Almost saw someone crash

[Viperdoc]

Yesterday the weather was miserable. There were low ceilings and a line of
strong thunderstorms that ran diagonally across the state. The preflight
briefing and a look at the radar indicated that an early departure would get
me to the destination ahead of the storms. I took my Baron (radar and
stormscope equipped) to a nearby airport for some maintenance, and needed to
get a clearance enroute due to low ceilings. There was lightning to the west
and both the radar and stormscope showed a lot of activity. I landed just as
the rain started.

As we worked on the plane the rain became a downpour, and the sky was very
dark with low clouds and ceilings. The wind was howling, and there was a lof
of thunder and lightning. The hangar was shaking from the winds, and the
lights went out for a few minutes from a lightning strike.

After about fifteen minutes of this, we all heard a plane do a low approach
over the airport, and we ran to the window to take a look. At this point it
was clearly lower than the published minimums for the lowest approach, and
we were all concerned about a pilot flying around in such terrible weather.
We got a glimpse of a Bonanza, which then disappeared. I tuned 121.5 on my
radios as well as the CTAF, and heard the FBO call the pilot and ask if they
needed assistance. There were no calls or answers from the Bonanza, and we
feared the worst, waiting for an ELT signal. However, after a few minutes
the plane noises returned and the Bonanza landed and taxied to the FBO.

We later met the pilot during a coffee break, who said she was going from a
nearby metropolitan area to some property diagonally across the state (a
route that clearly put her in the path of the long line of thunderstorms.)
She said the weather was so bad that she couldn't even dial the GPS map to
find the nearest airport, and her plan was to put the plane down in a field
when she came across the airport! I asked myself why anyone would want to
scud run ( it was lower than localizer approach minimums) across an entire
state and try to fly through a line of thunderstorms enroute. Why not turn
around and head east away from the storms when the weather went bad (she
said she had hours worth of gas)?

If this had happened to most people they would likely have been pretty
scared and humbled by the experience, but she was very happy and chatty with
the folks at the FBO, as if flying through thunderstorms, scud running,
flying in IMC without a clearance, and contemplating a precautionary landing
in a field were routine events. She did not seem at all concerned with how
close she had come to a serious event, and in fact was very upbeat and
carried on a number of light conversations.

I departed IFR back to my local airport, and had to shoot an approach to ILS
minimums due to some residual low clouds, and I later learned that as she
prepared to depart she noticed that a wingtip and leading edge were damaged.
Apparently she had struck a tree during her scud running, but had not
noticed!

Obviously, this episode showed a lot of poor judgment, like lack of
preflight planning, as well as poor decision making in continuing on in IMC
conditions through thunderstorms rather than turning around. (she was VFR).

Amway, she clearly understood the possible implications of her actions, but
was either obvlious or did not care how close she came to getting killed
yesterday. As a fellow pilot, I was struck by how cavalier an attitude she
had toward flying, and how close she had come to crashing.

Would anyone have said anything further to her? She already had stated she
knew about the weather but had decided to continue VFR, so what else could
we do to help her without sounding critical? She clearly wasn't shaken or
asking for any help or advice, so what more could be done?

It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)

I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
situation.

[C J Campbell]

It may seem odd, but this is how people often react when they have been
badly frightened. You would be amazed at how chatty and oblivious soldiers
can seem to be immediately after a fight, for example. It sounds to me like
she was still on an adrenalin high when you talked to her.

[Nathan Young]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:49:50 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>Yesterday the weather was miserable. There were low ceilings and a line of
>strong thunderstorms that ran diagonally across the state. The preflight
>briefing and a look at the radar indicated that an early departure would get
>me to the destination ahead of the storms. I took my Baron (radar and
>stormscope equipped) to a nearby airport for some maintenance, and needed to
>get a clearance enroute due to low ceilings. There was lightning to the west
>and both the radar and stormscope showed a lot of activity. I landed just as
>the rain started.
>
>As we worked on the plane the rain became a downpour, and the sky was very
>dark with low clouds and ceilings. The wind was howling, and there was a lof
>of thunder and lightning. The hangar was shaking from the winds, and the
>lights went out for a few minutes from a lightning strike.
>
>After about fifteen minutes of this, we all heard a plane do a low approach
>over the airport, and we ran to the window to take a look. At this point it
>was clearly lower than the published minimums for the lowest approach, and
>we were all concerned about a pilot flying around in such terrible weather.
>We got a glimpse of a Bonanza, which then disappeared. I tuned 121.5 on my
>radios as well as the CTAF, and heard the FBO call the pilot and ask if they
>needed assistance. There were no calls or answers from the Bonanza, and we
>feared the worst, waiting for an ELT signal. However, after a few minutes
>the plane noises returned and the Bonanza landed and taxied to the FBO.
>
>We later met the pilot during a coffee break, who said she was going from a
>nearby metropolitan area to some property diagonally across the state (a
>route that clearly put her in the path of the long line of thunderstorms.)
>She said the weather was so bad that she couldn't even dial the GPS map to
>find the nearest airport, and her plan was to put the plane down in a field
>when she came across the airport! I asked myself why anyone would want to
>scud run ( it was lower than localizer approach minimums) across an entire
>state and try to fly through a line of thunderstorms enroute. Why not turn
>around and head east away from the storms when the weather went bad (she
>said she had hours worth of gas)?
>
>If this had happened to most people they would likely have been pretty
>scared and humbled by the experience, but she was very happy and chatty with
>the folks at the FBO, as if flying through thunderstorms, scud running,
>flying in IMC without a clearance, and contemplating a precautionary landing
>in a field were routine events. She did not seem at all concerned with how
>close she had come to a serious event, and in fact was very upbeat and
>carried on a number of light conversations.
>
>I departed IFR back to my local airport, and had to shoot an approach to ILS
>minimums due to some residual low clouds, and I later learned that as she
>prepared to depart she noticed that a wingtip and leading edge were damaged.
>Apparently she had struck a tree during her scud running, but had not
>noticed!
>
>Obviously, this episode showed a lot of poor judgment, like lack of
>preflight planning, as well as poor decision making in continuing on in IMC
>conditions through thunderstorms rather than turning around. (she was VFR).
>
>Amway, she clearly understood the possible implications of her actions, but
>was either obvlious or did not care how close she came to getting killed
>yesterday. As a fellow pilot, I was struck by how cavalier an attitude she
>had toward flying, and how close she had come to crashing.
>
>Would anyone have said anything further to her? She already had stated she
>knew about the weather but had decided to continue VFR, so what else could
>we do to help her without sounding critical? She clearly wasn't shaken or
>asking for any help or advice, so what more could be done?
>
>It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
>apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
>activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)
>
>I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
>situation.

Well, if she wasn't rattled, she's probably been doing this for a
while and built confidence to the point where she does not see
anything wrong with it. I doubt anything an unknown bystander would
say would influence her.

Not good flying weather in N. Illinois / S. Wisconsin lately. Looks
like it will continue through the weekend :(

-Nathan

[Newps]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> It may seem odd, but this is how people often react when they have been
> badly frightened.

I bet she wasn't frightened. I know two people on my field who are exactly
the same way, always have been.

[Jay Honeck]

> It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
> apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
> activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)

Last week, on another aviation forum, a new pilot was happily relating his
first successful cross country flight with his family -- a 500 mile trip
that took him into some complex airspace on the East coast of the U.S.

As I was reading along, filled with the glow of remembering *my* first long
trip, I was astounded to read that he had run a fuel tank dry on final
approach! Almost in passing he casually mentioned that he was forced to
quickly switch to the fullest tank, and the engine re-started. He landed
normally.

I couldn't believe that anyone could treat a complete engine failure on
final with such utter disdain, but this very low-time pilot spoke of it as
if this sort of thing were normal and an expected part of flying. It was no
greater part of his story than his description of the FBO's on-field
restaurant.

I guess some people are just less risk averse than others?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[LF TIGER]

>It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
>apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
>activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)

This sounds like the type of person who ends up killing her passengers or
people on the ground, walks away unscathed, and then gets rich by sueing the
aircraft manufacturer.

Larry aka: "Mr Optimism"
"Get off a fast first shot...Make the second one count!"
TIGER

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (LF TIGER) said:
>>It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
>>apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
>>activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)
>
>This sounds like the type of person who ends up killing her passengers or
>people on the ground, walks away unscathed, and then gets rich by sueing the
>aircraft manufacturer.

Oh, you mean Steve Wozniak?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me. -- Steve VanDevender

[Dudley Henriques]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...

> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.

Incidents and pilots like this are unfortunately not uncommon at all in
aviation. I've seen this from the lowest levels of aviation to the
highest levels. You learn after a while in this business that all you
can do is make an attempt to keep someone like this from killing
themselves...and that's all you can do.
In the end, flying is a lot like being alone with yourself on the golf
course. If you cheat, you're only cheating yourself. The only difference
is that if you cheat at flying you can kill other people as well as
yourself.
Flying, and the responsibility that goes with it is one of the most
intensive self motivating endeavors I can imagine. The laws are the
established laws of physics and aerodynamics that govern the environment
we have chosen to live in up there. The rules have been placed there by
us, for us to follow so that we have a fair chance to survive our use of
the laws. The problem is that unfortunately there are those among us,
and always will be those among us, who not only bend the rules, but bend
the laws as well.
You generally don't make it through the entire way to a natural death by
doing this.
So where does this leave us as pilots when we are witness to some idiot
hell bent on bending the rules and defying the laws? If we're decent
people, and most of us are, we make an attempt, directly or indirectly,
to help straighten someone out; but basic intelligence should tell us
that this is the extent of what we can do. If the idiot can't see the
problem as self correct, it's a fool's burden to carry the weight of
their failure on our shoulders.
You do what you can to make people safer as you pass through, but you
can't pick up their failure to comply as a failure by you to change them
if this isn't possible.
Trust me on this one. I have first hand experience!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, you mean Steve Wozniak?
>

How many times did Wozniak crash?

[Michael 182]

Woz managed to make a little money from Apple as well.

Michael


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> >This sounds like the type of person who ends up killing her passengers or
> >people on the ground, walks away unscathed, and then gets rich by sueing
the
> >aircraft manufacturer.
>
> Oh, you mean Steve Wozniak?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.

I'm not sure how I would have reacted, since I wasn't there.

However, it's my opinion that the aviation community could use more Serpicos
and fewer "true blues". Loyalty at all costs has little place in most
communities, but especially in the aviation community where safety takes a
lot of work to come by, and where innocent people can be killed by
irresponsible pilots, pilots need to be willing to take action when they see
someone else behaving so irresponsibly.

You don't mention what the outcome of the wingtip damage was. At flying
speed, even a brief whack at the end of the wing could bend something
important. I'm left wondering whether a) the pilot did depart again with
the damage, and b) whether the NTSB had been notified of the in-flight
collision that presumably caused "substantial damage". Immediate
notification would not be required in this case, but the NTSB still requires
a report within 10 days. The local FSDO as well would probably be
interested in hearing about the pilot, due to the various FAR violations.

CJ is right that there's a possibility her post-accident attitude reflected
her fear, rather than an oblivious attitude. However, if that were true,
you'd probably have been able to notice other symptoms of her being shaken
up. Adrenalin suppresses some fear reactions, but it comes with its own
side-effects. If she truly seemed totally okay with the whole situation,
Newps guess is probably more likely to be correct.

In any case, whether she was shaken up or not, it's obvious she exercised
poor preflight planning and proceeded into weather that she had no business
flying in. I would be less concerned about her psychological reaction to
the event, and more concerned that the event happened in the first place.

Pete

[MLenoch]

>Adrenalin suppresses some fear reactions, but it comes with its own
>side-effects.

So that's what happens to me whenever I am late for dinner coming from the
airport!
(Dud: I got a copy of the airshow safety/accident book; saw your contribution;
nice work.)
VL

[lowflyer]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message >...

>
> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.


I would hope that the local FSDO would hear about her. I don't care
much if she kills herself through stupidity, but what about innocents
on the ground?

[Dudley Henriques]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Adrenalin suppresses some fear reactions, but it comes with its own
> >side-effects.
>
> So that's what happens to me whenever I am late for dinner coming from
the
> airport!
> (Dud: I got a copy of the airshow safety/accident book; saw your
contribution;
> nice work.)
> VL

Thank you Vlad. Des did a great job of getting and keeping all of us
together to do it. The total book a very well done effort and with any
luck at all, it might even save some lives. I was honored to be asked to
join the effort.
Dudley

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Oh, you mean Steve Wozniak?
>>
>
>How many times did Wozniak crash?

Only once. But he sued Beech afterwards because the plane didn't prevent
him from getting behind the yoke without any experience or instruction in
a complex plane.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
So logically, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and
therefore a witch.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only once. But he sued Beech afterwards because the plane
> didn't prevent him from getting behind the yoke without any
> experience or instruction in a complex plane.
>

Just once? Then how is Wozniak the type of person who ends up killing his
passengers or people on the ground, walks away unscathed, and then gets rich
by suing the aircraft manufacturer?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Only once. But he sued Beech afterwards because the plane
>> didn't prevent him from getting behind the yoke without any
>> experience or instruction in a complex plane.
>>
>
>Just once? Then how is Wozniak the type of person who ends up killing his
>passengers or people on the ground, walks away unscathed, and then gets rich
>by suing the aircraft manufacturer?

Well, let's see: He crashed his plane, put himself and a couple of
passengers in the hospital (he was in a coma), walked away (eventually)
and sued the aircraft manufacturer. How is he NOT that type of person?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash.
-- Stephen Harris

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, let's see: He crashed his plane, put himself and a couple of
> passengers in the hospital (he was in a coma), walked away (eventually)
> and sued the aircraft manufacturer. How is he NOT that type of
> person?
>

Well, let's see; he didn't kill any passengers, he didn't kill anyone on the
ground, and he didn't walk away from the crash unscathed. Is that enough?

[Gene Seibel]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message >...

>
> It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
> apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
> activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.

Protecting everyone from themselves is an impossible job.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 at 12:49:50 in message
>, Viperdoc
> wrote:
>
>After about fifteen minutes of this, we all heard a plane do a low approach
>over the airport, and we ran to the window to take a look. At this point it
>was clearly lower than the published minimums for the lowest approach, and
>we were all concerned about a pilot flying around in such terrible weather.
>We got a glimpse of a Bonanza, which then disappeared. I tuned 121.5 on my
>radios as well as the CTAF, and heard the FBO call the pilot and ask if they
>needed assistance. There were no calls or answers from the Bonanza, and we
>feared the worst, waiting for an ELT signal. However, after a few minutes
>the plane noises returned and the Bonanza landed and taxied to the FBO.
>
This reminded me of a story of my Father's. Not an active service pilot,
but he was nevertheless flying as an RAF test pilot and an RAF
Maintenance Unit in England in the early part of World War 2. Most of
his flying was very short flights and with rapid changes of type of
aircraft.

One day the weather closed in and the pilots decided that it was two bad
for flying. They were sitting in the control tower when they heard a
Spitfire near the field. They could not see it but it appeared to have
landed and soon they saw it taxing out of the murk. It stopped near the
control tower and the canopy came back. The pilot removed his flying
helmet and they were amazed to see long blonde hair. It was a young
woman of the A.T.A. (Air Transport Auxiliary) and my father and his
colleagues felt embarrassed by the amazing performance of this young
woman.

How times have changed. These men and women of the A.T.A. Delivered
aircraft from the factories to squadrons and to maintenance units. Not
quite a fair comparison as there was no suggestion of thunderstorms -
just poor visibility.

At this stage of an aircraft's service life they usually had no radios
fitted and navigational aids were minimal.
--
David CL Francis

[EDR]

After losing two good friends in a crash in 1989, I vowed never agin to
remain quiet when I see something in the way a person flies that
bothers me.

Pilots do not like to be told that what they are doing/about to do is
stupid, and they tend to get upset with me, but I sleep better having
spoken my peace.

Sometimes you get through to people and they cease the behavior.
Sometimes they need the reassurance to remove any doubts they have.
Some are just too strong minded to listen.

[Jack Allison]

> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation

I'd have to agree w/ Eric and (hopefully) have the guts to confront the
person. Maybe they'd listen, maybe the wouldn't...but I'd feel better
knowing that I'd brought the person a different perspective (other than
their own) to the situation.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Frode Berg]

Then the million dollar question: Did he get rich?

Surely he didn't win a lawsuit for this???

Frode


"Steven P. McNicoll" > skrev i melding
hlink.net...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, let's see: He crashed his plane, put himself and a couple of
> > passengers in the hospital (he was in a coma), walked away (eventually)
> > and sued the aircraft manufacturer. How is he NOT that type of
> > person?
> >
>
> Well, let's see; he didn't kill any passengers, he didn't kill anyone on
the
> ground, and he didn't walk away from the crash unscathed. Is that enough?
>
>

[Frode Berg]

I agree in trying to speak ones mind abouot this.

Sure, someone will get upset, but at least, I would see it as my
responsibility towards innocent peopl on the ground, and in the air to warn
people like this.

However, it's important that we remember that we all have our own personal
minimums. This obviously does not comply in this cas with the thunderstorms
and extremely low cloud base, but I have seem instances where peopl would
advice 800+ hour pilots to not fly with a bit of wind, and cloud ceiling
around 1400 feet....some peopl only fly in blue skies, some have lower
minimums.

One should never fly VFR and have to get somewere on time though! You never
know if you have to divert, and if it's a serious appointment you are trying
to make, chances are you would push on further than you should if the
weather detoriates.

Frode


"Jack Allison" > skrev i melding
...
> > I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> > situation
>
> I'd have to agree w/ Eric and (hopefully) have the guts to confront the
> person. Maybe they'd listen, maybe the wouldn't...but I'd feel better
> knowing that I'd brought the person a different perspective (other than
> their own) to the situation.
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)
>
>

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

(Paul Tomblin) writes:

> >> Oh, you mean Steve Wozniak?
> >How many times did Wozniak crash?
>
> Only once. But he sued Beech afterwards because the plane didn't prevent
> him from getting behind the yoke without any experience or instruction in
> a complex plane.

Google couldn't find much raw web material on this 1981 incident
involving N2WZ, but according to their Usenet archive, he did not win
the lawsuit.

http://tinyurl.com/2l624

- FChE

[G.R. Patterson III]

Viperdoc wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.

Well, I would have made a comment to the effect that I would not be flying VFR in
this weather. Since I'm not instrument rated, I would probably be able to add
"personally, I'm stuck here sitting this out" (or words to that effect) if I were
there.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Frode Berg wrote:
>
> Sure, someone will get upset, ...

So what? Do you know this person? What do you care what she thinks about you?

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Newps]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Frode Berg wrote:
> >
> > Sure, someone will get upset, ...
>
> So what? Do you know this person? What do you care what she thinks about
you?

Exactly. There's a guy in the MSP area who got a vacation from flying
because I turned his sorry ass in to the local FSDO in the Twin Cities. He
was flying over a lake at about 100 feet AGL over the top of boats and
peoples houses on the lake. 5 times.

[Blanche]

I wonder if there's an analogy to the drunk driver in this situation?
It's become quite acceptable (and even *strongly suggested*) that
keys are taken away from someone who's impaired by alcohol, or that
a cab is called. Could the same be applied to someone attempting
to fly who is impaired by alcohol?

I realize in the situation initially reported there didn't seem to
be alcohol (or drugs) involved. But what would you do if you
saw someone who was impaired, going to go fly?

And remember -- the car keys situation is a local issue. Flying drunk
is a Federal issue in the US. Don't know about other countries.

[zatatime]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:35:04 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Frode Berg wrote:
>>
>> Sure, someone will get upset, ...
>
>So what? Do you know this person? What do you care what she thinks about you?
>
>George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.


I agree with the spirit of your statement, but it does matter a
little...If you're hoping to make a difference s/he has to think
enough of you to value the input you have provided.

As long as you don't approach the person like a screaming lunatic
(hopefully) you've got a shot at succeeding.

z

[Viperdoc]

As a matter of fact, I did make a comment about flying VFR under such
terrible conditions, and her response was: filing IFR wouldn't have made a
difference. In essence this is true, since the first error was not having a
briefing, the second was continuing her flight into IMC, while the third
was failing to turn around immediately.

As an aside, during the conversation with the people in the FBO, she said
she was a foot and ankle surgeon in the orthopedic department at a
prestigious medical school. However, she was unaware that I am on the
faculty at a neighboring medical school, and know most of the members of the
department where she claimed she practiced. When I named some names, she
immediately changed the subject, and didn't appear to know even the most
prominent members of the department. I never called her on this, but simply
walked away- she was someone that I simply did not want to associate with in
any way.

While I generally have better things to do, I looked up the faculty on the
net, and as it turned out she was not an orthopedic surgeon as I suspected,
but in fact was a podiatrist at a suburban hospital that is loosely
affiliated with the medical school where she claimed to practice- hardly
what she claimed.

Prior to this several pilots, instructors, and experienced mechanics tried
to bring up how dangerous her actions were, and how lucky she was that she
didn't get hurt seriously or killed. She simply didn't get the message, and
dismissed all of these comments. All of us have probably been guilty of some
macho bravado at times, but this was the worst case of this that I had ever
seen. It was either total bluster, or an example of being completely
clueless.

Regardless, this attitude, along with getting caught grossly exaggerating
her job, gave me a lot of bad vibes. Several of us walked away rather than
hang around listening to her conversation and encouraging her behavior.

Hopefully she will hook up with someone who can give her some advice that
she will follow and potentially save her life.

[Peter Duniho]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Hopefully she will hook up with someone who can give her some advice that
> she will follow and potentially save her life.

She doesn't sound like the kind of person aviation needs or should protect.
Why not just report her flying to your local FSDO?

This is exactly the sort of "bad apple" person that gives the rest of us a
bad name. She's not doing any of us any favors with her attitude, and I
don't see why anyone would do her any favors by not turning her in.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> How times have changed.

There is a fine line between utter and complete devotion to duty, and
insanity.

During wartime her behavior was elevated to the status of "courageous" --
but in peacetime it's just plain nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Viperdoc wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, I did make a comment about flying VFR under such
> terrible conditions, and her response was: filing IFR wouldn't have made a
> difference.

While I agree with Peter's suggestion to get the FAA involved, I expect I would have
behaved much the same way that you did. You do what you can.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then the million dollar question: Did he get rich?
>

He was already rich.


>
> Surely he didn't win a lawsuit for this???
>

I don't know. I knew he had crashed his Bonanza, but I never heard of any
lawsuit out of it.

[Teacherjh]

>>
It's become quite acceptable (and even *strongly suggested*) that
keys are taken away from someone who's impaired by alcohol
<<

Taken by whom? This is a slippery slope, especially in aviation. Letting
others stop you because they think you're inadequate to the task (whether by
virtue of being drunk, stupid, inexperienced for the conditions, whatever)
erodes the basic tenets of self-responsibility, which is one of the big
differences between aviation and driving. I wouldn't want that to happen.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ben Haas]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message >...
> Yesterday the weather was miserable. There were low ceilings and a line of
> strong thunderstorms that ran diagonally across the state. The preflight
> briefing and a look at the radar indicated that an early departure would get
> me to the destination ahead of the storms. I took my Baron (radar and
> stormscope equipped) to a nearby airport for some maintenance, and needed to
> get a clearance enroute due to low ceilings. There was lightning to the west
> and both the radar and stormscope showed a lot of activity. I landed just as
> the rain started.
>
> As we worked on the plane the rain became a downpour, and the sky was very
> dark with low clouds and ceilings. The wind was howling, and there was a lof
> of thunder and lightning. The hangar was shaking from the winds, and the
> lights went out for a few minutes from a lightning strike.
>
> After about fifteen minutes of this, we all heard a plane do a low approach
> over the airport, and we ran to the window to take a look. At this point it
> was clearly lower than the published minimums for the lowest approach, and
> we were all concerned about a pilot flying around in such terrible weather.
> We got a glimpse of a Bonanza, which then disappeared. I tuned 121.5 on my
> radios as well as the CTAF, and heard the FBO call the pilot and ask if they
> needed assistance. There were no calls or answers from the Bonanza, and we
> feared the worst, waiting for an ELT signal. However, after a few minutes
> the plane noises returned and the Bonanza landed and taxied to the FBO.
>
> We later met the pilot during a coffee break, who said she was going from a
> nearby metropolitan area to some property diagonally across the state (a
> route that clearly put her in the path of the long line of thunderstorms.)
> She said the weather was so bad that she couldn't even dial the GPS map to
> find the nearest airport, and her plan was to put the plane down in a field
> when she came across the airport! I asked myself why anyone would want to
> scud run ( it was lower than localizer approach minimums) across an entire
> state and try to fly through a line of thunderstorms enroute. Why not turn
> around and head east away from the storms when the weather went bad (she
> said she had hours worth of gas)?
>
> If this had happened to most people they would likely have been pretty
> scared and humbled by the experience, but she was very happy and chatty with
> the folks at the FBO, as if flying through thunderstorms, scud running,
> flying in IMC without a clearance, and contemplating a precautionary landing
> in a field were routine events. She did not seem at all concerned with how
> close she had come to a serious event, and in fact was very upbeat and
> carried on a number of light conversations.
>
> I departed IFR back to my local airport, and had to shoot an approach to ILS
> minimums due to some residual low clouds, and I later learned that as she
> prepared to depart she noticed that a wingtip and leading edge were damaged.
> Apparently she had struck a tree during her scud running, but had not
> noticed!
>
> Obviously, this episode showed a lot of poor judgment, like lack of
> preflight planning, as well as poor decision making in continuing on in IMC
> conditions through thunderstorms rather than turning around. (she was VFR).
>
> Amway, she clearly understood the possible implications of her actions, but
> was either obvlious or did not care how close she came to getting killed
> yesterday. As a fellow pilot, I was struck by how cavalier an attitude she
> had toward flying, and how close she had come to crashing.
>
> Would anyone have said anything further to her? She already had stated she
> knew about the weather but had decided to continue VFR, so what else could
> we do to help her without sounding critical? She clearly wasn't shaken or
> asking for any help or advice, so what more could be done?
>
> It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
> apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
> activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how the group would have reacted to this
> situation.

In this case gravity will win sooner then later. Did ya get an N
number off the Bonanza???

[pacplyer]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Viperdoc wrote:
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I did make a comment about flying VFR under such
> > terrible conditions, and her response was: filing IFR wouldn't have made a
> > difference.
>
> While I agree with Peter's suggestion to get the FAA involved, I expect I would have
> behaved much the same way that you did. You do what you can.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Lol! Well, sometimes being under a squall line is better than filing
IFR and getting a high altitude, penatrating cells with large vertical
development, and picking up ice. (I bet her Naner doesn't have radar
or stormscope.) None of us were there in the cockpit with this lady,
Doc, so I'm reluctant to encourge this witchhunt by what appear to be
comments by low-time private pilots on this NG. I went through this
phase of scudrunning many years ago, and fortunately survived. The
rationalization that: "I've got plenty of fuel, so I can always ask
for a pop up clearance if it gets too bad" sounds like a common 500-hr
pilot attitude that seems reasonable until something bad happens like
you hit a tree branch or spot some rocks in the clouds or realize, as
in my case, that I flew under new high voltage lines that were
obscured in the fog (about a month later a 182 on the same river hit
them breaking the neck of the pilot and seriously injuring his
passenger.) That was my wake up call. I realized those wires were
meant for me.

I don't know Viperdoc, you were the one who spoke with this lady... My
guess is her close call hasn't sunk in yet. Any chance you could get
an instructor at her field to go talk to her? Or if that's too much
trouble, contact her directly since you both work in the same
profession. Suspect she might listen to a senior M.D.like you.
Getting the FAA involved should be the last step.

Regards,

pacplyer

[Frode Berg]

If you would not cut in my post to the point that it changes the ,meaning of
what I wrote, other people that don't read the whole thread won't get the
impression that I'm an ignorant ***...

:-)

This is excactly what I wrote, but off course deleting the rest of my
sentence instead of leaving iot there makes me look like an idiot.

Thanks,

Frode



"Newps" > skrev i melding
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Frode Berg wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, someone will get upset, ...
> >
> > So what? Do you know this person? What do you care what she thinks about
> you?
>
> Exactly. There's a guy in the MSP area who got a vacation from flying
> because I turned his sorry ass in to the local FSDO in the Twin Cities.
He
> was flying over a lake at about 100 feet AGL over the top of boats and
> peoples houses on the lake. 5 times.
>
>

[Frode Berg]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

.. Since I'm not instrument rated, I would probably be able

In this weather?
No way man!

(see what I mean above...?) hehe.

Frode

[David Megginson]

David CL Francis wrote:

> How times have changed. These men and women of the A.T.A. Delivered
> aircraft from the factories to squadrons and to maintenance units. Not
> quite a fair comparison as there was no suggestion of thunderstorms -
> just poor visibility.

That was bad enough. Remember that John Magee, the author of "High Flight,"
actually died not in combat, but in a midair collision with another British
plane during low vis in quiet skies.


All the best,


David

[Bill Denton]

Does anyone have any more information on the Wozniak crash? I couldn't find
anything on Google.

Every since the Woz situation came on to this thread, I have wondered if it
was being confused with the Thurmond Munson crash, which was one of the
straws that almost nearly halted GA aircraft production in the mid 80's
(remember the Cessna shutdown?).

Thurmond Munson was a talented and successful baseball player. He bought a
Cessna Citation, which was arguably too much airplane for him. While
shooting touch and go's (IIRC) he broke the airplane.

Munson's estate sued Cessna on the grounds that Cessna should not have sold
Munson an aircraft he was not capable of safely operating.

And one of our (sometimes) wonderful American juries agreed that blame
should not be placed on the person who f*cked up; it should instead be
placed on a company who legally manufactured and sold a product.

And people wonder why no one can afford to fly...







"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then the million dollar question: Did he get rich?
> >
>
> He was already rich.
>
>
> >
> > Surely he didn't win a lawsuit for this???
> >
>
> I don't know. I knew he had crashed his Bonanza, but I never heard of any
> lawsuit out of it.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Every since the Woz situation came on to this thread, I have wondered if
it
> was being confused with the Thurmond Munson crash, which was one of the
> straws that almost nearly halted GA aircraft production in the mid 80's
> (remember the Cessna shutdown?).
>

Thurmon Munson was killed in 1979.

[Bill Denton]

And the date of Munson's death is relevant to this discussion how?



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Every since the Woz situation came on to this thread, I have wondered if
> it
> > was being confused with the Thurmond Munson crash, which was one of the
> > straws that almost nearly halted GA aircraft production in the mid 80's
> > (remember the Cessna shutdown?).
> >
>
> Thurmon Munson was killed in 1979.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the date of Munson's death is relevant to this discussion how?
>

You're the one that claimed a connection between Munson's death and GA
aircraft production in the mid 80's.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then the million dollar question: Did he get rich?
> >
>
> He was already rich.
>
>
> >
> > Surely he didn't win a lawsuit for this???
> >
>
> I don't know. I knew he had crashed his Bonanza, but I never heard of any
> lawsuit out of it.

According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
hlink.net:

>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And the date of Munson's death is relevant to this discussion how?
>>
>
> You're the one that claimed a connection between Munson's death and GA
> aircraft production in the mid 80's.
>
>

Perhaps the litigation and subsequent effects were not immediate.

[Bill Denton]

I did not state that Munson's crash occurred in the mid 80's.

I stated that the slowdown occurred in the mid 80's and that the slowdown
was caused in part by the Munson crash..We are discussing two separate
timeframes. As long as Munson's crash preceded the slowdown the exact date
of the crash is totally irrelevant.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the date of Munson's death is relevant to this discussion how?
> >
>
> You're the one that claimed a connection between Munson's death and GA
> aircraft production in the mid 80's.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Frode Berg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Then the million dollar question: Did he get rich?
> > >
> >
> > He was already rich.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Surely he didn't win a lawsuit for this???
> > >
> >
> > I don't know. I knew he had crashed his Bonanza, but I never heard of
any
> > lawsuit out of it.
>
> According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.
>
> http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
>
ADDENDUM:

Are you referring to the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did not state that Munson's crash occurred in the mid 80's.
>
> I stated that the slowdown occurred in the mid 80's and that the slowdown
> was caused in part by the Munson crash.
>

Stating it doesn't make it so. You didn't make any connection between the
crash and the slowdown.


>
> We are discussing two separate
> timeframes. As long as Munson's crash preceded the slowdown the exact
> date of the crash is totally irrelevant.
>

Buddy Holly also died in a GA crash that preceded the slowdown. Did that
crash also contribute to the slowdown?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the date of Munson's death is relevant to this discussion how?
> >
>
> You're the one that claimed a connection between Munson's death

1979.

> and GA
> aircraft production in the mid 80's.

Ya think it might have had an impact 4-5 years or more later?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.
>
> http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
>

Here's a site that says it was a Bonanza:

http://www.woz.org/letters/general/56.html


It includes this question and answer:

Comment from E-mail:
11. Do you remember the actual Plane Crash, or just heard stories? What kind
of Plane? When did it happen?

Woz:
I had a Beechcraft Bonanza, V-tail, single engine, turbocharged, and crashed
on takeoff at Skypark airport in Scotts Valley, California, on 1981.02.07.
That airport is no longer in operation. I had 3 passengers and was flying to
San Diego to have my fiance's friend or relative design us a wedding ring. I
have memories of the events right up to moving my hand to the throttle, but
not of pushing it. It's accepted that we have to keep an event in our head,
in our short term memory, for a certain time, a certain number of seconds,
before it can be coded into a long term memory. The crash occurred just
before the memory of pushing the throttle was to become long term and
remembered. For the next 5 weeks I formed no long term memory. I'd see you
and act somewhat normal, as I had been before the crash, but if you left the
room and returned I'd have forgotten seeing you the first time.


If Wozniak says it was Bonanza that's good enough for me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> ADDENDUM:
>
> Are you referring to the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley"?
>

No, I was relying on Wozniak's statement that it was a Bonanza.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ya think it might have had an impact 4-5 years or more later?
>

How long after Munson's crash did Cessna stop making Citations? How long
after passage of GARA did Cessna resume Citation production?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ya think it might have had an impact 4-5 years or more later?
> >
>
> How long after Munson's crash did Cessna stop making Citations?

Non-sequitur. Their big ticket item could absorb a cost hit? How many cases
did they have like this one.

>How long
> after passage of GARA did Cessna resume Citation production?

Non-sequitur.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.
> >
> > http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
> >
>
> Here's a site that says it was a Bonanza:
>
> http://www.woz.org/letters/general/56.html
>
>
> It includes this question and answer:
>
> Comment from E-mail:
> 11. Do you remember the actual Plane Crash, or just heard stories? What
kind
> of Plane? When did it happen?
>
> Woz:
> I had a Beechcraft Bonanza, V-tail, single engine, turbocharged, and
crashed
> on takeoff at Skypark airport in Scotts Valley, California, on 1981.02.07.
> That airport is no longer in operation. I had 3 passengers and was flying
to
> San Diego to have my fiance's friend or relative design us a wedding ring.
I
> have memories of the events right up to moving my hand to the throttle,
but
> not of pushing it. It's accepted that we have to keep an event in our
head,
> in our short term memory, for a certain time, a certain number of seconds,
> before it can be coded into a long term memory. The crash occurred just
> before the memory of pushing the throttle was to become long term and
> remembered. For the next 5 weeks I formed no long term memory. I'd see you
> and act somewhat normal, as I had been before the crash, but if you left
the
> room and returned I'd have forgotten seeing you the first time.
>
>
> If Wozniak says it was Bonanza that's good enough for me.
>

Well, he's half right.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=27749&key=0

Woz (IIUC) still isn't "right" since that accident.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, he's half right.
>

A V-tail Bonanza is halfway between an ultralight and an A36TC?

[Bill Denton]

And I didn't make any connection between the sun coming up and the fact that
it is daytime, either.

If you simply want to argue you'll have to do it with yourself. I have
neither the time or inclination to do so...


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I did not state that Munson's crash occurred in the mid 80's.
> >
> > I stated that the slowdown occurred in the mid 80's and that the
slowdown
> > was caused in part by the Munson crash.
> >
>
> Stating it doesn't make it so. You didn't make any connection between the
> crash and the slowdown.
>
>
> >
> > We are discussing two separate
> > timeframes. As long as Munson's crash preceded the slowdown the exact
> > date of the crash is totally irrelevant.
> >
>
> Buddy Holly also died in a GA crash that preceded the slowdown. Did that
> crash also contribute to the slowdown?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you simply want to argue you'll have to do it with yourself. I have
> neither the time or inclination to do so...
>

Or the ability...

[Brad Z]

If you know her name, perhaps you could look her up on the FAA pilot
registry and find her address. Send an anonymous letter sharing your
feelings and let your conscience rest. Thank God she's not an
instructor...I hope.


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> As a matter of fact, I did make a comment about flying VFR under such
> terrible conditions, and her response was: filing IFR wouldn't have made a
> difference. In essence this is true, since the first error was not having
a
> briefing, the second was continuing her flight into IMC, while the third
> was failing to turn around immediately.
>
> As an aside, during the conversation with the people in the FBO, she said
> she was a foot and ankle surgeon in the orthopedic department at a
> prestigious medical school. However, she was unaware that I am on the
> faculty at a neighboring medical school, and know most of the members of
the
> department where she claimed she practiced. When I named some names, she
> immediately changed the subject, and didn't appear to know even the most
> prominent members of the department. I never called her on this, but
simply
> walked away- she was someone that I simply did not want to associate with
in
> any way.
>
> While I generally have better things to do, I looked up the faculty on the
> net, and as it turned out she was not an orthopedic surgeon as I
suspected,
> but in fact was a podiatrist at a suburban hospital that is loosely
> affiliated with the medical school where she claimed to practice- hardly
> what she claimed.
>
> Prior to this several pilots, instructors, and experienced mechanics tried
> to bring up how dangerous her actions were, and how lucky she was that she
> didn't get hurt seriously or killed. She simply didn't get the message,
and
> dismissed all of these comments. All of us have probably been guilty of
some
> macho bravado at times, but this was the worst case of this that I had
ever
> seen. It was either total bluster, or an example of being completely
> clueless.
>
> Regardless, this attitude, along with getting caught grossly exaggerating
> her job, gave me a lot of bad vibes. Several of us walked away rather than
> hang around listening to her conversation and encouraging her behavior.
>
> Hopefully she will hook up with someone who can give her some advice that
> she will follow and potentially save her life.
>
>

[David Megginson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.
>>
>>http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
>
> Here's a site that says it was a Bonanza:
>
> http://www.woz.org/letters/general/56.html
>
> If Wozniak says it was Bonanza that's good enough for me.

It was good enough for the NTSB as well:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=27749&key=0


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

Frode Berg wrote:
>
> This is excactly what I wrote, but off course deleting the rest of my
> sentence instead of leaving iot there makes me look like an idiot.

No, it doesn't. I'm simply saying that it's completely unimportant whether someone
gets upset at your criticism or not.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Frode Berg]

Yes, and this is also what I said in my post, only you deleted my point and
decided to only quote the first half of the sentence.

No worries though

Your flying budde,

Frode


"G.R. Patterson III" > skrev i melding
...
>
>
> Frode Berg wrote:
> >
> > This is excactly what I wrote, but off course deleting the rest of my
> > sentence instead of leaving iot there makes me look like an idiot.
>
> No, it doesn't. I'm simply saying that it's completely unimportant whether
someone
> gets upset at your criticism or not.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 at 11:28:00 in message
gers.com>, David
Megginson > wrote:
>David CL Francis wrote:
>
>> How times have changed. These men and women of the A.T.A. Delivered
>>aircraft from the factories to squadrons and to maintenance units. Not
>>quite a fair comparison as there was no suggestion of thunderstorms -
>>just poor visibility.
>
>That was bad enough. Remember that John Magee, the author of "High
>Flight," actually died not in combat, but in a midair collision with
>another British plane during low vis in quiet skies.
>
Good point. I believe there are some 600 known crash sites in the North
of England where aircraft are believed to have flown into high ground
during WW2. Around 1 in 5 Spitfire and Hurricane losses were due to
accidents and not enemy action if my memory is correct.

From one David to another
--
David CL Francis

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, he's half right.
> >
>
> A V-tail Bonanza is halfway between an ultralight and an A36TC?

Do you know the difference between a A36 and a V35? Does he?

No wonder he crashed.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >>According to my source, he crashed an Ultralight.
> >>
> >>http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wozniak/
> >
> > Here's a site that says it was a Bonanza:
> >
> > http://www.woz.org/letters/general/56.html
> >
> > If Wozniak says it was Bonanza that's good enough for me.
>
> It was good enough for the NTSB as well:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=27749&key=0
>
His site goes into how it was a V35.

As I said...no wonder he crashed.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <zAJrc.95938$iF6.8453194@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> As I was reading along, filled with the glow of remembering *my* first long
> trip, I was astounded to read that he had run a fuel tank dry on final
> approach! Almost in passing he casually mentioned that he was forced to
> quickly switch to the fullest tank, and the engine re-started. He landed
> normally.
>
> I couldn't believe that anyone could treat a complete engine failure on
> final with such utter disdain, but this very low-time pilot spoke of it as
> if this sort of thing were normal and an expected part of flying.

In writing, you can't really gain the insights you get from speaking to
someone in person (inflection, body language).

I have a confession to make - I've been there and done that, and worse
still, I was deliberately running a tank fairly low. The trouble with
the fuel tanks in my aircraft is they have a "No takeoff" zone below a
quarter of a tank. Quarter of each tank must be considered unusable for
a go-around - that's quite a lot of fuel. So on longer trips, I'd run
one tank quite low to ensure I had well over the "no takeoff" zone in
the other in case a go-around was necessary.

Well guess what, it was a nice day, and I was pretty relaxed on downwind
and ommitted to check "Select fullest tank", to switch to the other 3/4
full fuel tank. I did a touch and go. At about 150' agl on the climbout,
the fuel unported from the other tank, which was in the "No takeoff
zone". You wouldn't believe how quickly you can run an engine failure
checklist when it really happens, especially when you already have a
pretty good idea what checklist item you missed on downwind... The
engine of course came to life immediately. It was a not-so-subtle
reminder about downwind checklists even in simple planes - but from my
writing, do you get any feeling of the adrenaline rush you get when the
fan stops at 150' agl? No you don't. You have to be a fairly skilled
writer to get that across.

I expect the incident did teach the pilot a lesson (if he's normal) and
I bet his downwind checks are a lot better now.

--
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]

> And people wonder why no one can afford to fly...

Let's not perpetuate that myth here, of all places.

Anyone who can afford to buy a new Lexus can afford to fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blanche]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> And people wonder why no one can afford to fly...
>
>Let's not perpetuate that myth here, of all places.
>
>Anyone who can afford to buy a new Lexus can afford to fly.

A Lexus? I can't afford one of those! (And wouldn't drive one if
I could). I keep telling my friends that an airplane costs the same
as a car. Pick any car, you can find an airplane for that price.

Got $15K? Get a Cessna 152 or Cherokee 140.

Got $1.0 Million? Got car and airplane in that range too!

[Mike Rapoport]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It may seem odd, but this is how people often react when they have been
> > badly frightened.
>
> I bet she wasn't frightened. I know two people on my field who are
exactly
> the same way, always have been.
>
>
We have one in Minden too.

Mike
MU-2

[John Fitzpatrick]

Have to admit, I'm not sure I would be comfortable going up in a 140 that
someone bought for 15K.

John

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >> And people wonder why no one can afford to fly...
> >
> >Let's not perpetuate that myth here, of all places.
> >
> >Anyone who can afford to buy a new Lexus can afford to fly.
>
> A Lexus? I can't afford one of those! (And wouldn't drive one if
> I could). I keep telling my friends that an airplane costs the same
> as a car. Pick any car, you can find an airplane for that price.
>
> Got $15K? Get a Cessna 152 or Cherokee 140.
>
> Got $1.0 Million? Got car and airplane in that range too!
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I expect the incident did teach the pilot a lesson (if he's normal) and
> I bet his downwind checks are a lot better now.

I surely hope so.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

David CL Francis wrote:

> Good point. I believe there are some 600 known crash sites in the North
> of England where aircraft are believed to have flown into high ground
> during WW2. Around 1 in 5 Spitfire and Hurricane losses were due to
> accidents and not enemy action if my memory is correct.

I read somewhere about bomber squadrons forming up in low vis before a raid.
Often the crews wouldn't see the conflicting plane, but they'd feel the
wake turbulence and then realized that they'd survived another near miss.


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:46:05 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>I read somewhere about bomber squadrons forming up in low vis before a raid.
> Often the crews wouldn't see the conflicting plane, but they'd feel the
>wake turbulence and then realized that they'd survived another near miss.

I don't think they formed up in the clouds Dave. The British would
take off and basically head for the target in one huge stream. Bomber
Command accepted that some midair collisions would occur but the main
point was to pull the bombers together in a swarm to overwhelm the
fighter defenses by pushing too many targets for them to track
efficiently. There weren't that many German night fighters so if the
entire bomber swarm passed through the sector together, the night
fighter would not get an opportunity to attack multiple targets. They
basically took off, headed for an assembly point and turned for the
target when they reached it.

The Americans formed up during the day, often climbing out through
dense cloud (bomber pilots often said "when heading back to base, head
for the biggest cloud in the sky, England will be below it) and
breaking out on top to circle for an hour before forming up in wings
and groups all the time gaining height before heading towards their
target of the day. Sometimes bad things happened in the clouds,
sometimes bad things happened in the clear. I have a book at home
that has a photo of a group of B-24's headed straight for the nose of
the B-17 from where the photo was taken. Someone was out of place in
the crowded sky and two entire squadrons of heavy bombers passed right
through each other head on. No collisions that time, but there must
have been a few tightly puckered pilots.

Corky Scott

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> There weren't that many German night fighters so if the
> entire bomber swarm passed through the sector together,
> the night fighter would not get an opportunity to attack
> multiple targets. They basically took off, headed for an
> assembly point and turned for the
> target when they reached it.

You sure about that? I thought the Brit bombers attacked in a "bomber
stream" rather than any kind of group formation.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[John Gaquin]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message news:O%....

>She did not seem at all concerned with how
> close she had come to a serious event,

>......did not care how close she came to getting killed
> yesterday......how cavalier an attitude she
> had toward flying, and how close she had come to crashing.
>
> she had nearly killed herself,

Just how close, exactly, did she come, Doc? What did you see? Or was she
flying with substantially less safety factor than standard?

We all know people who scud-run, and the fact is that some of them show a
skill level inversely proportional to their apparent judgement. But if
we're to discuss such things rationally, we have to avoid the emotional
arguments and melodramatic statements.

[David Megginson]

Dan Luke wrote:

>>There weren't that many German night fighters so if the
>>entire bomber swarm passed through the sector together,
>>the night fighter would not get an opportunity to attack
>>multiple targets. They basically took off, headed for an
>>assembly point and turned for the
>>target when they reached it.
>
> You sure about that? I thought the Brit bombers attacked in a "bomber
> stream" rather than any kind of group formation.

I'm not sure about the British, but the American bombers flying out of the
UK used a box formation -- I think it was three levels high -- and that
requires a fair bit of choreography to set up. In any case, there are many
gradations of visibility between inside a cloud and severe clear.

In THE FOG OF WAR, Robert McNamara talks about how he worked as a
statistician for General Curtis LeMay when LeMay was in charge of the Flying
Fortresses out of the U.K. in 1943. After having too many planes abort
missions because of faulty oxygen systems, engine problems, etc. LeMay
(according to McNamara) declared that the next crew who turned back for any
reason would be court-martialed. That's a strong disincentive for turning
back just because the visibility is low.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

John Gaquin wrote:

>>......did not care how close she came to getting killed
>>yesterday......how cavalier an attitude she
>>had toward flying, and how close she had come to crashing.
>>
>>she had nearly killed herself,
>
> Just how close, exactly, did she come, Doc? What did you see? Or was she
> flying with substantially less safety factor than standard?
>
> We all know people who scud-run, and the fact is that some of them show a
> skill level inversely proportional to their apparent judgement. But if
> we're to discuss such things rationally, we have to avoid the emotional
> arguments and melodramatic statements.

If this is still the original thread, then the original poster mentioned
that she had tree-branch damage to her wing and wingtip. If that's
accurate, it's a fairly objective measurement of how close she came. She
also stated that she had been considering a precautionary landing in a field
in low visibility before she spotted the airport.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Have to admit, I'm not sure I would be comfortable going up in a 140 that
> someone bought for 15K.

I'm sure that I would *not* be real comfortable in a 152 that someone got that cheap.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Viperdoc]

I saw her emerge from the clouds when the weather was below localizer mins.
She personally stated that she was completely lost, unable to control the
plane, and was contemplating landing in a field when she stumbled across the
airport.

I would also say that flying through a thunderstorm VFR when the ceilings
were below localizer mins and scud running low enough to damage a wing tip
by hitting a tree would count in my book as coming pretty close to getting
killed.

You can draw your own conclusions as to whether her actions were rational
and demonstrated good judgment.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Gaquin wrote:
>
> Just how close, exactly, did she come, Doc?

Sounds to me like within about 5 feet.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Jay Beckman]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> I'm not sure about the British, but the American bombers flying out of the
> UK used a box formation -- I think it was three levels high -- and that
> requires a fair bit of choreography to set up. In any case, there are
many
> gradations of visibility between inside a cloud and severe clear.
>
> In THE FOG OF WAR, Robert McNamara talks about how he worked as a
> statistician for General Curtis LeMay when LeMay was in charge of the
Flying
> Fortresses out of the U.K. in 1943. After having too many planes abort
> missions because of faulty oxygen systems, engine problems, etc. LeMay
> (according to McNamara) declared that the next crew who turned back for
any
> reason would be court-martialed. That's a strong disincentive for turning
> back just because the visibility is low.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

Pour engourage les autres...

Jay B

[Capt.Doug]

>"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
> Why not just report her flying to your local FSDO?
> This is exactly the sort of "bad apple" person that gives the rest of us a
> bad name. She's not doing any of us any favors with her attitude, and I
> don't see why anyone would do her any favors by not turning her in.

It's not neccessarily about doing her a favor. If someone called the FAA
safety hotline, what would happen? Do you think there is enough of a case
for a successful prosecution? I doubt it. All that would likely happen is
that her attitude would become more cavalier because she beat the Feds at
their game.

D.

[John Gaquin]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message

> I saw her emerge from the clouds when the weather was below localizer
mins.

.....typically around 500 to 600 feet. I know people who flew for years
without exceeding three digits of altitude. Not inherently dangerous. That
is fact.

By your own description of her arrival, the woman apparently is quite
skilled. Another fact.

> She personally stated that she was completely lost, unable to control the
> plane,

Now you're ratcheting things up. This is a degree of information not
included in your first post. Lost she may well have been, but clearly able
to control her craft, as you described her arrival.

> .......scud running low enough to damage a wing tip
> by hitting a tree

You don't know this to be fact. All you know is what someone else told you.
And that persons interpretation was that she first noticed said damage as
she was departing. But, if the damage had not noticably affected flight
characteristics (which apparently it did not), and this woman habitually
operated in the manner you observed, it is entirely possible the damage
occurred on a prior flight and went unnoticed. We simply do not know.


> You can draw your own conclusions as to whether her actions were rational
> and demonstrated good judgment.

I never once suggested they were either. In fact, my opinion is the
opposite. I used to fly a 402 commuter years ago when you could still get a
Special VFR to get into some pretty scuzzy places without having to fly the
full approach. Having actually done it, I do *not* condone this type of
flying. It shaves your safety margin to a very thin point. But I also
recognize that it is not inherently a near-death experience.

My only point was, and is, that in serious discussions we should stick to
facts, and avoid drama.

[Peter Duniho]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> It's not neccessarily about doing her a favor. If someone called the FAA
> safety hotline, what would happen? Do you think there is enough of a case
> for a successful prosecution? I doubt it. All that would likely happen is
> that her attitude would become more cavalier because she beat the Feds at
> their game.

That's baloney. First of all, from the description given, there were plenty
of witnesses to make a case, plus there's going to be a record of the damage
to the plane. Secondly, so what if this particular case isn't the one that
gets her? Unless people are willing to report irresponsible piloting like
that, the FSDO never has a chance to even start building a case.

As for her attitude becoming "more cavalier", I can't imagine how it could
be any more cavalier than it already is. Just how much worse could she
possibly get? She's already nearly killed herself, running the plane into
something in flight. Any more cavalier, and she won't be a problem because
she WILL be dead.

Pete

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:30:10 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> It may seem odd, but this is how people often react when they have been
>> badly frightened.
>
>I bet she wasn't frightened. I know two people on my field who are exactly
>the same way, always have been.

I guess that's the way I was after totaling my Trans Am. Kid pulled
out and I took the GMC Jimmy broad side. I never was scared. I
didn't have time to be. He came shooting out, I hit the brakes and we
hit. I heard the bang from the airbags and the next thing I knew I
could feel the car spinning. Couldn't see a thing for all the smoke
and dust from the powder in the airbags.

I never was scared nor did I get the shakes afterwards, but man was I
punchy.

As far as the talkativeness, I've always been that way so no one would
know the difference.

When the Deb's engine quit on climbout I went on autopilot. Mine, not
the airplanes. I certainly had a heightened sense of awareness, but I
don't think fear played much of a part.

What I don't understand is why some one would be frustrated seeing
some one else doing something foolish.

Every day I see people not eating right, eating too much, and not
exercising which is probably just as dangerous as scud running and I'm
not condoning either one. I just don't get excited until the dirt and
parts start flying. Then it bothers me more to see some ones else in
a wreck than when it was me. I was busy helping on the scene when
some one happened to ask, "Man, Who was in that car?". I raised my
had and said "here". One paramedic immediately asked me what day is
it? I replied, "How the hell would I know? I'm retired!". He said,
"You're OK".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:37:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> It was a very frustrating situation- she had nearly killed herself,
>> apparently knew why it had happened, and seemed to think this was a normal
>> activity of flying (let alone damaging her 1997 Bonanza A-36)
>
>Last week, on another aviation forum, a new pilot was happily relating his
>first successful cross country flight with his family -- a 500 mile trip
>that took him into some complex airspace on the East coast of the U.S.
>
>As I was reading along, filled with the glow of remembering *my* first long
>trip, I was astounded to read that he had run a fuel tank dry on final
>approach! Almost in passing he casually mentioned that he was forced to
>quickly switch to the fullest tank, and the engine re-started. He landed
>normally.
>
>I couldn't believe that anyone could treat a complete engine failure on
>final with such utter disdain, but this very low-time pilot spoke of it as

Haven't had one *yet* huh? <:-))

Been there and done that. Do a lot of traveling and even using check
lists you are likely to forget to switch one of these days.

I did it practicing approaches with an instructor.

We had been flying for several hours and I had switched to the aux
tanks for the trip back from GDW to MBS. We did the ILS, the
published missed and hold, then another ILS. On the missed the engine
quit instantly. No rough running or losing power, it suddenly quit.

It was a reflex action to reach for the tank switch, but over in the
right seat I was hearing, "Left tank Rog! Left tank!", but by the time
he got out the first "left" I had already switched.

It wasn't enough to even raise the adrenalin levels, yet on the way
back to the hold, the instructor said (in his gravely voice and I wish
I could convey the emphasis in writing). "Man.... Was that a rush or
what?"

>if this sort of thing were normal and an expected part of flying. It was no
>greater part of his story than his description of the FBO's on-field
>restaurant.

If all I had to do was reach for the tank switch I wouldn't get
excited. I might berate myself for forgetting to switch, but that
would be it. Now if the other tank was already low that would be a
different story as I'm paranoid about carrying plenty of fuel for any
trip. I rarely go any where without topping off the tanks and I
carry 5 1/2 hours worth. I will set down when I get near one hour
left even if only a half hour from my destination.

The only trip I can recall where I took off with less than full tanks
was with about half fuel and that was from Jefco loaded to gross for
the density altitude.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>I guess some people are just less risk averse than others?

[Cub Driver]

>The Americans formed up during the day, often climbing out through
>dense cloud

One of the more famous paragraphs that Stephen Ambrose stole from
Thomas Childers had to do with this:

"Up, up, up he went, until he got above the clouds. No amount of
practice could have prepared the pilot and crew for what they
encountered--B-24s, glittering like mica, were popping up out of the
clouds over here, over there, everywhere."

http://www.warbirdforum.com/copycat.htm

They may not have FORMED UP in the cloud, but they had plenty of
opportunities to collide on their way to the formup.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:03:40 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>In THE FOG OF WAR, Robert McNamara talks about

This video has been recommended to me. Is it worth seeing? (I'm not
interested in a Michael Moore screed. I get all that stuff I can stand
on the local cocktail party circuit.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, John Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Have to admit, I'm not sure I would be comfortable going up in a 140 that
> someone bought for 15K.

I own a quarter share in a Schleicher Ka-8 glider that was bought a
couple of years ago for eqiv. US $6K. It is in absolutely mint
condition. We also just bought a Ka-7 for equiv. US $2500 which is in
good condition.

I spent a very fun hour and a half setting a minor unofficial Manx altitude
record in the Ka-8 on Sunday.

Flying doesn't have to be outrageously expensive - there are many ways
to afford flying on even a modest income.

--
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"

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 16:21:20 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

> wrote:
>> There weren't that many German night fighters so if the
>> entire bomber swarm passed through the sector together,
>> the night fighter would not get an opportunity to attack
>> multiple targets. They basically took off, headed for an
>> assembly point and turned for the
>> target when they reached it.
>
>You sure about that? I thought the Brit bombers attacked in a "bomber
>stream" rather than any kind of group formation.
>--
>Dan

Please read what I said again Dan. I'm not claiming that they flew a
formation, what I said was that they took off and headed for an
assembly point, then turned for the target. The bombers all had to
head for the assembly point so that the swarm/stream could get into
the same flight path. If they did not do this, the bomber stream
would be greatly dispersed.

Perhaps assembly point is a poor term, use "initial point" or "turn
in" point instead and perhaps you'll see what I mean. They did not
actually "assemble" at the turning point, they just used it as a
navigation aid to locate where they were and turn to the target
heading, or the initial navigation point towards their target. Each
bomber did this individually and flew individually climbing as they
left their airfield.

So they weren't forming a formation, not in the sense of the US
daylight bombing, they were just arriving at this point and turning to
the target. From then on until they had the target in sight, each
individual bomber was responsible for it's own navigation. They often
could see other bombers in decent weather, and obviously could also
see each other being shot down.

During the bombing raid on Nuremburg in 1944, the weather was crystal
clear above a low cloud layer and the moon was bright. The bombers
stuck out like they were flying during the day. The Germans happened
to have numerous fighters orbiting several radio beacons directly in
the line of flight and once they released the fighters to engage, the
German pilots had little trouble finding targets. So bright was the
night that the Wild Sau (undirected single seat fighters, as opposed
to twin engine radar guided night fighters) figured prominantly in the
nights activities. Nearly 100 bombers were shot down.

Corky Scott

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's not neccessarily about doing her a favor. If someone called the FAA
> > safety hotline, what would happen? Do you think there is enough of a
case
> > for a successful prosecution? I doubt it. All that would likely happen
is
> > that her attitude would become more cavalier because she beat the Feds
at
> > their game.
>
> That's baloney. First of all, from the description given, there were
plenty
> of witnesses to make a case, plus there's going to be a record of the
damage
> to the plane. Secondly, so what if this particular case isn't the one
that
> gets her? Unless people are willing to report irresponsible piloting like
> that, the FSDO never has a chance to even start building a case.
>
> As for her attitude becoming "more cavalier", I can't imagine how it could
> be any more cavalier than it already is. Just how much worse could she
> possibly get? She's already nearly killed herself, running the plane into
> something in flight. Any more cavalier, and she won't be a problem
because
> she WILL be dead.
>
> Pete


Then again we have only heard one side of the story. Sure would be
interesting to hear the other side. It's funny how things change once both
sides have their chance to speak..

[David Megginson]

Cub Driver wrote:

>>In THE FOG OF WAR, Robert McNamara talks about
>
> This video has been recommended to me. Is it worth seeing? (I'm not
> interested in a Michael Moore screed. I get all that stuff I can stand
> on the local cocktail party circuit.)

Yes, THE FOG OF WAR is the kind of documentary that *should* have won a
Palme d'Or. Try to see it in a theatre if you can -- I was trembling when I
walked out, and I'm not easily moved or impressed by documentaries.


All the best,


David

[Paul Sengupta]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
> I read somewhere about bomber squadrons forming up in low vis before a
raid.
> Often the crews wouldn't see the conflicting plane, but they'd feel the
> wake turbulence and then realized that they'd survived another near miss.

Time Team (programme on TV here in the UK) had an archeological
dig of a site where two B17s collided in cloud...or rather of where they
ended up in the ground.

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/archive/reedham.html

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> As for her attitude becoming "more cavalier", I can't imagine how it could
> be any more cavalier than it already is. Just how much worse could she
> possibly get? She's already nearly killed herself, running the plane into
> something in flight. Any more cavalier, and she won't be a problem
because
> she WILL be dead.

Well, she did recogise that she should get on the ground ASAP
and landed when and where she did.

Paul

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> What I don't understand is why some one would be frustrated seeing
> some one else doing something foolish.
>
> Every day I see people not eating right, eating too much, and not
> exercising which is probably just as dangerous as scud running and I'm
> not condoning either one.

The difference being that they are much less likely to kill someone else
while engaging in those dangerous activities, and they won't be used against
the rest of us pilots to "prove" to the public that flying is too dangerous
to be allowed to happen without even more regulation.

Pete

[Jay Beckman]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> . rogers.com...
> > I read somewhere about bomber squadrons forming up in low vis before a
> raid.
> > Often the crews wouldn't see the conflicting plane, but they'd feel
the
> > wake turbulence and then realized that they'd survived another near
miss.
>
> Time Team (programme on TV here in the UK) had an archeological
> dig of a site where two B17s collided in cloud...or rather of where they
> ended up in the ground.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/archive/reedham.html
>
> Paul
>
>

Paul,

Can't immeadiately recall if it's our Discovery Channel or History Channel
but that series is being re-packaged/re-aired over on this side of the pond.

I saw that particular episode ... very good stuff.

Jay B

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Paul Sengupta wrote:
> Time Team (programme on TV here in the UK) had an archeological
> dig of a site where two B17s collided in cloud...or rather of where they
> ended up in the ground.

A B-17 collided with the Isle of Man during the war. They were cruising
at about 1200' MSL over the Irish Sea, and someone forgot about the big
rock in the middle and they slammed into the side of North Barrule.

--
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"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you know the difference between a A36 and a V35?
>

Yes. Do you know the difference between a V35 and an ultralight?


>
> Does he?
>

You'd have to ask him.

[Viperdoc]

I would argue the point that an individual who flies VFR in IMC is a
skillful pilot. Most pilots would suggest that flying in IMC and being lost
in a thunderstorm do not demonstrate good judgment or skill.

She stated that it was so difficult to control the plane that she couldn't
take her hands off the yoke to hit the "nearest" button on her GPS to find
the closest airport. I do not think this demonstrates a high level of
proficiency or judgment.

I spoke with our mechanic today- the plane had tree bark and leaves embedded
in the wingtip and leading edge. This to me would suggest that at some point
in time she had hit a tree.

These are the facts of the post- if you do not believe that these events
brought this individual close to killing herself so be it.

[Bob Chilcoat]

Reminds me of Francis Chichester running into Australia in one of the BOC
Challenge "Around the World Alone" sailing races. He was asleep below decks
and just ran into Australia. "Damn, who put that there!?"

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul Sengupta
wrote:
> > Time Team (programme on TV here in the UK) had an archeological
> > dig of a site where two B17s collided in cloud...or rather of where they
> > ended up in the ground.
>
> A B-17 collided with the Isle of Man during the war. They were cruising
> at about 1200' MSL over the Irish Sea, and someone forgot about the big
> rock in the middle and they slammed into the side of North Barrule.
>
> --
> 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"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Do you know the difference between a A36 and a V35?
> >
>
> Yes. Do you know the difference between a V35 and an ultralight?

Yes, but evidently the website creator doesn't.

> >
> > Does he?
> >
>
> You'd have to ask him.

Let's see. You quote the PILOT who didn't know what kind of plane he was
flying. I mention a website saying otherwise. Both the PILOT and the WEBSITE
were wrong.

For me it was a curiosity; for you evidently a near-religious experience.

Is your ego that fragile that you have to come back like a grade-schooler,
Steven? You've demonstrated a well versed knowledge in here and I tend have
more respect for you than that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's see. You quote the PILOT who didn't know what kind of plane he
> was flying. I mention a website saying otherwise. Both the PILOT and
> the WEBSITE were wrong.
>

You quoted a website that said it was an ultralight. I quoted the pilot who
said it was a Bonanza. Was it an ultralight or was it a Bonanza?


>
> For me it was a curiosity; for you evidently a near-religious experience.
>

?


>
> Is your ego that fragile that you have to come back like a grade-schooler,
> Steven?
>

No more than you.


>
> You've demonstrated a well versed knowledge in here and I tend have
> more respect for you than that.
>

Are your smart-ass comments supposed to be a sign of respect?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

Not at all weighing in on the current thread, but this comment is suitable
for a tagline:

> Are your smart-ass comments supposed to be a sign of respect?

[Capt.Doug]

>"Peter Duniho" wrote in message > That's baloney. First of all, from the
>description given, there were plenty
> of witnesses to make a case, plus there's going to be a record of the
damage
> to the plane.

Heresay....
From the description given, the only charge that might stick would be flying
an unairworthy aircraft and performing an improper pre-flight, depending on
the extent of damage the wing actually has. Then again, her legal counsel
could claim it was a bird strike (no matter that the bird was still in a
tree).

> Secondly, so what if this particular case isn't the one that
> gets her? Unless people are willing to report irresponsible piloting like
> that, the FSDO never has a chance to even start building a case.

And, perhaps the pilot likes to pander to the over-reacting personalities
for entertainment. The equivilant in a newsgroup would be a troll. Do we
call the authorities for everyone who trolls this group?

> As for her attitude becoming "more cavalier", I can't imagine how it could
> be any more cavalier than it already is. Just how much worse could she
> possibly get? She's already nearly killed herself, running the plane into
> something in flight. Any more cavalier, and she won't be a problem
>because she WILL be dead.

An enforcement action will change her ways. NOT!
She will likely continue to fly with a suspended certificate. Doctors and
Bonanzas- 'nuff said.

Face it- You weren't there. You can surmise all you want, but you weren't
there. I'll repeat this again for you-

WE NEVER TAKE OUR PROBLEMS TO THE FAA. THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS OF THEIR
OWN.

D.

[John Gaquin]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message

> I would argue the point that an individual who flies VFR in IMC is a
> skillful pilot. Most pilots would suggest that flying in IMC and being
lost
> in a thunderstorm do not demonstrate good judgment or skill.
>
> She stated that it was so difficult to control the plane that she couldn't
> take her hands off the yoke to hit the "nearest" button on her GPS to find
> the closest airport. I do not think this demonstrates a high level of
> proficiency or judgment.


I repeat, yet again, that I have never suggested this woman displayed good
judgement. You seem to want to mix judgement and skill, implying that
because this woman displayed poor judgement, she was unskilled. To be
objective regarding aviation, you have to learn to recognize the difference
between judgement and skill. The two are necessary and complimentary in a
good aviator, but are in no way inextricably mixed. I have known pilots of
remarkable skill and astoundingly poor judgement. Their poor judgement,
although lamentable, never reduced their ability to smoothly and accurately
place their craft exactly where they wanted it in time and space. I have
also known people of impressive intellectual judgement without the skills to
push a wheelbarrow. (Fortunately, none of the latter were pilots.)

>
> I spoke with our mechanic today- the plane had tree bark and leaves
embedded
> in the wingtip and leading edge. This to me would suggest that at some
point
> in time she had hit a tree.

Exactly right -- at some point in time she hit some branches.

> These are the facts of the post- if you do not believe that these events
> brought this individual close to killing herself so be it.

Well, one fact and two opinions. In any event, she may have been close.
Possibly close. Maybe even probably close. But neither you nor I know that
as fact.

[Peter Duniho]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Face it- You weren't there. You can surmise all you want, but you weren't
> there.

It's all we have to go on. We are discussing, if you like, a hypothetical
situation, the details of which have been specifically laid out for us. You
have no more authority to say she should NOT have been turned in than I have
to say that she SHOULD have been.

> I'll repeat this again for you-
>
> WE NEVER TAKE OUR PROBLEMS TO THE FAA. THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS OF THEIR
> OWN.

Repeat what? Your all-caps shouting is a completely different issue, and I
vehemently disagree with your position. That's exactly the kind of asinine
"protect our own" attitude that I'm talking about.

I'm not proposing that I, a person that wasn't there and knows nothing
first-hand about the incident, turn her in. I'm proposing the person with
first-hand knowledge of what happened turn her in.

A lot of the problems we have as members of the general aviation community
are caused by a few people who screw it up for the rest of us. And as long
as we sit on our hands and protect those idiots, we have only ourselves to
blame.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

Thanks, David. I'll put it in the queue :)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:00:52 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>>In THE FOG OF WAR, Robert McNamara talks about
>>
>> This video has been recommended to me. Is it worth seeing? (I'm not
>> interested in a Michael Moore screed. I get all that stuff I can stand
>> on the local cocktail party circuit.)
>
>Yes, THE FOG OF WAR is the kind of documentary that *should* have won a
>Palme d'Or. Try to see it in a theatre if you can -- I was trembling when I
>walked out, and I'm not easily moved or impressed by documentaries.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>
>A B-17 collided with the Isle of Man during the war.

I wonder how many men died in WWII in collisions by flying into
terrain or buildings?

The most famous one in the U.S. was the B-25 that flew into the Empire
State Building. That would have been the summer of 1945, I think.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >A B-17 collided with the Isle of Man during the war.
>
> I wonder how many men died in WWII in collisions by flying into
> terrain or buildings?
>
> The most famous one in the U.S. was the B-25 that flew into the Empire
> State Building. That would have been the summer of 1945, I think.
>

Yup, July 28th.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm

http://www.cosmik.com/aa-april02/dj82.html (Watch out for Ad pop-ups, but it
is the more in depth article)

[Capt.Doug]

>"Peter Duniho" wrote in message > It's all we have to go on. We are
>discussing, if you like, a hypothetical
> situation, the details of which have been specifically laid out for us.
You
> have no more authority to say she should NOT have been turned in than I
>have to say that she SHOULD have been.

Do we have all the details? If all the details were laid out, I would be
inclined to think as you do. However, I want to hear the other side to make
sure all the details are laid out.

> Repeat what? Your all-caps shouting is a completely different issue, and
I
> vehemently disagree with your position. That's exactly the kind of
asinine
> "protect our own" attitude that I'm talking about.

It's assinine, until someone does it to you for reasons you think are
assinine. Remember Mr. Bob Hoover?

> I'm not proposing that I, a person that wasn't there and knows nothing
> first-hand about the incident, turn her in. I'm proposing the person with
> first-hand knowledge of what happened turn her in.

First-hand knowledge? Who else was in the plane with her? Witnesses on the
ground tend to be unreliable with their testimony, even if they have a
pilot's certificate.

>A lot of the problems we have as members of the general aviation >community
> are caused by a few people who screw it up for the rest of us. And as
long
> as we sit on our hands and protect those idiots, we have only ourselves to
> blame.

Agreed. However, instead of sitting on our hands, I advocate inducing peer
pressure. When the original poster stated that he just turned away after
surmising that the pilot was hopeless, I was dissappointed. I have had
excellent results by applying peer pressure. It can be in the form of a
gentile discussion or a rowdy in-your-face emotional confrontation,
depending on the method that seems appropiate at the time. The results are
far better than the snide snears given out when someone threatens to tattle
to the FAA.

D.

[Peter Duniho]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> It's assinine, until someone does it to you for reasons you think are
> assinine. Remember Mr. Bob Hoover?

Right, the old "Bob Hoover" argument. Apparently you've forgotten that no
one turned Hoover in. The FAA people who went after him did so on their own
initiative.

In any case, I'm not suggesting that someone turn someone in when they've
done nothing wrong. The problem with the Hoover case wasn't that the FAA
exercised zeal in prosecuting the case. It's that they were prosecuting a
bogus case.

Frankly, if you really think that Hoover's case has anything to do with
this, it's clear you really don't understand what I'm talking about.

By the way, the word is spelled "asinine".

> Agreed. However, instead of sitting on our hands, I advocate inducing peer
> pressure. When the original poster stated that he just turned away after
> surmising that the pilot was hopeless, I was dissappointed.

Peer pressure is well and good in the situations where a) the person
providing the pressure has the courage to confront a complete stranger face
to face, and b) the complete stranger has the inclination to actually listen
and change their behavior as a result. Either of those conditions are
unusual enough, and to find them at the same time is very rare.

> [...] The results are
> far better than the snide snears given out when someone threatens to
tattle
> to the FAA.

I'm not suggesting threatening to "tattle to the FAA". I'm suggesting
actually *doing* it.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Flying doesn't have to be outrageously expensive - there are many ways
> to afford flying on even a modest income.

This is my gospel, Dylan -- I preach it everywhere I go.

I am sick to death of people pronouncing that flying is "unaffordable."
That's just a cop-out used by failing businesses to explain why they don't
have any customers.

Compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap -- period. If
you can afford a new car -- and tens of millions can -- you can easily
afford to fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap -- period. If
> you can afford a new car -- and tens of millions can -- you can easily
> afford to fly.

I don't think you can really describe it as "cheap". If you rent, and
pinch your pennies, it can be affordable, but not "cheap". Not everyone
lives in Iowa.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Honeck]

> > Compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap -- period.
If
> > you can afford a new car -- and tens of millions can -- you can easily
> > afford to fly.
>
> I don't think you can really describe it as "cheap". If you rent, and
> pinch your pennies, it can be affordable, but not "cheap". Not everyone
> lives in Iowa.

I said "compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap" -- which
is a whole different thing than saying "flying is cheap."

Everything is relative. Compared to golfing in Scotland, or owning a 42
foot yacht, flying is DIRT cheap. Compared to bowling, it's pretty spendy.

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

[Mark McNally]

In article <TLrtc.8088$n_6.4236@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> > Compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap -- period.
> If
>> > you can afford a new car -- and tens of millions can -- you can easily
>> > afford to fly.
>>
>> I don't think you can really describe it as "cheap". If you rent, and
>> pinch your pennies, it can be affordable, but not "cheap". Not everyone
>> lives in Iowa.
>
> I said "compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap" -- which
> is a whole different thing than saying "flying is cheap."
>
> Everything is relative. Compared to golfing in Scotland, or owning a 42
> foot yacht, flying is DIRT cheap. Compared to bowling, it's pretty spendy.

Compared to many recreational activities, flying is expensive.
Everything is relative. Compared to golfing on my computer (Tiger Woods
2004), playing soccer with friends, watching TV, flying is INCREDIBLY
expensive. Okay, never mind me! Point made by the original poster - if
you can afford a new car, and indeed tens of millions can, you can
easily afford to fly and that's the truth!

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:17:53 GMT, Mark McNally
> wrote:

>Point made by the original poster - if
>you can afford a new car, and indeed tens of millions can, you can
>easily afford to fly and that's the truth!

I can afford to fly, barely. I really can't afford to go anywhere
using the rental so I'm limited to just wafting around the local
countryside. Fun, but limiting.

I'll have to wait till I get my homebuilt finished and the time flown
off to be able to afford to go somewhere without having to rob a bank
to pay for it.

I can't imagine how much that Polish guy paid for the rental 172 he
flew across the US and back.

Corky Scott

[Jay Honeck]

> I can afford to fly, barely. I really can't afford to go anywhere
> using the rental so I'm limited to just wafting around the local
> countryside. Fun, but limiting.

Yeah, it's a funny thing about flying. Renting is sooo expensive "per trip"
that you always think twice before going anywhere.

*Buying*, on the other hand, is sooo expensive up-front -- way more
expensive then renting -- but then you tend to forget all about it after the
initial pain. Because of this financial amnesia, you fly a heckuva lot
more, simply because the "per-trip" cost is so low -- really just the cost
of gas.

Either way you cut it, if you took the amount you'd put into buying a new
2004 Toyota, you could buy a really nice little Cessna 150 and fly the pants
off of it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Viperdoc wrote:
> I would argue the point that an individual who flies VFR in IMC is a
> skillful pilot. Most pilots would suggest that flying in IMC and being lost
> in a thunderstorm do not demonstrate good judgment or skill.

Skill and judgement are different things. I've known pilots with a high
level of physical skill sometimes display an appalling lack of good
judgement.

If you fly often enough, sometime you (the generic you, as in y'all in
the newsgroup, not the original poster) may have a serious lapse of
judgement which you ask yourself sometime after the fact, "Why did I do
THAT!?" and which you'd be critical of someone else if you'd see them do
it. Sometimes we do have sudden losses of judgement.

It's common practise at many airports to be reading through something
like NTSB Reporter, or a flying mag with some coverage of aviation
accidents with other pilots, and all be commenting how "We'd never do
THAT". Then some months/years later do precisely that. I know pilots who
generally always show good jugement and skill once load a plane aft of
the CofG envelope and have a bloody good scare from it. I know pilots
who otherwise show good judgement to paint themselves into a corner with
the weather. I know pilots who otherwise show good judgement
accidentally run a fuel tank dry because they neglected a normal
downwind check. You can't just think "I normally display good judgement,
therefore I'll never be in the NTSB reports because of X", because one
day your human fallibility will get you. You have to ALWAYS be on your
guard for your *own* judgement failings because eventually, you'll make
a stupid/bad judgement call. Every pilot I know who has 1000 hours or
more has made at least one self-inflicted bad-judgement error. Most have
lived to tell the tale with no bent metal - but before they made that
error, they'd never have believed it'd be them who made that dumb,
stupid mistake. Every airport is teeming with "I learned about flying
from that" stories that people have acquired from their own lack of
judgement one day, even if they are the person who normally displays
excellent airmanship.

None of us are immune from making stupid mistakes, even grossly stupid
ones that we though we'd never make because we are "better than that" -
most of the time we are, but sudden loss of judgement happens, and
occasionally you need that superior skill to get yourself out of a
stupid position you put yourself in in the first place.

--
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"

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Good for you, Jay! I get so tired of hearing folks whine about my airplanes
when they drive up in their $40,000 SUVs whose insurance is more each year
than our two taildraggers combined. I don't work and my husband doesn't make
a six figure salary, but we manage to fly about 300 hours a year together.

It's all about priorities. I have noticed, too, that some pilots will not
fly unless they are flying the newest, the best, or the fastest.
Consequently, these are airplanes few can afford. Let them stay on the
ground. I don't mind puttering over their heads ;-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bXntc.7031$n_6.5671@attbi_s53...
> > Flying doesn't have to be outrageously expensive - there are many ways
> > to afford flying on even a modest income.
>
> This is my gospel, Dylan -- I preach it everywhere I go.
>
> I am sick to death of people pronouncing that flying is "unaffordable."
> That's just a cop-out used by failing businesses to explain why they don't
> have any customers.
>
> Compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap -- period. If
> you can afford a new car -- and tens of millions can -- you can easily
> afford to fly.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article <5SGtc.58$3x.29@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> *Buying*, on the other hand, is sooo expensive up-front -- way more
> expensive then renting -- but then you tend to forget all about it after the
> initial pain.

When you own the economics change hugely. All the costs are incremental
in renting, where as only a small fraction of the cost is incremental
when you own. I found during the ownership of the C140, most of the
costs - including many maintenance costs - were fixed and you paid them
whether you flew 10 hours a year or 300 hours a year. The vast majority
of the annual inspection was the actual bits that had to be done whether
you flew the plane or not. The hangar fees still had to be paid, the
insurance still had to be paid etc.

That meant that flying an additional hour was very cheap, mainly fuel, a
little for oil, and a little for maintenance reserve. Instead of
thinking 'It's going to cost $BIGNUM to fly another hour' as you do with
a rental, it was 'I'm going to have to pay $BIGNUM per year anyway, and
it only costs $SMALLNUM to fly an additional hour. Let's go flying.' I
flew three times as many hours as an owner compared to renting.

--
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 <5SGtc.58$3x.29@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Either way you cut it, if you took the amount you'd put into buying a new
> 2004 Toyota, you could buy a really nice little Cessna 150 and fly the pants
> off it

.... especially when you consider the depreciation on that Toyota, which
you just don't have with a C150 of the same price.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Martin Hotze wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Everything is relative. Compared to golfing in Scotland, or owning a 42
>> foot yacht, flying is DIRT cheap. Compared to bowling, it's pretty spendy.
>
>
> what do you know about the costs of golfing in Scotland?

If you live 4,000 miles away, it's quite expensive to stay in a hotel,
airfares etc. to go golfing in Scotland, especially on a frequent basis.

Even for me, flying is cheaper than regular golfing holidays in
Scotland. Good job I don't play golf really!

--
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]

> Good for you, Jay! I get so tired of hearing folks whine about my
airplanes
> when they drive up in their $40,000 SUVs whose insurance is more each year
> than our two taildraggers combined. I don't work and my husband doesn't
make
> a six figure salary, but we manage to fly about 300 hours a year together.

I wish there was a better way to communicate this fact.

One main impediment is that pilots seem to *want* everyone to think that
they are rich, powerful, exclusive fly-boys. I suppose this is only human
nature, but it really is counter-productive when we're trying to keep a
dying breed alive.

G.A. will not survive without young people getting involved. All you have
to do is look at the pictures from Pinckneyville (and Oshkosh, and Sun N
Fun) to see a whole lot of gray (and, ahem, balding) heads in the photos.
Where are the young folks?

Spread the Word -- flying is cheap! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article <TLrtc.8088$n_6.4236@attbi_s53>,
>I said "compared to many recreational activities, flying is cheap" -- which
>is a whole different thing than saying "flying is cheap."
>
>Everything is relative. Compared to golfing in Scotland, or owning a 42
>foot yacht, flying is DIRT cheap. Compared to bowling, it's pretty spendy.

I'm a full time student, and for me flying is not cheap. In fact I took
out student loans to get my PPL. A lot of guys my age (29) are getting
married and having kids. If you make ~$25-35k/yr and have a family,
flying is really sort of out of the question for most people.
I think that flying is more affordable than most people think, but
clearly running a FBO or aviation school is difficult because it's based
on ones discretionary income. How to make a small fortune in aviation and
all that :)
Here in Seattle renting is pretty price. Local clubs charge as much as
$100/hr for a C152. Plus housing isn't cheap so that's less money for
flying. etc. etc.
Most people can not by a 42ft yacht either thou :)

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eqVtc.16324$n_6.1632@attbi_s53...
>
> Spread the Word -- flying is cheap! :-)

Depends where you are. Here it is $270 a month just for tie down.

The entry fee is steep. I heard the average lately around here is 100 TT to
a private. I believe the least expensive 172 is $105 an hour (plus 8.75%
tax) and the instructors are $45 an hour (too bad they don't get most of
that). Plus the time involvement, rescheduling incessantly for poor
weather, and unavailability of planes (the $130 an hour ones are more
available).

Around here is *not* the ideal place to learn to fly.

[Jay Honeck]

> Here in Seattle renting is pretty price. Local clubs charge as much as
> $100/hr for a C152.

$100 per hour for a clapped out old 152?

Good God, man, you can BUY a 152 for about $150 per MONTH, with a couple of
grand down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eqVtc.16324$n_6.1632@attbi_s53...
>
> G.A. will not survive without young people getting involved. All you
have
> to do is look at the pictures from Pinckneyville (and Oshkosh, and Sun N
> Fun) to see a whole lot of gray (and, ahem, balding) heads in the photos.
> Where are the young folks?

Probably working two jobs to pay the Social Security benefits of those old
gray, balding types...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Where are the young folks?

They've figured out that boats are cheaper, you can throw parties on them, and you
can attract bikini-clad young ladies. For what a C-152 costs, you can buy one big
enough to sleep on. If nothing else, you can go fishing. Best of all, the FAA is not
involved.

A much better deal if you're single and in your 20s. Or maybe if you're just single.
:-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> They've figured out that boats are cheaper, you can throw parties on them, and you
> can attract bikini-clad young ladies. For what a C-152 costs, you can buy one big
> enough to sleep on. If nothing else, you can go fishing. Best of all, the FAA is not
> involved.
>
> A much better deal if you're single and in your 20s. Or maybe if you're just single.
> :-)

If you live in the south, maybe. If you live in the northern states or
Canada, a boat spends most of the year in drydock or the driveway.


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> If you live in the south, maybe. If you live in the northern states or
> Canada, a boat spends most of the year in drydock or the driveway.

Yep. I'm from a city with a strong maritime tradition (Racine, WI), and
boating is a huge part of the local economy...

....for about 15 weeks per year. The other 37 weeks, these giant
party-barges are shrink-wrapped in giant blue cocoons, and stacked on shore
like toys.

We've got friends with a 42 foot, ocean-going yacht, docked in Racine. It's
gorgeous, cost as much as a new Bonanza, burns an incredible amount of gas,
and goes no where. To me, it's the dumbest possible purchase.

Of course, they think our plane is absurd... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> If you live in the south, maybe. If you live in the northern states or
> Canada, a boat spends most of the year in drydock or the driveway.

And I think it was Jay who was recently complaining about the aircraft owners who
treat their aircraft the same way.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jay Honeck]

> > If you live in the south, maybe. If you live in the northern states or
> > Canada, a boat spends most of the year in drydock or the driveway.
>
> And I think it was Jay who was recently complaining about the aircraft
owners who
> treat their aircraft the same way.

Yep, there is a subset of aircraft owners who simply hang up the keys after
Thanksgiving, and don't pick them up again until Easter.

To me, this is totally absurd, bad for the planes, and probably unsafe.
Flying ain't like driving a boat, and IMHO they are missing the very best
flying by avoiding the cold weather months.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Martin Hotze wrote:
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> >> Everything is relative. Compared to golfing in Scotland, or owning a
42
> >> foot yacht, flying is DIRT cheap. Compared to bowling, it's pretty
spendy.
> >
> >
> > what do you know about the costs of golfing in Scotland?
>
> If you live 4,000 miles away, it's quite expensive to stay in a hotel,
> airfares etc. to go golfing in Scotland, especially on a frequent basis.
>
> Even for me, flying is cheaper than regular golfing holidays in
> Scotland. Good job I don't play golf really!

Combine the costs. Fly yourself to Scotland. Play golf. Each then only
costs a small amount. The flying only costs "fuel for flight - airfare to
get
there" as you'd have spent the rest on the airfare anyway. The golf only
costs the amount for the round itself as you'd have paid for the flying trip
anyway. See? Justified.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> They've figured out that boats are cheaper, you can throw parties on them,
and you
> can attract bikini-clad young ladies. For what a C-152 costs, you can buy
one big
> enough to sleep on. If nothing else, you can go fishing. Best of all, the
FAA is not
> involved.
>
> A much better deal if you're single and in your 20s. Or maybe if you're
just single.
> :-)

Hmm. Sell my plane and get a boat? Nah. I'll stay single and fly!

Paul

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
[boats]
> A much better deal if you're single and in your 20s. Or maybe if you're
> just single.

I started to learn to fly aged 24, in the late 1990s (and still single).

The main difficulty with boats, when it boils down to it, is that they
just don't fly very well.

Light aircraft might be the wrong venue to start younger people off as
it's too expensive. A glider site with a winch might be better (although
you have to be pretty keen on flying). We've got 3 under 18s at our
glider club right now, and our club's total membership is under 20
members. Winch launched gliders are a pretty economical way to start
flying.

--
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"

[Michael]

Dylan Smith > wrote
> In article <5SGtc.58$3x.29@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Either way you cut it, if you took the amount you'd put into buying a new
> > 2004 Toyota, you could buy a really nice little Cessna 150 and fly the pants
> > off it
>
> ... especially when you consider the depreciation on that Toyota, which
> you just don't have with a C150 of the same price.

Sorry guys, but this is nonsense.

Sure, the brand new Toyota is going to cost about as much (maybe a bit
more) than that decades-old C-150. The insurance is going to be about
the same too - in fact, the C-150 insurance may be a bit cheaper.
That's where the similarities end.

The Toyota is going to have a warranty that covers you for 5 years.
Your maintenance expenses for those 5 years are going to be about $100
a year, assuming you do none of the work yourself. On the plane, if
you do none of the work yourself and fly 10,000+ miles a year, like
you will on the Toyota, you're looking at $2000 a year for maintenance
- minimum.

The Toyota depreciates - but so does your C-150. Every hour you fly
is about $5 of engine depreciation. Your avionics depreciate, your
paint depreciates, your engine depreciates, and even your airframe
depreciates (albeit slowly) - how much do you think a C-150 with
12,000+ hours is worth?

The Toyota (a small one providing only somewhat better comfort than a
C-150, rather than a larger one providing dramatically better comfort)
is going to get 40+ mpg. The C-150 will be lucky to get 15, and the
gas costs more.

Finally, you NEED that Toyota (or equivalent) unless you live
someplace like New York City (where the cheapest tiedown in reasonable
driving distance is $250/month) and the C-150 is discretionary.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> Finally, you NEED that Toyota (or equivalent) unless you live
> someplace like New York City (where the cheapest tiedown in reasonable
> driving distance is $250/month) and the C-150 is discretionary.

Here's where your logic falters: You don't NEED a *new* Toyota.

I drive a '95 Nissan pickup that cost me $1800. I put a fuel transfer tank
in the back that allows me to safely transfer and dispense filtered auto gas
into my '74 Cherokee Pathfinder (235). (See it at
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm )

At a savings of one dollar per gallon (versus avgas), my pickup (AKA: "The
Mighty Grape") has more than paid for itself. In fact, I've now saved over
$1200 in gas expense alone, beyond the cost of the truck, simply by burning
car gas. And the plane runs better.

AND I get to drive the truck back and forth to work every day.

Now, if I were to buy a nice new Lexus (or the equivalent), I could EASILY
spend more per month than I am now spending on flying, just on the monthly
loan payment, insurance, and gas. Throw in an expensive hobby like golf,
and you've got the lifestyle of many of my neighbors -- all of whom think I
must be a millionaire because I own my own airplane.

Do the math. It's pretty easy to see that private flying is well within the
means of many millions of Americans who simply think it's beyond their
reach.

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

[Dan Truesdell]

Jay Honeck wrote:

[snip]

> Do the math. It's pretty easy to see that private flying is well within the
> means of many millions of Americans who simply think it's beyond their
> reach.
>
> Spread the gospel! :-)

Hell, no! I've seen the way most of them drive! :-)



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> Hell, no! I've seen the way most of them drive! :-)

Ah, now we're into a different vein. The question is now: "SHOULD we be
trying to grow general aviation?"

Which is a totally different question than "Is it affordable?", but the
answer is still a resounding "Yes!"

If we don't try to grow it, in 25 years there won't *be* any general
aviation left to save...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > Finally, you NEED that Toyota (or equivalent) unless you live
> > someplace like New York City (where the cheapest tiedown in reasonable
> > driving distance is $250/month) and the C-150 is discretionary.
>
> Here's where your logic falters: You don't NEED a *new* Toyota.

A single professional commuting to work in New Jersey NEEDS a dependable car. That
means one with less than about 60 grand on the clock. If his boss can remember when
the first time he broke down was the second time he broke down, he'll be looking for
a job. It's an absolute job requirement that a single commuter will be trading in his
car about the time he gets it paid off or, better yet, leasing one and never owning
one at all.

Things change once you become a two-car household.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> The Toyota (a small one providing only somewhat better comfort than a
> C-150, rather than a larger one providing dramatically better comfort)
> is going to get 40+ mpg. The C-150 will be lucky to get 15, and the
> gas costs more.

But the Toyota doesn't fly.

We bought the C140 for $20K, and it's currently being sold for $22K
despite a few hundred extra hours on the airframe. A $20K Toyota would
have depreciated by at least $6K over 4 years. The delta is $8K. We've
nowhere near paid $8K on maintaining the beast. Even if the plane was
sold for the same price as bought, that'd still be a $6K and would still
have paid for the maintenance quite adequately.

This is why I don't buy new cars. My current car when new was 20K. I
bought it for 4K, and all it's needed has been routine maintenance. I'll
take the risk on major things going wrong if it (a) means I don't need
to pay interest on a car loan and (b) don't have to pay 16K of
depreciation. The car's in good condition and should last me at least 10
years.

--
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 >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> A single professional commuting to work in New Jersey NEEDS a dependable car.

Many older cars are very dependable. The last car I had that *wasn't*
dependable was a 1969 Mini (which I did make dependable in the end when
I learned that you have to replace the points and condenser each oil
change, and waterproof the distributor, and put a battery that was less
than 10 years old in it, owning a car older than you are teaches you
things)

I've not had a car actually break down and leave me at the roadside
since 1994, and I've only owned used vehicles.

A modern turbodiesel should be good for 200-300K miles. My Dad's last
turbodiesel Peugeot lasted 350K miles and was dependable.

Whatever car you own, if your job depends on 100% uptime of your
vehicle, you better have an alternate lined up. Even new cars have been
known to break down.

--
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"

[Gene Seibel]

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message t>...
> Good for you, Jay! I get so tired of hearing folks whine about my airplanes
> when they drive up in their $40,000 SUVs whose insurance is more each year
> than our two taildraggers combined. I don't work and my husband doesn't make
> a six figure salary, but we manage to fly about 300 hours a year together.
>
> It's all about priorities. I have noticed, too, that some pilots will not
> fly unless they are flying the newest, the best, or the fastest.
> Consequently, these are airplanes few can afford. Let them stay on the
> ground. I don't mind puttering over their heads ;-).
>
> Deb
>
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
> Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Exactly. Our old Cherokee needs a paint job and a lot more, but we fly
and fly and fly. I had a Tri-Pacer for 20 years and often had pilots
ask when I was going to get something faster and better. Funny thing
is that most of them never had a plane at all.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:47:57 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
> wrote:

>Good for you, Jay! I get so tired of hearing folks whine about my airplanes
>when they drive up in their $40,000 SUVs whose insurance is more each year
>than our two taildraggers combined. I don't work and my husband doesn't make
>a six figure salary, but we manage to fly about 300 hours a year together.
>
>It's all about priorities. I have noticed, too, that some pilots will not
>fly unless they are flying the newest, the best, or the fastest.
>Consequently, these are airplanes few can afford. Let them stay on the
>ground. I don't mind puttering over their heads ;-).
>
>Deb


I'd trade a newest of almost anything to have your collection!<g>

z

[Michael]

Dylan Smith > wrote
> > The Toyota (a small one providing only somewhat better comfort than a
> > C-150, rather than a larger one providing dramatically better comfort)
> > is going to get 40+ mpg. The C-150 will be lucky to get 15, and the
> > gas costs more.
>
> But the Toyota doesn't fly.

A friend of mine had a Toyota whose max level speed was higher than a
C-140. It also cost less. And a car is a necessity - a plane is not.

> We bought the C140 for $20K, and it's currently being sold for $22K
> despite a few hundred extra hours on the airframe. A $20K Toyota would
> have depreciated by at least $6K over 4 years. The delta is $8K. We've
> nowhere near paid $8K on maintaining the beast.

Really? Does that include the annual inspections? How about your
time spent working on it?

BTW - a $20K Toyota is a pretty high-end car. I've never paid that
much for a car, new or used.

I don't know how long you kept your C-140, but I kept my first Honda
just over 6 years. It was only a two-seater, but it held two in MUCH
greater comfort than your C-140. It was also way faster, and got
better gas mileage. My TOTAL cost of maintenance for the entire time
I owned it, including all required inspections and all routine
maintenance (none of which I ever did myself) was well under $1000.
Not per year, but total. I paid just over $11K for it new, and when
some idiot rear-ended me on the shoulder, the insurance company wrote
me a check for well over $7K.

I don't know anyone who has ever done that well with an airplane.

Michael

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> If his boss can remember when
> the first time he broke down was the second time
> he broke down...

> It's an absolute job requirement that a single commuter
> will be trading in his car about the time he gets it paid off ...

?
What have you been driving, George, Jaguars?

I get rid of a car at ~100,00 miles . On occasion, I dropped each of my
last three cars off at the shop for repairs while I was at work, but
none of them ever "broke down."

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
>> have depreciated by at least $6K over 4 years. The delta is $8K. We've
>> nowhere near paid $8K on maintaining the beast.
>
> Really? Does that include the annual inspections? How about your
> time spent working on it?

Easily. Our maintenance was nowhere near 8K, even when we put two new
cylinders on it. I actually enjoy working with planes, so I don't count
my time messing with them as cost, any more than I count my time, say,
flying gliders or playing computer games as monetary cost. I spend at
least an entire day a week at the airport (and still do). Counting every
bit of your time as money is IMHO counterproductive. I work to live, I
don't live to work.

> BTW - a $20K Toyota is a pretty high-end car. I've never paid that
> much for a car, new or used.

Many people I know who say flying is very expensive think nothing of
taking out a large loan to buy a 20K vehicle and service the loan. At
least half the people I worked with (i.e. in a similar income range to
me) in Houston had cars that cost them at least 20K. I was the odd one
out, owning a pickup which cost me far less than half that - and I was
one of the few who wasn't servicing a car loan. These same people
wondered how I afforded this expensive flying thing. Easy when you're
not paying off a car loan and suffering the huge depreciation charge on
a new vehicle that was bought for over 20K. You just had to look in the
parking lot to see the numerous Suburban-sized SUVs (priced one
recently?), Mercedes and BMWs to see that many people were happy to
spend very large sums of money on their vehicle. Nothing wrong with that
of course, but to complain you're skint afterwards seems a bit
disingenious.

> just over 6 years. It was only a two-seater, but it held two in MUCH
> greater comfort than your C-140.

But it couldn't fly.

> better gas mileage. My TOTAL cost of maintenance for the entire time
> I owned it, including all required inspections and all routine
> maintenance (none of which I ever did myself) was well under $1000.
> Not per year, but total. I paid just over $11K for it new, and when
> some idiot rear-ended me on the shoulder, the insurance company wrote
> me a check for well over $7K.

So 6 years of driving cost approximately $5K less the fuel cost. That'll
buy quite a bit of maintenance on a modest light aircraft. Sure you'll
do the work yourself, but if you actually ENJOY the work, it can hardly
be considered 'cost'.

Sure, the level speed of a Toyota is much better than a C140. However,
how many speeding tickets will you get if you drive across Houston at
100 mph? Can you even do 100 mph anywhere on Houston freeways except in
the middle of the night? League City to the soaring club was 45 minutes
in my C140. It was 1.5 hours in my truck and I don't exactly drive
slow.

I'm not saying flying is cheap; it's not. However, you don't have to be
particularly rich to afford a modest plane. When I was in the US, I only
put my international service allowance + a part salary transfer into my
US bank account (IBM pays you in your home country). For the entire time
I was there, I never increased my salary transfer. The total paid into
my US account was $2400/month - I could afford to run my C140 (and my
Ford) on that money, and take the occasional trip in the Bonanza without
needing to transfer any extra money from home...and I was still saving
money in the US! It wasn't till I started flying twins that I had to
think of transferring money in. My parner in that C140 was one of SPX's
_line boys_. His wife was a newly-graduated chemical engineer (and flew
the plane too). They now own a Cessna 180 (although he's now on the
bottom rung of corporate piloting, only a slight pay drop from being a
line boy).

If you've got the will to fly, the passion for it - you can figure out
how to pay for it even on fairly modest money. Not buying a brand new
car with a car loan is one thing that helps tremendously.

--
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"

[Bill Denton]

I just hope you're not an accountant ;-)

You made the statement: "I actually enjoy working with planes, so I don't
count my time messing with them as cost, any more than I count my time, say,
flying gliders or playing computer games as monetary cost."

There's a big problem with you analogy there...

If you choose NOT to fly a glider or play with a computer game, it is not
necessary for you to pay someone to engage in these activities for you. So,
for all intents and purposes, there is no cost either way involved in these
activities.

But if you choose NOT to work on your airplane yourself, you WILL have to
pay someone to work on it for you if you wish to keep it airworthy.

When budgeting for something like an airplane, you really shouldn't count on
your own labor contributions as a cost saving measure. Something always goes
wrong!


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Michael
wrote:
> >> have depreciated by at least $6K over 4 years. The delta is $8K. We've
> >> nowhere near paid $8K on maintaining the beast.
> >
> > Really? Does that include the annual inspections? How about your
> > time spent working on it?
>
> Easily. Our maintenance was nowhere near 8K, even when we put two new
> cylinders on it. I actually enjoy working with planes, so I don't count
> my time messing with them as cost, any more than I count my time, say,
> flying gliders or playing computer games as monetary cost. I spend at
> least an entire day a week at the airport (and still do). Counting every
> bit of your time as money is IMHO counterproductive. I work to live, I
> don't live to work.
>
> > BTW - a $20K Toyota is a pretty high-end car. I've never paid that
> > much for a car, new or used.
>
> Many people I know who say flying is very expensive think nothing of
> taking out a large loan to buy a 20K vehicle and service the loan. At
> least half the people I worked with (i.e. in a similar income range to
> me) in Houston had cars that cost them at least 20K. I was the odd one
> out, owning a pickup which cost me far less than half that - and I was
> one of the few who wasn't servicing a car loan. These same people
> wondered how I afforded this expensive flying thing. Easy when you're
> not paying off a car loan and suffering the huge depreciation charge on
> a new vehicle that was bought for over 20K. You just had to look in the
> parking lot to see the numerous Suburban-sized SUVs (priced one
> recently?), Mercedes and BMWs to see that many people were happy to
> spend very large sums of money on their vehicle. Nothing wrong with that
> of course, but to complain you're skint afterwards seems a bit
> disingenious.
>
> > just over 6 years. It was only a two-seater, but it held two in MUCH
> > greater comfort than your C-140.
>
> But it couldn't fly.
>
> > better gas mileage. My TOTAL cost of maintenance for the entire time
> > I owned it, including all required inspections and all routine
> > maintenance (none of which I ever did myself) was well under $1000.
> > Not per year, but total. I paid just over $11K for it new, and when
> > some idiot rear-ended me on the shoulder, the insurance company wrote
> > me a check for well over $7K.
>
> So 6 years of driving cost approximately $5K less the fuel cost. That'll
> buy quite a bit of maintenance on a modest light aircraft. Sure you'll
> do the work yourself, but if you actually ENJOY the work, it can hardly
> be considered 'cost'.
>
> Sure, the level speed of a Toyota is much better than a C140. However,
> how many speeding tickets will you get if you drive across Houston at
> 100 mph? Can you even do 100 mph anywhere on Houston freeways except in
> the middle of the night? League City to the soaring club was 45 minutes
> in my C140. It was 1.5 hours in my truck and I don't exactly drive
> slow.
>
> I'm not saying flying is cheap; it's not. However, you don't have to be
> particularly rich to afford a modest plane. When I was in the US, I only
> put my international service allowance + a part salary transfer into my
> US bank account (IBM pays you in your home country). For the entire time
> I was there, I never increased my salary transfer. The total paid into
> my US account was $2400/month - I could afford to run my C140 (and my
> Ford) on that money, and take the occasional trip in the Bonanza without
> needing to transfer any extra money from home...and I was still saving
> money in the US! It wasn't till I started flying twins that I had to
> think of transferring money in. My parner in that C140 was one of SPX's
> _line boys_. His wife was a newly-graduated chemical engineer (and flew
> the plane too). They now own a Cessna 180 (although he's now on the
> bottom rung of corporate piloting, only a slight pay drop from being a
> line boy).
>
> If you've got the will to fly, the passion for it - you can figure out
> how to pay for it even on fairly modest money. Not buying a brand new
> car with a car loan is one thing that helps tremendously.
>
> --
> 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"

[Morgans]

"Dan Luke" > wrote > What have you been driving,
George, Jaguars?
>
> I get rid of a car at ~100,00 miles . On occasion, I dropped each of my
> last three cars off at the shop for repairs while I was at work, but
> none of them ever "broke down."
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>
Really! I drive a work type cargo van that has 220k miles on it. It only
has failed to deliver me to my destination 2 times. One was an electric
fuel pump that quit suddenly, and one was an alternator failure that the
driver (me) failed to notice.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/29/2004

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> What have you been driving, George, Jaguars?

Actually, I drive a 1989 Nissan pickup with ~160,000 miles on the clock. But I'm
married, I'm not young, and I don't commute to a professional job anymore.

> I get rid of a car at ~100,00 miles .

My last position was 29 miles from home. Add it up. That, plus the odd trip to Home
Depot and Shop Rite, racks up about 100,000 miles about the time the usual five year
loan runs out.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Really! I drive a work type cargo van that has 220k miles on it. It only
> has failed to deliver me to my destination 2 times.

The race does not always go to the swiftest, but that's the way to bet, and betting
that a van like that will keep going is stupid. If you were single and worked for
Telcordia, AT&T, Johnson&Johnson, or any of many other outfits, you would really be
gambling on keeping your job.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Morgans]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Morgans wrote:
> >
> > Really! I drive a work type cargo van that has 220k miles on it. It
only
> > has failed to deliver me to my destination 2 times.
>
> The race does not always go to the swiftest, but that's the way to bet,
and betting
> that a van like that will keep going is stupid. If you were single and
worked for
> Telcordia, AT&T, Johnson&Johnson, or any of many other outfits, you would
really be
> gambling on keeping your job.
>
> George Patterson

Bull! It has had frequent maintenance, major and minor parts replaced, and
the engine rebuilt once. Things seldom break without warning. The GM 350
is about as tough of an engine that has ever been built. I'll stack it up
against any foreign crap for reliability, anytime.

Did you read my post? Only TWO letdowns, in 250 k! That is not to say I
have not had to take it out of service for a few days, to fix stuff. I do
nearly all the work myself, and am well familiar with it's condition.

I'm shooting for 500 k. <g>
--
Jim in NC P.S. I'll see you at OSH, this year in it!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dan Luke wrote:
>> It's an absolute job requirement that a single commuter
>> will be trading in his car about the time he gets it paid off ...
>
> ?
> What have you been driving, George, Jaguars?

Jaguars have improved since Ford has had them (the British Leyland
product was appalling, they rusted out in no time). I still wouldn't
have a Jag. However, the old 4.2 litre straight six engines make
fabulous glider winch engines. Although the rest of the car was abysmal,
the engine is worth having.

--
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 >, Bill Denton wrote:
> When budgeting for something like an airplane, you really shouldn't count on
> your own labor contributions as a cost saving measure. Something always goes
> wrong!

Why not? There's always a risk of some unexpected expenses (like your
generator breaking 1000 miles from home, which happened to me) where
you can't do it yourself, but things like 50 and 100 hour maintenance
which are scheduled, it's pretty easy to predict when/where they happen
and plan accordingly. I recognise that some people don't want to/can't
(perhaps they don't have the aptitude or interest, or don't have a
mechanic who will allow them to do owner-assisted maintenance) I don't
see why you can't count on yourself to do that at least 3/4 of the time.

--
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"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Did you read my post? Only TWO letdowns, in 250 k!

Yeah, I read it, and I still say you're a lucky man. One shouldn't gamble on getting
that sort of performance.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>> Did you read my post? Only TWO letdowns, in 250 k!
>
> Yeah, I read it, and I still say you're a lucky man. One shouldn't gamble on getting
> that sort of performance.

Judging by the cars that have been owned in our family in the last 10
years or so, 2 breakdowns in that mileage is rather high. My Dad's
turbodiesel only let him down once in 350K miles and that was most definitely
operator error rather than anything wrong with the car.

It's only a gamble if you don't maintain the things. A properly
maintained modern car will last for a long time and should be fine for
at least 300K miles. Properly maintained, things that are going majorly
wrong don't have a habit of sudden failure - nearly everything that will
let you down in a car because of mileage happens gradually and it's
usually laziness that means they don't get fixed until they actually
break.

--
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"

[Filip Zawadiak]

wrote in message >...
> I can't imagine how much that Polish guy paid for the rental 172 he
> flew across the US and back.

About $4100, $61 per hour :-)

It's pretty cheap, especially considering prices of flying in
Europe... And for such distance you would have to learn aviation laws
and airspace structures on 10 countries on the way or more...

And flying was about 60% of all costs - motels, car rentals, flying to
USA and back etc add pretty quickly, actually much quicker I expected.

Still, I think it's money well spend :-)
--
Filip Zawadiak
PP-ASEL 137hr
http://vyx.net/~philz/coast2coast

[Sam]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<eqVtc.16324$n_6.1632@attbi_s53>...
>
> <snip!>
>
> G.A. will not survive without young people getting involved. All you have
> to do is look at the pictures from Pinckneyville (and Oshkosh, and Sun N
> Fun) to see a whole lot of gray (and, ahem, balding) heads in the photos.
> Where are the young folks?
>
> Spread the Word -- flying is cheap! :-)

Hi Jay,

You make some good points. I'm a younger guy (27) that is currently
renting, but am looking forward to buying a nice tri-pacer or cherokee
within the next couple of years. The Cessna trainers are just too
expensive! I also really enjoy working on my car and motorcycle,
particularly since I know it'll get done correctly. I'd imagine A&Ps
are a bit more thorough than the average motorcycle mechanic (God I
sure hope so), but I'd definitely like to find an A&P that would sign
off on my work if I owned a plane.

I guess I'm not really aware of the aging general aviation population.
I wanted to start flying at a much younger age, and even took a couple
of intro flights when I was around 20 and bummed right seat time
whenever I could. But I was also putting myself through college, so
money was very tight. The initial high costs of flight training put
it out of reach. I bought a new car AND motorcycle after graduating,
so I had to wait a couple more years before starting training for my
PPL.

I've noticed that a lot of my friends followed a similar path, so
perhaps a lot of "younger" people cannot really get into flying until
they're in their upper 20s (as long as they stay single!). At my
flight school in FL, there seems to be quite a few people (CFIs and
students) that are in their 20s and 30s, so maybe it's not as bad as
you say. I've even seen a couple of lucky high school age kids
getting lessons there. When I was living in Colorado, I also knew of
quite a few younger pilots.

Here's the question though... How many of these younger pilots will
remain in aviation? Unfortunately I have also met several people that
did a few lessons, or even obtained their PPL, but no longer fly for
whatever reason. Motorcycling (my other passion) has a very similar
situation. Many times young people will get involved w/ the sport
until they have a close call, or they get older and dwell on what
could happen, their wife doesn't like it, etc. and quit. The amount
of training between the two is (for the most part) pretty different,
but could the attrition rate be due to similar reasons?

I know of at least a couple former pilots that will tell me their
antics about scraping tree limbs on final into a dark airport,
encountering IMC, or whatever. And then they're like "yeah, I had my
fun but quit because it was dangerous". Same w/ bikes. I'll hear
their stories about how they were doing something incredibly stupid
and somehow made it out alive, only to sell their bike and tell every
guy they see on a motorcycle about how fun it was but then xxx
happened and I decided to hang it up. Maybe some people just aren't
cut out for these things, I don't know...

Sam

[Jay Honeck]

> I know of at least a couple former pilots that will tell me their
> antics about scraping tree limbs on final into a dark airport,
> encountering IMC, or whatever. And then they're like "yeah, I had my
> fun but quit because it was dangerous". Same w/ bikes. I'll hear
> their stories about how they were doing something incredibly stupid
> and somehow made it out alive, only to sell their bike and tell every
> guy they see on a motorcycle about how fun it was but then xxx
> happened and I decided to hang it up. Maybe some people just aren't
> cut out for these things, I don't know...

Well, Sam, I'm no spring chicken anymore (pushing 46 now), and I've been
riding cycles since I was 18. Been flying now since I was 35.

I treat the two very similarly. On the cycle, I ALWAYS wear a full faced
helmet. If I'm going anywhere farther than the store, I wear a leather
jacket and gloves. If I'm touring, I wear leather everything, and heavy
boots. And my cycle is kept in perfect riding condition -- nothing is left
to chance.

I don't ride after drinking -- not even one beer. IMHO, any skill that
requires perfect balance precludes drinking a beverage that impairs my
coordination.

It's the same with flying. I have few "there I was at 4,000 feet..." tales
to tell, because I do everything by the book. I don't push my limits, I
always fly with full gas tanks, I rarely fly at night, and I keep my plane
in top-flight condition.

As a result, I've got nearly ten years of trouble-free, incident-free flying
time. And I've got 28 years of trouble-free, incident-free riding time,
too.

Is flying (and riding) dangerous? Sure. Just be careful, don't be
foolish, and you'll increase your odds tremendously.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>
> Sam

[Sam]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<RrNwc.10728$HG.2985@attbi_s53>...
> > I know of at least a couple former pilots that will tell me their
> > antics about scraping tree limbs on final into a dark airport,
> > encountering IMC, or whatever. And then they're like "yeah, I had my
> > fun but quit because it was dangerous". Same w/ bikes. I'll hear
> > their stories about how they were doing something incredibly stupid
> > and somehow made it out alive, only to sell their bike and tell every
> > guy they see on a motorcycle about how fun it was but then xxx
> > happened and I decided to hang it up. Maybe some people just aren't
> > cut out for these things, I don't know...
>
> Well, Sam, I'm no spring chicken anymore (pushing 46 now), and I've been
> riding cycles since I was 18. Been flying now since I was 35.
>
> I treat the two very similarly. On the cycle, I ALWAYS wear a full faced
> helmet. If I'm going anywhere farther than the store, I wear a leather
> jacket and gloves. If I'm touring, I wear leather everything, and heavy
> boots. And my cycle is kept in perfect riding condition -- nothing is left
> to chance.
>
> I don't ride after drinking -- not even one beer. IMHO, any skill that
> requires perfect balance precludes drinking a beverage that impairs my
> coordination.
>
> It's the same with flying. I have few "there I was at 4,000 feet..." tales
> to tell, because I do everything by the book. I don't push my limits, I
> always fly with full gas tanks, I rarely fly at night, and I keep my plane
> in top-flight condition.
>
> As a result, I've got nearly ten years of trouble-free, incident-free flying
> time. And I've got 28 years of trouble-free, incident-free riding time,
> too.
>
> Is flying (and riding) dangerous? Sure. Just be careful, don't be
> foolish, and you'll increase your odds tremendously.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> >
> > Sam

Hi Jay,

I rode dirtbikes as a kid, but I've been reading street bikes since I
was 19, so that would be about 8 years. I have to admit, I have gone
down a couple of times due to various reasons. But every time I was
able to get back up w/ minimal injury. The reason? Riding gear. One
time I went down while riding in a twisty canyon road, and found that
a chuck of helmet was missing after the crash! If that'd been my
head, who knows. My motorcycle riding is admittedly aggressive (I
ride sportbikes), but I save it until I'm out in the boonies or on the
track. Now that I live in FL (as flat as Iowa I guess) I ride much
more sedately. Something about those curvy roads in Colorado that
make you want to open it up a bit more! I completely agree w/ your
comment about drinking and riding.

As far as flying, I'm looking forward to my night training, and I
think I will enjoy flying at night after my PPL. There's a lot more
that I have to learn about the hazards of night flying, but flying
into small airports with no VASI, etc. seems like a bad idea that I
will stay away from.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Sam wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> You make some good points. I'm a younger guy (27) that is currently
> renting, but am looking forward to buying a nice tri-pacer or cherokee
> within the next couple of years.

Consider a Cessna 140. They are fun planes and inexpensive to run, and
have no bad manners even though they are taildraggers (you of course
need to learn how to use the rudder properly, but they really aren't
that difficult). In my final 2 months in the US, I flew mine coast to
coast. It's amazing how much camping gear you can stuff in one. It does
help to be in good shape though, the C140 was certainly not built for
large people (Michael made the comment about the Toyota certainly being
more comfortable than a C140, but really I didn't find cars any more or
less comfortable since I'm a good 20lbs lighter than FAA standard)

> I guess I'm not really aware of the aging general aviation population.
> I wanted to start flying at a much younger age, and even took a couple
> of intro flights when I was around 20 and bummed right seat time
> whenever I could. But I was also putting myself through college, so
> money was very tight. The initial high costs of flight training put
> it out of reach. I bought a new car AND motorcycle after graduating,
> so I had to wait a couple more years before starting training for my
> PPL.

I've never bought a new car or borrowed money to buy a car, mainly so I
could feed my aviation habit. I started learning to fly when I was 24.
I'm now 32 and have about 1100 hrs total time, all private flying,
mainly funded with the money that would have been spent servicing a car
loan and depreciation charge had I made the same car choices as many of
my friends :-)

> I know of at least a couple former pilots that will tell me their
> antics about scraping tree limbs on final into a dark airport,
> encountering IMC, or whatever.

It's probably for the best that the ones that repeatedly have close
calls give up, they might waste a perfectly good airplane!

If you're into bikes, you should come over here for the Isle of Man TT
(which is on now, so you're a bit late for this year) which is the
ultimate motorcycling event.

--
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 >, Sam wrote:
> more sedately. Something about those curvy roads in Colorado that
> make you want to open it up a bit more! I completely agree w/ your
> comment about drinking and riding.

Yes, you definitely need to visit the Isle of Man. We have plenty of
twisty roads with...NO SPEED LIMIT!

--
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"

[Sam]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Sam wrote:
> > more sedately. Something about those curvy roads in Colorado that
> > make you want to open it up a bit more! I completely agree w/ your
> > comment about drinking and riding.
>
> Yes, you definitely need to visit the Isle of Man. We have plenty of
> twisty roads with...NO SPEED LIMIT!

You live in the Mecca!! I LOVE watching the races every year. Those
sidecars are just amazing... So are you outside your house watching
it right now??

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Sam wrote:
> You live in the Mecca!! I LOVE watching the races every year. Those
> sidecars are just amazing... So are you outside your house watching
> it right now??

No, today isn't a race day - but tomorrow is. My Dad races sidecars,
he's number 65 this year, driver Nigel Smith passenger Chris Lake (and all his
sponsorship goes to Leukaemia Research).
Being part of the team means I get a pit/start line pass too :-)

--
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]

> As far as flying, I'm looking forward to my night training, and I
> think I will enjoy flying at night after my PPL. There's a lot more
> that I have to learn about the hazards of night flying, but flying
> into small airports with no VASI, etc. seems like a bad idea that I
> will stay away from.

Flying at night is neither difficult nor dangerous. And it is quite
beautiful

However, your odds plummet to near zero if you have an engine problem. As a
result, Mary (my wife, also a pilot) and I have consciously decided not to
fly at night until the kids are grown.

Same with sky-diving. If we're still physically capable (in another ten
years or so), we'll do that again, too. (Well, Mary will, for sure.)

IMHO, by not riding/flying after drinking, not riding without proper safety
gear, not flying at night, and not flying with anything less than full
tanks, we have put the odds of survival more squarely in our favor.

Only time will tell!

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

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> IMHO, by not riding/flying after drinking,

> we have put the odds of survival more squarely in our favor.
>
> Only time will tell!


Your joking....... right.

[Jay Honeck]

> > IMHO, by not riding/flying after drinking,
>
> > we have put the odds of survival more squarely in our favor.
> >
> > Only time will tell!
>
> Your joking....... right.

No.

Are you doubting that people fly/ride after drinking? Shoot, there are
entire riding clubs whose main purpose is to ride to the next "Pabst" sign.

I hope it's less likely for a pilot to drink and fly, but I've witnessed a
sheriff giving a pilot a breath-a-lyzer test. (After he landed on a
taxiway...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Are you doubting that people fly/ride after drinking?

Not at all Jay but your original post kinda indicated that you and your
wife may have done this in the past and now have decided not to.

> > IMHO, by not riding/flying after drinking, we have put the odds
> > of survival more squarely in our favor.

I would have thought that would be a no brainer for any responsible
pilot.

[Jay Honeck]

> Not at all Jay but your original post kinda indicated that you and your
> wife may have done this in the past and now have decided not to.

Ah, I see. No, we've always had a "zero tolerance" for drinking and flying.

Same with riding.

> I would have thought that would be a no brainer for any responsible
> pilot.

You would think, but I've seen it happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DSFxc.1881$2i5.1305@attbi_s52...
>
> Are you doubting that people fly/ride after drinking? Shoot, there are
> entire riding clubs whose main purpose is to ride to the next "Pabst"
sign.

That's the whole reason Wisconsin was invented.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Are you doubting that people fly/ride after drinking? Shoot, there
are
> > entire riding clubs whose main purpose is to ride to the next "Pabst"
> sign.
>
> That's the whole reason Wisconsin was invented.

Seemingly so. Mary and I rode with a club like this precisely one time.
We rode from Racine, up the lakeshore, to Sheboygan for the "Brat Festival".
There were probably 50 motorcycles -- we made quite a spectacle.

There are a LOT of Pabst signs along that stretch, and by the time we got
there I had consumed several gallons of orange juice, and most of my fellow
riders could barely walk, let alone ride.

We never rode with those idiots again, and were pretty verbal about our
reasons.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Jay,

> Flying at night is neither difficult nor dangerous. And it is quite
> beautiful
>
> However, your odds plummet to near zero if you have an engine
> problem. As a result, Mary (my wife, also a pilot) and I have
> consciously decided not to fly at night until the kids are grown.
>
> Same with sky-diving. If we're still physically capable (in another
> ten years or so), we'll do that again, too. (Well, Mary will, for
> sure.)

Charles Lindbergh would strongly advice you, to start at both
activities at the same time once your kids can support themselves :-).

I believe he once said something along the line of "I hope you take up
parachute jumping or stay out of single engined aircraft at night".

Would jumping from an engine-troubled plane at the dark of night
increase your odds over an attempted emergency landing in today's GA
planes? I would guess so, but am not sure. Probably depends on a lot of
circumstances.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[G.R. Patterson III]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
>
> Would jumping from an engine-troubled plane at the dark of night
> increase your odds over an attempted emergency landing in today's GA
> planes? I would guess so, but am not sure. Probably depends on a lot of
> circumstances.

I'm not sure that I would prefer to live through the aftermath of having my aircraft
crash into whatever it's likely to hit in New Jersey when left to its own devices.
For one thing, the lawsuits would probably make the remainder of my life
uncomfortable, to say the least. If I stay in the plane, at least I could make an
attempt at hitting something cheap. It might be a different matter in less populated
areas (like Iowa).

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi George,

>> Would jumping from an engine-troubled plane at the dark of night
>> increase your odds over an attempted emergency landing in today's GA
>> planes? I would guess so, but am not sure. Probably depends on a lot
>> of circumstances.
>
> I'm not sure that I would prefer to live through the aftermath of
> having my aircraft crash into whatever it's likely to hit in New
> Jersey when left to its own devices.

I guess ultimately it comes down to probabilities. Over a city you
might really be up to sacrificing yourself to avoid grave harm or death
to others on the ground. But if the ground below and ahead is pitch
black, so its almost certain death against a more or less remote
possibility of the plane hurting someone... a tough decision.

Would it be possible to narrow down the "target area" of a doomed
plane, e.g. by sending it into some sort of a spin or a nose dive or
maybe impairing it's c.g. over an unpopulated spot before jumping?

> For one thing, the lawsuits
> would probably make the remainder of my life uncomfortable, to say
> the least.

Yes, this was probably different in Lindbergh's times....

I know he jumped from more than one plane at night during his years as
a mail pilot.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not sure that I would prefer to live through the aftermath of having
my aircraft
> crash into whatever it's likely to hit in New Jersey when left to its own
devices.

Wouldn't that be called "urban renewal" in Jersey?

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