We're getting old, folks...

[Jay Honeck]

Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:

.....................1993 -- 2003
Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0

Here are the number of private certificates issued:

1971-49,000
1976-55,000
1981-45,000
1986-34,000
1991-49,000
1996-24,000
2001-25,000
2004-23,000

Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
we do to arrest this rate of decline?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns]

Force our kids to learn to fly and insist that they solo before they can
take their drivers test.
Insist that they pass their PPL before they graduate high school and their
CPL before you pay their first college tuition.

Just kidding.

On the flip side... just think how many extra airplanes will be available!!
2 airplanes in every hanger! :)

Jim

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0

Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)


Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>
>> ....................1993 -- 2003
>> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>
> Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)


Good God. There were pteradactyls in the pattern when I soloed.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mike Rapoport]

The biggest problem is cost. The future of GA is homebuilding.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>
> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>
> 1971-49,000
> 1976-55,000
> 1981-45,000
> 1986-34,000
> 1991-49,000
> 1996-24,000
> 2001-25,000
> 2004-23,000
>
> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jose]

> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:

The numbers are meaningless (though influential) without a comparison to
non-pilot actuarial data. The entire country is getting old, for the
same reason the social security system is broken. Baby boomers didn't
put enough babies into the pot.

Do the pilot certificate numbers merely reflect this national trend, or
is there a decline on top of it, or does it buck the trend (but not
sufficiently to cause an increase? I don't know, but that's where a
good part of the solution would lie.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:

another way to look at it is that it could be a sign of
improved safety (greater survival rate)

--Sylvain (optimist)

[Wizard of Draws]

On 12/20/05 6:04 PM, in article
. com, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>
> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>
> 1971-49,000
> 1976-55,000
> 1981-45,000
> 1986-34,000
> 1991-49,000
> 1996-24,000
> 2001-25,000
> 2004-23,000
>
> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Jim Burns]

Well... I guess I can look forward to being average then!
Jim

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
> >
> > ....................1993 -- 2003
> > Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> > Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> > Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> > Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> > ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>
> Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)
>
>
> Matt

[Arnold Sten]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
..................
Boy, am glad to know that for the first time in my life I'm actually
above average. I've been trying to tell my wife that for years. Thanks
for brightening my day, Jay.

Arnold Sten

[Rachel]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0

Finally, something that keeps me from feeling old.

[Jim Macklin]

More Sport Pilots and a law to require all golf courses to
allow airplanes.

BTW, GOLF got its name from the signs at the
course...Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden


--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Wizard of Draws" >
wrote in message
news:BFCE1A5C.4E810%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
| On 12/20/05 6:04 PM, in article
| . com,
"Jay Honeck"
| > wrote:
|
| > Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to
2003:
| >
| > ....................1993 -- 2003
| > Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
| > Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
| > Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
| > Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
| > ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
| >
| > Here are the number of private certificates issued:
| >
| > 1971-49,000
| > 1976-55,000
| > 1981-45,000
| > 1986-34,000
| > 1991-49,000
| > 1996-24,000
| > 2001-25,000
| > 2004-23,000
| >
| > Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen.
What the heck
| > kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this
rate? What can
| > we do to arrest this rate of decline?
| > --
| > Jay Honeck
| > Iowa City, IA
| > Pathfinder N56993
| > www.AlexisParkInn.com
| > "Your Aviation Destination"
| >
|
| Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
| --
| Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
|
| Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
| http://www.wizardofdraws.com
|
| More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
| http://www.cartoonclipart.com
|

[Greg B]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
> we do to arrest this rate of decline?

Preaching to the choir... There are quite a few of us here that are near the
same age as the averages. You know, us that were born in 1958, graduated
high school in 1977; or there abouts...

What was that saying??? "Pa, I wanna be a pilot when I grow up", "Son, you
can't do both"...

[Jose]

> BTW, GOLF got its name from the signs at the
> course...Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden

Cute, but false. Google is your friend. :)

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/golf.htm

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[cjcampbell]

Too late! Might work for the grandchildren, though. :)

[H.P.]

Better yet, get rid of the whiney money-grubbing families who bring the
damned lawsuits in the first place, even AFTER they collect megabucks on the
life and accidental death policies.


> Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
>
> More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Wizard of Draws wrote:
>> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>
> Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.


General aviation is doing its part. The last fatal crash at my local airport
took out a lawyer.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

Pretty good chance I was flying one of them with high time.....<ggg>
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Ol Shy & Bashful

[[email protected]]

Whewww Jay....In 1958 I was a hard assed Marine DI in San Diego!
Ol Shy & Bashful
Merry Christmas

[JohnH]

> BTW, GOLF got its name from the signs at the
> course...Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/golf.htm

It's a good thing it's false; I'd hate to think my friends who play it have
gay tendencies.

[Marco Leon]

As long as you don't put a price tag on your labor...

Some of those homebuilts are pretty cool but the 2,000 - 5,000 hour build
times are deal-breakers for many.

Marco
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> The biggest problem is cost. The future of GA is homebuilding.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>
>> ....................1993 -- 2003
>> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>>
>> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>>
>> 1971-49,000
>> 1976-55,000
>> 1981-45,000
>> 1986-34,000
>> 1991-49,000
>> 1996-24,000
>> 2001-25,000
>> 2004-23,000
>>
>> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Marco Leon]

Except that the latest NTSB report makes that statement debatable. The folks
that learned before 25 were shown to have different results.

Marco Leon (not saying I agree with the conclusion)



"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> another way to look at it is that it could be a sign of
> improved safety (greater survival rate)
>
> --Sylvain (optimist)
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Marco Leon]

Any theories as to the almost 10-year difference between the student pilots
and the private pilots?

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>
> ....................1993 -- 2003
> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>
> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>
> 1971-49,000
> 1976-55,000
> 1981-45,000
> 1986-34,000
> 1991-49,000
> 1996-24,000
> 2001-25,000
> 2004-23,000
>
> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Tom Conner]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> As long as you don't put a price tag on your labor...
>
> Some of those homebuilts are pretty cool but the 2,000 - 5,000 hour build
> times are deal-breakers for many.
>

Even more important, very few people have the desire to spend their time in
this pursuit. Drinking beer has a better time payoff than building
airplanes.

[Mike Rapoport]

Most take less than that to build but I agree with you in principal. The
other benefits (besides initial cost) are that the builder can do his own
maitenance instead of paying $80hr for someone else to do it.

Mike
MU-2


"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> As long as you don't put a price tag on your labor...
>
> Some of those homebuilts are pretty cool but the 2,000 - 5,000 hour build
> times are deal-breakers for many.
>
> Marco
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> The biggest problem is cost. The future of GA is homebuilding.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>>
>>> ....................1993 -- 2003
>>> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>>> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>>> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>>> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>>> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>>>
>>> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>>>
>>> 1971-49,000
>>> 1976-55,000
>>> 1981-45,000
>>> 1986-34,000
>>> 1991-49,000
>>> 1996-24,000
>>> 2001-25,000
>>> 2004-23,000
>>>
>>> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>>> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>>> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[[email protected]]

The Wife....

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:34:18 -0500, "Marco Leon"
<mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:

>Any theories as to the almost 10-year difference between the student pilots
>and the private pilots?
>
>Marco Leon
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>
>> ....................1993 -- 2003
>> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>>
>> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>>
>> 1971-49,000
>> 1976-55,000
>> 1981-45,000
>> 1986-34,000
>> 1991-49,000
>> 1996-24,000
>> 2001-25,000
>> 2004-23,000
>>
>> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[pittss1c]

Cost isn't the only thing. The culture has changed.
A lot of the old farts I fly with got started because they were the kid
that used to hang out at the airport... willing to wash an airplane for
a ride.
These days, it seems like a young kid riding his bike to the airport to
hang out all day and take rides from strangers is a rarity. How would
you handle the situation?

Second, modern old farts are mostly intolerant of the mistakes and
misjudgements of youth. They do not accept anything they consider to be
reckless or foolish.
(and would be the first to get you kicked off a field for it)
These are the same people that looped their cubs and rolled their
luscombes in there day at my current age.
There is no doubt (and I have seen it happen) where that type of
behavior has had a youngster kicked off an airport. I am not saying it
isn't the right thing to do, but it was different in the old days.
In my area, the interaction between the public and the local airport has
diminished. We don't have the flyins that the public is welcome at as
often (if we do, we try to keep the public roped off from our planes and
consequently us...)
The culture has changed.


Mike

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The biggest problem is cost. The future of GA is homebuilding.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>
>>....................1993 -- 2003
>>Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>>Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>>Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>>Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>>ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>>
>>Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>>
>>1971-49,000
>>1976-55,000
>>1981-45,000
>>1986-34,000
>>1991-49,000
>>1996-24,000
>>2001-25,000
>>2004-23,000
>>
>>Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>>kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>>we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>

[Marco Leon]

Under the heading of "culture," I would also add that the "wonder" of flight
has been diminished somewhat by technology. Photorealistic flight
simulators, free online satellite photos, internet video sharing, and
increased accessibility of commercial flight have all limited the uniqueness
of the appeal in flying your own (or rented) aircraft.

That being said, it can go the other way too. I was a flight-sim junkie for
years until me and a fellow sim-junkie I worked with had a conversation
about the latest flight sim that progressed into the feasibility of flying
for real. We're both now private pilots.

Marco Leon

"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
> Cost isn't the only thing. The culture has changed.
> A lot of the old farts I fly with got started because they were the kid
> that used to hang out at the airport... willing to wash an airplane for a
> ride.
> These days, it seems like a young kid riding his bike to the airport to
> hang out all day and take rides from strangers is a rarity. How would you
> handle the situation?
>
> Second, modern old farts are mostly intolerant of the mistakes and
> misjudgements of youth. They do not accept anything they consider to be
> reckless or foolish.
> (and would be the first to get you kicked off a field for it)
> These are the same people that looped their cubs and rolled their
> luscombes in there day at my current age.
> There is no doubt (and I have seen it happen) where that type of behavior
> has had a youngster kicked off an airport. I am not saying it isn't the
> right thing to do, but it was different in the old days.
> In my area, the interaction between the public and the local airport has
> diminished. We don't have the flyins that the public is welcome at as
> often (if we do, we try to keep the public roped off from our planes and
> consequently us...)
> The culture has changed.
>
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> The biggest problem is cost. The future of GA is homebuilding.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>>>
>>>....................1993 -- 2003
>>>Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
>>>Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
>>>Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
>>>Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
>>>ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
>>>
>>>Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>>>
>>>1971-49,000
>>>1976-55,000
>>>1981-45,000
>>>1986-34,000
>>>1991-49,000
>>>1996-24,000
>>>2001-25,000
>>>2004-23,000
>>>
>>>Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>>>kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>>>we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>>--
>>>Jay Honeck
>>>Iowa City, IA
>>>Pathfinder N56993
>>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Rob]

wrote:
> The Wife....
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:34:18 -0500, "Marco Leon"
> <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >Any theories as to the almost 10-year difference between the student pilots
> >and the private pilots?
> >
> >Marco Leon
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
> >>
> >> ....................1993 -- 2003
> >> Student ........ 33.7 - 34.0
> >> Rec ..............45.5 - 51.3
> >> Private ..........42.7 - 46.5
> >> Commercial ...41.9 - 45.6
> >> ATP ..............44.1 - 47.0
> >>
> >> Here are the number of private certificates issued:
> >>
> >> 1971-49,000
> >> 1976-55,000
> >> 1981-45,000
> >> 1986-34,000
> >> 1991-49,000
> >> 1996-24,000
> >> 2001-25,000
> >> 2004-23,000
> >>
> >> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
> >> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
> >> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
> >> --
> >> Jay Honeck
> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> Pathfinder N56993
> >> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.usenet.com

Ha!

Rob
PDPP-ASEL
(post-divorce private pilot, airplane single engine land)

[Don Tuite]

In counting old farts, how many are pilots because the Servicemens'
Readjustment Act paid for their primary flight training? When did
that end? 1970 sounds about right, but it might have been a little
later. I can't figure how to google up the information.

I trained at that time, but I wasn't eligible for the GI Bill. I did
see a lot of mom-and-pop flight schools go under when the program
ended.

I'd also like to see how the numbers of new pilots in Jay's lists
correllate with economic recessions and airline mergers and
bankruptcies.

Don

[Wizard of Draws]

On 12/21/05 8:42 AM, in article , "JohnH"
> wrote:

>
>> BTW, GOLF got its name from the signs at the
>> course...Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden
>
> http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/golf.htm
>
> It's a good thing it's false; I'd hate to think my friends who play it have
> gay tendencies.
>
>
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Wizard of Draws wrote:
>>> Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>>> kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>>> we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>
>> Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
>
>
> General aviation is doing its part. The last fatal crash at my local
> airport took out a lawyer.
>
One down...many to go.


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

[George Patterson]

Wizard of Draws wrote:

> Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.

No city is large enough to support one lawyer. No town is too small to support two.
Mark Twain

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> What can we do to arrest this rate of decline?

Not a damn thing. You're looking at one more reflection of the baby boom and
decline in baby making since then.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[JJS]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:vrrqf.6545$vJ4.63@trnddc07...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> What can we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>
> Not a damn thing. You're looking at one more reflection of the baby boom and decline in baby making since then.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

An oversimplification? The country's population continues to grow. Get the immigrants interested in aviation?



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

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> What can we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>
>
> Not a damn thing. You're looking at one more reflection of the baby boom
> and decline in baby making since then.

Actually, enough have been made, they have just been killed before birth.

Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>> What can we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>
>>
>> Not a damn thing. You're looking at one more reflection of the baby boom
>> and decline in baby making since then.
>
> Actually, enough have been made, they have just been killed before birth.
>
> Matt


Spiced Dark Fruitcake With Brandy
From Diana Rattray,Your Guide to Southern U.S. Cuisine.

Forget about the bum rap fruitcakes get and try baking your own. You'll be
surprised at how tasty and addictive homemade fruit cake can be! This
fruitcake is all fruit and spices, and delicious. A little brandy and orange
juice add flavor, and you can adjust the amount of fruit and add some nuts
to this, if you like.
Prep Time :
Cook Time :
Type of Prep : Bake, Mix / Beat
Cuisine : Southern, U.S. Regional
Occasion : Christmas, Fall, Winter

INGREDIENTS:

a.. 8 ounces diced candied orange peel
b.. 8 ounces diced citron
c.. 8 ounces diced pineapple
d.. 8 ounces diced fruitcake mixed fruit
e.. 4 ounces whole red candied cherries
f.. 4 ounces whole green candied cherries
g.. 1 cup currants
h.. 1 cup golden or dark raisins
i.. 1 cup chopped dates
j.. 1/2 cup orange juice
k.. 1/2 cup brandy or good bourbon
l.. 3 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
m.. 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
n.. 2 teaspoons ground nutmeg
o.. 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
p.. 1/2 teaspoon ground allspice
q.. 1/2 teaspoon ground mace
r.. 1 teaspoon baking powder
s.. 1/2 teaspoon salt
t.. 1 cup plus 6 tablespoons butter, room temperature
u.. 2 cups brown sugar, firmly packed
v.. 5 eggs, separated
w.. 1/2 cup molasses
PREPARATION:


This batter is quite heavy, but a heavy-duty stand mixer can handle it.
Mix the fruit in a large bowl with the wine and brandy. Stir gently and set
aside to marinate for a few hours.

Generously butter bottom and sides of two 9 x 5 x 3-inch loaf pans and line
them with parchment paper. Butter the paper thoroughly. You can use brown
paper for this if you don't have parchment paper.

Sift the flour with the spices twice. Add the baking powder and salt and
sift again.

Put the butter into a large mixing bowl and cream until smooth. Add sugar;
using an electric mixer, cream until light and fluffy. Beat the egg yolks
slightly and then add them to the bowl. Mix the batter well before you start
to add the flour and spice mixture. Stir the batter as you add the flour, a
little at a time, stirring well after each addition. When the flour is
thoroughly incorporated, add the molasses and stir. Finally, stir in the
fruit, along with any soaking liquid left in the bowl.

Put the egg whites in a stainless steel or glass bowl and beat with a clean
beater to stiff peaks. Fold them into the batter thoroughly and then spoon
the batter into the prepared pans. Cover loosely with a clean cloth and let
the batter sit overnight in a cool place to mellow.

On the next day, heat the oven to 250°. Place the fruitcake on the middle
rack of the oven and bake for 3 1/2 to 4 hours. After 1 1/2 hours, cover the
pan with a piece of brown paper (do not use foil) or set the pan in a paper
bag and return it to the oven.

When the cake has baked for 3 1/2 hours, test the with a toothpick or cake
tester. If the tester comes out of the center of the cake clean, the cake is
done. Leave the cake in the pan and set on wire rack to cool.

When the cakes are completely cooled, turn out of the pans, leaving the
paper lining on the cake. Wrap the cake with parchment, then foil, and pack
the cake in a tin. Homemade fruitcakes need air, so punch a few holes in the
lid of the tin or set the cover loosely on the tin.

Set the tin in a cool, undisturbed place, and every 3 or 4 days before
Christmas, open the foil and drizzle a small amount of bourbon or brandy
over the cake. The liquor will keep the cake most and flavorful and help
preserve it as well.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
> Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)

Your 35 and still a student?

D. :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
>>Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)
>
>
> Your 35 and still a student?
>
> D. :-)
>
>

Oh, that it were so! :-)

Matt

[Jose]

> Your 35 and still a student?

In a post jiving somebody about "still being a student", you should not
use the invisible letters HTML tag, as it gives the (almost certainly
erronious) impression that you do not know about apostrophies, and
should go back to school yourself. :)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

>Pretty good chance I was flying one of them with high time.....<ggg>
>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
>Ol Shy & Bashful

**** your Christmas and **** you! Praise be Allah!

[Roger]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:51:39 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
>> Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)
>
>Your 35 and still a student?

I don't think a student at 35 would be average, but some of us are
slow learners.

I quit work and went to college fulll time at age 47.
I graduated from college with a Bachelors in CS and started in on my
Masters at age 50. Yes that was a 4 year degree.

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

>
>D. :-)
>
Roger

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:51:39 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
>>>Wow, I'm almost exactly average. What an exciting thought... :-)
>>
>>Your 35 and still a student?
>
>
> I don't think a student at 35 would be average, but some of us are
> slow learners.
>
> I quit work and went to college fulll time at age 47.
> I graduated from college with a Bachelors in CS and started in on my
> Masters at age 50. Yes that was a 4 year degree.

Congatulations! That is impressive. I've just started an online
masters in structural engineering and thought at 46 that was getting a
little late! :-)


Matt

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jose" wrote in message
> In a post jiving somebody about "still being a student", you should not
> use the invisible letters HTML tag, as it gives the (almost certainly
> erronious) impression that you do not know about apostrophies, and
> should go back to school yourself. :)

Certificate requirements are to read, speak, and understand English. Writing
isn't mentioned. Besides, it's the 'good moral character' part that concerns
me.

D. (good catch!)

[Ken Hornstein]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Here's the average age of pilots, comparing 1993 to 2003:
>[...]
>Here are the number of private certificates issued:
>[...]
>Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>we do to arrest this rate of decline?

Clearly, one of the biggest factors in flying is the cost. I think I
was one of the few people who added up _all_ of my aviation costs, and
it was approximately $12,000 (I admit I could have cut some of those,
but that's certainly within the ballpark for this area). Hopefully
Sport Pilot will drive down the flying costs, but that remains to be
seen.

I think the second reason for declining GA is that unless you're born
into an aviation family, there doesn't seem a popular "flying culture"
for people in my generation (I was born in 1969). I think I will be
derided for that statement, so it probably deserves some elaboration.

I've been interested in some form of aviation all my life. I flew
kites and did model rockets as a young kid. While I was always
interested in things like R/C, there was nobody else I knew that did
it, and my impression (which still holds true today) is that R/C is
tough to do completely by yourself; building the model is one thing,
but actually learning to fly it requires a mentor. Model rocketry was
relatively easy to do at the time (you could buy a pre-built starter
kit that required relatively little assembly). Once (I think I was
10), a relative who flew helicopters for the State Police landed in the
field behind our house and took us on a quick ride (boy, _that_ was
cool), but other than that, I had no experience with any sort of
general aviation.

There was a GA airport relatively close to where I grew up; everyone
knew about it, but it seemed like nothing ever happened there. I drove
up to it once while I was in high school; it seemed relatively
deserted, with a bunch of dingy hangers. Certainly not the kind of
place I'd want to hang out, and it didn't seem like there were a lot of
planes going in and out of there to do plane watching. I didn't know
anyone that had a plane, or did any sort of aviation at all (other than
the relative who flew the helicopter as his job, but he was a distant
relative and I think that was one of the few times I saw him), and as
far as I know they had no airshows or any sort of community awareness
type of program. So while I was interested in aviation, it seemed to
be unobtainable/nonexistant in my area. Couple that with a family who,
had the best intentions at heart, exerted a strong pressure during my
entire childhood to be "normal" (whatever that means) and not do anything
that other children didn't do, made me think that basically aviation
was a non-starter.

Fast forward to a few years ago. I've graduated college, got married,
have a reasonable disposable income. I do the research, and decide to
try learning to fly. We have a couple local GA airports, and one of
the flying schools has a "intro to learning to fly" seminar. One thing
leads to another, blah blah blah, I eventually get my private. But ...
I've come to the realization that I'm probably not going to use my
license again.

Why? Well, cost is a factor, but not as big as you'd think. I make
a decent living, so I could afford to fly. But a bunch of other factors
are at work.

First, my wife does not like flying. She has enough troubles with
commerical aviation; it took a fair amount of negotiation for her to
finally accept me learning to fly, but she stated that she is _no_ way
going to go with me. End of story. Her concern is fear; she just is
afraid of dying. She intellectually knows that this fear isn't
rational, but that doesn't change the fact that she's still afraid, and
I don't think anything would change that. And please, if you are
thinking of suggesting that I buy her introductory flight lessons, save
your typing; that would be the WORST thing in the world to do. She's
the sort of person that strongly fights back if someone tries to push
her into doing something she doesn't want to do, and I am sure she
would simply refuse to take the lessons. Why does she feel this way?
I'm not sure, but I think part of it is that she had no experience with
flying as a child; I've been surprised by things that scare _me_ that
don't scare her, until I find out that she had experienced these things
as a small child. I bet if she had flown in GA planes as a young girl,
it wouldn't bother her as an adult.

This has a number of negative consequences for flying. This means no
vacations, no trips to visit family, basically no extended trips of any
kind (unless you have the kind of marriage where taking a vacation away
from your spouse is acceptable; that's not the kind of marriage I
have). This also affects money and/or time, but indirectly. You have
to spend a fair amount of money on a hobby that is yours and yours alone,
one that your spouse gets no enjoyment from. Depending on how your
family deals with it's finances, that could be a major issue.

But that's not the only factor at work. Another factor is basically
I'm the _only_ pilot among my circle of friends and famly. Everyone
else thinks that I'm nuts/crazy/going to kill myself. This isn't a
huge negative factor, but it crops up a bunch of little ways. For
example, once I saw an unusual amphibious airplane at the airport (I
don't remember what it was). Normally the sort of thing you would
probably chat about with your friends, right? Well, I don't have any
friends that would find that interesting. That may seem like a minor
thing, but it's just one example of the lack of an "aviation culture"
.... that means that if you want to do aviation things, you have to
_really_ want it, because your friends won't be there encouraging you.
That's not to say that my friends DISCOURAGE me; they tolerate aviation
as one of my many strange interests. But it's nothing I could share
with them. Out of all my friends, only _one_ has accepted an offer to
go flying with me, and he drives race cars as a hobby.

So, you're probably going to say that I should _find_ some aviation
friends. Well, I've tried.

I have two co-workers who are interested in aviation. One got his
license, one gave up midway, post-solo (I think money was the issue).
The one who got his license is an adrenaline junkie who came close to
killing himself and his friends the first time he took them up (I heard
them chuckling about the story one day in the lunch room). Needless to
say he's not the sort of guy I'd prefer to go flying with. Neither of
them responded when I suggested doing aviation-related things away from
work. Example: we work close to Andrews AFB, and they partner with the
FAA to do altitude chamber flights for a ridiculously low fee (I think
it was $50). I asked them if they would be interested in going; both
declined. I ended up going by myself. Incidently, I think there were
12-15 people in the class. Most were corporate pilots who were
required to take the training. A couple were from some aviation
college (they came in together). I was the _only_ pilot from the local
area.

When I was learning to fly (at a local GA airport which actually was
rather busy), there wasn't what you would call "hanger bums". The
terminal was rather neat, and I would see the same people over and
over, but we were all on a mission: learning to fly. The flight
instructors were mostly time-builders, and they had a sort of exclusive
"I'm better than you" attitude that didn't encourage a newbie to hang
around with them. My instructor didn't have that attitude, but he was
busy doing his thing and didn't really have spare time to hang out. I
know that people deride time-builders, and I understand their arguments
against them. However, it was sort of Hobson's choice; going to
another airport would have added too much time to my hobby and
basically would have been a non-starter. I've never seen the hanger
BBQs that people talk about; there were a number of hangers there, but
nobody hanging out in them.

I joined a local pilots mailing list. This has sort of a ... well,
it's a strange vibe is all I can say. Most of the people on the list
are owners and have instrument ratings and I get the vague sense they
poo-poo VFR renters (a lot of the discussion is proper IFR routing
around the DC ADIZ and the right waypoints to put in their
panel-mounted GPSes, for example). Maybe that's me reading too much into
the list politics, I dunno. Example: I once posted asking if anyone
would be interested in going to the Sport Pilot Expo in Florida, and I
got zero response. There's no sense of community on this list; at
least, none that I can detect. There aren't any get-togethers that
I've seen, but even if there were, I'm not sure I would go. I'd have
to go by myself (e.g., without the spouse) and it doesn't seem like
they'd welcome me. Maybe they would, but it's sort of moot since they
don't have any.

So, I figured maybe this was just the local area, and there were just
tons of pilots out there hanging out at other airports. So I flew to a
number of airports in the vicinity (both during and after my training),
and I even drove to some during trips back to where my wife grew up.
The LARGE majority of these airports were deserted; most of the time I
was the _only_ person at these airports. These were all visited on
nice VFR days that would be packed at my home airport. Many of these
airports had hangers that were collapsed and generally had the "no one
has been here in a long time" feeling. Almost all of them were kinda
depressing, frankly.

So, I finally realized that my flying was going to be _me_, alone,
flying to other airports that were mostly deserted, and no one else to
share the experience with. I thought that was going to be enough to
keep me interested, and maybe it would be ... but not at the current
price. Maybe if Sport Pilot takes off a nice SLSA aircraft would be
the answer (I'd probably have to buy it myself, since no one else is
interested in sharing the cost).

I can't speak for anyone else's experience, but I can't believe I'm
alone in this. Certainly people on these newsgroups talk about their
local pilot communities and how great they are. I don't doubt their
experiences, but I don't know if it's just the area they live in, or
they somehow had some "in" that I'm missing. I'm not sure if my
experiences are part of the cause or part of the effect; is the lack of
an aviation culture the result of declining experience, or the cause?
I suspect they're interrelated.

As a final note: one of the airports I visited, I met the airport
manager, and asked him why his airport was so empty. His answer: "Well,
everyone got old and moved away". Ironically, he thought Sport Pilot
was a terrible idea.

--Ken

[.Blueskies.]

"Ken Hornstein" > wrote in message ...
> In article . com>,
..snip
> ... Why does she feel this way?
> I'm not sure, but I think part of it is that she had no experience with
> flying as a child; I've been surprised by things that scare _me_ that
> don't scare her, until I find out that she had experienced these things
> as a small child. I bet if she had flown in GA planes as a young girl,
> it wouldn't bother her as an adult.
>
..snip
>
> --Ken

Our local EAA group (221) flew 940 young eagles this year. I'm sure this early life experience will stick with these
kids for a long time. I hope we all work to be sure that they will have the same opportunities that we have had in the
NAS.

Keep the spirit, Ken, more folks will come along to enjoy your passion. Sometime these things just happen by osmosis...

;-)

[Morgans]

".Blueskies." > wrote

> Our local EAA group (221) flew 940 young eagles this year. I'm sure this
early life experience will stick with these
> kids for a long time. I hope we all work to be sure that they will have
the same opportunities that we have had in the
> NAS.

IMHO, the best way to follow up on the young eagles flights, and get the
kids in *learning* to fly, or wanting to have a career in aviation, is to
found an aviation explorers group, or help one out, if there is one near
you.

It keeps the fire lit, and provides that long term push that is necessary to
get into flying, and stay in it.

CAP may be an option, but it would be much harder to start one of those
groups. <g>
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Clearly, one of the biggest factors in flying is the cost. I think I
> was one of the few people who added up _all_ of my aviation costs, and
> it was approximately $12,000 (I admit I could have cut some of those,
> but that's certainly within the ballpark for this area).

That's 300% higher than the "ballpark" figure for around here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> First, my wife does not like flying.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this from a pilot, I'd be rich.

What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
fly?

(This started out being a joke-question, but upon reflection, I think I'll
leave off the "smiley"... It's a damned serious question, really, and gets
to the root of why so many guys ultimately quit flying...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> That's 300% higher than the "ballpark" figure for around here.

I disbelieve you. My Cessna cost me half that ten years ago.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

>> That's 300% higher than the "ballpark" figure for around here.
>
> I disbelieve you. My Cessna cost me half that ten years ago.

Whoops -- sorry. I may have mis-read his post.

I thought he was posting his cost of learning to fly. Upon re-reading, it
does appear that $12K was his annual expense to *fly* -- which might include
aircraft maintenance.

In which case, $12K isn't far off the mark, in a bad year.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I thought he was posting his cost of learning to fly.

Well, even there you're really low-balling to claim an average below $4,000. It
cost me over $5,000 back in the late 80s, and things are a lot higher now around
here.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jose]

> What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
> fly?

There are a variety of reasons - one of them is that the pool of gals
who =do= like to fly is very small. This reduces the chances of finding
one which whom a long term relationship will work for any given person.

There really =is= more to life than flying (although there may not be
more to life than getting high :) A rewarding, long term, loving
relationship consists of many many facets. When I was younger I had a
girlfriend who wasn't really interested in singing. I was (I was
singing in three choirs at the time). She happily came to my concerts
and enjoyed listening, but to have her come and sit in the alto section
while I was singing tenor just didn't do it for her. I talked to
another choir member (whose husband was actually tone-deaf - music to
him was like an intellectual puzzle of random notes) about this, and she
said that in the end it just didn't matter. Not that it mattered but
they got over it, but that it ultimately =didn't= =matter=. Marriage
and that kind of loving relationship is much bigger than music.

Well, I eventually got married, and you know what, she was right. It
just =doesn't= =matter=. There are many things much more important in
how one shares a life together.

My wife isn't too keen on flying either. When we were dating, she put
up with it. We had some good times, but it wasn't really her thing.
When we got married, she stopped flying. She didn't stop me from
flying, but she wasn't interested - she'd rather drive halfway across
the country or take a commercial jet. This plus the financial load of
starting a household pretty much meant that I also stopped flying.
What's the point of flying alone across the country, and then meeting
your wife on a commercial flight?

Well, that went on for ten years, while she went through whatever she
had to go through, and finally I just decided that I would fly again.
So I trained again at the local rent-a-wreck, got current and certified,
and found somebody with a nice plane to rent. On my first solo flight
in that plane, my wife wanted to see where the plane was. Then she
wanted to see the plane. Then she wanted to see the inside (it was
really nice - back in 01 or so it had the Garmin 430 and new leather
seats). So, she decided to come with me on that flight, and she enjoyed
playing with the passenger entertainment device (that's what I call the
moving map). She started flying again, but only on short trips, like to
Block Island, which we both enjoy and to which we can't reasonably get
to absent aviation. Little by little we got to longer trips, and in the
end she's going five hours over mountains with me. She's even taken the
pinch hitter course our club offers and landed the plane by herself
(that course has made her more involved in aviation, and therefore more
interested in the flights)

If I had to choose between her and the plane, I'd choose her in a
second. It was always that way.

Jay, you are lucky. You have a wife that likes to fly, while flying is
very important to you. But if something happened and she could no
longer fly, or was no longer willing to, how would that affect your
relationship with her, and with your Pathfinder?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, you are lucky. You have a wife that likes to fly, while flying is
> very important to you. But if something happened and she could no longer
> fly, or was no longer willing to, how would that affect your relationship
> with her, and with your Pathfinder?

One of the main advantages of us both being pilots is that it is extremely
unlikely that we will BOTH lose our medicals, and have to quit flying
altogether.

Is there anything that could make Mary unwilling to fly? I don't know, but
it would have to be either medical (inner ear trouble, for example) or
psychological (fear of flying after an incident, for example). Either way,
I would work very hard to help her through it.

Flying alone would take away at least 50% of the fun of flying. The main
advantage of owning and flying an airplane, to me anyway, is the ability to
transport my family to far-away places quickly and in great comfort. If all
I could was bore holes in the sky by myself, I would become quickly bored.

At that stage I would probably sell Atlas, buy a Decathlon, and get into
recreational aerobatic flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ken Hornstein - CONTRACTOR]

In article <R7Lqf.645848$_o.497629@attbi_s71>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> That's 300% higher than the "ballpark" figure for around here.
>>
>
>Whoops -- sorry. I may have mis-read his post.
>
>I thought he was posting his cost of learning to fly. Upon re-reading, it
>does appear that $12K was his annual expense to *fly* -- which might include
>aircraft maintenance.

You had it right the first time. That's what it cost me to learn to fly.
I could have probably squeezed it in around $9-$10K, had I not decided
to switch to newer-model 172's in the second half of the training (I just
got tired of all of the flaky equipment in the older 172s the flight
school had ... nothing unsafe, but just annoying).

So, you said that's 3x what your ballpark is where you are (in other
words, people in your area should expect to pay around $4000 to get
their private pilot). Is that the "ideal" figure, e.g., 40 hours in a
152, or is that what the average person who isn't a natural pilot
(e.g., me) actually pay? I think by the time I got my private I had
over 80 hours; clearly that was a factor, but I thought that the
national averagge was something like 75 hours. I'm geniunely curious.

--Ken

[Jay Honeck]

> So, you said that's 3x what your ballpark is where you are (in other
> words, people in your area should expect to pay around $4000 to get
> their private pilot). Is that the "ideal" figure, e.g., 40 hours in a
> 152, or is that what the average person who isn't a natural pilot
> (e.g., me) actually pay? I think by the time I got my private I had
> over 80 hours; clearly that was a factor, but I thought that the
> national averagge was something like 75 hours. I'm geniunely curious.

Around here you can still rent a clapped out old 152 for $70/hour, and you
can get a CFI to instruct you for $25/hour.

I figure around 55 hours to get your Private. Some take more, some do less,
but if you treat learning to fly like a semester of college, that's about
what it will take. (Both Mary and I finished up with right around 55
hours...)

20 hours x $95/hour = $1900
35 hour x $70/hour = $2450

Total Cost: $4350
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Ken Hornstein - CONTRACTOR) wrote:

> You had it right the first time. That's what it cost me to learn to fly.
> I could have probably squeezed it in around $9-$10K, had I not decided
> to switch to newer-model 172's in the second half of the training (I just
> got tired of all of the flaky equipment in the older 172s the flight
> school had ... nothing unsafe, but just annoying).
>
> So, you said that's 3x what your ballpark is where you are (in other
> words, people in your area should expect to pay around $4000 to get
> their private pilot). Is that the "ideal" figure, e.g., 40 hours in a
> 152, or is that what the average person who isn't a natural pilot
> (e.g., me) actually pay? I think by the time I got my private I had
> over 80 hours; clearly that was a factor, but I thought that the
> national averagge was something like 75 hours. I'm geniunely curious.


I figured I spent about $3500 (maybe a little less) in 1987. This included
ground school, initial flying stuff (bag, headsets, etc), medical, written test
(when it really was a written) and using the FBO's 172's rather than ratty
150's/152's. I had a little under 49 hours when I completed the checkride.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Ken Hornstein]

In article <PVKqf.645770$_o.446153@attbi_s71>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> First, my wife does not like flying.
>
>If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this from a pilot, I'd be rich.
>
>What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
>fly?

It didn't really come up in our relationship until much later (we had
been married for a number of years when I finally decided to learn to
fly). If you have to choose between a hobby and your spouse ... well,
I guess the choice is obvious to me. If you had a spouse that didn't
like flying, would that be a deal-breaker for the relationship?

I'm not sure why this is so different now than, say, 20 years ago.
It seems people are a lot more scared of things in general than
they used to be. Maybe that translates into more scared spouses,
and as a result less active pilots.

--Ken

[Ken Hornstein - CONTRACTOR]

In article <ziMqf.668974$xm3.338032@attbi_s21>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Around here you can still rent a clapped out old 152 for $70/hour, and you
>can get a CFI to instruct you for $25/hour.

So, I think that when I learned, the 152 the school I had was something
like $79/hr (I see that it's up to $89/hr now). My instructor rates
were $30/hr. That's pretty reasonable, considering the difference in
cost-of-living between our locales. But let me throw some variables
into the mix.

A 152 isn't a plane you can learn in if you're a fatass. I think I
would have needed a 12 year old instructor to learn in a 152. That
means that 172 is the minimum. Okay, not everyone in America is
a fatass ... yet. But it's something to consider ... a 152 isn't
an option for some people.

You say it takes 55 hours to get your private. But I scheduled two
flights, every week, and it took me around 80. According to some of
the web pages I've seen, 75 is the national average, which means I'm at
least within a standard deviation. So I don't think 55 hours is a fair
amount of time for the _average_ person.

So, I'm curious ... assuming it still would have still taken me 80
hours if I trained in Iowa City, what would that have cost me in a 172 in
your neck of the woods? It doesn't have to be a new one; a clapped
out one is fine.

--Ken

[Morgans]

"Ken Hornstein" > wrote

> I'm not sure why this is so different now than, say, 20 years ago.
> It seems people are a lot more scared of things in general than
> they used to be. Maybe that translates into more scared spouses,
> and as a result less active pilots.

Heck yeah! Shoot, now days, people are afraid to fart. Fear of destroying
the ozone, or not being politically correct, or starting a fire, or of being
sued. Too many lawyers, and judges allowing frivolous law suites!
--
Jim (all for farts) in NC

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ken Hornstein - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> So, I think that when I learned, the 152 the school I had was something
> like $79/hr (I see that it's up to $89/hr now). My instructor rates
> were $30/hr. That's pretty reasonable, considering the difference in
> cost-of-living between our locales.


I learned how to fly in 1978. Back then, a C-152 went for $24.50/hour and an
instructor was $15/hr. C-172s were $31/hr, IIRC.



> You say it takes 55 hours to get your private. But I scheduled two
> flights, every week, and it took me around 80. According to some of
> the web pages I've seen, 75 is the national average, which means I'm at
> least within a standard deviation. So I don't think 55 hours is a fair
> amount of time for the _average_ person.


I got my private license in 44 hours, flying 2-3 times a week. I started in
10/78 and finished in 2/79... flying through what passes for winter weather in
the Carolinas. When I hear of people taking 75 hours, all I can think is that
they waited too long between flights and had to spend the first part of every
flight going over what they forgot from the one before. And if I had to assign
a cause, I'd blame it on money. It cost me about $1100 to earn my license,
which sounds pretty cheap these days. What you have to remember is that a nice
new car could be bought in 1978 for $6000 or so. What would you spend today?

I remember an old fellow scoffing at my $1100. "Hell", he said, "I paid $600 to
learn how to fly". Of course when he learned how to fly you could buy a brand
new VW Beetle for around $2500. It's all relative.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jay Honeck]

> A 152 isn't a plane you can learn in if you're a fatass.

Boy, THAT is for sure. I didn't fly in a 152 until last year (I trained in
Cherokee 140s), and my co-pilot was a 250 pound guy.

We got to know each other a *lot* better than I wanted... ;-)

> You say it takes 55 hours to get your private. But I scheduled two
> flights, every week, and it took me around 80.

Well, I scheduled three flights each week, and averaged twice, with weather
being the main problem. (I trained in Wisconsin, in winter, in '94-'95.
Not the brightest thing I've ever done...) I was an early flight simulator
aficionado, so controlling an airplane was second nature to me, which
(according to my instructor) made things go very quickly, initially. I
soloed in less than 7 hours.

Did you take 80 because of on-again/off-again training, or some other
factor? It seems like a lot, with a dedicated flight training schedule.
(It seems pretty quick, if you were doing the old "whenever I've got a few
extra bucks I'll take a lesson" method.)

> So, I'm curious ... assuming it still would have still taken me 80
> hours if I trained in Iowa City, what would that have cost me in a 172 in
> your neck of the woods? It doesn't have to be a new one; a clapped
> out one is fine.

Hmm. I don't know what 172s are renting for, but I'm assuming somewhere
around $90 per hour? (For the not-so-new-ones.) More for the glass
cockpits.

How many hours did you fly with an instructor, and how many without? That
makes a HUGE difference in cost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Theune]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>A 152 isn't a plane you can learn in if you're a fatass.
>
>
> Boy, THAT is for sure. I didn't fly in a 152 until last year (I trained in
> Cherokee 140s), and my co-pilot was a 250 pound guy.
>
> We got to know each other a *lot* better than I wanted... ;-)
>
>
>>You say it takes 55 hours to get your private. But I scheduled two
>>flights, every week, and it took me around 80.
>
>
> Well, I scheduled three flights each week, and averaged twice, with weather
> being the main problem. (I trained in Wisconsin, in winter, in '94-'95.
> Not the brightest thing I've ever done...) I was an early flight simulator
> aficionado, so controlling an airplane was second nature to me, which
> (according to my instructor) made things go very quickly, initially. I
> soloed in less than 7 hours.
>
> Did you take 80 because of on-again/off-again training, or some other
> factor? It seems like a lot, with a dedicated flight training schedule.
> (It seems pretty quick, if you were doing the old "whenever I've got a few
> extra bucks I'll take a lesson" method.)
>
>
>>So, I'm curious ... assuming it still would have still taken me 80
>>hours if I trained in Iowa City, what would that have cost me in a 172 in
>>your neck of the woods? It doesn't have to be a new one; a clapped
>>out one is fine.
>
>
> Hmm. I don't know what 172s are renting for, but I'm assuming somewhere
> around $90 per hour? (For the not-so-new-ones.) More for the glass
> cockpits.
>
> How many hours did you fly with an instructor, and how many without? That
> makes a HUGE difference in cost.
I was just looking over my log book and it looks like I had about 80
hours or so when I took my check ride. The raw numbers don't tell the
story in my case and I bet they may not in others. The day of my
planned solo I was told by my flight school that my instructor was no
longer working there and I had to start with a new one. I was among her
first students and she wanted me to do things her way and it added
another 13 hours to my totals before I soloed. After I had soloed and
got signed off to go to the practice area and several area airports I
could fly whenever I wanted to and there were times I did just that. I
was not specifically working on any set of skills, I was just flying
around. I do think I could have cut some of those hours out but I
enjoyed them very much and that's why I was learning to fly anyway.
When it came time to take my checkride I needed to fly to a airport
about 45 min away and on my first attempt the winds had picked up during
the day and it became turbulent enough that I did not want to try to
maintain PTS standards in heading and altitude for the test. My DE
thought that my decision was a good one and so we just did the oral that
day. The flight home was bumpy but uneventful. The next 2 scheduled
checkrides were canceled due to bad weather and I did some training
flights in between to keep my skills sharp and it turned out to be a
month before the weather gods and her schedule aligned for me to take my
checkride. I guess the point of this story is that the numbers are a
guideline but you must very very careful when you draw conclusions from
them.

John

PS. After my checkride I added up the costs for getting my private and
it was about 6000 in 1998. I've never added up costs again. I just
don't want to know :)

[[email protected]]

>Clearly, one of the biggest factors in flying is the cost.

Some, maybe. When I began my private ticket in 1973 I paid $24
per hour , dual, whcih was about a day's pay for me at that time, at 20
years old. Now, we charge about $150/hr dual, same sort of airplane,
which is a bit more than what the average 20-year-old around here
collects in a day. The difference, I suppose, is the lawyers' share.
Of course, with the oil/gas boom we're having in Alberta, there
are kids making $25 and $35 an hour, but they're buying $60,000 trucks
and big houses, not flying lessons.
Much of the big burst in flying came when the kids who were too
young to fly in WWII got old/rich enough to take lessons. They'd
watched the newsreels of the fighters and got the bug. Flying is now
more than 100 years old and the novelty has worn off for the younger
generations. Further, many of the PPLs I knew in the '70s get their
tickets, then flew another 10 or 20 hours until the family realized
that there were more urgent things to do with that money. Flying around
for an hour on a weekend gets a little stale for many unless there's a
more significant point to it.
Some of the reluctance of the public to start flying is their
perception of us as pilots. We can be arrogant and snotty, as if we're
so superior, and it turns them off. Most men would take lessons if they
had the chance; I get a lot of new aquaintances telling me they'd
always wanted to get their Private License. They seem to think that
they're somehow incomplete without having mastered it; perhaps some
discreet advertising along those lines might work. Plenty of other
sports use it.

Dan

[Ken Hornstein]

In article <aPTqf.669446$xm3.354931@attbi_s21>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Did you take 80 because of on-again/off-again training, or some other
>factor? It seems like a lot, with a dedicated flight training schedule.
>(It seems pretty quick, if you were doing the old "whenever I've got a few
>extra bucks I'll take a lesson" method.)

There was actually no break in training. It was pretty continuous, and
I think I was pretty dedicated to it. From what I remember, there were
two factors.

- Lack of aptitude. Anything to do with book learning, I was fine. No
problems with flight planning or cross-country navigation. But the
actual stick-and-rudder stuff, I had problems with. I've always
had a problem with tasks that required coordination ... it always
took me longer to learn a physical skill than it did for anyone
else. Maybe part of it was my instructor was relatively inexperienced,
and the thing I had real problems with (landings) was something he
mastered very easily, so he couldn't really give me useful advice.
I read all of the books I could find and every newsgroup posting on the
subject and tried all of their tricks, but they didn't really help.
I flew with other instructors as well, but it didn't help. I think
it was 20 hours until I soloed. I also really liked flight simulators,
but they didn't help me one bit (nothing in real life felt like the
sim).

- We only have one DE for the area. My checkride got rescheduled a couple
of times (weather once, he got delayed once), and in the intervening
time I flew a lot to keep my skills up (and I still had a lousy
short-field landing, but the DE passed me anyway).

>Hmm. I don't know what 172s are renting for, but I'm assuming somewhere
>around $90 per hour? (For the not-so-new-ones.) More for the glass
>cockpits.
>
>How many hours did you fly with an instructor, and how many without? That
>makes a HUGE difference in cost.

I think I had something like 20 hours of solo time by the time I got my
private (I didn't need much; the cross-country stuff was a breeze). I'd
have to check my logbook to me sure.

So, assuming $90/hr:

$115 * 60 = $6900
$90 * 20 = $1800
$8700 total.

But if I had zero hours with an instructor, it still would have cost me
$7200 ($90 * 80). Clearly the high number of hours and the 172 are what
drive the cost here.

I know everyone is going to say that 80 hours is too high, and maybe it
is. But I've seen a number of places that the national average is 75
hours (but to be fair, I've never seen the source of that statistic).
Assuming that number is accurate, that means for everybody that gets
their private in 55 hours, there's some duffer like me that's doing it
in 95 hours. Maybe most of those people are have other factors at
work, but that doesn't change the base cost.

I see that one guy recently got his Sport Pilot in a week. I doubt I
could have done that, but maybe a two-week camp would have worked for
me. Maybe there's hope for GA yet.

--Ken

[Ken Hornstein]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>so superior, and it turns them off. Most men would take lessons if they
>had the chance; I get a lot of new aquaintances telling me they'd
>always wanted to get their Private License. They seem to think that
>they're somehow incomplete without having mastered it; perhaps some
>discreet advertising along those lines might work. Plenty of other
>sports use it.

I've certainly had some acqaintances tell me they wished they could
take lessons; they were all male. But I think that the advertising you
need to do should be targeted toward females. Like Jay said, it's very
common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
lot of positive secondary effects.

--Ken

[Andrew Gideon]

Jose wrote:

> There are a variety of reasons - one of them is that the pool of gals
> who =do= like to fly is very small.

I met and married my wife long before I took my first lesson. But she
encouraged me through mine, and now I get to encourage her through hers.
So I didn't find a "gal that likes to fly"; I made one.

[I hope I do as well with my sons. The eldest's birth was early, causing me
to postpone my IR checkride. The youngest's birth was early, causing me to
postpone my long commercial XC. But perhaps that's just kids being kids,
and not reflective of their opinions regarding aviation <laugh>.]

Similarly, I know someone that met and married his wife before he took his
first lesson. She encouraged him through his, and then hated to fly with
him. At first, I thought it her issue. But then I experienced something
that caused me to refuse to fly with him.

I'm not saying that every person with a spouse that won't fly does things as
dangerously as that someone I know. But how careful are we to let our
spouses in, at their own speed, to this enterprise of ours?

I was speaking to a wife of a lapsed pilot recently. We were discussing the
idea of his picking up flying again. She seemed - at best - disinterested.
But after I described some of the (short by the standards of this group
{8^) trips on which I've taken my family (ie. Nantucket for lunch, which is
my favorite example for this purpose {8^), she became suddenly
enthusiastic.

With a little care, I suspect that utility carries a lot of weight. I know
that I still point out ugly road traffic over which we're flying to my
wife: "See what we're not in?".

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Ken Hornstein wrote:

> It seems people are a lot more scared of things in general than
> they used to be.

I think it's cultural, but I cannot quite point out what's been causing the
drift. I know that we in the US take care at a level that is quite out of
place in many other places in the world.

There was this restaurant in Bali, for example, which had open fish tanks in
the floor. The uncareful could walk right into one (as a friend did {8^).
I cannot picture that in the US.

Admittedly, that's likely an artifact of our litigious society. But look at
school buses and seat belts for another example. Hmm...that too could be a
liability issue.

Well, what about certification requirements for aircraft? Collision lights,
shoulder belts, etc. were requirements added only relatively recently.

Fire detectors: as a kid, my homes never had anything of the sort. Now,
they're everywhere I look.

I'm not saying that the extra layers of protection we're adding are bad.
But perhaps there's something else coming along with that: an idea that we
can control the world enough to achieve the mythical concept of "Perfect
Safety".

- Andrew

[Jose]

> Is there anything that could make Mary unwilling to fly?

Of course there is. You named a few examples, but even if you couldn't
think of any, Nature would oblige.

Medical: besides inner ear, there are vascular conditions, tumors,
nerve issues, urinary conditions, disorienting eye conditions, a
plethora of things that could make it uncomfortable, inadvisable, or
even dangerous to fly, even as a passenger...

Psychological: the obvious fear after an incident, but also an old
association coming back, changed values in a risk-reward equation, a
newfound joy in driving in traffic (or an accompanying need for time for
solitary reflection), a new hobby (winemaking, for example), the stress
of taking care of other issues, for which flying does not provide an
outlet...

Legal (the following may seem silly until you've actually been faced
with other, equally silly things that have the force of law): A law or
insurance regulation prohibiting two or more corporate officers from
flying together, Mary getting on the terrorist no-fly list (if it can
happen to a United States Senator, it can happen to you)...

Social: taking care of an elderly parent who does not want her to fly
(and who becomes much harder to deal with if she does fly), a social (or
business) calendar that pretty much requires her to stay in her home
town, a new lack of allure for distant places...

Economic:... I could go on, but won't, because it doesn't matter.

> Either way, I would work very hard to help her through it.

What does this mean? If she =wanted= to fly but was unable to because
of some conditons, this may help. But if the condition is such that she
no longer =wants= to fly, then "helping her through it" really means
"helping her see it my way" (the One True Way), and is likely to have
Unintended Consequences.

But it doesn't matter =why= she couldn't or wouldn't fly any more. Take
that as a given. She won't. How does this affect your relationship
with her? With flying?

Now suppose whatever it was that happened, happened while you were
dating. Would you dump her and go looking for another girl at some hangar?

> The main
> advantage of owning and flying an airplane, to me anyway, is the ability to
> transport my family to far-away places quickly and in great comfort. If all
> I could was bore holes in the sky by myself, I would become quickly bored.

This is interesting coming from somebody who, not too long ago, was
touting aviation as the be-all and the end-all of life. To many people,
flying in an airplane is just boring holes in the sky. Going places
quickly ends up being not so quick when you add in the time spent flight
planning, preflighting (and preheating), dealing with distant FBOs, and
then add in all the hidden time (keeping current, for example). You get
to rearrange when you spend time, but the time savings in a spam can is
somewhat illusory.

> At that stage I would probably sell Atlas, buy a Decathlon, and get into
> recreational aerobatic flying.

Recreational aerobatic flying is also just boring holes in the sky.
Twisty holes to be sure, but holes nonetheless. And it could be that
Mary (reasonably) would not want you to partake of this (more dangerous)
part of aviation. I suppose it's not likely coming from the motorcycle
crowd, but it's possible (just imagine a slightly different Mary for
purposes of argument).

Same question.

To answer your original question, there is much more to human
relationships than sharing a cockpit, and love, if it's worth anything,
trumps flying. It certainly trumps "the ability to transport my family
to far-away places quickly and in great comfort".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Either way, I would work very hard to help her through it.
>
> What does this mean? If she =wanted= to fly but was unable to because
> of some conditons, this may help. But if the condition is such that she
> no longer =wants= to fly, then "helping her through it" really means
> "helping her see it my way" (the One True Way), and is likely to have
> Unintended Consequences.

I think the basic flaw with your logic is that you're treating my wife
like a "normal" spouse. Mary isn't just another wife who might someday
decide that she doesn't want to fly with me anymore. She is a
certificated pilot, with over 500 hours as PIC, who is as skilled and
dedicated to piloting as anyone on this newsgroup.

In short, we're not talking about a woman who would suddenly decide
that wine-making was more interesting than flying, any more than you
would. It would take a very serious illness -- physical or mental --
for her to "not want to fly anymore."

> But it doesn't matter =why= she couldn't or wouldn't fly any more. Take
> that as a given. She won't. How does this affect your relationship
> with her? With flying?
>
> Now suppose whatever it was that happened, happened while you were
> dating. Would you dump her and go looking for another girl at some hangar?

"Another girl at some hangar"? I'd like to see that hangar, someday!
:-)

In my experience, there just aren't very many chicks at the airport...

> > The main
> > advantage of owning and flying an airplane, to me anyway, is the ability to
> > transport my family to far-away places quickly and in great comfort. If all
> > I could was bore holes in the sky by myself, I would become quickly bored.
>
> This is interesting coming from somebody who, not too long ago, was
> touting aviation as the be-all and the end-all of life.

Which is why I then followed up with my statement that I would switch
to aerobatics -- the ULTIMATE "boring holes in the sky" flying!

> To answer your original question, there is much more to human
> relationships than sharing a cockpit, and love, if it's worth anything,
> trumps flying. It certainly trumps "the ability to transport my family
> to far-away places quickly and in great comfort".

Of course there is. But I believe it's safe to say that everyone on
this newsgroup is "into" aviation on a level that far surpasses the
"normal" pilot -- otherwise, why are we here? (I suppose it could be
to argue politics, but I doubt it...)

Given this level of dedication and enthusiasm to aviation, I'm still
surprised at the number of guys here who say that their spouses won't
fly with them. It's just sad.

(I've already warned my son about this phenomenon. And he's already
got it firmly in his head that if a girl doesn't like flying, that girl
doesn't warrant a second date. :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> I think the basic flaw with your logic is that you're treating my wife
> like a "normal" spouse. [...] She is a certificated pilot,
> with over 500 hours...

Certificated pilots hang it up too. There was a thread here about that
not too long ago.

> Another girl at some hangar"? I'd like to see that hangar, someday!

Wouldn't we all!

> But I believe it's safe to say that everyone on
> this newsgroup is "into" aviation on a level that far surpasses the
> "normal" pilot -- otherwise, why are we here?

Some like to fly, some like to talk?

> Given this level of dedication and enthusiasm to aviation, I'm still
> surprised at the number of guys here who say that their spouses won't
> fly with them. It's just sad.

Yes, it is sad. But that wasn't your point. Your point was, and I quote:

> What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around
> with gals who don't like to fly? [...]
> It's a damned serious question, really

We hang around with gals who don't like to fly because these gals have
so much other stuff going for them that it's worth flying less, or even
not at all, to be with them.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote

> Mary getting on the terrorist no-fly list (if it can
> happen to a United States Senator, it can happen to you)...

thanks for reminding me. I'm evidently on some type of list, and can not do
an
e-ticket; I have to check in at the counter. Last time it was no big deal,
but next time...?\

I'm going to Cancun in Feb. '06.

I have a place to check into (online I think) to get it straightened out.

I'll let you all know how it goes.
--
Jim in NC

[Jack]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>First, my wife does not like flying.
>
>
> If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this from a pilot, I'd be rich.
>
> What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
> fly?


That's what you get for picking a wife before you pick a hobby. Get your
priorities straight, boys.

She's just along for the ride, anyway.


Jack
(hiding under desk)

[Jack]

Jose wrote:

> My wife isn't too keen on flying either. When we were dating, she put
> up with it. We had some good times, but it wasn't really her thing.
> When we got married, she stopped flying.

I hear it works the same with sex.

There must be a lesson there.


Jack

[Darrel Toepfer]

Morgans wrote:

> I'm going to Cancun in Feb. '06.

Cozumel, 1st week of '06...

> I'll let you all know how it goes.

The house we stay in didn't have any damage from Emily or Wilma, all the
trees and plants took it tough though. Was due to be there the day Emily
hit, postponed that trip till 9/11...

Continental is running cheaper rates for Tuesday and Wednesday flights,
($228) they've broken out the taxes/fees though, near $80 per ticket...

Only 30% of the hotels are open/available, saw photos of Cancun but
haven't looked into how well they've rebuilt/refurbished. Lots of
cheering of the workers to get them both open again. Tuff times on the
economy down there...

Last time I was there I wired the house for internet and installed a pbx
with extensions/network in every room. Was setting up a 5 mile wireless
link and didn't finish it. Some of it got destroyed in Wilma, will have
to see what I can salvage as cabletv/internet is still down on our end...

We eventually hope to have a C150 down there and start commuting with
the Lancair... (back on topic)

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> What the heck kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate?
> What can we do to arrest this rate of decline?

The FAA needs to add the category "spacecraft", class "single stage land"
to the list of possible certifications. Putt-putting around the atmosphere
is so last millenium!

If Wallace and Gromit can fly a home-built to the moon, why can't I?

Cheese anyone?

[Jay Honeck]

> Like Jay said, it's very
> common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
> exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
> into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
> lot of positive secondary effects.

So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
we attract females to the airport?

My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
airport more SOCIAL?

As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
guys will have a much easier time...

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

[Cal Vanize]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
>>>Both of these are a one-way trips, ladies and gentlemen. What the heck
>>>kind of GA are we going to have in 25 years, at this rate? What can
>>>we do to arrest this rate of decline?
>>
>>Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
>
>
>
> General aviation is doing its part. The last fatal crash at my local airport
> took out a lawyer.

Was he tied down on the runway?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cal Vanize wrote:
>>> Ol' Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers.
>>
>> General aviation is doing its part. The last fatal crash at my local airport
>> took out a lawyer.
>
> Was he tied down on the runway?


No need. He was flying the plane.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jose]

> So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine?

Cessna's working hard at it.

<g,d> Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tom Conner]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> > Like Jay said, it's very
> > common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
> > exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
> > into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
> > lot of positive secondary effects.
>
> So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
> we attract females to the airport?
>
> My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
> pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
> friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
> airport more SOCIAL?
>
> As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
> guys will have a much easier time...

This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college. Although
they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would rather get a
business degree than an engineering degree. My theory is women think in
business they will be expected to dress nice, but in engineering they will
not. Since, all things being equal, a woman would rather spend her money on
clothes, then a business degree will help her reach that goal. Therefore,
the secret to getting women into flying is to make flying a fashion
statement that requires the participant to waste money on clothes.

[Jim Logajan]

"Tom Conner" > wrote:
> This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
> Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
> rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
[ Nonsense elided. ]

The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]

In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]

[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Conner wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
>>>Like Jay said, it's very
>>>common that a husband likes flying, but a wife does not (I'm in that
>>>exact situation). I've never heard of the reverse. If more wives were
>>>into flying, it would mean more active pilots, which would have a whole
>>>lot of positive secondary effects.
>>
>>So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
>>we attract females to the airport?
>>
>>My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
>>pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
>>friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
>>airport more SOCIAL?
>>
>>As with so many things in life, if we can get the chicks into it, us
>>guys will have a much easier time...
>
>
> This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college. Although
> they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would rather get a
> business degree than an engineering degree. My theory is women think in
> business they will be expected to dress nice, but in engineering they will
> not. Since, all things being equal, a woman would rather spend her money on
> clothes, then a business degree will help her reach that goal. Therefore,
> the secret to getting women into flying is to make flying a fashion
> statement that requires the participant to waste money on clothes.

Don't they make pink flight suits already? :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> "Tom Conner" > wrote:
>
>>This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
>>Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
>>rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
>
> [ Nonsense elided. ]
>
> The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
> of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
> with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]
>
> In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
> engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
> bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]
>
> [1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
> [2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm

He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.


Matt

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> Don't they make pink flight suits already? :-)


"Orange, it's the new pink."


Montblack

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
> numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year.
> It is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.

True. But he also went on to blather some nonsense about women choosing
business degrees due to clothing choices. The connection between pursuing
an engineering degree and pursuing a private pilot certificate is somewhat
suspect, but claiming the motivations are influenced by dress style appears
to be an early April 1st entry. But goofier things have been claimed with
sincerity on Usenet, so I thought it best to present whatever facts are
available.

[Jay Honeck]

> True. But he also went on to blather some nonsense about women choosing
> business degrees due to clothing choices. The connection between pursuing
> an engineering degree and pursuing a private pilot certificate is somewhat
> suspect, but claiming the motivations are influenced by dress style appears
> to be an early April 1st entry. But goofier things have been claimed with
> sincerity on Usenet, so I thought it best to present whatever facts are
> available.

Well, Jim, I tend to agree with you -- but I notice you're not
postulating an alternative theory... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> True. But he also went on to blather some nonsense about women
>> choosing business degrees due to clothing choices. The connection
>> between pursuing an engineering degree and pursuing a private pilot
>> certificate is somewhat suspect, but claiming the motivations are
>> influenced by dress style appears to be an early April 1st entry. But
>> goofier things have been claimed with sincerity on Usenet, so I
>> thought it best to present whatever facts are available.
>
> Well, Jim, I tend to agree with you -- but I notice you're not
> postulating an alternative theory... :-)

Don't have one. However, when having a hard time solving any question,
perhaps the old technique of rephrasing the question may (or may not) help.
For example, to "invert" the question, perhaps finding the answer to one of
these may help:

What attracts some men to flying?
What attracts some men to flying enough for them to spend the time, money,
and mental effort?
Why don't more men take up flying?

In theory, I would think simple introspection on a man's part is all that
is needed to find the answers to at least one of these questions - in
theory, anyway.

[Roger]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> "Tom Conner" > wrote:
>>
>>>This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
>>>Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
>>>rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
>>
>> [ Nonsense elided. ]
>>
>> The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
>> of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
>> with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]
>>
>> In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
>> engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
>> bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]
>>
>> [1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
>> [2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm
>
>He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
>numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
>is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.

Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
degrees.

Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
items developed by the scientists. <:-))

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


>
>
>Matt

[Roger]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:17:36 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> Don't they make pink flight suits already? :-)
>
>
>"Orange, it's the new pink."
>
Phosphorescent Orange! I think that's the color I'll paint my G-III
Well either that or Phosphorescent Green, or maybe one of those
irridescent paint jobs that changes color as you fly by.

When you take 'er through between some one's house and garage all the
wittnesses will give different descriptions.

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

>
>Montblack

[Ken Hornstein]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
>we attract females to the airport?

I can only comment on my situation, but I don't think it's uncommon.
The issue with my wife is not the lack of "feminity" of flying; she has
an interest in model trains, which is a very male-dominated hobby in my
experience. Her issue with flying boils down to her fear of dying in a
fiery airplane crash.

I suspect that is really an issue of lack of familiarity; she didn't
know anyone that was a pilot growing up (neither did I, FWIW), and as
a result she perceives flying as something strange and unusual. If
she had flown in a GA plane as a child, or even been on a Young Eagles
flight, her attitude would be very different. I am not sure what
the solution is here, other than to get more pilots into the system.

That's why I think Sport Pilot is important for the long-term health
of GA. The people now that I see who are active GA pilots seem to fall
into one of three categories:

- They make it an integral part of their lifestyle (that's obviously
you, Jay :-) ). I think relatively few people have this option.
- They use it for business and can write off part of their aviation
expense. This doesn't seem to be an option for anyone who works
for a large company; when I've talked with other people in my
field, they _all_ told me that they have explicit corporate policies
against using GA for corporate travel (I'm in the same boat).
- They have plenty of spare cash, or somehow they got a plane on the
cheap. Or they have figured something out to make plane ownership
affordable that has escaped me.

I think Sport Pilot can work for people like me; they've got _some_
spare cash to devote to flying, but not enough to spend on a bigger
plane. I'm not talking about the $80,000 Cubs, but I've seen a few
planes in the $50,000 range that could even haul around a few fatasses
like me. Split that with one other person, and you've got a reasonable
new car payment.

>My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
>pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
>friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
>airport more SOCIAL?

I dunno ... I have never seen any sort of social life at any of the
airports that I've been to, much less anything I'd think my wife would
be interested in. Most of the airports I've visited have been lifeless,
depressing places. If there was some sort of social life associated with
aviation, I think it could maybe get my wife interested in flying; she
would at least get a sense that "normal" people do it. Right now I
think she thinks that flying is reserved for rich people and wackos
like me :-/

--Ken

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Conner" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
>>>>Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
>>>>rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
>>>
>>>[ Nonsense elided. ]
>>>
>>>The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
>>>of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
>>>with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]
>>>
>>>In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
>>>engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
>>>bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]
>>>
>>>[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
>>>[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm
>>
>>He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
>>numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
>>is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.
>
>
> Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
> degrees.

Beats me, you'll have to ask Tom. Engineering requires both strong
science and strong visualization skills, especially in 3-D. For reasons
I don't claim to understand, this seems to not appeal to women as much
as men.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> So how do we make the
>> airport more SOCIAL?
>
> I dunno ... I have never seen any sort of social life at any of the
> airports that I've been to, much less anything I'd think my wife would
> be interested in. Most of the airports I've visited have been lifeless,
> depressing places. If there was some sort of social life associated with
> aviation, I think it could maybe get my wife interested in flying

Social activities at an airport are often spur of the moment things, and --
as a result -- hard to find. Many are put together by (and for) the
regulars that hang out there on a daily basis, which is truly a shame.
It's hard to grow aviation when it becomes ingrown like that, but I think
it's more a function of the airport environment than a reflection of the
people involved.

It's hard to maintain any contact with one another when hangars are
scattered and seldom attended. Heck, when I see a friend on the other side
of the airport, it can be a 15 minute walk just to get to his hangar! So,
we keep an old bike a the hangar, or we drive -- or we just wave.

What is necessary for a consistent airport social life is a central "spark
plug" to keep everyone together -- which usually means the FBO owner's wife,
or someone in the on-field pilot's organization. Our airport currently
lacks this spark plug (it's sorta us, but we just don't have enough time in
the summer to really make it happen), so our airport's social life is
sporadic and (sadly) not growing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <PPasf.679088$xm3.281129@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> >> So how do we make the
> >> airport more SOCIAL?
> >
> > I dunno ... I have never seen any sort of social life at any of the
> > airports that I've been to, much less anything I'd think my wife would
> > be interested in. Most of the airports I've visited have been lifeless,
> > depressing places. If there was some sort of social life associated with
> > aviation, I think it could maybe get my wife interested in flying
>
> Social activities at an airport are often spur of the moment things, and --
> as a result -- hard to find. Many are put together by (and for) the
> regulars that hang out there on a daily basis, which is truly a shame.
> It's hard to grow aviation when it becomes ingrown like that, but I think
> it's more a function of the airport environment than a reflection of the
> people involved.

add to that the idiotic "security" measures put in place (and continuing to be
put in place) and the airport isn't going to get more social. :-(

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Jay Honeck]

> add to that the idiotic "security" measures put in place (and continuing
> to be
> put in place) and the airport isn't going to get more social. :-(

Well, I don't see much difference at our airport. There's still a perimeter
fence, and gates with combination locks, just like there's been forever.
Nothing has been added, but that's apparently enough to stifle the casual
observer.

We're working hard to bring people to the airport for our Big Kids Toy Show
next May (see details at www.BigKidsToyShow.com ), and there's another
fly-in breakfast in August -- but we need to find more consistent ways of
bringing new blood to the airport.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > First, my wife does not like flying.

> If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this from a pilot, I'd be rich.

> What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
> fly?

> (This started out being a joke-question, but upon reflection, I think I'll
> leave off the "smiley"... It's a damned serious question, really, and gets
> to the root of why so many guys ultimately quit flying...)

People always ask Rod Machado what he did to get his wife to fly.
He pushes off the question as long as he can. Finally, he replies:
"You know, I had that problem with my first wife".

Sad, but true. Fortunately, I learned to fly at 21, and after I got
my private pilot certificate, first dates were flying... if she
didn't like flying, there was no second date.

Further, fortunately, my wife's father was a pilot (private, VFR),
so by the time I got her, it was already "normal" to get in an
airplane and go somewhere for the weekend. That was great, so I
married her! We also square dance, ballroom dance ski, camp and
scuba dive. But, she doesn't like fishing... go figure. :-)

Best regards,

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

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

[RST Engineering]

Ya know, I never thought of it that way, but I wasted my first semester
college in engineering classes. Thought I'd never been as bored in my life,
breaking this, bending that, getting out the 'red rubber ball' data book to
solve problems...

Spent the next 4 years in modern/nuclear physics and never looked back.
Wrenching my way through college with the airlines gave me the "mechanic"
side of it, and it has been a ball from then on.

Thanks for your insight...

Jim



"Roger" > wrote in message
>
> Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
> items developed by the scientists. <:-))
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[RST Engineering]

Ripped off from an ancient Gordon Baxter line.

Jim



> wrote in message ...
>
> People always ask Rod Machado what he did to get his wife to fly.
> He pushes off the question as long as he can. Finally, he replies:
> "You know, I had that problem with my first wife".

[Tom Conner]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Roger wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jim Logajan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Tom Conner" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
> >>>>Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
> >>>>rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
> >>>
> >>>[ Nonsense elided. ]
> >>>
> >>>The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years
and as
> >>>of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are
women,
> >>>with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]
> >>>
> >>>In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science
and
> >>>engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men
earning
> >>>bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]
> >>>
> >>>[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
> >>>[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm
> >>
> >>He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
> >>numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
> >>is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.
> >
> >
> > Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
> > degrees.
>
> Beats me, you'll have to ask Tom. Engineering requires both strong
> science and strong visualization skills, especially in 3-D. For reasons
> I don't claim to understand, this seems to not appeal to women as much
> as men.
>

Beats me. Maybe because engineers are judged by what they invent and not by
how they are dressed. :)

Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to get an
engineering degree. This might be one reason why men dominate both
activities. Whether the mindset is cultural, genetic, or a combination is
unknown, but I suspect cultural since China and India produce a large number
of female engineers.

[Jack]

Tom Conner wrote:

> Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
> associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to get an
> engineering degree.

I hope not.

Not being an engineer, my perception of what it would involve might turn
me to the law instead. The flying mindset could be related to both, I
suppose, but I am thankful I never had to find out first-hand.


Jack

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>>First, my wife does not like flying.
>
>
>>If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this from a pilot, I'd be rich.
>
>
>>What *is* it with you guys, all hanging around with gals who don't like to
>>fly?
>
>
>>(This started out being a joke-question, but upon reflection, I think I'll
>>leave off the "smiley"... It's a damned serious question, really, and gets
>>to the root of why so many guys ultimately quit flying...)
>
>
> People always ask Rod Machado what he did to get his wife to fly.
> He pushes off the question as long as he can. Finally, he replies:
> "You know, I had that problem with my first wife".

I heard that from Bax long before Rod. I wonder who originated it?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Ya know, I never thought of it that way, but I wasted my first semester
> college in engineering classes. Thought I'd never been as bored in my life,
> breaking this, bending that, getting out the 'red rubber ball' data book to
> solve problems...
>
> Spent the next 4 years in modern/nuclear physics and never looked back.
> Wrenching my way through college with the airlines gave me the "mechanic"
> side of it, and it has been a ball from then on.
>
> Thanks for your insight...
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
>
>>Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
>>items developed by the scientists. <:-))
>>
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>

Yes, it is pretty funny that he things a scientist could actually
develop anything. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jack wrote:

> Tom Conner wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
>> associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to
>> get an
>> engineering degree.
>
>
> I hope not.
>
> Not being an engineer, my perception of what it would involve might turn
> me to the law instead. The flying mindset could be related to both, I
> suppose, but I am thankful I never had to find out first-hand.

Well, I am an engineer and I don't think it has much to do with learning
to fly. To me learning to fly was more like what I've heard is more
typical with medicine or law - lots of memorization, but little
analytical thinking.

I enjoyed engineering, in particulary math, physics and engineering
mechanics as I only had to memorize a few basic laws and principles and
could derive the rest as needed. When I took chemistry and biology, it
was almost entirely memorization. I found that boring.

Flying was also (other than the manual skills part obviously) all about
memorizing FARS, AIM procedures, etc., and little analytical stuff. The
instrument rating required visualization for situational awareness that
was interesting to me as that was about the closed to engineering that
I've seen during my flying career, but even then much of the instrument
rating was memorizing more FARs, chart symbols, procedures for lost
comm, etc.

I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?


Matt

[RST Engineering]

Then again, in our day a PhD in Engineering allowed you to get dirty from
your toes to your nose. You can tell a PhD in Engineering today from the
soldering iron burns on his hands -- they don't know which end gets hot.

{;-)


Jim



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, it is pretty funny that he things a scientist could actually develop
> anything. :-)
>
> Matt

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> scuba dive. But, she doesn't like fishing... go figure. :-)

Yeah but have you taken her spearfishing?

[[email protected]]

> > scuba dive. But, she doesn't like fishing... go figure. :-)

> Yeah but have you taken her spearfishing?

Hey, there is an idea.

Best regards,

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

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

[AES]

> "Roger" > wrote in message
> >
> > Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
> > items developed by the scientists. <:-))

"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> Ya know, I never thought of it that way, but <snipped>.
>
> Thanks for your insight...
>
> Jim


Really cornball old story (almost embarrassed to drag it out of the
memory bank):

God creates world, takes four people up on mountain top to show
them what She's created & says, "OK, what do you think of it?"

First person: "Wow, what a piece of real estate!"

God: "OK, you shall be the Businessman, eternally
buying and selling and pricing things"

Second person: "It's beautiful!"

God: "OK, you shall be the Artist, eternally seeking to
create and appreciate beauty"

Third person (after long pause): "How does it work . . . ?"

God: "OK, you shall be the Scientist, eternally trying to
answer that question."

Fourth person (after taking an even longer look at what
God has done): "I'd like to do that too . . ."

God: "Ah, you shall follow the highest calling of all: The Engineer.
Using all the knowledge of the Scientist; all the economic understanding
of the Businessman; all the appreciation of elegance and beauty of the
Artist -- your mission is to carry on the work of Creation."

[Matt Whiting]

AES wrote:

>>"Roger" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Besides, engineers are the educated mechanics who put together the
>>>items developed by the scientists. <:-))
>
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ya know, I never thought of it that way, but <snipped>.
>>
>>Thanks for your insight...
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
> Really cornball old story (almost embarrassed to drag it out of the
> memory bank):
>
> God creates world, takes four people up on mountain top to show
> them what She's created & says, "OK, what do you think of it?"
>
> First person: "Wow, what a piece of real estate!"
>
> God: "OK, you shall be the Businessman, eternally
> buying and selling and pricing things"
>
> Second person: "It's beautiful!"
>
> God: "OK, you shall be the Artist, eternally seeking to
> create and appreciate beauty"
>
> Third person (after long pause): "How does it work . . . ?"
>
> God: "OK, you shall be the Scientist, eternally trying to
> answer that question."
>
> Fourth person (after taking an even longer look at what
> God has done): "I'd like to do that too . . ."
>
> God: "Ah, you shall follow the highest calling of all: The Engineer.
> Using all the knowledge of the Scientist; all the economic understanding
> of the Businessman; all the appreciation of elegance and beauty of the
> Artist -- your mission is to carry on the work of Creation."

I thought I had seen them all, but I haven't seen that one before.
Excellent! Except for that She part... :-)

Matt

[Montblack]

("AES" wrote)
[snip]
> God creates world, takes four people up on mountain top to show them what
> She's created & says, "OK, what do you think of it?"

[snip]
> Fourth person (after taking an even longer look at what God has done):
> "I'd like to do that too . . ."
>
> God: "Ah, you shall follow the highest calling of all: The Engineer.
> Using all the knowledge of the Scientist; all the economic understanding
> of the Businessman; all the appreciation of elegance and beauty of the
> Artist -- your mission is to carry on the work of Creation."


?SongID=2980>
Words and music by Peggy Seeger - 1970
[various verses snipped...catchy tune]

I'M GONNA BE AN ENGINEER

When I was a little girl I wished I was a boy
I tagged along behind the gang and wore my corduroys.
Everybody said I only did it to annoy
But I was gonna be an engineer

Mamma said, "Why can't you be a lady?
Your duty is to make me the mother of a pearl
Wait until you're older, dear
And maybe you'll be glad that you're a girl.

Then Jimmy came along and we set up a conjugation
We were busy every night with loving recreation
I spent my days at work so he could get an education
And now he's an engineer!

Every time I turn around there's something else to do
Cook a meal or mend a sock or sweep a floor or two
Listening to Jimmy Young - it makes me want to spew
I was gonna be an engineer.

Well, I listened to my mother and I joined a typing pool
Listened to my lover and I put him through his school
If I listen to the boss, I'm just a bloody fool
And an underpaid engineer

I been a sucker ever since I was a baby
As a daughter, as a mother, as a lover, as a dear
But I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady
I'll fight them as an engineer!


Montblack made out of ticky-tacky

[Roger]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:02:23 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom Conner" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is like trying to get women to take engineering in college.
>>>>>Although they have the intelligence, for whatever reason, women would
>>>>>rather get a business degree than an engineering degree.
>>>>
>>>>[ Nonsense elided. ]
>>>>
>>>>The proportion of women in the sciences has increased over the years and as
>>>>of 2001 roughly 30% to 40% of graduate students in the sciences are women,
>>>>with 54% of graduate students in biological sciences being women.[1]
>>>>
>>>>In 2001, it appears roughly as many women as men were awarded science and
>>>>engineering bachelor's degrees - and there were more women than men earning
>>>>bachelor's degrees of all types.[2]
>>>>
>>>>[1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figd-1.htm
>>>>[2] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm
>>>
>>>He said engineering, not science. If you look at the engineering
>>>numbers, women earn fewer than 1/4 of the degrees issued each year. It
>>>is improving to be sure, but not even close to parity.
>>
>>
>> Why just engineering? Science and Engineering are both technical
>> degrees.
>
>Beats me, you'll have to ask Tom. Engineering requires both strong
>science and strong visualization skills, especially in 3-D. For reasons
>I don't claim to understand, this seems to not appeal to women as much
>as men.
>
That's probably because they don't spend so much time in front of a
Playboy magazine using their imaginations?

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

>
>Matt

[Morgans]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> You can tell a PhD in Engineering today from the soldering iron burns on
> his hands -- they don't know which end gets hot.

Then they need to get those new "cool" soldering irons, they advertise on TV
all of the time.

I can't imagine how those would work worth a damn. What do they have in
them? My guess is a small, low mass filament, almost like a light bulb. I
would imagine that if the thing you were trying to solder was of any size
(mass), they would not make enough watts of heat to get it up to
temperature, within any reasonable time.

Anyone have one, or seen one in action?
--
Jim in NC

[Jack]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?

Not flying.


Jack

[Matt Whiting]

Jack wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>
>
> Not flying.

Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
are engineers than any other field.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>
> Not flying.

I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
terror back to the college of liberal arts.

I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off to
those who could.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>
>>Not flying.
>
>
> I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
> and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
> terror back to the college of liberal arts.
>
> I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off to
> those who could.

What is so hard about it? Study 80-100 hours a week and it's a piece of
cake! Kind of like running a hotel. :-)


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:88wsf.439943$084.271001@attbi_s22...
>>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>
>> Not flying.
>
> I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
> and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
> terror back to the college of liberal arts.
>
> I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off
> to those who could.

Think that was bad, give any of the Physics (real science) schools a try.

Matt Barrow, ME, CE

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>>
>>>Not flying.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked
>> hard and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran
>> screaming in terror back to the college of liberal arts.
>>
>> I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off
>> to those who could.
>
> What is so hard about it? Study 80-100 hours a week and it's a piece of
> cake! Kind of like running a hotel. :-)
>
Yeah, but the kids in engineering schools didn't have any form of "love
life" in school (and many still don't), not so with those in Hotel
Management.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:88wsf.439943$084.271001@attbi_s22...
>
>>>>I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>>
>>>Not flying.
>>
>>I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked hard
>>and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran screaming in
>>terror back to the college of liberal arts.
>>
>>I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off
>>to those who could.
>
>
> Think that was bad, give any of the Physics (real science) schools a try.

Actually, physics classes were some of my most enjoyable and least
difficult classes, including Atomic and Nuclear Physics. I didn't take
any graduate level physics, so maybe that is harder. My EE classes were
much more difficult that physics. Chemistry was the worst as it was
just so boring. :-) Although, my work-study job was in the chemistry
lab and that was a hoot. I learned more chemisry working in the lab
than I ever did in class and it was much more fun. The professor who
supervised the lab was great and taught me a lot while I was working.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>>>
>>>>Not flying.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know about Jack's opinion, but at my father's urging I looked
>>>hard and long at the engineering curriculum in college -- and ran
>>>screaming in terror back to the college of liberal arts.
>>>
>>>I don't know how anyone could survive in that school -- but my hat's off
>>>to those who could.
>>
>>What is so hard about it? Study 80-100 hours a week and it's a piece of
>>cake! Kind of like running a hotel. :-)
>>
>
> Yeah, but the kids in engineering schools didn't have any form of "love
> life" in school (and many still don't), not so with those in Hotel
> Management.

Love life? What is that?? :-)

Matt (CS, EE, PE and soon to be CE/SE)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
>>> scuba dive. But, she doesn't like fishing... go figure. :-)
>
>> Yeah but have you taken her spearfishing?
>
> Hey, there is an idea.


Don't let her get behind you. Trust me on this....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I heard that from Bax long before Rod. I wonder who originated it?

Glenn Curtis. :-)

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
> we attract females to the airport?

Well, the first step is to make the pre-flight inspection something that can be
done in Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> Anyone have one, or seen one in action?

Just bought one from a catalog. Haven't had time to try it out yet. Maybe this
weekend.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

Jim wrote:
>Then they need to get those new "cool" soldering irons, they advertise on TV
>all of the time.

>I can't imagine how those would work worth a damn. What do they have in
>them? My guess is a small, low mass filament, almost like a light bulb. I
>would imagine that if the thing you were trying to solder was of any size
>(mass), they would not make enough watts of heat to get it up to
>temperature, within any reasonable time.

>Anyone have one, or seen one in action?

I think it's called Cold Heat, I've been eyeing it for awhile now
myself, but I think I'll wait 'til I get a few good pireps on them
first :^)

The Monk

[JohnH]

> I can't imagine how those would work worth a damn.

Your imagination is accurate, as one with any soldering experience might
guess.

My sister gave me one last year; it is useless.

However, one of the best soldering tools I have (besides my temperature
controlled Weller) is a small butane iron I got from Radio Snack many years
ago. Highly portable and reliable.

[Roger]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:46:58 GMT, Jack > wrote:

>Tom Conner wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think the mindset required to master the technical details
>> associated with learning to fly is similar to the mindset needed to get an
>> engineering degree.
>
>I hope not.
>
>Not being an engineer, my perception of what it would involve might turn
>me to the law instead. The flying mindset could be related to both, I
>suppose, but I am thankful I never had to find out first-hand.

I doubt there is much in flying for a pilot that even relates to
engineering, at least I see no correlation.

"To me":
Stick-and-rudder flying is an art and it is learned as a harmony of
the senses. Sight, sound, balance. A good stick-and-rudder pilot
needs little else.

Sure there is the book stuff needed to learn the regulations which is
no different than any other discipline, but it technical or business.
They both have their rules and regulations.

About the only real calculations are for distance. If a person can
understand a wing can go through the air at an angle rather than
straight then they can understand angle of attack. When you are
pushing the limits for the AOA you can feel it regardless of speed,
direction, or attitude. In relatively simple planes including most
high performance singles, you don't need an indicator to tell you
when your are getting near the edge. You really don't need a stall
warning indicator either.

Flight planning is little different than creating a spread sheet and
one whale of a lot easier than creating a relational database.

If you really want to pick nits and call it technical, a pilot needs
to learn to think in terms of time traveled instead of distance and we
have a lot of seasoned pilots who have failed at this, but overall it
is no more technical than any business course.

I had far more math in CS than it took to get my PPL.

Even creating an IFR flight plan, It consists of "abouts" .
Well, to the first intersection its 20 miles SW with the wind from the
south with our cruising speed we'll be getting "about"180 MPH. That's
3 miles per minute so that leg will be about 7 minutes or slightly
less. Heading? Oh...bout 10 degrees left of course then we'll see if
we need to make any corrections.

Except for training and for the check ride I've never done it any
other way. Actually on the check ride the winds were different than
forecast and I reverted to the ... Wellll...the winds are higher than
expected and it's causing us to parallel the desired course so we need
about another 30 degrees to intercept and then back to this heading to
hold course. It also means we'll need a heading about 30 to 40 degrees
right of course when heading north. So, even on the check ride a good
portion was "abouts".

If we use common sense there are no normal flight figures that require
any knowledge at the engineering level.

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

[Roger]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:04:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>
>>
>> Not flying.
>
>Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
>are engineers than any other field.

Certainly! Where else can you find so many different toys in one
package?

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

[Roger]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:19:04 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"RST Engineering" > wrote
>
>> You can tell a PhD in Engineering today from the soldering iron burns on
>> his hands -- they don't know which end gets hot.
>
>Then they need to get those new "cool" soldering irons, they advertise on TV
>all of the time.
>
>I can't imagine how those would work worth a damn. What do they have in
>them? My guess is a small, low mass filament, almost like a light bulb. I
>would imagine that if the thing you were trying to solder was of any size
>(mass), they would not make enough watts of heat to get it up to
>temperature, within any reasonable time.
>
>Anyone have one, or seen one in action?

Two electrodes. (You can't get much simpler than that) You short them
together with what every you want to melt. That's assuming what ever
it is melts at less than the electrodes and the really wild assumption
that it'd have enough power to do so. <:-))

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

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
>> we attract females to the airport?
>
>
> Well, the first step is to make the pre-flight inspection something that
> can be done in Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes.

I could do this with my Cessna, pretty hard with the under-wing Piper
sumps and gear to check. :-)


Matt

[Jose]

> So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
> we attract females to the airport?

Probably the same way you make motorcycling more feminine.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I could do this with my Cessna, pretty hard with the under-wing Piper
> sumps and gear to check. :-)

With either, checking the oil still has the potential to be messy. I once saw a
very experienced (and very attractive) lady CFI pre-flight a Cessna while
dressed in a cocktail dress and heels, and I once had to do it while wearing a
business suit, but neither was particularly easy to do.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> Probably the same way you make motorcycling more feminine.

Turn the job over to the Honda advertising division?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I could do this with my Cessna, pretty hard with the under-wing Piper
>> sumps and gear to check. :-)
>
>
> With either, checking the oil still has the potential to be messy. I
> once saw a very experienced (and very attractive) lady CFI pre-flight a
> Cessna while dressed in a cocktail dress and heels, and I once had to do
> it while wearing a business suit, but neither was particularly easy to do.

I've never found checking the oil to be messy. Adding oil has more
potential for that to be sure. Usually, I check the oil before I drain
the sumps. That way the spilled avgas washes the oil film off my hands!
:-)


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> > So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
> > we attract females to the airport?
>
> Probably the same way you make motorcycling more feminine.
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Airplane tattoos?

[Jack]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>
>> Not flying.
>
> Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
> are engineers than any other field.

Well then, what you need is the context: military pilot, nine years;
airline pilot, thirty yrs; recreational sailplane pilot, three yrs so far.

I wouldn't have done anything to dilute those professional experiences
and/or the family life during my career. Flying was all I wanted to do,
and engineering would have been somewhat down the list of alternatives.

But that's just me. A very few are able to combine the two careers
fully, as in test-piloting.

We also have airline pilots who are MD's, dentists, lawyers, etc., etc.
but that sounds an awfully lot like work. Combining airline flying with
ANG or military Reserve flying can also lead to a very rigorous schedule.

Recreational flying is not in the same league.


Jack

[Matt Whiting]

Jack wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious, what is your perception of what engineering involves?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not flying.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. Of all of my flying colleagues where I work, I think more
>> are engineers than any other field.
>
>
> Well then, what you need is the context: military pilot, nine years;
> airline pilot, thirty yrs; recreational sailplane pilot, three yrs so far.
>
> I wouldn't have done anything to dilute those professional experiences
> and/or the family life during my career. Flying was all I wanted to do,
> and engineering would have been somewhat down the list of alternatives.
>
> But that's just me. A very few are able to combine the two careers
> fully, as in test-piloting.
>
> We also have airline pilots who are MD's, dentists, lawyers, etc., etc.
> but that sounds an awfully lot like work. Combining airline flying with
> ANG or military Reserve flying can also lead to a very rigorous schedule.
>
> Recreational flying is not in the same league.

Yes, I was certainly talking about professions other than flying.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> To which she replied "Oh, I love TRAINS".

Great story!

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Matt Barrow" >
>
>>Yeah, but the kids in engineering schools didn't have any form of "love
>>life" in school (and many still don't)
>
> Of course we did!... It just had to occur
> between 11pm and 2am on a Saturday
> night with no exams scheduled for the
> following week.
> The tough part is getting through the
> "act" without once thinking "Hmm, I
> wonder how I could write an equation
> that would accurately define the motion
> of the bed springs".
>
> True fact: Somewhere, I still have an
> old T-shirt that says "Engineers do it
> with simple harmonic motion".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Engineer Identification Test
You walk into a room and notice that a picture is hanging crooked. You...

1.. Straighten it.
2.. Ignore it.
3.. Buy a CAD system and spend the next six months designing a
solar-powered, self-adjusting picture frame while often stating aloud your
belief that the inventor of the nail was a total moron.
The correct answer is "C" but partial credit can be given to anybody who
writes "It depends" in the margin of the test or simply blames the whole
stupid thing on "Marketing".

Social Skills
Engineers have different objectives when it comes to social interaction.

Normal people expect to accomplish several unrealistic things from social
interaction:

a.. Stimulating and thought-provoking conversation
b.. Important social contacts
c.. A feeling of connectedness with other humans
In contrast to normal people, engineers have rational objectives for social
interactions:

a.. Get it over with as soon as possible.
b.. Avoid getting invited to something unpleasant.
c.. Demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of all subjects.
Fascination with Gadgets
To the engineer, all matter in the universe can be placed into one of two
categories:

1.. things that need to be fixed, and
2.. things that will need to be fixed after you've had a few minutes to
play with them.
Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily
available, they will create their own problems. Normal people don't
understand this concept; they believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features
yet.

No engineer looks at a television remote control without wondering what it
would take to turn it into a stun gun. No engineer can take a shower without
wondering if some sort of Teflon coating would make showering unnecessary.
To the engineer, the world is a toy box full of sub-optimized and
feature-poor toys.

Fashion and Appearance
Clothes are the lowest priority for an engineer, assuming the basic
thresholds for temperature and decency have been satisfied. If no appendages
are freezing or sticking together, and if no genitalia or mammary glands are
swinging around in plain view, then the objective of clothing has been met.
Anything else is a waste.

Dating and Social Life
Dating is never easy for engineers. A normal person will employ various
indirect and duplicitous methods to create a false impression of
attractiveness. Engineers are incapable of placing appearance above
function.

Fortunately, engineers have an ace in the hole. They are widely recognized
as superior marriage material: intelligent, dependable, employed, honest,
and handy around the house. While it's true that many normal people would
prefer not to date an engineer, most normal people harbor an intense desire
to mate with them, thus producing engineerlike children who will have
high-paying jobs long before losing their virginity.

Male engineers reach their peak of sexual attractiveness later than normal
men, becoming irresistible erotic dynamos in their mid thirties to late
forties. Just look at these examples of sexually irresistible men in
technical professions:

a.. Bill Gates
b.. MacGyver
c.. Etcetera
Female engineers become irresistible at the age of consent and remain that
way until about thirty minutes after their clinical death. Longer if it's a
warm day.

Honesty
Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human
relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from
customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth.

Engineers sometimes bend the truth to avoid work. They say things that sound
like lies but technically are not because nobody could be expected to
believe them. The complete list of engineer lies is listed below:

a.. "I won't change anything without asking you first."
b.. "I'll return your hard-to-find cable tomorrow."
c.. "I have to have new equipment to do my job."
d.. "I'm not jealous of your new computer."
Frugality
Engineers are notoriously frugal. This is not because of cheapness or mean
spirit; it is simply because every spending situation is simply a problem in
optimization, that is, "How can I escape this situation while retaining the
greatest amount of cash?"

Powers of Concentration
If there is one trait that best defines an engineer it is the ability to
concentrate on one subject to the complete exclusion of everything else in
the environment.

This sometimes causes engineers to be pronounced dead prematurely. Some
funeral homes in high-tech areas have started checking resumes before
processing the bodies. Anybody with a degree in electrical engineering or
experience in computer programming is propped up in the lounge for a few
days just to see if he or she snaps out of it.

Risk
Engineers hate risk. They try to eliminate it whenever they can. This is
understandable, given that when an engineer makes one little mistake the
media will treat it like it's a big deal or something.

Examples of Bad Press for Engineers
a.. Hindenberg
b.. Space Shuttle Challenger
c.. SPANet(tm)
d.. Hubble space telescope
e.. Apollo 13
f.. Titanic
g.. Ford Pinto
h.. Corvair
The risk/reward calculation for engineers looks something like this:

RISK:
Public humiliation and the death of thousands of innocent people.
REWARD:
A certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame.
Being practical people, engineers evaluate this balance of risks and rewards
and decide that risk is not a good thing. The best way to avoid risk is by
advising that any activity is technically impossible for reasons that are
far too complicated to explain.

If that approach is not sufficient to halt a project, then the engineer will
fall back to a second line of defense: "It's technically possible but it
will cost too much."

Ego
Ego-wise, two things are important to engineers:

a.. How smart they are.
b.. How many cool devices they own.
The fastest way to get an engineer to solve a problem is to declare that the
problem is unsolvable. No engineer can walk away from an unsolvable problem
until it's solved. No illness or distraction is sufficient to get the
engineer off the case. These types of challenges quickly become personal--a
battle between the engineer and the laws of nature.

Engineers will go without food and hygiene for days to solve a problem.
(Other times just because they forgot). And when they succeed in solving the
problem they will experience an ego rush that is better than sex --and I'm
including the kind of sex where other people are involved.

Nothing is more threatening to the engineer than the suggestion that
somebody has more technical skill. Normal people sometimes use that
knowledge as a lever to extract more work from the engineer. When an
engineer says that something can't be done (a code phrase that means it's
not fun to do), some clever normal people have learned to glance at the
engineer with a look of compassion and pity and say something along these
lines: "I'll ask Bob to figure it out. He knows how to solve difficult
technical problems."

At that point it is a good idea for the normal person to not stand between
the engineer and the problem. The engineer will set upon the problem like a
starved Chihuahua on a pork chop.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> Anyone have one, or seen one in action?

Ok, just tried it out. Here's how they work. The tip is actually two electrodes.
When you touch the tip to the work, the work makes the electrical contact, and
it heats up like a light bulb filament. The tip doesn't heat up much, but the
work does. I tried to tin some 26 gauge stranded copper wire, and it brought the
flux to a boil much more rapidly than a hot soldering pencil iron does.

Here's the problem. You have to keep both electrodes in contact with the work.
In my case, this proved to be impossible; the wire was just too flexible. I can
see that there might also be problems heating up both pieces when soldering two
items together. Failure to get both pieces hot results in what's called a "cold
solder joint."

There's a little light on top that tells you when contact is being made. You
really have to keep this light in sight. The tip has only one flat surface, and
the only way it works is to press this surface against the work. Fortunately,
the tip can be inserted in the iron in either of two directions, so it shouldn't
be much of a problem.

Anyway. Imagine. There you are under your panel trying to solder a wire to a
lug. You hold the wire firmly in place with your left hand and manipulate the
soldering iron into position with your right hand. Wiggle things around to keep
the little red light on. When the joint gets hot, you apply the solder with your
third hand.

Don't have a third hand? Then maybe this thing isn't for you.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

Great pirep, I think you've just saved me $19.95 or whatever it cost
yah. Thanks George. :^)

The Monk

[Jim Macklin]

They offer a heavy duty unit now and there are several
different tips available, at comparatively high price. But
it is very handy when you need to solder a wire splice and
can't bring the work to the bench. If you're trying to
solder very light wires, back them up with a wooden stick, a
clean popsicle stick or buy some at a hobby shop.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:yLkuf.16244$yW1.321@trnddc05...
| Morgans wrote:
|
| > Anyone have one, or seen one in action?
|
| Ok, just tried it out. Here's how they work. The tip is
actually two electrodes.
| When you touch the tip to the work, the work makes the
electrical contact, and
| it heats up like a light bulb filament. The tip doesn't
heat up much, but the
| work does. I tried to tin some 26 gauge stranded copper
wire, and it brought the
| flux to a boil much more rapidly than a hot soldering
pencil iron does.
|
| Here's the problem. You have to keep both electrodes in
contact with the work.
| In my case, this proved to be impossible; the wire was
just too flexible. I can
| see that there might also be problems heating up both
pieces when soldering two
| items together. Failure to get both pieces hot results in
what's called a "cold
| solder joint."
|
| There's a little light on top that tells you when contact
is being made. You
| really have to keep this light in sight. The tip has only
one flat surface, and
| the only way it works is to press this surface against the
work. Fortunately,
| the tip can be inserted in the iron in either of two
directions, so it shouldn't
| be much of a problem.
|
| Anyway. Imagine. There you are under your panel trying to
solder a wire to a
| lug. You hold the wire firmly in place with your left hand
and manipulate the
| soldering iron into position with your right hand. Wiggle
things around to keep
| the little red light on. When the joint gets hot, you
apply the solder with your
| third hand.
|
| Don't have a third hand? Then maybe this thing isn't for
you.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Jose]

> Anyway. Imagine. There you are under your panel trying to solder a wire to a lug. You hold the wire firmly in place with your left hand and manipulate the soldering iron into position with your right hand. Wiggle things around to keep the little red light on. When the joint gets hot, you apply the solder with your third hand.

And this differs from regular soldering how?

:) Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:14:09 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Anyway. Imagine. There you are under your panel trying to solder a wire to a lug. You hold the wire firmly in place with your left hand and manipulate the soldering iron into position with your right hand. Wiggle things around to keep the little red light on. When the joint gets hot, you apply the solder with your third hand.
>
>And this differs from regular soldering how?

With the soldering gun you are far more likely to be injured from a
burn.

With this device you are far more likely to be injured from the chain
reaction of 1. Getting frustrated, 2. Getting ****ed!, 3. Throwing
something due to item #2, 4. Hitting hand/fingers while in act of
throwing, 5. Hitting head on underside of panel hard enough to require
stitches while instinctively raising up to cuss at full volume in
reaction to hand damage, 6. Damage to back requiring more stitches,
caused while flailing about trying to get out from under panel with
precious bodily fluids running in eyes from step 5 caused by step 4
caused by step 3 caused by step 2 which came from step one, which was
due to being too cheap the hire someone qualified to do the job in the
first place.

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

[JohnH]

> With the soldering gun you are far more likely to be injured from a
> burn.
>
> With this device you are far more likely to be injured from the chain
> reaction of 1. Getting frustrated, 2. Getting ****ed!, 3. Throwing
> something due to item #2, 4. Hitting hand/fingers while in act of
> throwing,


As a lad I worked part time at a TV repair shop (they were cost effective to
repair at one time ;). I remember the shop owner telling me how dangerous
CRTs and power supplies were to the hands; often resulting in broken bones
and bad cuts. "How does shock cause that?" I asked. "Oh, it's not the
shock - that's usually harmless. It's your reaction causing you to slam your
hand on sharp objects."

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> And this differs from regular soldering how?

Yeah, I see the smilie, but I'll answer anyway. With a regular iron or soldering
gun, you can get a bead of solder on the tip. Just get the joint hot, and the
bead flows right into it. The tip on these things doesn't get hot enough for that.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> Yeah, I see the smilie, but I'll answer anyway. With a regular iron or
> soldering gun, you can get a bead of solder on the tip. Just get the joint
> hot, and the bead flows right into it. The tip on these things doesn't get
> hot enough for that.

Plus the fact that the dot of solder on the tip will deform around the
object you are working on to aid in rapid and efficient heat transfer.

It also seems like the cold solder gun depends on having the object you are
soldering having about the correct resistance to make the appropriate amount
of heat.

Thanks for the review, all. I thought there would be major problems, and it
looks like I was right. I'll stick with my soldering gun/iron/butane torch.
--
Jim in NC

[J. Severyn]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Then they need to get those new "cool" soldering irons, they advertise on
> TV all of the time.
>
>
> Anyone have one, or seen one in action?
> --
> Jim in NC
Yes, a co-worker's son gave him one of these irons for Christmas in 2004.
He gave it to me to tryout. Yes, I could get it to solder, but getting a
good joint was very difficult. Plus, since the tips are made of carbon, the
iron leaves small carbon particles in the joint. Not good. Also since the
unit actually passes current through the wires to be soldered, it is quite
possible to get small wires too hot. All told, I'll take my transformer
operated, bench Weller, thank you...even if I have to run an extension cord
for off-bench use.

John Severyn
KLVK

[Grumman-581]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> Probably the same way you make motorcycling more feminine.

Have fly-ins at Sturgis?

[[email protected]]

On 25 Dec 2005 14:56:35 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
>we attract females to the airport?
>
>My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
>pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
>friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
>airport more SOCIAL?

I'm not sure there is a solution Jay. Women aren't men. On the
whole, they don't enjoy the same things men do and don't think in the
same way. Where men might see flying as a terrific way to get a good
view, despite the cost, the women might see only the danger and/or the
cost.

I'm generalizing a great deal, but women really are different from
men. We can't change that, not sure we would want to.

Corky Scott

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
wrote:

> On 25 Dec 2005 14:56:35 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
> >So what's the solution? How do we make flying more feminine? How do
> >we attract females to the airport?
> >
> >My wife, Mary, is living proof that flying is NOT an all-male
> >pass-time, but I know she likes to hang out at the hangar entertaining
> >friends nearly as much as she likes the flying. So how do we make the
> >airport more SOCIAL?
>
> I'm not sure there is a solution Jay. Women aren't men. On the
> whole, they don't enjoy the same things men do and don't think in the
> same way. Where men might see flying as a terrific way to get a good
> view, despite the cost, the women might see only the danger and/or the
> cost.
>
> I'm generalizing a great deal, but women really are different from
> men. We can't change that, not sure we would want to.
>
> Corky Scott

The following comments are derived from long association with various
glider clubs, some of which had little or no feminine/spousal/family
participation and one of which (Caesar Creek Soaring) had a very high
level of participation by female pilots/spouses/family. In order of
importance:

1. Toilets

Bathroom facilities are the number one issue. I am absolutely serious.
To get women to come to the airport and enjoy it, one must have
convenient, clean, comfortable and private toilet facilities. Stepping
around the side of the hangar is just not acceptable to females and
males should be sensitive to that. Porta-potties aren't much better.

2. Comfort

Assuming that appropriate toilet facilities are available, one needs to
look to providing relief from environmental extremes. Standing around
sweltering or freezing or being consumed by insects is fairly
off-putting to most females (and males as well). Ever been below the
"gnat line" in south Georgia in the summer? Guaranteed to repel the
fairer sex. A relatively tidy and comfortable heated and air-conditioned
lounge or clubhouse is desired. The wealthier glider guys buy motor
homes to keep the spouse comfortable and happy.

3. Sensitivity

Cookouts at the field on sweltering summer days or holidary "parties" in
a freezing hangar are not appropriate "spouse appreciation functions".
Especially if said spouses have to do all the work to put on the BBQ or
party.


Fly safe,

Wallace

[Flyingmonk]

22 SIGNS INDICATING YOU HAVE GROWN UP
1. Your house plants are alive and you can't smoke any of them.
2. Having sex in a twin bed is out of the question.
3. You keep more food than beer in the fridge.
4. 6:00A.M. is when you get up, not when you go to bed.
5. You hear your favorite song on an elevator.
6. You watch the Weather Channel.
7. Your friends marry and divorce instead of hook up and break up.
8. You go from 130 days of vacation time to 14.
9. Jeans and a sweater no longer qualify as "dressed up."
10. You're the one calling the police because those %&@# kids next door
won't turn down the stereo!
11. Older relatives feel comfortable telling sex jokes around you.
12. You don't know what time Taco Bell closes anymore.
13. Your car insurance goes down and your car payments go up.
14. You feed your dog Science Diet instead of McDonald's leftovers.
15. You no longer take naps from noon to 6 PM!
16. Dinner and a movie is the whole date instead of the beginning of
one.
17. Eating a basket of chicken wings at 3 AM would severely upset,
rather than settle, your stomach.
18. If you're a gal, you go to the drug store for ibuprofen and
antacid, not condoms and pregnancy tests.
19. A $4.00 bottle of wine is no longer "pretty good stuff."
20. You actually eat breakfast food at breakfast time.
21. "I just can't drink the way I used to," replaces, "I'm never going
to drink that much again."
22. You read this entire list looking desperately for one sign that
doesn't apply to you and can't find one to save your sorry old ass.

[Michael]

> Well then, what you need is the context:

The context being that most professional pilots are not practicing
engineers? Obviously. Engineering is generally project based, and
thus not something that can easily be done part time. Can't put the
project on hold while you fly a five-day to Norita.

> We also have airline pilots who are MD's, dentists, lawyers, etc., etc.
> but that sounds an awfully lot like work.

Actually, you don't. What you have is a lot of MD's, dentists,
lawyers, etc., etc., who are also airline pilots. There's a
difference. I know lots of MD's, JD's, PhD's and such who pick up an
ATP certificate in their spare time, just for the hell of it, even
though they generally don't have anything like the spare time an
airline pilot has. I have yet to meet an airline pilot who has ever
picked up an MD, JD, PhD, or even a BE in his copious spare time. The
level of achievement involved is dramatically different.

I do know several airline pilots who started out in engineering school.
Not all flunked out of engineering and had to change majors - one I
know actually managed to graduate with a C average. He's a captain at
the majors now, twenty years seniority, driving a Boeing around,
figuring out how to live on less than an engineer a dedade his junior
makes and what to do about his retirement, and wishing he'd developed
some actual skills. I suppose with legacy carriers all going bankrupt
as the low cost operators eat their lunch, there's a lot of that going
around.

That's not to say that none of the A students in engineering become
professional pilots. Some do. You find them in flight test, the
astronaut program, etc. Airlines? Not so much, though every once in a
while you will see one doing it as a retirement gig or a diversion from
his consulting business.

> Recreational flying is not in the same league.

Recreational flying is what you make it. Of course a pilot with 100
hours can't be in the same league as one with 10,000, but in my
experience, a recreational pilot is generally a better pilot than an
airline pilot with the same number of hours. Maybe it's because you
can't swing a dead cat at the airport without hitting a few engineers.

Michael

[Bob Moore]

"Michael" >wrote
> Recreational flying is what you make it. Of course a pilot with
> 100 hours can't be in the same league as one with 10,000, but in
> my experience, a recreational pilot is generally a better pilot
> than an airline pilot with the same number of hours. Maybe it's
> because you can't swing a dead cat at the airport without
> hitting a few engineers.

Michael...
You're full of Bull****!! For a couple of hours, the RecPilot just
might fly his toy a bit better than the airline pilot, but I would
just like to see a RecPilot even attempt a takeoff in an Airbus.

Bob Moore
Electrical Engineering, Georgia Tech
US Navy, VP-21 P-2V, VP-46 P-3B
Pan American World Airways, B-707, B-727
Air Florida, Chief Pilot, Director Flight Operations
FAA ATP ASMEL, CFI ASEL/INST

[Michael]

> You're full of Bull****!! For a couple of hours, the RecPilot just
> might fly his toy a bit better than the airline pilot, but I would
> just like to see a RecPilot even attempt a takeoff in an Airbus.

A good friend of mine flew an Airbus. Based on what he said, you're
right - the very high time rec pilot will have a hard time with it.
It's more suited to kids who spend a lot of time playing flight
simulator.

The high time rec pilot winds up doing different things - like shooting
an ILS to mins at night, in an airplane he only got into that morning,
with no operative directional gyro and no compass light (thus no
heading indication at all) - or some equivalent mess. Single pilot.
Usually before he hits 2000 hours. I know lots of airline guys at 2000
hours, mostly in the right seat of the regionals, and I can't think of
one who could pull something like that off.

By the time they hit 10,000 hours it's a different story - they're
usually better than the 2000 hour rec pilot, having gotten good through
sheer repetition - but the rare 10,000 hour rec pilot you see is truly
amazing, head and shoulders above the average 10,000 hour airline guy.
I was fortunate enough to learn from one. He taught me to fly an
aerobatic biplane in 90 minutes. The 10,000 hour airline guy who tried
before him only succeeded in scaring me.

Michael

[Bob Moore]

"Michael" >wrote

We must live in different countries.

> The high time rec pilot winds up doing different things

I took this to mean a pilot with a Recreational Pilot Certificate.
You obviously meant something else, probably Private/Comm Pilot.


> shooting an ILS to mins at night, in an airplane he only got
> into that morning, with no operative directional gyro and no
> compass light (thus no heading indication at all) - or some
> equivalent mess. Single pilot.

Oh...a true Idiot. So...airline pilots can't fly because they
are unwilling to risk their life like that idiot Private Pilot?

Just where do you live?

Bob Moore
CFIing since 1970

[Michael]

> I took this to mean a pilot with a Recreational Pilot Certificate.
> You obviously meant something else, probably Private/Comm Pilot.

I mean someone who flies primarily for recreation, rather than for a
living. That should have been obvious from the context. Most
recreational pilots with thousands of hours do have advanced ratings.

>> shooting an ILS to mins at night, in an airplane he only got
>> into that morning, with no operative directional gyro and no
>> compass light (thus no heading indication at all) - or some
>> equivalent mess. Single pilot.

> Oh...a true Idiot. So...airline pilots can't fly because they
> are unwilling to risk their life like that idiot Private Pilot?

It takes a true idiot to volunteer to do this intentionally. But when
weather is forecast to be VFR but instead does its own thing, and when
equipment that was certified good fails in flight, you do what needs to
be done to land the airplane. Or you die. Most of the 2000 hour guys
I know in the right seat of regional airliners would die. Fortunately
they're flying equipment that is much better maintained, with far less
flexibility, and in a crew environment so it all works out.

> Just where do you live?

Figure it out. It's not that hard. The software engineer who wanted
to train with me figured out who and where I was quite easily.

Michael

[Grumman-581]

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
> Figure it out. It's not that hard. The software engineer who wanted
> to train with me figured out who and where I was quite easily.

So, who is Tina Femea?

Where ya' based out of? I'm over at SGR...

[Michael]

> So, who is Tina Femea?

The person to whom thisoldairplane.com is registered, of course :)

Looking up the owner of a domain isn't terribly difficult, but it's not
terribly useful either. Several people have email addresses that trace
to her, most of them are pilots, and some of them post here regularly.
No points so far.

Michael

[Grumman-581]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The person to whom thisoldairplane.com is registered, of course :)
>
> Looking up the owner of a domain isn't terribly difficult, but it's not
> terribly useful either. Several people have email addresses that trace
> to her, most of them are pilots, and some of them post here regularly.
> No points so far.

Well, I figured that thisoldairplane.com was your domain since you have an
account named 'usenetreplies'... Just curious if that was your girl friend /
wife / significant other / whatever... I guess it's also possible that
you're just having a gender identity crisis... <snicker>

[Michael]

> Well, I figured that thisoldairplane.com was your domain since you have an
> account named 'usenetreplies'... Just curious if that was your girl friend /
> wife / significant other / whatever... I guess it's also possible that
> you're just having a gender identity crisis... <snicker>

It was indeed my girlfriend. I was just being snarky.

Michael

[Grumman-581]

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
> It was indeed my girlfriend. I was just being snarky.

So, where ya' fly out of? I'm over at SGR.. Was over at AXH a couple of
years ago and HOU before that...

[Michael]

I'm based at EYQ.

Michael

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Michael wrote:
> I'm based at EYQ.



Monroe? You're right in the neighborhood.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Grumman-581]

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm based at EYQ.

Awh, 'ell, I'm over there often enough... You might have seen my plane
parked in front of Carl's BBQ one weekend...

http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/n581-nm.jpg