Real Pilots

[a[_3_]]

I wonder how often real pilots open this list server, hoping that it
might once again be on topic? It's not worth checking more often than
weekly, and that interval is growing longer.

Well played, spammers.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well played, spammers.

If you are tired of spam, then dump Google groups. That done, set up a real
newsreader program using a free NNTP server such as eternal-september.org.
Suddenly, the spam will disappear! Mind you, what's left is a small ghost of
what this group was 5 years ago, but there's no reason to put up with spam. If
you have a windoze box, you probably already have Outlet Express. Though far
from the best, it's a prefectly usable news program.

Why can a little organization like Eternal-September figure out how to filter
spam when huge giga-buck Google can't manage? I would love to know the answer!

Vaughn

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I wonder how often real pilots open this list server, hoping that it
> might once again be on topic? It's not worth checking more often than
> weekly, and that interval is growing longer.

All of USENET is suffering from spammers, but also from the fact that fewer
and fewer people even understand what USENET is, and they certainly don't know
how to access it.

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 14, 5:22*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Well played, spammers.
>
> If you are tired of spam, then dump Google groups. *That done, set up a real
> newsreader program using a free NNTP server such as eternal-september.org..
> Suddenly, the spam will disappear! *Mind you, what's left is a small ghost of
> what this group was 5 years ago, but there's no reason to put up with spam. *If
> you have a windoze box, you probably already have Outlet Express. *Though far
> from the best, it's a prefectly usable news program.
>
> Why can a little organization like Eternal-September figure out how to filter
> spam when huge giga-buck Google can't manage? *I would love to know the answer!
>
> Vaughn

The issue is there is negligible aviation content. Look over the past
months with the scam content removed and you'll find this site has
very little associated with rec aviation piloting.. Those with an
interest in general aviation are no longer contributing here. Too
bad, this was a good place to find people with enough common interests
to engage in conversations on other, in some cases private, venues.

[george]

On Jan 16, 5:30*am, a > wrote:

> The issue is there is negligible aviation content. Look over the past
> months with the scam content removed and you'll find this site has
> very little associated with rec aviation piloting.. Those with an
> interest in general aviation are no longer contributing here. *Too
> bad, this was a good place to find people with enough common interests
> to engage in conversations on other, in some cases private, venues.

They'll come back when the spammers move on

[Morgans[_2_]]

"george" > wrote

> They'll come back when the spammers move on

Nope. When volume starts to build, MX will come back, and people will
start responding, and then other cross posted crap will appear, and people
will respond to them, and then people will get frustrated and blast the
posts and the replies, and then everyone will go away again. Sound
familiar? It should.

History. It repeats.

Until everyone that is a serious poster quits answering OT and obnoxious
posters and posts, it will continue being dead. It seems as though many
have the need to stroke their own egos by responding to everyone, thus
proving their superior intelligence.
--
Jim in NC

[vaughn[_3_]]

"george" > wrote in message
...

>They'll come back when the spammers move on

I wish that were true. Spam aside, rec.aviation.piloting is part of the Usenet.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet) The Usenet actually predates the web
browser by several years and can be thought of as the "original" Internet.
For many reasons, the Usenet has been in decline for several years now. I can
see this decline in almost every group I follow. Unfortunately, the Usenet is
on its way out. Spammers and trolls are undeniably a problem, but they are not
the main reason for the decline of this forum.

Vaughn.

[george]

On Jan 17, 12:43*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >They'll come back when the spammers move on
>
> I wish that were true. *Spam aside, rec.aviation.piloting is part of the Usenet.
> (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet) The Usenet actually predates the web
> browser *by several years and can be thought of as the "original" Internet.
> For many reasons, the Usenet has been in decline for several years now. *I can
> see this decline in almost every group I follow. *Unfortunately, the Usenet is
> on its way out. *Spammers and trolls are undeniably a problem, but they are not
> the main reason for the decline of this forum.
>
They weren't problems back in the FidoNet days.
Back then the SYSOPs vetted their subscribers messaging..
However I feel that Usernet is still going to be around if only to
give voice to those who are somewhat lacking in social skills.
And to those who try to correct their view of the world... /wry smile

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> They weren't problems back in the FidoNet days.
> Back then the SYSOPs vetted their subscribers messaging..

Back then there was hardly anyone in cyberspace to begin with, and the average
IQ of those who were here was considerably higher.

> However I feel that Usernet is still going to be around if only to
> give voice to those who are somewhat lacking in social skills.

The binary groups are supposedly alive and well and make up most of the
traffic.

[-]

I pop in here about once a month, and am dismayed to see what has
happened to this once-beloved group. It just continues to spin and
devolve.

However, I can say that about almost every aspect of general aviation
nowadays, so IMHO rec.aviation is simply reflecting what's happening
throughout the aviation world.

a) Fewer pilots = fewer A&Ps, fewer FBOs, fewer airports, fewer rental
planes, and fewer rec.aviation users.

add this to...

b) A general decline in civility throughout society

....and you've got...this. It's sad, but everywhere.

WRT to Usenet itself, the migration to web-based groups (Pilots of
America; AOPA's board, etc.) proved less than satisfactory, thanks to
well-meaning but overbearing, over-aggressive moderators who have the
habit of shutting down a conversation right when it's about to get
interesting. The end result is a plain-vanilla, cordial-yet-boring re-
hashing of the same ten topics, over and over. After the first few
months, it became a good cure for insomnia.

So....GA is splintered into smaller and smaller groups, and those few
of us who are left have fewer ways to voice our thoughts and
opinions. Our grandkids will one day marvel at the fact that "grandpa
and grandma used to fly their own plane!" I am sorry to see this
happen, beyond words.
--
Jay Honeck
Port Aransas, TX
Pathfinder N56993



On Jan 16, 5:29*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "george" > wrote
>
> > They'll come back when the spammers move on
>
> *Nope. *When volume starts to build, MX will come back, and people will
> start responding, and then other cross posted crap will appear, and people
> will respond to them, and then people will get frustrated and blast the
> posts and the replies, and then everyone will go away again. *Sound
> familiar? *It should.
>
> History. *It repeats.
>
> Until everyone that is a serious poster quits answering OT and obnoxious
> posters and posts, it will continue being dead. *It seems as though many
> have the need to stroke their own egos by responding to everyone, thus
> proving their superior intelligence.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

> WRT to Usenet itself, the migration to web-based groups (Pilots of
> America; AOPA's board, etc.) proved less than satisfactory, thanks to
> well-meaning but overbearing, over-aggressive moderators who have the
> habit of shutting down a conversation right when it's about to get
> interesting. The end result is a plain-vanilla, cordial-yet-boring re-
> hashing of the same ten topics, over and over. After the first few
> months, it became a good cure for insomnia.

I told you so.

> Our grandkids will one day marvel at the fact that "grandpa
> and grandma used to fly their own plane!" I am sorry to see this
> happen, beyond words.

I fear this future as well.

As it is, there are many people today who don't seem to realize that one can
legally fly one's own airplane.

[george]

On Jan 25, 6:05*am, - > wrote:

> So....GA is splintered into smaller and smaller groups, and those few
> of us who are left have fewer ways to voice our thoughts and
> opinions. *Our grandkids will one day marvel at the fact that "grandpa
> and grandma used to fly their own plane!" *I am sorry to see this
> happen, beyond words.

C'mon Jim. be positive. It's going to get better.
My grandmother used to talk about Old Mother Shipton who used to tell
about a future in which men would fly.
So when I started flying all that old English legend came true for
her.
And there's only room for two up the sharp end nowadays.
Its getting more select by the year

[Morgans[_2_]]

"george" > wrote
>
> C'mon Jim. be positive. It's going to get better.

I hope, but I won't hold my breath.

Perhaps the best thing to happen is to have almost 0 posts per day for a few
months. Then, if we start coming back, perhaps everyone else will have
forgotten about this place. Then, people need to respond only to real
posts, and shun the irrelevant and obnoxious.

No, there I go dreaming, again.
--
Jim in NC

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 25, 1:02*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "george" > wrote
>
>
>
> > C'mon Jim. be positive. It's going to get better.
>
> I hope, but I won't hold my breath.
>
> Perhaps the best thing to happen is to have almost 0 posts per day for a few
> months. *Then, if we start coming back, perhaps everyone else will have
> forgotten about this place. *Then, people need to respond only to real
> posts, and shun the irrelevant and obnoxious.
>
> No, there I go dreaming, again.
> --
> Jim in NC

The days of hanger flying here are most likely past, and has been
noted elsewhere there is very limited useful controlled cyberspace in
these newsgroups. When Jay ran a virtual hanger some time ago most
posters knew each other and that led to a mutual respect and civility.
Because social-skills deficient writers use these groups anonymously
the kinds of crap that overwhelms RAP will continue: it's become their
forum. They've succeeded. Or did they? Their audience has become
pretty small.

Maybe they haven't played this so well after all.

See you in a couple of weeks.

Maybe.

[Bug Dout]

- > writes:

> The end result is a plain-vanilla, cordial-yet-boring re-
> hashing of the same ten topics, over and over. After the first few
> months, it became a good cure for insomnia.

Isn't this true of GA in general? With the exception of Experimental
aircraft. For certified GA aicraft it's the same old stuff. In the
flying mags, the same articles: engine heat and deicing in the
winter. Thunderstorm avoidance and high density altitude flying in
summer. Test flight of some multi-million dollar twin turbine no hobby
flyer would ever consider.

I find the builders' world the most interesting. Not EAA, because that
includes too many observers, antique stuff, frivilous side shows. No,
people who are creating new airplanes, trying new gadgets, that's where
the excitement still is.

A friend said GA is like an onion. On the outside you have people who
drive by the small airport and wonder what millionaires fly those
things. Then you have the people who have taken a few lessons and
dropped out. Then the pilots who fly rented spam-cans. Then the airplane
owners. Then the kit-builders. Then the plans builders. Deeper to the
core is the action.

--
While the word is yet unspoken, you are master of it; when once it is
spoken, it is master of you.
~ Arab proverb

[Jay Honeck[_13_]]

You make several good points. I agree 100%, although the whole pie --
not just some parts of it -- is shrinking.

That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
--
Jay Honeck
Port Aransas, TX
Pathfinder N56993
www.HarborInnPortA.com

On Jan 25, 11:36*am, Bug Dout > wrote:
> - > writes:
> > The end result is a plain-vanilla, cordial-yet-boring re-
> > hashing of the same ten topics, over and over. *After the first few
> > months, it became a good cure for insomnia.
>
> Isn't this true of GA in general? With the exception of Experimental
> aircraft. For certified GA aicraft it's the same old stuff. In the
> flying mags, the same articles: engine heat and deicing in the
> winter. Thunderstorm avoidance and high density altitude flying in
> summer. Test flight of some multi-million dollar twin turbine no hobby
> flyer would ever consider.
>
> I find the builders' world the most interesting. Not EAA, because that
> includes too many observers, antique stuff, frivilous side shows. No,
> people who are creating new airplanes, trying new gadgets, that's where
> the excitement still is.
>
> A friend said GA is like an onion. On the outside you have people who
> drive by the small airport and wonder what millionaires fly those
> things. Then you have the people who have taken a few lessons and
> dropped out. Then the pilots who fly rented spam-cans. Then the airplane
> owners. Then the kit-builders. Then the plans builders. *Deeper to the
> core is the action.
>
> --
> While the word is yet unspoken, you are master of it; when once it is
> spoken, it is master of you.
> *~ Arab proverb

[John Clear]

In article >,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.

Any yahoo that can open a beer can drive a boat, and can take all
their friends on their boat. Entry level boats can be purchased
for around the price of a new car. Planes priced in the same range
are 40 years old and not nearly as pretty as a boat and can only
take 1-2 friends. LSA was supposed to save GA, but the planes are
all over $100k. To really sell in volume, they need to be in the
$40k range.

I think it is a combination of the level of training required to
fly, and the value for the money. What looks better, a 40yo burnt
orange and lime green plane, or a brand new ski boat? Even new
planes look pretty shabby after the first few annual inspections
with loose screws and loose side panels/etc.

To stick with aviation, you really need to have the flying bug.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>You make several good points. I agree 100%, although the whole pie --
>not just some parts of it -- is shrinking.
>
>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
>--


To be sure, flying one’s own airplane to get somewhere does not appear to
be a very up-to-date passion. Though not a wholly sufficient answer, the
morass of the commercial flying experience today has certainly done its
share in taking the shine off of air travel. When I was 15, my first flight
was in a DC-8, and my second, later the same year, was in a Grumman Tiger.
I was one of the only ones in my high school class to have done either.
Though aviation was of course far from new, the experience of flight was
new and exciting to almost any individual. Today most people in developed
countries have flown by the time they are 15 - months! And they cried and
yelled the whole way. The way we are treated today adults too are crying
and yelling the whole way! Have we managed to regulate out of existence
man’s age-old dream of flying?

But wait a minute! If we are treated so badly on airline flights, shouldn’t
that spark an even greater desire for people to fly their own planes? To
some degree it has, and the bizjet market, while hardly booming, is opening
up to a broader demographic. You no longer need to be a billionaire to get
an occasional ride in a Falcon or Challenger. But the passion is no longer
there. Not for most anyway. And even in this context you are still just a
passenger.

A few contemporary social concerns come into play. Flying an airplane is
not a very "green" activity. This may mean little to many contributors
here, but we should not underestimate the effect the "green revolution" is
having on every aspect of our lives, and ultimately on our thinking.
Secondly, I cannot prove it, but I believe the post-911 security craze has
heightened the general public’s feeling that airplanes and flying are
dangerous. We take safety concerns more seriously every day, and the
intense scrutiny on safety of air travel has probably played its part.
Another issue is the cost. Flying has always been expensive, but many
people have less spare cash today for a passion like aviation, particularly
in light of the two preceding considerations. And those who do have the
cash are wary of spending it on anything that could be construed as an
ostentatious display of wealth. There’s a lot of "rich-bashing" going
around these days, and flying your own plane is a great way to feel
yourself in the crosshairs.

Then there’s a self-sufficiency issue, which may be the most important.
People of my generation take pride in doing something for themselves. If
you are not satisfied by the services you are being offered, do it
yourself. I laugh to myself flying over congested roads, thinking of people
sleeping for days on their suitcases in airport waiting areas while their
airline tries to come to grips with the bureaucratic mess of resuming
service after it snowed four inches - somewhere in another state! My
15-year-old nephew by contrast, far from flying in a Grumman Tiger, spends
his days and nights on X-Box, on line with his friends, playing tough war
games, shooting each others’ helicopters down. In real life, however, he
would not have a clue where to look if the car didn’t start, would not be
able to find a circuit breaker in his own house (and doesn’t know what this
item is) and refuses to fly even commercial flights because he feels it is
dangerous.

I’m sure I’ve only touched on the issue, and I may be mistaken on parts of
it, but I believe our society today is not at all conducive to the
interest, passion and overall satisfaction in an activity like flying. Do
children today still have dreams they are flying? Can society really wear
us down to where this age-old yearning no longer has meaning, and ceases to
exist?

[george]

On Jan 28, 7:40*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article
> >,

> I m sure I ve only touched on the issue, and I may be mistaken on parts of
> it, but I believe our society today is not at all conducive to the
> interest, passion and overall satisfaction in an activity like flying. *Do
> children today still have dreams they are flying? Can society really wear
> us down to where this age-old yearning no longer has meaning, and ceases to
> exist?

Oh it exists and in many people who quietly in the background get on
with their flying.
But for the majority flying yourself is an uncomfortable thought with
papers filled with accidents sensationalised to the N'th degree.
The local Aero Club has a full and expanding membership. The
Commercial Pilot School is running almost full classes.

Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
to learn to fly :-)

[Draco Malfoy[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
> to learn to fly :-)

Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skaran/23299720/ Platform 9 3/4 today
http://www.evilwizardrock.com/
http://www.myspace.com/dracoandthemalfoysusa

[george]

On Jan 28, 9:42*am, Draco Malfoy
> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
> > Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
> > to learn to fly :-)
>
> Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.

No.
It's a quote from an old instructor friend of mine. heard when falling
out the bottom of a failed aerobatic move :-)

[Draco Malfoy[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:22:12 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> On Jan 28, 9:42*am, Draco Malfoy
> > wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>> Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
>>> to learn to fly :-)
>>
>> Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.
>
> No.
> It's a quote from an old instructor friend of mine. heard when falling
> out the bottom of a failed aerobatic move :-)

Oh, well if it makes your friend better, Harry took a dump off his
broom when being chased by the Hungarian Horntail, a very acrobatic
sequence of broomstick maneuvering. Much of fit scud running.
--
The fans rightly adore me !
https://twitter.com/TomFelton

[VD]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:36:10 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:22:12 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>
>> On Jan 28, 9:42*am, Draco Malfoy
>> > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>>> Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
>>>> to learn to fly :-)
>>>
>>> Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.
>>
>> No.
>> It's a quote from an old instructor friend of mine. heard when falling
>> out the bottom of a failed aerobatic move :-)
>
> Oh, well if it makes your friend better, Harry took a dump off his
> broom when being chased by the Hungarian Horntail, a very acrobatic
> sequence of broomstick maneuvering. Much of fit scud running.

Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)

[Draco Malfoy[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:55:00 -0500, VD wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:36:10 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:22:12 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 28, 9:42*am, Draco Malfoy
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>>>> Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
>>>>> to learn to fly :-)
>>>>
>>>> Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.
>>>
>>> No.
>>> It's a quote from an old instructor friend of mine. heard when falling
>>> out the bottom of a failed aerobatic move :-)
>>
>> Oh, well if it makes your friend better, Harry took a dump off his
>> broom when being chased by the Hungarian Horntail, a very acrobatic
>> sequence of broomstick maneuvering. Much of fit scud running.
>
> Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)

Think canard without multiple wings and roll by body English. Pitch
and yaw by "stick" pressure.lol
--
The fans rightly adore me !
https://twitter.com/TomFelton

[VD]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:24:04 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:55:00 -0500, VD wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:36:10 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:22:12 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 28, 9:42*am, Draco Malfoy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), george wrote:
>>>>>> Positive mental attitude as Harry would say, people are still wanting
>>>>>> to learn to fly :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry Potter? For casting the Patronus maybe, not flying.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> It's a quote from an old instructor friend of mine. heard when falling
>>>> out the bottom of a failed aerobatic move :-)
>>>
>>> Oh, well if it makes your friend better, Harry took a dump off his
>>> broom when being chased by the Hungarian Horntail, a very acrobatic
>>> sequence of broomstick maneuvering. Much of fit scud running.
>>
>> Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)
>
> Think canard without multiple wings and roll by body English. Pitch
> and yaw by "stick" pressure.lol

Seriously, there have been several projects where the broomstick was
used as a model, then a prototype, for aircraft. Jet prop of course.
Drones are RCs broomsticks with small wings.

[Draco Malfoy[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:00:02 -0500, VD wrote:

>>> Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)
>>
>> Think canard without multiple wings and roll by body English. Pitch
>> and yaw by "stick" pressure.lol
>
> Seriously, there have been several projects where the broomstick was
> used as a model, then a prototype, for aircraft. Jet prop of course.
> Drones are RCs broomsticks with small wings.

First flights in a Long EZ felt like a broomstick. Then the builder
slapped on a new nose and a larger engine and never mentioned it to
me. The COG changed dramatically and as soon as I pushed down the
runway, I knew this was going to be a different experience.

--
The fans rightly adore me !
https://twitter.com/TomFelton

[VD]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:13:44 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:00:02 -0500, VD wrote:
>
>>>> Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)
>>>
>>> Think canard without multiple wings and roll by body English. Pitch
>>> and yaw by "stick" pressure.lol
>>
>> Seriously, there have been several projects where the broomstick was
>> used as a model, then a prototype, for aircraft. Jet prop of course.
>> Drones are RCs broomsticks with small wings.
>
> First flights in a Long EZ felt like a broomstick. Then the builder
> slapped on a new nose and a larger engine and never mentioned it to
> me. The COG changed dramatically and as soon as I pushed down the
> runway, I knew this was going to be a different experience.

I thought it was at least bad manners to alter kit build and design?

[Draco Malfoy[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:15:00 -0500, VD wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:13:44 -0500, Draco Malfoy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:00:02 -0500, VD wrote:
>>
>>>>> Think of it. Full yaw, pitch and roll with no controls! :)
>>>>
>>>> Think canard without multiple wings and roll by body English. Pitch
>>>> and yaw by "stick" pressure.lol
>>>
>>> Seriously, there have been several projects where the broomstick was
>>> used as a model, then a prototype, for aircraft. Jet prop of course.
>>> Drones are RCs broomsticks with small wings.
>>
>> First flights in a Long EZ felt like a broomstick. Then the builder
>> slapped on a new nose and a larger engine and never mentioned it to
>> me. The COG changed dramatically and as soon as I pushed down the
>> runway, I knew this was going to be a different experience.
>
> I thought it was at least bad manners to alter kit build and design?

Tell me about it. Last canard flight ever.
--
The fans rightly adore me !
https://twitter.com/TomFelton

[Brent[_2_]]

The nature and openness of usenet is the best and worst thing about it.
Iit truly is one of the last true uncontrolled areas of cyberspace.

For those who like to Fly IFR or Airways and contolled VFR with flight
following in your internet experiences. Usenet will never be your cup of
tea. I like the Chaos and the sheer breadth of potential people the Old
school text groups can draw.

I'm a new pilot but I've been to and from Usenet for 15 years I come
prepared with a private reader and good kill filters. There are some
wonderful people and content and some intelligent filtering cleans it right
up. the group does seem quiet, i only see two threads running right now but
when i first logged on i saw one screamer in need of filtering now it seems
calm here.



That having been said Hi I'm Brent I'm new to the group and a new Private
pilot and New owner of a NON new plane.




"a" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 1:02 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "george" > wrote
>
>
>
> > C'mon Jim. be positive. It's going to get better.
>
> I hope, but I won't hold my breath.
>
> Perhaps the best thing to happen is to have almost 0 posts per day for a
> few
> months. Then, if we start coming back, perhaps everyone else will have
> forgotten about this place. Then, people need to respond only to real
> posts, and shun the irrelevant and obnoxious.
>
> No, there I go dreaming, again.
> --
> Jim in NC

The days of hanger flying here are most likely past, and has been
noted elsewhere there is very limited useful controlled cyberspace in
these newsgroups. When Jay ran a virtual hanger some time ago most
posters knew each other and that led to a mutual respect and civility.
Because social-skills deficient writers use these groups anonymously
the kinds of crap that overwhelms RAP will continue: it's become their
forum. They've succeeded. Or did they? Their audience has become
pretty small.

Maybe they haven't played this so well after all.

See you in a couple of weeks.

Maybe.

[george]

On Jan 28, 3:15*pm, "Brent" > wrote:

> I'm a new pilot but I've been to and from Usenet for 15 years I come
> prepared with a private reader and good kill filters. *There are some
> wonderful people and content and some intelligent filtering cleans it right
> up. *the group does seem quiet, i only see two threads running right now but
> when i first logged on i saw one screamer in need of filtering now it seems
> calm here.

Welcome to the group Brent.
It livens up every so often and some of us are and were pilots.

[Brent[_2_]]

Nice to hear
I caught up with my dreams last year when i found out that 3d vision is NOT
required I might be running 10 years late but i'm a pilot a fractional owner
and working towards more.

Its a unique addiction. Last saturday i spen 4 hours outside in -25c
windchill up to -35 c (it finally warmed up to a balmy -18C/0F) deicing the
plane from three weeks of snow and ice while it was in for annual. Only to
cancel due to low visibility. in the practice area.

The positive thing is i at least am canadian enough to dress even for that
lovely warm weather.

"george" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 3:15 pm, "Brent" > wrote:

> I'm a new pilot but I've been to and from Usenet for 15 years I come
> prepared with a private reader and good kill filters. There are some
> wonderful people and content and some intelligent filtering cleans it
> right
> up. the group does seem quiet, i only see two threads running right now
> but
> when i first logged on i saw one screamer in need of filtering now it
> seems
> calm here.

Welcome to the group Brent.
It livens up every so often and some of us are and were pilots.

[Jay Honeck[_13_]]

You have touched on many good point, the most important (IMHO) being
risk aversion. This is everywhere in society nowadays. People are
completely accepting of the fact that the government should protect
us, from cradle to grave, so much so that the notion of flying a
personal airplane behind a piston engine and a PROPELLER sounds
nonsensical to many (most?) Americans. Flying might be dangerous --
and personal risk and danger are verboten in a society that mandates
bans on "second hand smoke" and requires seat belts in golf carts.

I call it the "pussification" of America. It's very, very sad, but
it's what happens when you have an ever-expanding, all-knowing, all-
caring, omnipotent central government.
--
Jay Honeck
Port Aransas, TX
Pathfinder N56993
www.HarborInnPortA.com


On Jan 27, 12:40*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >You make several good points. *I agree 100%, although the whole pie --
> >not just some parts of it -- is shrinking.
>
> >That's sad. * I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
> >Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. *It's...something
> >else. *I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
> >--
>
> To be sure, flying one s own airplane to get somewhere does not appear to
> be a very up-to-date passion. Though not a wholly sufficient answer, the
> morass of the commercial flying experience today has certainly done its
> share in taking the shine off of air travel. When I was 15, my first flight
> was in a DC-8, and my second, later the same year, was in a Grumman Tiger..
> I was one of the only ones in my high school class to have done either.
> Though aviation was of course far from new, the experience of flight was
> new and exciting to almost any individual. Today most people in developed
> countries have flown by the time they are 15 - months! And they cried and
> yelled the whole way. The way we are treated today adults too are crying
> and yelling the whole way! Have we managed to regulate out of existence
> man s age-old dream of flying?
>
> But wait a minute! If we are treated so badly on airline flights, shouldn t
> that spark an even greater desire for people to fly their own planes? To
> some degree it has, and the bizjet market, while hardly booming, is opening
> up to a broader demographic. You no longer need to be a billionaire to get
> an occasional ride in a Falcon or Challenger. But the passion is no longer
> there. Not for most anyway. And even in this context you are still just a
> passenger.
>
> A few contemporary social concerns come into play. Flying an airplane is
> not a very "green" activity. This may mean little to many contributors
> here, but we should not underestimate the effect the "green revolution" is
> having on every aspect of our lives, and ultimately on our thinking.
> Secondly, I cannot prove it, but I believe the post-911 security craze has
> heightened the general public s feeling that airplanes and flying are
> dangerous. We take safety concerns more seriously every day, and the
> intense scrutiny on safety of air travel has probably played its part.
> Another issue is the cost. Flying has always been expensive, but many
> people have less spare cash today for a passion like aviation, particularly
> in light of the two preceding considerations. And those who do have the
> cash are wary of spending it on anything that could be construed as an
> ostentatious display of wealth. There s a lot of "rich-bashing" going
> around these days, and flying your own plane is a great way to feel
> yourself in the crosshairs.
>
> Then there s a self-sufficiency issue, which may be the most important.
> People of my generation take pride in doing something for themselves. If
> you are not satisfied by the services you are being offered, do it
> yourself. I laugh to myself flying over congested roads, thinking of people
> sleeping for days on their suitcases in airport waiting areas while their
> airline tries to come to grips with the bureaucratic mess of resuming
> service after it snowed four inches - somewhere in another state! My
> 15-year-old nephew by contrast, far from flying in a Grumman Tiger, spends
> his days and nights on X-Box, on line with his friends, playing tough war
> games, shooting each others helicopters down. In real life, however, he
> would not have a clue where to look if the car didn t start, would not be
> able to find a circuit breaker in his own house (and doesn t know what this
> item is) and refuses to fly even commercial flights because he feels it is
> dangerous.
>
> I m sure I ve only touched on the issue, and I may be mistaken on parts of
> it, but I believe our society today is not at all conducive to the
> interest, passion and overall satisfaction in an activity like flying. *Do
> children today still have dreams they are flying? Can society really wear
> us down to where this age-old yearning no longer has meaning, and ceases to
> exist?

[Brent[_2_]]

I wish driving standards wre 1/4 as tight as flying standards.

As it was mentioned boating is easy and drunk boating standards are not
enforced. I was a successful boater at the age of 8 wth my most critical
skill being learning how to not be swamped by the drunk yahoos in their much
more expensive boats.

Piloting requires a committment and they are up front with the high cost and
committment and it keeps people form dscovering the addiction of flight.

In all honesty though i dont want to share the sky with someon who feels its
too hard to go beyond the cooler with the six pack and making their way
around slowly on the lake.


"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
>
> Any yahoo that can open a beer can drive a boat, and can take all
> their friends on their boat. Entry level boats can be purchased
> for around the price of a new car. Planes priced in the same range
> are 40 years old and not nearly as pretty as a boat and can only
> take 1-2 friends. LSA was supposed to save GA, but the planes are
> all over $100k. To really sell in volume, they need to be in the
> $40k range.
>
> I think it is a combination of the level of training required to
> fly, and the value for the money. What looks better, a 40yo burnt
> orange and lime green plane, or a brand new ski boat? Even new
> planes look pretty shabby after the first few annual inspections
> with loose screws and loose side panels/etc.
>
> To stick with aviation, you really need to have the flying bug.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/
>

[gpsman]

On Jan 27, 12:37*pm, (John Clear) wrote:
>
> I think it is a combination of the level of training required to
> fly, and the value for the money.
> To stick with aviation, you really need to have the flying bug.

And money.

Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
At least that's what's holding me back.

Right now we're in "saving for the uncertain future/retirement" mode.

Big plans, if the economy doesn't do the full flush I've been
predicting for 10 years.
-----

- gpsman

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article >,
says...

Flying might be dangerous --
>and personal risk and danger are verboten in a society that mandates
>bans on "second hand smoke" and requires seat belts in golf carts.
>


At the time I took that first ride in the small plane, it was to take some
pictures for a school project. The idea that I might be putting myself in any
sort of danger never crossed my mind, nor my parents’, at least not that they
mentioned to me, and no one at the school expressed any concern over my
action. My only worry was that I might feel sick, which of course didn’t
happen. Even the cost was peanuts. Maybe the pilot was doing a high school kid
a favor, hoping he would get hooked on aviation (which did happen) but with my
allowance and a little contribution from mom it was a non-issue. Today, if
any high school were to allow a student to do that the principal and
superintendant would be hauled on the carpet for reckless endangerment, the
student would be disciplined, the pilot and airport manager prosecuted and the
student’s classmates given psychological support to help them through the
trauma, while the FBI would be running background checks and the plane dusted
for explosives and anthrax! (Of course I’m exaggerating - at the rate we’re
going now it will be another five years or so before this scenario is no
longer an exaggeration).

Today that local airport, along with all of the others in the region, has
ceased all instruction, rental and for hire activities, completely squeezed
out about 15 years ago by exorbitant insurance rates. Perhaps it’s just as
well that my nephew and all of his friends hold nothing but disdain for
airplanes and aviation. If any of them were to want to take instruction they
would have a two-hour drive ahead of them to get to an airport that still
offers this insanely high-risk activity. There are four airports within 30
minutes’ driving time, and several others within an hour. All of these boasted
club and instructional activity 20 years ago.

[John Clear]

In article >,
gpsman > wrote:
>
>Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
>At least that's what's holding me back.

Depends what the local weather is like. I'm VFR only, as is Jay, who
flies a lot more then I do. And he has Midwest weather to deal with.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Don Poitras]

Funny, I've flown many Young Eagle flights and haven't been prosecuted
yet. I guess this must have happened only on the other 1,499,980 flights
that I wasn't part of...


VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...

> Flying might be dangerous --
> >and personal risk and danger are verboten in a society that mandates
> >bans on "second hand smoke" and requires seat belts in golf carts.
> >


> At the time I took that first ride in the small plane, it was to take some
> pictures for a school project. The idea that I might be putting myself in any
> sort of danger never crossed my mind, nor my parents?, at least not that they
> mentioned to me, and no one at the school expressed any concern over my
> action. My only worry was that I might feel sick, which of course didn?t
> happen. Even the cost was peanuts. Maybe the pilot was doing a high school kid
> a favor, hoping he would get hooked on aviation (which did happen) but with my
> allowance and a little contribution from mom it was a non-issue. Today, if
> any high school were to allow a student to do that the principal and
> superintendant would be hauled on the carpet for reckless endangerment, the
> student would be disciplined, the pilot and airport manager prosecuted and the
> student?s classmates given psychological support to help them through the
> trauma, while the FBI would be running background checks and the plane dusted
> for explosives and anthrax! (Of course I?m exaggerating - at the rate we?re
> going now it will be another five years or so before this scenario is no
> longer an exaggeration).

> Today that local airport, along with all of the others in the region, has
> ceased all instruction, rental and for hire activities, completely squeezed
> out about 15 years ago by exorbitant insurance rates. Perhaps it?s just as
> well that my nephew and all of his friends hold nothing but disdain for
> airplanes and aviation. If any of them were to want to take instruction they
> would have a two-hour drive ahead of them to get to an airport that still
> offers this insanely high-risk activity. There are four airports within 30
> minutes? driving time, and several others within an hour. All of these boasted
> club and instructional activity 20 years ago.


--
Don Poitras

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article >, says...
>
>
>Funny, I've flown many Young Eagle flights and haven't been prosecuted
>yet. I guess this must have happened only on the other 1,499,980 flights
>that I wasn't part of...
>


I trust I’ve been sufficiently clear not to leave much wiggle room for
misunderstanding. You have to work at that. What you (and the 1.49M others) do
is praiseworthy and necessary, and is certainly not going to draw anything but
adulation from me. However it also puts you in a good position to corroborate
that there is a growing culture of suspicion and a waning culture of passion
surrounding aviation. If your young eagles do not express it to you, their
parents do. Statistics prove it very strongly. I commend you sincerely for
taking deserved pride in this activity, but certainly this has not divorced
you from the rather stark reality.

[Bug Dout]

(John Clear) writes:

> In article >,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
>
> Any yahoo that can open a beer can drive a boat, and can take all
> their friends on their boat. Entry level boats can be purchased
> for around the price of a new car. Planes priced in the same range
> are 40 years old and not nearly as pretty as a boat and can only
> take 1-2 friends. LSA was supposed to save GA, but the planes are
> all over $100k. To really sell in volume, they need to be in the
> $40k range.
>
> I think it is a combination of the level of training required to
> fly, and the value for the money. What looks better, a 40yo burnt
> orange and lime green plane, or a brand new ski boat? Even new
> planes look pretty shabby after the first few annual inspections
> with loose screws and loose side panels/etc.
>
> To stick with aviation, you really need to have the flying bug.
>
> John

Exactly so. The whole country has moved away from tinkering on something
as a pastime, to watching something as a pastime. Or at best, playing a
video game. Flying, unlike other motor sports, requires a LOT of
committment to get started, and to keep it up. It's relatively
solitary. Not for the modern American.
--
Write injuries in sand, kindnesses in marble.
~ French proverb

[Bug Dout]

gpsman > writes:

> Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.

Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. Cross country trips are
very much possible strictly VFR.

Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. Flying for
committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
safer.
--
Truth is for the minority.
~ Baltasar Gracián

[Bug Dout]

Jay Honeck > writes:

> I call it the "pussification" of America. It's very, very sad, but
> it's what happens when you have an ever-expanding, all-knowing, all-
> caring, omnipotent central government.

Ah, Jay is back with his simplistic view of the world.

Actually, it's the result of trial lawyers getting warning labels on
everything. It's the result of many, many Bubbas too stupid to operate a
can opener trying to function in modern America. It's the result of
both parents having to work--thanks to decades of Republican,
favor-the-rich policies--and in exhaustion abandoning their role to
video games and TV.
--
Great is the art of beginning, but greater is the art of ending.
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

[gpsman]

On Jan 28, 8:57*pm, Bug Dout > wrote:
> gpsman > writes:
> > Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
>
> Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
> only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. *Cross country trips are
> very much possible strictly VFR.
>
> Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. *Flying for
> committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
> safer.

I've given the wrong impression. An instrument rating is my personal
standard of practicality/proficiency/saferness... that's tied to my
bank account.

I've accumulated 500 hours, over 34 years, and I'm just never
comfortable because I know I'm not really proficient.

So, I think I know more about the rust that forms from not flying than
I do actual flying, but the economy has put me 6-7 years from being
able to comfortably invest the time and money my definition of
proficient requires.
-----

- gpsman

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 29, 8:33*am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:57*pm, Bug Dout > wrote:
>
> > gpsman > writes:
> > > Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
>
> > Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
> > only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. *Cross country trips are
> > very much possible strictly VFR.
>
> > Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. *Flying for
> > committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
> > safer.
>
> I've given the wrong impression. *An instrument rating is my personal
> standard of practicality/proficiency/saferness... that's tied to my
> bank account.
>
> I've accumulated 500 hours, over 34 years, and I'm just never
> comfortable because I know I'm not really proficient.
>
> So, I think I know more about the rust that forms from not flying than
> I do actual flying, but the economy has put me 6-7 years from being
> able to comfortably invest the time and money my definition of
> proficient requires.
> *-----
>
> - gpsman

I concur with gpsman. I am a fairly high time pilot, use a Mooney for
business purposes so most often file IFR. Once a year or so I take a
trip that pretty much leads me across the country, visitng important
customers, and at the end of the trip I am a MUCH sharper pilot than
at the beginning. Hands on altitude holding gets to be plus or minus a
whisper, ILSs are within a dot, and best of all, towards the end of a
multiday trip the cockpit workload seems trivial: staying ahead of the
airplane is so much easier. The moral of this story is, to be
'current' may mean certain operations within the last 90 days, to be
proficient for me at least the time window is more nearly a week or
ten days. Real life precludes staying at that level of proficiency. so
probably there is a slight increase in risk. Now here's an interesting
question, given the mechanical failure rates of airplanes. Is flying
more often to maintain proficiency subjecting the pilot to increased
risk because of the exposure to equipment failure? Somewhere there's a
minimum or a cusp in that curve, I am not sure where it is.

Sorry spammers, this thread is actually aviation related!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Clear" > wrote

> Depends what the local weather is like. I'm VFR only, as is Jay, who
> flies a lot more then I do. And he has Midwest weather to deal with.

Not Midwest, now. He moved to Texas and bought a new hotel...
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_3_]]

On Jan 29, 8:33*am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 8:57*pm, Bug Dout > wrote:
>
> > gpsman > writes:
> > > Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
>
> > Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
> > only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. *Cross country trips are
> > very much possible strictly VFR.
>
> > Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. *Flying for
> > committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
> > safer.
>
> I've given the wrong impression. *An instrument rating is my personal
> standard of practicality/proficiency/saferness... that's tied to my
> bank account.
>
> I've accumulated 500 hours, over 34 years, and I'm just never
> comfortable because I know I'm not really proficient.
>
> So, I think I know more about the rust that forms from not flying than
> I do actual flying, but the economy has put me 6-7 years from being
> able to comfortably invest the time and money my definition of
> proficient requires.
> *-----
>
> - gpsman

The proficiency factor vs the economy is definitely a player in the
flight safety area.
Quite frankly I'm surprised that there haven't been more instrument
proficiency related incidents and accidents due to decreased aircraft
use in the GA community.
It's absolutely a serious consideration that every instrument rated
pilot should be both aware of and concerned about.
Dudley Henriques

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 29, 2:20*pm, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
> On Jan 29, 8:33*am, gpsman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 8:57*pm, Bug Dout > wrote:
>
> > > gpsman > writes:
> > > > Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR..
>
> > > Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
> > > only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. *Cross country trips are
> > > very much possible strictly VFR.
>
> > > Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. *Flying for
> > > committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
> > > safer.
>
> > I've given the wrong impression. *An instrument rating is my personal
> > standard of practicality/proficiency/saferness... that's tied to my
> > bank account.
>
> > I've accumulated 500 hours, over 34 years, and I'm just never
> > comfortable because I know I'm not really proficient.
>
> > So, I think I know more about the rust that forms from not flying than
> > I do actual flying, but the economy has put me 6-7 years from being
> > able to comfortably invest the time and money my definition of
> > proficient requires.
> > *-----
>
> > - gpsman
>
> The proficiency factor vs the economy is definitely a player in the
> flight safety area.
> Quite frankly I'm surprised that there haven't been more instrument
> proficiency related incidents and accidents due to decreased aircraft
> use in the GA community.
> It's absolutely a serious consideration that every instrument rated
> pilot should be both aware of and concerned about.
> Dudley Henriques

I'm guessing PICs with not much recent experience are simply
monitoring their autopilots as the electronics and servos fly the
airplane. The likelihood of electronic failures are pretty low. I get
my kicks hand flying the airplane most of the time, but suspect that
is not so common among us business owner/pilots these days. It could
also be there's less IMC or night or IMC and night flying these days
in the complex SEL crowd, although I don't hesitate to fly night IFR.
The fact is, if it's to solid minimums I'd rather fly a precision
approach at night.

Question for the other instrument rated pilots (assuming there are
more than a few of us still around) don't you agree a night approach
to minimums is easier than a day time one? So long as you don't turn
on the landing lights until out of the clouds of course.

[Dudley Henriques[_3_]]

On Jan 29, 6:17*pm, a > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:20*pm, Dudley Henriques >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 8:33*am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 8:57*pm, Bug Dout > wrote:
>
> > > > gpsman > writes:
> > > > > Practically, I think you have to train and remain proficient in IFR.
>
> > > > Eh? Not at all. Even in Seattle or such areas there are plenty of VFR
> > > > only pilots. Weather clears up in a few days. *Cross country trips are
> > > > very much possible strictly VFR.
>
> > > > Of course, the above assumes flying for a hobby. *Flying for
> > > > committments and deadlines, yes, IFR is necessary to be safe...or
> > > > safer.
>
> > > I've given the wrong impression. *An instrument rating is my personal
> > > standard of practicality/proficiency/saferness... that's tied to my
> > > bank account.
>
> > > I've accumulated 500 hours, over 34 years, and I'm just never
> > > comfortable because I know I'm not really proficient.
>
> > > So, I think I know more about the rust that forms from not flying than
> > > I do actual flying, but the economy has put me 6-7 years from being
> > > able to comfortably invest the time and money my definition of
> > > proficient requires.
> > > *-----
>
> > > - gpsman
>
> > The proficiency factor vs the economy is definitely a player in the
> > flight safety area.
> > Quite frankly I'm surprised that there haven't been more instrument
> > proficiency related incidents and accidents due to decreased aircraft
> > use in the GA community.
> > It's absolutely a serious consideration that every instrument rated
> > pilot should be both aware of and concerned about.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm guessing PICs with not much recent experience are simply
> monitoring their autopilots as the electronics and servos fly the
> airplane. The likelihood of electronic failures are pretty low. I get
> my kicks hand flying the airplane most of the time, but suspect that
> is not so common among us business owner/pilots these days. It could
> also be there's less IMC or night or IMC and night flying these days
> in the complex SEL crowd, although I don't hesitate to fly night IFR.
> The fact is, if it's to solid minimums I'd rather fly a precision
> approach at night.
>
> Question for the other instrument rated pilots (assuming there are
> more than a few of us still around) don't you agree a night approach
> to minimums is easier than a day time one? *So long as you don't turn
> on the landing lights until out of the clouds of course.

I think most of these points are relevant.
Probably the 3 most unwanted words in all of aviation are "Radar
service terminated" :-))
DH

[Jay Honeck[_13_]]

> Depends what the local weather is like. *I'm VFR only, as is Jay, who
> flies a lot more then I do. *And he has Midwest weather to deal with.
>
> John

Not any more. Now I've got tropical South Texas/Gulf of Mexico
weather to deal with.

Except for tonight. We're experiencing an ICE STORM, on an island in
the Gulf of Mexico! This damned global warming is just un-friggin'-
believable.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Port Aransas, TX
Pathfinder N56993
www.HarborInnPortA.com

[Bob Noel[_3_]]

In article >,
Bug Dout > wrote:

> Jay Honeck > writes:
>
> > I call it the "pussification" of America. It's very, very sad, but
> > it's what happens when you have an ever-expanding, all-knowing, all-
> > caring, omnipotent central government.
>
> Ah, Jay is back with his simplistic view of the world.
>
> Actually, it's the result of trial lawyers getting warning labels on
> everything. It's the result of many, many Bubbas too stupid to operate a
> can opener trying to function in modern America. It's the result of
> both parents having to work--thanks to decades of Republican,
> favor-the-rich policies--and in exhaustion abandoning their role to
> video games and TV.

BLAME BUSH!!!

do you feel better now machogrande?

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>You make several good points. I agree 100%, although the whole pie --
>not just some parts of it -- is shrinking.
>
>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Port Aransas, TX
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.HarborInnPortA.com



In international news I notice that the French Foreign Affairs Minister is
on the brink of forced resignation after the press revealed she has not
once, but twice committed the crime of being a passenger on a private jet.
Look at the scandal surrounding the big 3 auto execs who descended on
Washington in their Gulfstreams. That may indeed have been a poor judgment
call, but 20 years ago it would not have had the scandalous aura. It would
even have enhanced the image of the CEO’s and the companies they represent.
In our ever more socialist society, the airplane is rapidly becoming a
symbol of shame.
For a young person coming up today, aviation has a reputation about on a
level with dioxin and PCB’s.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> In international news I notice that the French Foreign Affairs Minister is
> on the brink of forced resignation after the press revealed she has not
> once, but twice committed the crime of being a passenger on a private jet.

It wasn't being on a jet that caused the scandal, it was who owned the jet
that raised eyebrows.

[Brent[_2_]]

Funniest thing is it IS cheaper to keep a jet busy for some of those people,
Disagree or not with the salary. A lot of those excecutive types in large
corporations make more than it costs to buy a King air sized aircraft in a
year (I dont want to think about the people whose annual salary is the
purchase price of a lear, falcon, or gulfstream)

When you calculate how much those people are worth an hour (and 24/7
avaialbility is expected) the time to go to an airport check in fly the next
scheduled flight on their $300 ticket its more expensive to have them
standing in the line and sitting in the terminal than to have the jet ready.

Calling the pilot tell him to warm up the jet and be in the air within an
hour and a half from making the call and flying direct to destination can be
better economically in that case.

But at times appearance is reality hence why the execs forn the automaker
limped back to washington in cars from their own company for visit 2

Brent



"VOR-DME" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>You make several good points. I agree 100%, although the whole pie --
>>not just some parts of it -- is shrinking.
>>
>>That's sad. I see so many multi-million dollar boats down here in
>>Texas, I know it's not a shortage of rich people. It's...something
>>else. I wish I could identify it, and fix it.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Port Aransas, TX
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.HarborInnPortA.com
>
>
>
> In international news I notice that the French Foreign Affairs Minister is
> on the brink of forced resignation after the press revealed she has not
> once, but twice committed the crime of being a passenger on a private jet.
> Look at the scandal surrounding the big 3 auto execs who descended on
> Washington in their Gulfstreams. That may indeed have been a poor judgment
> call, but 20 years ago it would not have had the scandalous aura. It would
> even have enhanced the image of the CEO's and the companies they
> represent.
> In our ever more socialist society, the airplane is rapidly becoming a
> symbol of shame.
> For a young person coming up today, aviation has a reputation about on a
> level with dioxin and PCB's.
>

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>It wasn't being on a jet that caused the scandal, it was who owned the jet
>that raised eyebrows.

You are partially correct, but at the time the French and Tunisian governments
were friends. No scandal would have been (nor has been) made over other
hospitality gestures between the countries. The jet is definitely the "toxic"
element, the proof being that the scandal has now spread to other French
officials who also got courtesy rides on the wrong jets. It appears the French
government is suggesting clipping the wings of public officials, and requiring
them to spend their vacations within bicycle distance from home! The point is
"Planes are Poison" or "No Plane, No Pain"!

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Funniest thing is it IS cheaper to keep a jet busy for some of those people,
>Disagree or not with the salary. A lot of those excecutive types in large
>corporations make more than it costs to buy a King air sized aircraft in a
>year (I dont want to think about the people whose annual salary is the
>purchase price of a lear, falcon, or gulfstream)
>
>When you calculate how much those people are worth an hour (and 24/7
>avaialbility is expected) the time to go to an airport check in fly the next
>scheduled flight on their $300 ticket its more expensive to have them
>standing in the line and sitting in the terminal than to have the jet ready.
>
>Calling the pilot tell him to warm up the jet and be in the air within an
>hour and a half from making the call and flying direct to destination can be
>better economically in that case.
>
>But at times appearance is reality hence why the execs forn the automaker
>limped back to washington in cars from their own company for visit 2
>
>Brent
>
>


I fully agree! Flexibility, efficiency, privacy and yes, economy are much
stronger arguments than luxury and privilege in corporations’ and governments’
decisions to use business aviation. When people complain about the cost of a
government official using a private plane, it is a sure sign they have not
weighed the cost of security measures for the same official and their
immediate entourage to use commercial flights. The nuisance factor is
incalculable. Require government officials to use commercial on official trips
and the entire world will be clamoring for them to return to their private
jets and let the rest of the population flay without yet another security
snag.

Scaling is an important factor though. Beechcraft ran a clever ad in the
aftermath of the Detroit CEO debacle, stating that had those CEO’s arrived in
Washington in KingAir 350’s instead of Gulfstreams they would have been viewed
as rational and frugal managers, instead of disconnected, wanton demagogues.
I’m not certain that is strictly so, in the context cited, but the idea is
correct. KingAirs HAVE served as AirForce One in the past, and any number of
turboprops and smaller jets could go a long way toward a more rational use of
aviation means, with bulletproof economy-of-means analyses.

[Mxsmanic]

Brent writes:

> When you calculate how much those people are worth an hour (and 24/7
> avaialbility is expected) the time to go to an airport check in fly the next
> scheduled flight on their $300 ticket its more expensive to have them
> standing in the line and sitting in the terminal than to have the jet ready.

They are "worth" whatever the market will bear. The company doesn't actually
lose money if they are idle or occupied for a few hours. There are other,
lower-level employees who would be missed a lot sooner.