a most decent and intelligent post.
I believe you have fairly described the general gist of this whole
issue. There are many sides to it, and each separately is an entire
issue unto itself.
The video itself isn't really the main issue, which can I guess, be
quite confusing to some people. The video simply exists. It's simply a
record showing an event; an instant in time where someone has suffered a
tragedy, and anyone really, can review that event in time.
The real issue involves the reasons or motivation for why people desire
to both show and view these videos. This is a whole new ballgame, and
opens wide the doors of human curiosity, and even a legitimate desire by
some to learn from a mistake made by another. This is especially true of
pilots, who by their very nature, want to be as safe as they possibly
can be, and honestly believe that looking at what happened to another
pilot might aid them and make them safer. This is a natural trait in a
good pilot, and in the right context when dealing with a crash video
scenario, is actually a positive motivation that shouldn't be
discouraged.
The problem comes in not realizing that in actuality, just watching a
crash video without expert commentary....and by that I don't mean just
having an expert in flight safety on hand to comment on the video like
Jay was suggesting that I do on his site, will yield nothing but
conjecture, which can actually be self defeating as a safety tool! What
is actually needed is comment from an expert familiar with a SPECIFIC
CRASH. Not having this comment available, simply produces conjecture,
which as I said can be self defeating in the safety context, and indeed
can even be misleading and in some cases even dangerous!!
Many pilots don't realize this, and attempt to glean something from just
the video, or from listening to some "expert" in the flight office...and
even to someone recruited in good faith from Usenet as was the attempted
case with me. These "experts" are almost always available for their
"educated" comment. None of this makes a difference in the listener's
acuity on flight safety, although it might make it SEEM that way at the
time, so I discourage the practice whenever I can.
I'm recalling a little joke we used to have when I was doing
demonstration flying. It came up from time to time with some of us
giving it a little different "twist" to suit our individual
personalities, but the gist of it was always the same.
We would have our morning preflight safety meeting before going out to
fly, and invariably somebody would bring this up in one form or another
if we happened to be discussing the different types who came out to
watch us fly. One of our favorite "mythical" targets were the general
aviation types who would be watching us. Mind you we didn't view all of
them in this light....but it only takes one, and that ONE was always
there watching!!!!
The general feeling regardless of which one of us said it was always the
same thought;
"If I go up there and something breaks causing me to dig a hole ten feet
deep in the ground, there will always be at least one of those GA types
out there who has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about telling
anyone he can get to listen to him just what the hell it was that I did
wrong to cause me to kill myself"
You just gotta love human nature!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship


"Jack" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > I'm fairly convinced that the original
>> poster (Bogels) pushing all the videos
> > has motives that are not totally up front.
>
> [....]
>
>> It is my hope that the hotel owner (Honek)
> > will eventually change two remaining things
> > on his site, if not for me personally, for
> > those who have died in the videos he has...
> > "cool stuff"...[and "ENJOY"]....
>
>
> Dudley,
>
> Reading this thread, I have thought back over the losses of friends
> and associates and wondered, since I was not present at their
> destruction, if I now had videos of their final seconds would I --
> could I -- watch them? Maybe I could, but I probably wouldn't -- not
> without some very important goal in mind, perhaps to work directly
> with others in order to prevent a similar future occurrence. And it
> would always be hard -- always.
>
> Have I watched videos of other fatal crashes? Sure, and I will
> again --
> and I can when I don't know the people involved. I want to know how
> airplanes come apart, what others at those moments would have
> witnessed, and a host of other curiosities -- some professional and
> some just human. But when the victims are introduced to me
> posthumously, in descriptions by those who knew them, and especially
> when they are described as decent competent people, the feeling
> changes and I become uncomfortable with the viewing.
>
> In fact, the older I get the less pleasant is the viewing even of old
> combat footage. Though I applaud our aerial victories, I am sobered by
> the implications, as I now have a better developed sense of the
> ultimate reality of the images on the film. Maybe some of it is from
> an understanding of how easily my own end could have been similar. Or
> maybe it's just knowing how small are the differences between us, no
> matter what uniform we wear.
>
> I remember when our squadron lost an F-100F with one fatality and one
> very badly burned. At the crash site, where a crowd of locals had
> gathered, it seemed so wrong to me that these gawkers could just stand
> nearby and watch the removal of our victims in their awful state. I
> wanted to herd them all away from the site so that viewing of those
> damaged bodies could be prevented. It seemed so disrespectful of my
> squadron-mates and friends that outsiders, who knew nothing of their
> character and their accomplishments and probably little understood the
> value of such men to our nation, should be present at such an awful
> moment. But now, who knows? Some of the onlookers may have understood
> as well as I, but back then it seemed they couldn't possibly
> comprehend or accept the obligation such knowledge placed upon them.
> And it sure hurt at the time.
>
> These feelings are not unique I know, and I suspect that they are like
> yours WRT to the subject of the crash videos. If pictures of the last
> moments of my friends were displayed on a web-site, I would _at the
> very least_ want there to be some solemnizing of the display and a
> strong indication of a sincere desire to avoid the slightest suspicion
> of exploitation. Though I think you may have gone overboard a bit in
> Honeck's case, I respect your need to seek Justice, or what passes for
> it on USENET.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>