Accident Prone Pilots

[Marco Leon]

Interesting article on Aviation Week's website.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_busav_story.jsp?id=news/accid0906.xml

I've always maintained that GA's accident record could be significantly
improved if there was an effective "wash-out" process that removed the
"sludge" at the bottom of the barrel so-to-speak. This article eludes
to that line of thinking.

I'm not a subscriber to AWST anymore so the article is free. It's too
long to post though.

Enjoy.

Marco

[Jay Honeck]

> I've always maintained that GA's accident record could be significantly
> improved if there was an effective "wash-out" process that removed the
> "sludge" at the bottom of the barrel so-to-speak. This article eludes
> to that line of thinking.

Interesting that they list "thrill-seeking" as an important risk
factor.

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...

No idea, but it seems to me that these individuals are at the top of their
flying game, not at the bottom, and therefore probably have a lower rate of
accidents than the average GA pilot.

--
Peter

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've always maintained that GA's accident record could be significantly
>> improved if there was an effective "wash-out" process that removed the
>> "sludge" at the bottom of the barrel so-to-speak. This article eludes
>> to that line of thinking.
>
> Interesting that they list "thrill-seeking" as an important risk
> factor.
>
> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I would never call an air show performer a "thrill seeker."

Ok, it's a very weird comparison, but if you've ever seen the "Drunk Clown
on the High Wire" act at a circus, the person in the clown suit is a
world-class traditional high-wire walker who dresses like a clown and not a
clown who just goes up to try to walk the high wire.

(In my warped brain, it makes sense...YMMV)

People like Sean Tucker, Patty Wagstaff, etc. are the world-class high wire
walkers who can go up and "act like clowns" because they know their
equipment and their personal limits down to the nth degree.

These types of people are not "thrill seekers" they are professionals.

Just my $0.02 worth...

Jay B

[Michael[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...

Something like one out of 100 die each year. Airshow performance is
the most dangerous civilian flying there is. The problem is that
pleasure flying is second, ahead even of cropdusting.

The article is interesting, but does not match my experience. The
people I know who have had the highest ratio of accidents to hours
flown (really a much better measure than total accidents, don't you
agree?) were VERY focused on complying with rules and following
checklists. Both seemed to average something less than 300 hours
between accidents, managing to rack up 4 apiece without getting into 4
digits.

Of course that's rare. Most people I know who do have accidents only
have one, and the majority have none. One can happen to anyone, and
I'm tempted to dismiss one accident in thousands of hours of flying as
just par for the course.

Still, if I had to find the one big factor that most of the pilots I
know who had accidents had in common, and that was rare in the ones
that didn't, it would be this - almost half of those who had accidents
(including one of the two who managed 4) were aviation safety
counselors, and the vast majority of pilots I know are NOT safety
counselors. Even more damning, most of the aviation safety counselors
I know have had accidents without racking up thousands of hours.

Michael

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've always maintained that GA's accident record could be significantly
>> improved if there was an effective "wash-out" process that removed the
>> "sludge" at the bottom of the barrel so-to-speak. This article eludes
>> to that line of thinking.
>
> Interesting that they list "thrill-seeking" as an important risk
> factor.

And they are not kidding. We had a local flying family which lost the
father and his two sons in accidents which happend during risky maneuvers..

Son #1 died performing a buzz job and low level aerobatics in a T-28.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X24837&key=1

Son #2 died attempting to fly his Piper Cub under an overpass.

I was unable to find the NTSB report, so there is a possibility of an
incorrect memory on my part.

The dad died when his T-37 ate the prop of a B-26 during a close pass.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X17161&key=2


This family was based in my local area. The "old hands" around the airport
can relate story after story about the family's antics. Unfortunately, the
stories ended when the last pilot in the family (the dad) had his final
accident. There were definately patterns of behavior involved.

I try and follow a pattern of managing risk by not doing stupid things,
keeping the aircraft well maintained, and flying in weather that is within
the capabilities of my airplane and its pilot (me).


>
> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...

You're right, there are a handfull of airshow performer accidents every
year, but, in my opinion, the warbirds have a worse record. Considering how
few WWII combat aircraft are still airworthy, how little they are flown, and
the high level of experience most of the warbird pilots have, there are a
surprising number of accidents - more than a few of them weather related.

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

KB

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

Air Show pilots have the added problem of operating the airplane at close
proximity to the ground and at maximum performance as well in that
environment. This alone changes the risk factor.
The best demonstration pilots walk a middle road between conservative and
aggressive flying. In demonstration work, you need to be a little of both,
but not heavy on either end.
Its a difficult and highly specialized business and we do lose people in
this scenario.
The real killer is that there is often just no time to correct an error. If
the error is made, it simply kills you. Mechanical failure the same thing;
no time. If you add it all up, what keeps you alive in the demonstration
venue in aviation is the same thing that keeps you alive as an ordinary
pilot. You prepare; you practice; you try to know your personal limits and
don't exceed them; and most of all, you never stop learning.
As for the "thrill seeker" thing; its true that many in the business enjoy
the "thrills". The trick is to enjoy them without losing track of reality.
Come to think of it, this fits just about all of us who fly, whether we do
it right side up or upside down :-)
I lasted fifty years without a scratch, flying God knows how many different
types of airplanes in several venues including demonstration. During this
period, I lost 32 of my friends and associates to air show related
accidents.
Considering the talent and expertise of these people, I think I can safely
say that along with what I've mentioned above, perhaps the good Lord might
have been looking out for me a bit. Some people call it good luck. I think
it might go a bit deeper than that :-)
Dudley

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I've always maintained that GA's accident record could be significantly
>> improved if there was an effective "wash-out" process that removed the
>> "sludge" at the bottom of the barrel so-to-speak. This article eludes
>> to that line of thinking.
>
> Interesting that they list "thrill-seeking" as an important risk
> factor.
>
> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> As for the "thrill seeker" thing; its true that many in the business enjoy
> the "thrills". The trick is to enjoy them without losing track of reality.
> Come to think of it, this fits just about all of us who fly, whether we do
> it right side up or upside down :-)

This is absolutely true, in a very schizophrenic way.

Most pilots I meet are very low key, some might say meticulous people.
(There are, of course, major exceptions.) Many are introverts, and
all are very intelligent, successful people.

Yet, they fly their own planes. Although we all like to maintain that
flying somewhere for pancakes is a simple, effortless, low-risk
operation, inside we all know that the sky is unforgiving, and that
we're always just a few seconds from catastrophe whenever we fly.

Some of us more than others...

I don't pretend to understand it...but, God help me, I love it so...

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

[Marco Leon]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> This is absolutely true, in a very schizophrenic way.
>
> Most pilots I meet are very low key, some might say meticulous people.
> (There are, of course, major exceptions.) Many are introverts, and
> all are very intelligent, successful people.
>
> Yet, they fly their own planes. Although we all like to maintain that
> flying somewhere for pancakes is a simple, effortless, low-risk
> operation, inside we all know that the sky is unforgiving, and that
> we're always just a few seconds from catastrophe whenever we fly.
>
> Some of us more than others...
>
> I don't pretend to understand it...but, God help me, I love it so...

One aspect of flying that seems to attract intelligent, succcessful
people is that piloting, at its core, is about grabbing hold of a
[huge] responsibility and taming it. We all realize that it's not a
very forgiving activity and we are constantly reminded through accident
reports. But yet we thrive on our ability to handle the task at hand.
Closely related to that is our ability to deal with fear. Most deal
with it positively and others negatively (i.e. ignore it). Not unlike
soldiers in battle, the successful pilot takes it on and uses it to
their advantage.

I've met a number of pilots over the years and have always been
intrigued by the differing personalities. There are lots of them too.
The one thing that seems to be common throughout our community can be
summed up in one word: PRIDE

Most pilots are proud of what they've accomplished in training and with
every successful flight and also proud of the aircraft they fly.
They're proud of the responsibility they've taken on and managed. As a
big driver of success, it's no wonder that there are so many
"successful" folks that take up flying.

It's why pilots as a group are very patriotic.

Marco

[Gene Seibel]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I don't pretend to understand it...but, God help me, I love it so...

That sums it up for me. It's the desire of my heart. I don't see it as
thrilling, but as soothing. I suppose in another era it would have been
something else, but I can't imagine what.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jose[_1_]]

> we're always just a few seconds from catastrophe whenever we fly.

Uh... we're just a few seconds from catastrophe whenever we cross the
street too. All of life has risk. What makes a "thrill seeker" is that
the risk itself is a plus. When I fly, it is not the risk that I enjoy,
but the flight. Thrill seekers would enjoy the risk more than the
flight itself.

If flying were completely safe, thrill seekers would lose interest, but
I would not and neither would you.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's why pilots as a group are very patriotic.

Are they (more so than any other subgroup)? I don't think the
underlying assumption is true.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marco Leon]

Jose wrote:
> > It's why pilots as a group are very patriotic.
>
> Are they (more so than any other subgroup)? I don't think the
> underlying assumption is true.

It's been mentioned in this group before and it's certainly my own
observation which is of course anectodal. I haven't met a pilot yet
that doesn't love this country.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I haven't met a pilot yet
> that doesn't love this country.

Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune[_1_]]

I know one.

Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
taxpayers and other victims of GA.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> I know one.
>
> Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
> budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
> He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
> taxpayers and other victims of GA.
>

Hey lune, you still haven't answered my questions:

What did the FAA collect in fuel tax last year?

What percent of that was collected from GA?

What did the FAA spend on ATC last year?

What percent of the recorded ATC operations last year were GA?

What did the FAA spend on capital improvements last year?

What percent of that was of no benefit to GA?

If you don't have the figures from 2005, feel free to use any other year
after 2001.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> I know one.
>
> Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
> budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
> He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
> taxpayers and other victims of GA.


And -- just what is Boyer supposed to do -- roll over and play dead
before every crackpot who comes along, claiming that GA has "victims"
and "doesn't pay its way?"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <LMZNg.6781$wj2.5090@trndny06>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> > I know one.
> >
> > Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
> > budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
> > He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
> > taxpayers and other victims of GA.
> >
>
> Hey lune, you still haven't answered my questions:
>
> What did the FAA collect in fuel tax last year?
>
> What percent of that was collected from GA?
>
> What did the FAA spend on ATC last year?
>
> What percent of the recorded ATC operations last year were GA?
>
> What did the FAA spend on capital improvements last year?
>
> What percent of that was of no benefit to GA?
>
> If you don't have the figures from 2005, feel free to use any other year
> after 2001.

Add in: What percentage of FAA expenditures are made to support airline
and military specifications?

It is like riding a bicycle across a bridge: You can pay a set rate for
each passage, no matter what kind of vehicle, or you can pay a rate
according to how much damage each crossing does. You certainly don't
need a bridge designed for 100 ton vehicles.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-
>> What percent of that was of no benefit to GA?

> Add in: What percentage of FAA expenditures are made to support airline
> and military specifications?
>
> It is like riding a bicycle across a bridge: You can pay a set rate for
> each passage, no matter what kind of vehicle, or you can pay a rate
> according to how much damage each crossing does. You certainly don't
> need a bridge designed for 100 ton vehicles.

That's precisely what I mean by improvements with no benefit to GA.

An airport near me just replaced a 5000 foot runway. It was built eight feet
thick. I've landed on pavement zero feet thick (grass). That rebuilding had
ZERO value to me, but used FAA fundung.

A new passenger terminal was built to the tune of ten million dollars. Zero
benefit to GA

A new control tower was build, because they built the new terminal between
the old tower and the approach end of the primary runway. Only benefited GA
due to the unsafe condition caused by the airline terminal.

Now they're making the glass in the terminal explosion proof. - Zero benefit
to GA.

Oh, this airport has no airline service.

[Ron Lee]

Yes Skylune...answer the questions. Of course if you did then you
could not make the claims that you do.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...

People with careers that involve a lot of safety risks are often among
the most cautious and methodical persons of all, which is why they
survive. It may look casual and reckless, but it's not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> The one thing that seems to be common throughout our community can be
> summed up in one word: PRIDE

Pride goeth before a fall.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Private]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I haven't met a pilot yet
>> that doesn't love this country.
>
> Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".
>

Most of us love our countries and dislike our governments.

Happy landings,

[Jay Honeck]

> > Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the accident statistics
> > are for airshow performers? These guys are the ultimate thrill
> > seekers, and it seems that a fair number of them die each year...
>
> People with careers that involve a lot of safety risks are often among
> the most cautious and methodical persons of all, which is why they
> survive. It may look casual and reckless, but it's not.

Agree 100%. Air show performers are, for the most part, meticulously
careful pilots.

But they *are* the ultimate thrill seekers, and they *do* die in
(relatively) great numbers. It's really a paradox, to me -- but I'm
sincerely glad that there are those pilots who are able to perform so
fantastically for the rest of us.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > I haven't met a pilot yet
> > that doesn't love this country.
>
> Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".

What an odd thing to say.

At the core, what else really goes into being patriotic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Marco,

> I haven't met a pilot yet
> that doesn't love this country.
>

I have. No connection at all, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

>>> I haven't met a pilot yet
>>> that doesn't love this country.
>> Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".

> What an odd thing to say.
>
> At the core, what else really goes into being patriotic?

Being patriotic is being =devoted= to one's country, right or wrong,
above all other countries, and to a high priority in life (not
necessarily "above all else", but in that direction).

As pointed out upthread, one can love one's country and despise their
government. This isn't being patriotic in my country. Howver, one can
love one's government, while not being very hot on the country itself
(the land, the people, the economy...). That person is patriotic.

To equate "patriotic" with "loving one's country" is simplistic at best.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marco Leon]

Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you live outside of the US? If
you do, then your statement is hardly surprising.

Considering the scores of pilots I've met, I think there may be at
least some statistical significance.

Marco

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Marco,
>
> > I haven't met a pilot yet
> > that doesn't love this country.
> >
>
> I have. No connection at all, IMHO.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Skylune[_1_]]

Already posted, several times, from the US Bureau of Transportation
statistics. You will see that GA is the most heavily subsidized form of
transportation in the country. By far. And avgas taxes contribute next
to nothing to the AV trust fund.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Already posted

Where? You keep talking, but I've never seen you post any numbers.

, several times, from the US Bureau of Transportation
> statistics.

>You will see that GA is the most heavily subsidized form of transportation
in the >country. By far.

Like I said, please answer the specific questions I've posted.

> And avgas taxes contribute next to nothing to the AV trust fund.
>

Looks like about 6% to me.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/media/AATF_Tax_Receipts_since_1998.xls

[Skylune[_1_]]

Ok, Steve, because you're a good guy. Here is another source besides the
BTS. Check how much comes from AV gas taxes, vs commercial passenger
taxes.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.html

[Skylune[_1_]]

OK. Now you can shut up. But of course no facts will change your mind,
like the Destroyer. The Kool Aid is very strong.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Ok, Steve, because you're a good guy. Here is another source besides the
> BTS. Check how much comes from AV gas taxes, vs commercial passenger
> taxes.
>
> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.html
>

OK, that shows GA contributed around 2% (1.929).

It also shows: (for 2004)

Operations: $7,479,000,000
Grants-In-Aid for Airports: $3,380,000,000
Other Budget Authority: $2,000,000
Facilities and Equipment: $2,863,000,000
Research, Eng. & Development: $147,000,000


I can tell you that NONE of the Grants-In-Aid for Airports went to any GA
airports. It's reserved for commercial airports.

I'm still waiting on your answers for a breakdown of the rest.

[Marco Leon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Marco Leon writes:
>
> > The one thing that seems to be common throughout our community can be
> > summed up in one word: PRIDE
>
> Pride goeth before a fall.

So people shouldn't take any pride in the things they accomplish?
Should we take the "pride" out of the "pride of ownership?"

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, too much pride is bad but
that goes for most things in life.

Marco

[Marco Leon]

Jose wrote:
> Howver, one can
> love one's government, while not being very hot on the country itself
> (the land, the people, the economy...). That person is patriotic.
>
Huh? That sounds backwards to me. You would think that the reason why
someone would disagree with their country's current government is
because they want better for country.

Marco

[Peter R.]

Marco Leon > wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, too much pride is bad but
> that goes for most things in life.

Marco, I wouldn't get worked up over his comments. He has already
demonstrated his desire to troll the group with numerous anti-pilot
comments, so ignoring him would be best for your BP. :)

--
Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Howver, one can
>> love one's government, while not being very hot on the country itself
>> (the land, the people, the economy...). That person is patriotic.
> Huh? That sounds backwards to me. You would think that the reason why
> someone would disagree with their country's current government is
> because they want better for country.

....or for themselves. They live in the (given) country, so whatever
happens to the country happens to them. Patriotism is more about the
=running= of the country than about the land and people itself, although
it all comes to play.

One can love their country (quietly), but patriotism is about making
noises about it.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> >>> I haven't met a pilot yet
> >>> that doesn't love this country.
> >> Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".
>
> > What an odd thing to say.
> >
> > At the core, what else really goes into being patriotic?
>
> Being patriotic is being =devoted= to one's country, right or wrong,
> above all other countries, and to a high priority in life (not
> necessarily "above all else", but in that direction).

I think you're reading a bit too much political correctness into your
definition of the word "patriotism". From Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

That's it. Nothing about making noise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm still waiting on your answers for a breakdown of the rest.

I hope you're not holding your breath...

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> : love for or devotion to one's country

It's the "devotion to" part that sets patriotism apart. Language is
defined by usage, and this is the way I hear it used.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Considering the scores of pilots I've met, I think there may be at
> least some statistical significance.

I can personally attest to this fact -- and I've probably met more
pilots than everyone else on this group *combined*. Pilots as a group
are VERY patriotic, and with good cause.

By and large, pilots are successful people, and America has been good
to (and for) them. And, of course, we are free to fly to our heart's
content here.

Upon reflection, I can only name one openly unpatriotic pilot that I've
ever met. He's never had to work a day in his life, flies a brand new
Beech twin, and -- because he's always had everything handed to him on
a silver platter -- he believes that America is terribly unfair. He
unknowingly wears irony well.

He reminds me very much of Ted Kennedy, actually.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:0VeOg.1079$GR.474
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> Being patriotic is being =devoted= to one's country, right or wrong,
> above all other countries, and to a high priority in life (not
> necessarily "above all else", but in that direction).

No. That's being a Fanatic. True that in some countries the distinction is
difficult to identify.

From Webster's Dictionary

Patriot:
"One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
interests"


> As pointed out upthread, one can love one's country and despise their
> government. This isn't being patriotic in my country. Howver, one can
> love one's government, while not being very hot on the country itself
> (the land, the people, the economy...). That person is patriotic.

You don't have to agree with the policies, or love the state of the
economy, or be so conservative as to be uninterested in change in order to
be patriotic. But typically if you are not in favor of the current
government, it's probably because you don't believe that it is acting in
the best interests of the country, which in some ways may indicate that
you are in fact a patriot. In fact, to love one's government as it
destroy's one's country might be considered anti-patriotic (if there is
such a thing).

> To equate "patriotic" with "loving one's country" is simplistic at best.

True. You have to love the country, but you also have to respect the
government authority. That doesn't mean you have to love the government,
or even agree with their policies or actions. In fact, the American
Revolutionists are said to be Patriots because they believed that the
British government (the authority at the time) was not serving the best
interests of their country that they loved. So they acted upon it and took
back their government and created a system of government that they saw
fit.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Patriot:
> "One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
> interests"

Well, the "and supports its authority" is the piece I'm getting at.

> In fact, the American
> Revolutionists are said to be Patriots because they believed that the
> British government (the authority at the time) was not serving the best
> interests of their country that they loved. So they acted upon it and took
> back their government and created a system of government that they saw
> fit.

They may have been Patriots, but not to England.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
:

>> Patriot:
>> "One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
>> interests"

> Well, the "and supports its authority" is the piece I'm getting at.

You can support an authority even if you don't agree it's right. And you can
support an authority without being satisfied with the conditions that have
come about under its authority. Of course, the only way for someone to
ACTUALLY be an authority is if most of the people support him. So sometimes,
authorities change. Today in the US that happens through a process of
elections. However in many countries it comes about in other ways - war,
coups, death of a Monarch, etc...

>> In fact, the American
>> Revolutionists are said to be Patriots because they believed that the
>> British government (the authority at the time) was not serving the best
>> interests of their country that they loved. So they acted upon it and
>> took back their government and created a system of government that they
>> saw fit.
>
> They may have been Patriots, but not to England.

"Supports it's authority and interests" - both...

They were Patriots to their country, not to their Occupiers. The people
decided that it was no longer in the best interests of the American Colonies
to continue to allow the British Government to act as the authority, so they
created a new authority and overturned the old one. They were Patriots to the
authority that they believed to be in the interests of their country.

It's all about perspective.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> So people shouldn't take any pride in the things they accomplish?

I don't think pride is very useful.

> I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, too much pride is bad but
> that goes for most things in life.

The effects of pride are more bad than good. In aviation, accidents
have been caused by pride and ego.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You can support an authority even if you don't agree it's right.

This is true.

> They were Patriots to their country, not to their Occupiers.

They created a new country. They were patriotic to that, and traiterous
to the old. But the old still was The Authority. Just like the FAA (to
bring this back on topic) and its dress code (to bring it to thread,
albeit a different one).

Yes, it's perspective.

Jose
--
"We turned sixty thousand zealous nationalists into sixty thousand
patriotic citizens by saying that's what we did" --- "Acutal SHO"
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> He reminds me very much of Ted Kennedy, actually.

Oh, so he's a drunk also? How many women has he managed to kill so far?

[Thomas Borchert]

Marco,

> Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you live outside of the US? If
> you do, then your statement is hardly surprising.
>

How? I live in a country, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>>>> I haven't met a pilot yet
>>>> that doesn't love this country.
>>> Yes, but that's not the same as "being patriotic".
>
>> What an odd thing to say.
>>
>> At the core, what else really goes into being patriotic?
>
> Being patriotic is being =devoted= to one's country, right or wrong,
> above all other countries, and to a high priority in life (not
> necessarily "above all else", but in that direction).
>
Well, as a US citizen, I disagree with your above statement. ;-)

As I see it, to be a patriotic US citizen *requires* that one work to
correct the "wrong" and not to accept or justify it; patriotic citizens
should be devoted to changing those things that are "wrong", and to do
otherwise is to fail the underlying principles of our constitution.

Neil

[Gene Seibel]

I like your definiton. But it raises more questions. Do we consider
someone patriotic if their perception of "wrong" is different than
ours?
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.



Neil Gould wrote:
> As I see it, to be a patriotic US citizen *requires* that one work to
> correct the "wrong" and not to accept or justify it; patriotic citizens
> should be devoted to changing those things that are "wrong", and to do
> otherwise is to fail the underlying principles of our constitution.
>
> Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> Now they're making the glass in the terminal explosion proof. - Zero
> benefit to GA.
>

Or to commercial aviation for that matter.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gene,

> Do we consider
> someone patriotic if their perception of "wrong" is different than
> ours?
>

True patriots habitually don't <half g>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I like your definiton. But it raises more questions. Do we consider
> someone patriotic if their perception of "wrong" is different than
> ours?

Did the Rosenberg's have a different perception of "wrong"?

(Sorry, Gene, but that's sounding a bit like relativism or subjectivism)

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Now they're making the glass in the terminal explosion proof. - Zero
>> benefit to GA.
>>
>
> Or to commercial aviation for that matter.
But great benefit to the glass vendor/contractors (who vote).

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> Did the Rosenberg's have a different perception of "wrong"?

Yes. Most spies do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Gene Seibel > spewed this unto the Network:
>> I like your definiton. But it raises more questions. Do we consider
>> someone patriotic if their perception of "wrong" is different than
>> ours?
>
> Nope. They are considered Anti-American, added to the DHS's
> database of suspected terrorists, and possibly kidnapped at 4AM and
> sent to a secret prison in Afghanistan.

Congratulations! You are the winner of being the 1st occupant of my loony bin!
--
Jim in NC

[Skylune[_2_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> utaviation.com>,
> "Skylune" > wrote:
>
> > I know one.
> >
> > Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
> > budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
> > He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
> > taxpayers and other victims of GA.
>
>
> And -- just what is Boyer supposed to do -- roll over and play dead
> before every crackpot who comes along, claiming that GA has "victims"
> and "doesn't pay its way?"

You consider the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics to be
"crackpots," while holding Boyer in high regard???

You consider the Reason Foundation to be crackpots?

That's fine. Fact: GA avgas taxes contribute about 5%. Doesn't take
a rocket scientist to realize that that doesn't cover the cost of all
the grants to GA airports, let alone the $150k annual operating grants
some receive. Add in the state and local grants, and what you have,
quite clearly, is a GA welfare state.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 4 Oct 2006 08:04:42 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote:

>
>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article
>> utaviation.com>,
>> "Skylune" > wrote:
>>
>> > I know one.
>> >
>> > Boyer is a pilot. His organization seeks to contribute to the annual
>> > budget deficit by insisting that the subsidies provided to GA continue.
>> > He cares only about pilots' "rights," but doesn't give a hoot about
>> > taxpayers and other victims of GA.
>>
>>
>> And -- just what is Boyer supposed to do -- roll over and play dead
>> before every crackpot who comes along, claiming that GA has "victims"
>> and "doesn't pay its way?"
>
>You consider the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics to be
>"crackpots," while holding Boyer in high regard???
>
>You consider the Reason Foundation to be crackpots?
>
>That's fine. Fact: GA avgas taxes contribute about 5%. Doesn't take
>a rocket scientist to realize that that doesn't cover the cost of all
>the grants to GA airports, let alone the $150k annual operating grants
>some receive. Add in the state and local grants, and what you have,
>quite clearly, is a GA welfare state.

Which is why we have a *large* surplus in the aviation trust fund and
that surplus is getting ever larger?

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