A reluctance to take the controls

[Jay Honeck]

Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the years. I
usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with me, and will
usually let them "take the wheel" once we're safely at altitude. Most
people love their new-found freedom, while others are tentative and not
quite sure what to think.

It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back with her
boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in the BACK of
your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her the controls,
she politely refused.

What *is* that, anyway? This girl is a wonderfully intelligent, highly
educated young lady, with no tendency toward timidness or air sickness,
yet, when given the chance to try something that VERY few people on
this planet will ever get to do, she refused. Stranger still, she has
flown with us before (albeit in the back seat), so it's not like she's
afraid of flying.

I'm trying to remember if that has ever happened with me in the left
seat, and -- although I've sensed reluctance a time or two -- I don't
think anyone has ever said "No, thanks" to my offer to take the yoke.
Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary *asked*?

It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
go of the controls...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the years. I
> usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with me, and will
> usually let them "take the wheel" once we're safely at altitude. Most
> people love their new-found freedom, while others are tentative and not
> quite sure what to think.
>
> It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
> it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
> Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back with her
> boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in the BACK of
> your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her the controls,
> she politely refused.
>
> What *is* that, anyway? This girl is a wonderfully intelligent, highly
> educated young lady, with no tendency toward timidness or air sickness,
> yet, when given the chance to try something that VERY few people on
> this planet will ever get to do, she refused. Stranger still, she has
> flown with us before (albeit in the back seat), so it's not like she's
> afraid of flying.
>
> I'm trying to remember if that has ever happened with me in the left
> seat, and -- although I've sensed reluctance a time or two -- I don't
> think anyone has ever said "No, thanks" to my offer to take the yoke.
> Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary *asked*?
>
> It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
> that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
> go of the controls...

Different people like different things and not everyone likes flying.
My wife likes to fly with me and ride motorccycle with me, but has no
interest in learning to fly or learning to ride a motorcycle of her own.

I likewise have no interest in going to Avon or Home Interior parties.
If the young lady who refused the opportunity to take the controls of
your airplane had invited you to her next Avon party, would you have
accepted her offer?

Matt

[Scott Post]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
>it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.

My wife was a pilot for a number of years before I took up lessons. Not
once before taking lessons did I touch the controls. I just had no
interest. Motorcycles were my thing, flying was hers. My first lesson
this past Spring was the first time I'd touched the yoke. I did it
as a safety thing since we'd been doing regular $100 hamburgers and
flights to her parents with the kids aboard and because I thought flying
would be a nice thing for my wife and I to share.

That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
an hour and a half from now.

--
Scott Post

[Jay Honeck]

> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
> an hour and a half from now.

That's kind of the effect I'm looking for in people -- and we usually
get it!

What I don't understand is that you never felt the desire to try out
the controls when your wife was PIC. It would have seemed the perfect
opportunity to test the waters, and I (like, I believe most people)
would have jumped at the chance.

In fact, thinking back to my first or second ride in a small airplane,
that's exactly what happened to me. And the rest, as they say, is
history.

You were indifferent before, yet you are now hooked. I believe that
sums up precisely what AOPA and much of the GA world is trying to
comprehend -- and the sooner we "break the code" the better.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> [snip]
> and when Mary offered her the controls,
> she politely refused.
>
> What *is* that, anyway? This girl is a wonderfully intelligent, highly
> educated young lady, with no tendency toward timidness or air sickness,
> yet, when given the chance to try something that VERY few people on
> this planet will ever get to do, she refused. Stranger still, she has
> flown with us before (albeit in the back seat), so it's not like she's
> afraid of flying.

Why do you automatically think it has something to do with fear,
education, intelligence or experience?

I'm a pilot, and I occasionally decline the offer to fly also. Does that
make me less intelligent or afraid or timid or make you question my
level of education? Shame on you for thinking of only those reasons just
because she declined!

There are MANY elements to enjoy when on a flight in a small airplane,
SOME of which you can't appreciate as fully when YOU are at the
controls, especially when you don't have a clue what you're doing. As a
pilot, I'm still scanning gauges, listening to radio calls, looking for
potential places to land, and watching for traffic (can't help that!)
.... but I don't have to have the controls in MY hands every time to
fully enjoy every flight. Sometimes I like being able to relax a little,
appreciate the scenery a little more, and just be a passenger.

Maybe the intelligent young lady will want to learn to fly one day too,
maybe she will even ASK, specifically, to take a turn at the controls,
maybe not ... but perhaps she likes just being able to relax and enjoy
the ride, with someone capable like you or Mary at the controls. And
that IS why you take her flying, isn't it?

Just because flying is something that very few people ever get the
opportunity to do doesn't mean that *everyone* jumps at every
opportunity to do it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> What *is* that, anyway?

When you offer someone the chance to drive your car, do you expect him
to unconditionally accept?

Some people just don't care. How can they sit and enjoy the scenery
if they have to steer the plane?

> Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary *asked*?

Perhaps. They may have sensed that you expected them to be delighted
by the opportunity, and they were too polite to turn you down.

> It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
> that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
> go of the controls...

Just because someone doesn't want to do the work of flying doesn't
mean that she's afraid of airplanes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> You were indifferent before, yet you are now hooked.

Some people are indifferent, and remain so even after trying it. Some
people just don't care. Some people don't like motorcycles, either.

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

[Jim Macklin]

She didn't want to be embarrassed in front of her boyfriend.
Let Mary take her up with just the "girls" along.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the
years. I
| usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with
me, and will
| usually let them "take the wheel" once we're safely at
altitude. Most
| people love their new-found freedom, while others are
tentative and not
| quite sure what to think.
|
| It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to
"steer" -- but
| it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right
seat.
| Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back
with her
| boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in
the BACK of
| your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her
the controls,
| she politely refused.
|
| What *is* that, anyway? This girl is a wonderfully
intelligent, highly
| educated young lady, with no tendency toward timidness or
air sickness,
| yet, when given the chance to try something that VERY few
people on
| this planet will ever get to do, she refused. Stranger
still, she has
| flown with us before (albeit in the back seat), so it's
not like she's
| afraid of flying.
|
| I'm trying to remember if that has ever happened with me
in the left
| seat, and -- although I've sensed reluctance a time or
two -- I don't
| think anyone has ever said "No, thanks" to my offer to
take the yoke.
| Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary
*asked*?
|
| It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want
folks believing
| that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an
experienced pilot lets
| go of the controls...
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[[email protected]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> You were indifferent before, yet you are now hooked. I believe that
> sums up precisely what AOPA and much of the GA world is trying to
> comprehend -- and the sooner we "break the code" the better.

Sometimes you do more harm by making someone feel like you are pushing
them to do something they aren't ready to do, Jay. Odd as it may seem to
those of us who are hooked, not everyone gets the same thrill out of
being at the controls of a small airplane.

Many people *are* afraid to go in a small airplane. Some of that is lack
of exposure, but for others, it wouldn't matter, they would never enjoy
it. The way I look at it is that if a non pilot agrees to go for a ride
with me, the best thing I can do is to ensure, to the best of my
ability, that they enjoy the experience. If they like it and are
interested in taking the controls or getting professional instruction as
a result, that's terrific, and I'd feel proud that they enjoyed the
experience that much!...but it isn't MY job to break any "code" or to
get anyone hooked. That comes from within each of us, in our own time.

I hope you didn't make your young friend feel like she disappointed or
even surprised you because she declined to take the controls.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> She didn't want to be embarrassed in front of her boyfriend.
> Let Mary take her up with just the "girls" along.

If she's only 24, it's unlikely that she still has a 19th-century
mindset.

She probably just isn't interested in flying a plane.

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

[Doug[_1_]]

Jay, you sound like one of these guys "who just can't understand how
somebody could be DIFFERENT than you are". I mean, just HOW could that
be???

[john smith]

> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
> an hour and a half from now.

Scott, are you Time Pieces members?

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I'm trying to remember if that has ever happened with me in the left
> seat, and -- although I've sensed reluctance a time or two -- I don't
> think anyone has ever said "No, thanks" to my offer to take the yoke.
> Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary *asked*?

Just say, "Put your hands on the wheel please." When they do, take you
hands off and put them behind you head and say, "You've got!"

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>
>>What *is* that, anyway?
>
>
> When you offer someone the chance to drive your car, do you expect him
> to unconditionally accept?

What a stupid question. Does your car have a steering wheel on both sides?

[Guy Elden Jr]

> You were indifferent before, yet you are now hooked. I believe that
> sums up precisely what AOPA and much of the GA world is trying to
> comprehend -- and the sooner we "break the code" the better.

Well, one of the missions of AOPA is to promote GA to as many people as
possible, and understandably, for many reasons, not everyone is
destined to be a pilot. Whenever I get the chance to chat someone up
about aviation, I find that more often than not, the issue of cost
crops up. My impression is that most people still think that pilots of
small planes are the untouchable richie rich establishment doctor /
lawyer crowd, and despite all of my arguments about ways to manage the
cost, the fact that I choose this versus many other things I could do
with that money, etc, that thought sticks in their minds. About the
only way I can think of shaking that mentality is to take someone to a
nice small airfield about 50 miles away that has a nice rustic charm to
it, with lots of pilots hangar flying over breakfast / lunch in a nice
small restaurant on the field, watching the old airbirds flying in and
out.

[[email protected]]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:
> > She didn't want to be embarrassed in front of her boyfriend.
> > Let Mary take her up with just the "girls" along.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If she's only 24, it's unlikely that she still has a 19th-century
> mindset.

No, but that may indeed have been part of it. She may be more
comfortable with JUST Mary in the plane, or with a professional
instructor that isn't a personal friend so that she doesn't feel as self
conscious about doing something wrong.

In any case, kudos to Mary for *asking* instead of making her feel
compelled to take the controls. I hate it when someone "asks" you to do
something in such a way that you feel you can't comfortably decline. You
*do* realize, don't you Jay, that if you made her feel dumb, afraid or
like she disappointed *you* because she declined that you may have just
made her think twice about going up with you again. There's a reason for
the term "different strokes".

[Jose[_1_]]

>> When you offer someone the chance to drive your car, do you expect him
>> to unconditionally accept?
> What a stupid question. Does your car have a steering wheel on both sides?

That is irrelevant to the assumptions behind the question. Having a
steering wheel on both sides may make it easier to accept, but doesn't
really address the =willingness= to accept [an opportunity to do
something new]. If my friend had a 'vette, I would probably not accept
an offer to drive it.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>
>>>What *is* that, anyway?
>>
>>
>> When you offer someone the chance to drive your car, do you expect him
>> to unconditionally accept?
>
> What a stupid question. Does your car have a steering wheel on both
> sides?


His does....it goes 'round and 'round in about a five foot circle; has a
little rubber ball that goes "Toot".

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Some people are indifferent, and remain so even after trying it. Some
> people just don't care. Some people don't like motorcycles, either.
>

Name 3.

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1164549363.523917.179870@
45g2000cws.googlegroups.com:

> It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
> that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
> go of the controls...

I'm the same way - I always want to give the person in the right seat the
chance to fly the plane. I have had people be concerned that "it's OK" - that
they won't break anything, including rules, if they don't fly well. But no
one has ever absolutely refused except my wife, who is a white-knuckle flyer.

You may just want to ask her (in a no-pressure kinda way) if she was afraid
to take the controls, or if she just had no interest... Perhaps she will be
honest with you now that you guys are on the ground... And either you'll get
it, or you'll be able to explain to her why "it's OK" for her to take the
controls next time.

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope you didn't make your young friend feel like she disappointed or
> even surprised you because she declined to take the controls.

No, we didn't say a word to her, nor was it ever mentioned the rest of
the day.

I was just surprised, is all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> If my friend had a 'vette, I would probably not accept
> an offer to drive it.

What the heck is wrong with you, Jose? If someone gave me the chance
to drive a new 'Vette, I'd be all over it like stink on
you-know-what...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> In any case, kudos to Mary for *asking* instead of making her feel
> compelled to take the controls. I hate it when someone "asks" you to do
> something in such a way that you feel you can't comfortably decline. You
> *do* realize, don't you Jay, that if you made her feel dumb, afraid or
> like she disappointed *you* because she declined that you may have just
> made her think twice about going up with you again. There's a reason for
> the term "different strokes".

You would do well to concentrate on the topic at hand, rather than
making gross generalizations and speculating about things I personally
might have said or done.

No one was made to feel dumb, and no one was disappointed because she
didn't take the controls. I brought this subject up simply because I
found her lack of eagerness puzzling, and I believe that understanding
this could perhaps be key to figuring out how to get MORE people
interested in flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> What the heck is wrong with you, Jose? If someone gave me the chance
> to drive a new 'Vette, I'd be all over it like stink on
> you-know-what...

.... and that is what we are trying to tell you. Not all of us are as
keen on [certain] things as you are. If I gave you a chance to make a
pot on a potter's wheel, or to run spotlight at the community theater,
would you be "all over it like stink on you-know-what"?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> You may just want to ask her (in a no-pressure kinda way) if she was afraid
> to take the controls, or if she just had no interest... Perhaps she will be
> honest with you now that you guys are on the ground... And either you'll get
> it, or you'll be able to explain to her why "it's OK" for her to take the
> controls next time.

In retrospect, I think part of the problem was that she couldn't see
over the dashboard. Her seat was way back, and the passenger seat is
not height-adjustable like the pilot's seat.

This isn't isn't something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but I
think if we can get more people like her interested in flying (I.E.:
Willing and happy to fly in a light plane, but not willing or eager to
take the controls) GA will stand a much better chance of survival.

Further, it would be excellent to grow the women's pilot population,
which still inexplicably stands at just 6% of all pilots. THAT is
where we have a real opportunity to grow GA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the years. I
> usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with me, and will
> usually let them "take the wheel"

I have had the joy of actually being paid to give glider rides to hundreds
of newbies. For most, this was their first experience in a small aircraft.
Once established off of tow, I would always offer the stick to my passenger and
most of them happily accepted. I even talked one young fellow all the way
through the pattern to touchdown! About 20% refused the opportunity to take the
controls, and it never bothered me. Some might be honestly afraid, most are
probably afraid of making fools out of themselves, some probably just prefer to
watch the scenery; whatever makes them happy makes me happy.

Vaughn

[Mxsmanic]

Guy Elden Jr writes:

> Well, one of the missions of AOPA is to promote GA to as many people as
> possible, and understandably, for many reasons, not everyone is
> destined to be a pilot. Whenever I get the chance to chat someone up
> about aviation, I find that more often than not, the issue of cost
> crops up.

When a hobby costs ten thousand dollars to get into and thousands of
additional dollars a year, cost usually crops up in the conversation.

> My impression is that most people still think that pilots of
> small planes are the untouchable richie rich establishment doctor /
> lawyer crowd, and despite all of my arguments about ways to manage the
> cost, the fact that I choose this versus many other things I could do
> with that money, etc, that thought sticks in their minds.

Justifiably so. Richie Rich, doctors, and lawyers are a lot closer to
reality than McDonald's employees, welfare recipients, or the average
wage earner.

> About the
> only way I can think of shaking that mentality is to take someone to a
> nice small airfield about 50 miles away that has a nice rustic charm to
> it, with lots of pilots hangar flying over breakfast / lunch in a nice
> small restaurant on the field, watching the old airbirds flying in and
> out.

What if they don't want to fly old airbirds?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> What the heck is wrong with you, Jose? If someone gave me the chance
> to drive a new 'Vette, I'd be all over it like stink on
> you-know-what...

I exhausted the novelty of driving cars long ago, and I don't recall
ever being interested in sporty models. My main criteria of choice
were economy, safety, comfort, and reliability (not necessarily in
that order).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> ... and that is what we are trying to tell you. Not all of us are as
> keen on [certain] things as you are. If I gave you a chance to make a
> pot on a potter's wheel, or to run spotlight at the community theater,
> would you be "all over it like stink on you-know-what"?

The spotlight thing sounds interesting; I used to have a passion for
theatrical lighting systems and equipment, although I was never able
to do much with it. I've never tried a potter's wheel, but I'd try it
once to see. Both sound like more fun than driving a car.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, but that may indeed have been part of it. She may be more
> comfortable with JUST Mary in the plane, or with a professional
> instructor that isn't a personal friend so that she doesn't feel as self
> conscious about doing something wrong.

That type of performance insecurity is more common in men than women.
Women are not expected to be good at "manly" things, so they are under
less pressure.

But a far simpler explanation is that she simply wasn't interested,
period.

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

[[email protected]]

> > In any case, kudos to Mary for *asking* instead of making her feel
> > compelled to take the controls. I hate it when someone "asks" you to do
> > something in such a way that you feel you can't comfortably decline. You
> > *do* realize, don't you Jay, that if you made her feel dumb, afraid or
> > like she disappointed *you* because she declined that you may have just
> > made her think twice about going up with you again. There's a reason for
> > the term "different strokes".

Jay:
> You would do well to concentrate on the topic at hand, rather than
> making gross generalizations and speculating about things I personally
> might have said or done.
>
> No one was made to feel dumb, and no one was disappointed because she
> didn't take the controls. I brought this subject up simply because I
> found her lack of eagerness puzzling, and I believe that understanding
> this could perhaps be key to figuring out how to get MORE people
> interested in flying.

You may note that I said, **IF**. And my comments also addressed
understanding the topic. Not everyone gets interested in flying by
having the controls put in their hands when they aren't ready ... in
fact, some can be turned off by pushing that on them. Mary asked, she
declined ... but maybe just being asked will cause her to give it some
thought on her own. Sometimes that's better than coming across too
aggressively with your enthusiasm. It wasn't off topic, just another
POV, since you asked.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> This isn't isn't something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but I
> think if we can get more people like her interested in flying (I.E.:
> Willing and happy to fly in a light plane, but not willing or eager to
> take the controls) GA will stand a much better chance of survival.

A lack of interest isn't as much of a danger to GA as the extremely
high cost of participation. Make GA inexpensive, and people will
flock to it. Right now, it's just too inaccessible.

The other major danger to GA is the climate of fear that is turning
the U.S. and the world into a police state. GA will eventually be
regulated out of existence.

> Further, it would be excellent to grow the women's pilot population,
> which still inexplicably stands at just 6% of all pilots.

Given the attitudes that a great many male pilots have, I'm not
surprised that the women stay away. As a general rule, though, women
tend not to be interested in vehicles for their own sake.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> A lack of interest isn't as much of a danger to GA as the extremely
> high cost of participation. Make GA inexpensive, and people will
> flock to it. Right now, it's just too inaccessible.

It's inaccessible to many, but not most. Plenty of people who *could*
fly choose not to -- that is our target audience.

> The other major danger to GA is the climate of fear that is turning
> the U.S. and the world into a police state. GA will eventually be
> regulated out of existence.

That's the least of our worries.

> Given the attitudes that a great many male pilots have, I'm not
> surprised that the women stay away. As a general rule, though, women
> tend not to be interested in vehicles for their own sake.

It's not the airplanes -- it's the freedom. That's what we need to
accentuate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

writes:
> > No, but that may indeed have been part of it. She may be more
> > comfortable with JUST Mary in the plane, or with a professional
> > instructor that isn't a personal friend so that she doesn't feel as self
> > conscious about doing something wrong.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> That type of performance insecurity is more common in men than women.
> Women are not expected to be good at "manly" things, so they are under
> less pressure.

I completely disagree with that! When men make mistakes in the cockpit,
they are not apt to make an issue out of it, it is quietly discussed and
that's that; women are cut FAR less slack for those same mistakes. Huge
generalizing there, but IMO, the expectations and amount of pressure on
women are both far greater.

> But a far simpler explanation is that she simply wasn't interested,
> period.

That was probably the case. If not, she would have said something about
it after landing. She still may, if the invite to go fly arises again.

[mike regish]

Thank you. He just doesn't seem to get this concept.

mike

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay, you sound like one of these guys "who just can't understand how
> somebody could be DIFFERENT than you are". I mean, just HOW could that
> be???
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> It's inaccessible to many, but not most. Plenty of people who *could*
> fly choose not to -- that is our target audience.

It shouldn't be. Yes, many people could fly if they made appropriate
sacrifices. But the vast majority of people aren't interested enough
in flying to do that. If you try to address that market, you'll never
succeed.

The cost/benefit ratio has to be attractive. The cost of GA is so
extraordinarily high that only a tiny few are willing and able to pay
it. Unless you reduce the cost, it will always be a minority
activity.

> That's the least of our worries.

Tell that to pilots in the District of Columbia.

> It's not the airplanes -- it's the freedom. That's what we need to
> accentuate.

It's laudable to make women more welcome and I'm sure it would improve
their stats, if the macho men could force themselves to do it.
However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

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

[Chris W]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
>> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
>> an hour and a half from now.
>
> That's kind of the effect I'm looking for in people -- and we usually
> get it!
>
> What I don't understand is that you never felt the desire to try out
> the controls when your wife was PIC. It would have seemed the perfect
> opportunity to test the waters, and I (like, I believe most people)
> would have jumped at the chance.


I'm with you Jay. But I may be different that most. Given the chance
to take the controls of almost any machine, I would jump at it. I have
zero desire to own or pilot a boat, but if I happened to be on one, and
was asked if I would like to try to drive it, I would not hesitate.
Same for just about anything from a backhoe to the QE2


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Jim Macklin]

Lots of people, men and women have a desire to not look
stupid or incompetent in public. It is a little like the
public speaking phobia. If you are not a dancer, you would
probably not get up on a stage. If you're not a pilot,
ditto.

What a CFI does, is explain, demonstrate and explain.
Pilots know it is easy. But usually, when a CFI is
involved, there is already an eager student.

Point out the visual references used to control the
airplane. Act like a tour guide not a CFI, "See over the
wing tip, that's the Mississippi River and over the other
wing is the other branch of the Missouri River. That's the
St.Louis Arch straight ahead." Drop a casual comment about
using your finger tips to move the airplane to keep the
landmarks in view.

Then ask if they want to try it. People now what they don't
know [unless they're drunk] and without a little coaching
about "how to DIY" they will decline to learn in public.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> In any case, kudos to Mary for *asking* instead of making
her feel
| > compelled to take the controls. I hate it when someone
"asks" you to do
| > something in such a way that you feel you can't
comfortably decline. You
| > *do* realize, don't you Jay, that if you made her feel
dumb, afraid or
| > like she disappointed *you* because she declined that
you may have just
| > made her think twice about going up with you again.
There's a reason for
| > the term "different strokes".
|
| You would do well to concentrate on the topic at hand,
rather than
| making gross generalizations and speculating about things
I personally
| might have said or done.
|
| No one was made to feel dumb, and no one was disappointed
because she
| didn't take the controls. I brought this subject up
simply because I
| found her lack of eagerness puzzling, and I believe that
understanding
| this could perhaps be key to figuring out how to get MORE
people
| interested in flying.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[zatatime]

On 26 Nov 2006 05:56:03 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
>that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
>go of the controls...


The biggest reason I've had people "refuse" to take the wheel is that
they are enjoying the flight! Looking out the window, talking to
their friends, laughing, and just absorbing as much of the experience
as possible. You say the girl is smart, could it be she is smart
enough to know once she takes the controls that she'll have to focus
on doing the flying instead of just having a fun experience? Or maybe
she knows she won't be steady at the wheel, and doesn't want to
disrupt a good experience for her boyfriend by putting him on a roller
coaster ride. And then there's the possibility that she doesn't want
to be judged at how well or poorly she did when all she really wanted
to do was have a fun flight. I could go on.... Suffice it to say
there are many reasons someone wouldn't want to "drive", none of which
are related to them being ignorant or, as you say are a "sad"
commentary on who they are. To judge someone like you are just
because you don't understand what they are thinking is the sad part.
I actually think its pretty cool that some people know themselves well
enough to know what they want to do, and what they'd rather just be
spectators in.

z

[Montblack]

("Jose" wrote)
> ... and that is what we are trying to tell you. Not all of us are as keen
> on [certain] things as you are. If I gave you a chance to make a pot on a
> potter's wheel, or to run spotlight at the community theater, would you be
> "all over it like stink on you-know-what"?


Every show they need extra volunteers and I get asked to "run a spot". Every
show I decline. <g>


Mont-fade-to-black
http://www.bloomingtoncivictheater.com/
(BCT ....Community Theater, though we're good enough to be considered a
Regional Theater - brag, brag, brag)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> No one was made to feel dumb, and no one was disappointed because she
> didn't take the controls. I brought this subject up simply because I
> found her lack of eagerness puzzling, and I believe that understanding
> this could perhaps be key to figuring out how to get MORE people
> interested in flying.

IMHO, you are asking the wrong question. There are plenty of people who are
naturally inclined to like flying, and who are not doing it. Don't waste
time on the people who are not inclined to like flying...focus your efforts
on engaging the people who are.

Asking the question that you did, you are simply making the same mistake you
have made over and over in the past, by assuming that everyone is just like
you, or should be just like you.

I can't tell you exactly why this particular individual didn't want to
operate the controls -- no one other than her can -- but to be surprised
that there might be a person out there that doesn't jump at the chance to
fly an airplane is simply naive.

Pete

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> If my friend had a 'vette, I would probably not accept
>> an offer to drive it.
>
> What the heck is wrong with you, Jose? If someone gave me the chance
> to drive a new 'Vette, I'd be all over it like stink on
> you-know-what...

You and me both!

I helped a neighbor tune up his Lotus Europa (a little, low to the ground,
balanced within a few pounds on each wheel, near all-out race car) and he didn't
have to ask me twice.

The gear shift lever is about 4 inches long. To change lanes, even at 70 MPH,
all you have to do is flick your wrist one way then the other, as fast as you
can, or you just changed 2 lanes. <g>

It could take corners that were uncomfortable in another car, a good 15 MPH
faster, without even trying. I could have driven that thing all day!

Same with a plane. I never hesitate to "drive" a plane around, when offered.

My theory is that she really did not like small planes, and that she was only
there because that is what her boyfriend was wanting to do. I'll bet if Mary
asked her to go flying without her boyfriend, she would decline.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> What the heck is wrong with you, Jose? If someone gave me the chance
>> to drive a new 'Vette, I'd be all over it like stink on
>> you-know-what...
>
> ... and that is what we are trying to tell you. Not all of us are as keen on
> [certain] things as you are. If I gave you a chance to make a pot on a
> potter's wheel, or to run spotlight at the community theater, would you be
> "all over it like stink on you-know-what"?

Yep. I'll try almost anything once, and more than that, if I like it!

--
Jim in NC

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The spotlight thing sounds interesting; I used to have a passion for
> theatrical lighting systems and equipment, although I was never able
> to do much with it. I've never tried a potter's wheel, but I'd try it
> once to see. Both sound like more fun than driving a car.

Then you clearly have never "really" driven a car. Although playing
with a potter's wheel is kind of fun, especially if it is the kind where
you spin that massive stone wheel with your feet.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

> You would do well to concentrate on the topic at hand, rather than
> making gross generalizations and speculating about things I personally
> might have said or done.

TROLL ALERT !!!

I think there is another interloper in our midst. Anyone else notice that, from
the few posts already made?

Not you, Jay ! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Yep. I'll try almost anything once, and more than that, if I like it!

Key word there being "almost". I'm sure I can name quite a few things that,
in spite of being popular with some people, you would refuse to try even
once.

Everyone has activities that are simply out of bounds for their preferences.
It's unreasonable to expect every person to be willing to try every possible
activity that is offered to them. For some, handling the controls of an
airplane is "out of bounds". This should be neither disappointing, nor
surprising. It's just how things are.

Pete

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> She didn't want to be embarrassed in front of her boyfriend.
>> Let Mary take her up with just the "girls" along.
>
> If she's only 24, it's unlikely that she still has a 19th-century
> mindset.

How is not wanting to embarrass yourself in front of your significant
other, a "19th-century mindset"? Not wanting to look stupid in front of
other people seems to be a pretty timeless concept to me.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[[email protected]]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> My theory is that she really did not like small planes, and that she was only
> there because that is what her boyfriend was wanting to do. I'll bet if Mary
> asked her to go flying without her boyfriend, she would decline.

Yeah, because God knows, if she *really* enjoyed being there, she SURELY
would have been waiting anxiously to take the controls, no question!
<shaking head> Why make all the negative assumptions just because she
declined Mary's offer? Not everyone has to be *at the controls* to prove
they enjoy it.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> Then you clearly have never "really" driven a car.

I've driven a car. Cars are transportation.

> Although playing with a potter's wheel is kind of fun, especially if
> it is the kind where you spin that massive stone wheel with your feet.

I'd prefer a motor.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> TROLL ALERT !!!

As hard as it may be to believe, not everyone who disagrees with you
is a troll.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> How is not wanting to embarrass yourself in front of your significant
> other, a "19th-century mindset"?

Wanting to do things "among the girls" would be a 19th-century
mindset.

In any case, her reason for refusing is a matter of total speculation.
It could have been anything. Why not just accept it and move on,
without casting aspersions upon her simply because she is different?

> Not wanting to look stupid in front of other people seems
> to be a pretty timeless concept to me.

My own guess is that she simply wasn't interested in flying a plane.

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

[TxSrv]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
> that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
> go of the controls...
> --

One EAA Young Eagle flew, like a fair % of them, love (even if
reluctant at first) to take controls for a little while once in
cruise. But once on a calm, summer evening, this kid (about age
11) was loving it so much, I "vectored" him back to the
nontowered airport. He couldn't see my periodically nudging the
trim wheel, and visible, periodic throttle reductions got us down
to pattern alt, and he steered us pretty good to direct enter the
downwind. Thence he turned base as instructed; no need to touch
throttle after base, just trim; so he got us lined up perfect on
final, glidepath and ASI nailed though not any of his doing. I
hadn't intended to let it go this far, but the kid was doing so
well in the calm conditions. Only one hand on the wheel as
directed. Hey, that is easier, he had earlier said.

I was about to take control 1/2 mile final as the rwy was looming
larger, and kid finally looks up at me and suggests I better land
it. Roger, and excellent job there, Mr. First Officer. On the
ground, the kid runs to his Mom all excited and told her what he
just did!

I've tried this in MSFS, and it's not that easy. Is there
someone out there who can tell me what I'm doing wrong?

Fred F.

[[email protected]]

Jay:
> > You would do well to concentrate on the topic at hand, rather than
> > making gross generalizations and speculating about things I personally
> > might have said or done.
>
> TROLL ALERT !!!

"Morgans" > wrote:
> I think there is another interloper in our midst. Anyone else
> notice that, from the few posts already made?
>
> Not you, Jay ! <g>

Since Jay's quote above was in response to me, are you referring to me?
Did I say something wrong?

Not everyone posts here every day, or even every week. I've posted once
in a while, and I know the group's other "Jay" IRL. You guys complain
that there aren't enough women in aviation ... if this is the way you
welcome us (by sounding a "Troll Alert"), what do you expect? And why
would you sound the alert anyway? Did I say something wrong? or
uncivilized? or out of line?

This was a topic I have had personal experience with -- being a woman, a
pilot, having people so eager to want you learn to fly that you feel
like they're trying to *convert* you to a religion (!), and having a
strong passion for flying, but knowing what it feels like to be pushed
into something you simply aren't ready for...yet. Thankfully and
happily, I made it through in my own time, not being egged-into doing
things I wasn't comfortable with just to *prove* to someone that I was
interested or serious.

That may or may not have been the case with the young woman in Jay's
post, but it is another perspective than the one Jay came away
with...and that is, after all, the topic of his post, isn't it? He did
say he didn't "get it", so I offered some other reasons than all the
negative ones he offered.

So, if you don't post often or agree with you regulars, you're a troll?

[Scott Post]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:
>> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
>> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
>> an hour and a half from now.
>
>Scott, are you Time Pieces members?

Don't know what that is, so I assume I'm not a member. :-)

I just got back from the field and can't believe how much fun the Cub is.
Fly a 500' pattern, one big swooping turn to final from abeam the numbers,
chop the throttle once clear of the power lines then drop like a rock until
leveling out and touching the grass soft as you please. Couldn't figure
out the portable radio so just did without. Visited a couple grass strips
then a big paved runway for some crosswind wheel landing practice. I've
only flown the club's Champ from the front and just can't feel what the
tail is doing so I end up watching the ball too much. From the back of
the Cub I can feel slip/skid in the seat of my pants and any passenger
in the front seat blocks the instruments anyhow. After 7 hours carting
the family to the inlaw's for Thanksgiving in a Skyhawk it felt good to
fly something with character. I passed 70 hours in my log book today.
I think I'll use the Cub to build some of the 50 x-country hours I need
for the IR. Won't get very far, but the FAA counts hours, not miles.

--
Scott Post

[Scott Post]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
>> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
>> an hour and a half from now.
>
>That's kind of the effect I'm looking for in people -- and we usually
>get it!
>
>What I don't understand is that you never felt the desire to try out
>the controls when your wife was PIC. It would have seemed the perfect
>opportunity to test the waters, and I (like, I believe most people)
>would have jumped at the chance.

I think it's because I knew it would be a sham - I wouldn't really be
flying the plane, so why bother? It would have felt patronizing. I'd
flown with my wife enough to know how much is really involved with flying
a plane and I had great respect for her skills. Taking the yoke for a
bit after she'd trimmed for straight & level wouldn't really be flying
so it didn't seem worth doing.

--
Scott Post

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the years. I
> usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with me, and will
> usually let them "take the wheel" once we're safely at altitude. Most
> people love their new-found freedom, while others are tentative and not
> quite sure what to think.
>
> It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
> it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
> Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back with her
> boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in the BACK of
> your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her the controls,
> she politely refused.
>
> What *is* that, anyway?

don't know. I took a co-worker up for a ride, and it turns out that
she is a bit of a timid flyer. She wouldn't touch the controls and
asked me to end the flight early (which, of course, I did). I took
an old college roommate flying once and he wouldn't take the
controls either - in his case I think he was intimidated by all
the stuff, the instruments, the radios, not understanding ATC, etc etc.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message
...
> I think it's because I knew it would be a sham - I wouldn't really be
> flying the plane, so why bother? It would have felt patronizing. I'd
> flown with my wife enough to know how much is really involved with flying
> a plane and I had great respect for her skills. Taking the yoke for a
> bit after she'd trimmed for straight & level wouldn't really be flying
> so it didn't seem worth doing.

While I'm a strong supporter of your right to your own opinion :), I'd still
like to point out that there is a difference between "flying" and
"piloting".

IMHO, the point of offering the controls to a passenger is to allow them to
"fly". That is, there really is something enjoyable about simply being in
control of an aircraft, and this can be shared with passengers. It's not an
act of patronizing on the pilot's part, nor should the passenger feel that
their control of the aircraft is in any way diminished by their lack of
training.

To be a *pilot* does require quite a lot of training, as well as good
judgment and a variety of other personal qualities. But I don't see that as
any good reason for a passenger to not find *flying* "worth doing". And
even as a passenger without all the training and practice required to be a
"pilot", you certainly would have been "flying" the airplane, had you
accepted the opportunity to do so.

It's a moot point now, but I'll point out that you were probably flying the
airplane in your very first lesson (as all students do). The lack of
training should not have diminished the fact that you were flying, and just
as it shouldn't have then, it shouldn't in a non-training situation. The
only real difference between the two situations is that in one, a qualified
instructor is providing training. What *you* are doing is the same, and
that is flying. :)

Pete

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> I've tried this in MSFS, and it's not that easy. Is there
> someone out there who can tell me what I'm doing wrong?

What trouble are you having?

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> TROLL ALERT !!!
>
> I think there is another interloper in our midst. Anyone else notice
> that, from the few posts already made?

Your troll-o-meter alarm is set WAY too low.

Before you go accusing someone a troll, you might think about at least
double-checking your impressions with Google first. Your last two
pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved simply by looking at
what those posters actually post.

[Jay Honeck]

> ... and that is what we are trying to tell you. Not all of us are as
> keen on [certain] things as you are. If I gave you a chance to make a
> pot on a potter's wheel, or to run spotlight at the community theater,
> would you be "all over it like stink on you-know-what"?

And that's the point you're not getting. The answer to both of your
questions is a resounding "yes!".

Life is about new experiences. To pass them up is to deny being alive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Danny Dot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
>
> It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
> it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
> Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back with her
> boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in the BACK of
> your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her the controls,
> she politely refused.

I have found that children ALWAYS take the controls and attempt to fly. It
is only adults that make no attempt to attempt to fly.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

snip

[Jay Honeck]

> > TROLL ALERT !!!
>
> > I think there is another interloper in our midst. Anyone else
> > notice that, from the few posts already made?
> >
> > Not you, Jay ! <g>
>
> Since Jay's quote above was in response to me, are you referring to me?
> Did I say something wrong?

Don't feel bad -- the way Jim's response is written, I can't tell who
he is calling a troll, either! My guess is it's me, but it *might* be
you...

:-)

> This was a topic I have had personal experience with -- being a woman, a
> pilot, having people so eager to want you learn to fly that you feel
> like they're trying to *convert* you to a religion (!), and having a
> strong passion for flying, but knowing what it feels like to be pushed
> into something you simply aren't ready for...yet.

I actually didn't remember that you were a woman pilot. This puts your
response into a different perspective entirely, of course. Glad you
pointed it out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

>
> Name 3.

Myself and because I don't, my two kids are not allowed to while they
live here.

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah, because God knows, if she *really* enjoyed being there, she SURELY
> would have been waiting anxiously to take the controls, no question!
> <shaking head> Why make all the negative assumptions just because she
> declined Mary's offer? Not everyone has to be *at the controls* to prove
> they enjoy it.

I think she would have gone flying with Mary, but I think she really
enjoyed just flying as a passenger with her boyfriend (and me) along.
As I've said, she's flown with us before, for as long as 2.5 hours at a
crack, so she has no fear of flying. Which makes her reluctance to take
the yoke doubly confusing, to me.

But I often wonder what makes some people timid about trying new
things, while others leap in recklessly with both feet. In my
lifetime I've observed such a wide range of human behavior that I often
remark that it's a wonder we're all related to each other.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, you sound like one of these guys "who just can't understand how
> somebody could be DIFFERENT than you are". I mean, just HOW could that
> be???

No, that's not it. I understand that humans are all uniquely wired,
and that different folks are interested in different things.

However, I simply can't understand any sentient being passing up the
opportunity to do something unusual, educational, affordable,
challenging, and fun, in a safe, friendly environment.

This young lady was offered the chance to do something that very few
people will *ever* get to do, doing something that many would give
anything to experience. Her refusal to take the yoke was an unusual
display of timid behavior coming from someone who is normally far from
timid -- which is why I remain puzzled and post my experience here.

Your saying, by way of explanation, that "Everyone is different" only
states the obvious, but doesn't really address the situation or explain
the experience.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Pathfinder N56993

[Jose[_1_]]

> And that's the point you're not getting. The answer to both of your
> questions is a resounding "yes!".
>
> Life is about new experiences. To pass them up is to deny being alive.

Life is about whatever the person in question wants it to be about. Not
whatever Jay thinks it's about.

Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
or "get an instrument rating". :)

In any case, it is quite easy to get a chance to try potting, or run
spotlight. Have you done that? Why not?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>"Scott Post" > wrote in message
...
>> I think it's because I knew it would be a sham - I wouldn't really be
>> flying the plane, so why bother? It would have felt patronizing. I'd
>> flown with my wife enough to know how much is really involved with flying
>> a plane and I had great respect for her skills. Taking the yoke for a
>> bit after she'd trimmed for straight & level wouldn't really be flying
>> so it didn't seem worth doing.
>
>While I'm a strong supporter of your right to your own opinion :), I'd still
>like to point out that there is a difference between "flying" and
>"piloting".
>
>IMHO, the point of offering the controls to a passenger is to allow them to
>"fly". That is, there really is something enjoyable about simply being in
>control of an aircraft, and this can be shared with passengers.

I was only answering for myself. I still offer non-pilots a chance to
"fly" and most are tickled pink. My 8 year old "flew" with me on Friday
and had a ball. It just didn't interest me before I could do everything
myself.

<snip>
>
>It's a moot point now, but I'll point out that you were probably flying the
>airplane in your very first lesson (as all students do). The lack of
>training should not have diminished the fact that you were flying, and just
>as it shouldn't have then, it shouldn't in a non-training situation. The
>only real difference between the two situations is that in one, a qualified
>instructor is providing training. What *you* are doing is the same, and
>that is flying. :)

The difference between being handed the controls briefly as a passenger
and taking a lesson is that the typical passenger only gets to hold the
plane level and maybe do some gentle turns. A student gets to take off,
climb, do climbing and decending turns, etc, all in the first lesson.
In fact, I got to do stalls and steep turns in my first lesson. My wife
(and most non-CFI pilots) wouldn't have been comfortable with me doing
much of that. A lot of people would be content just touching the yoke
in level flight, but that didn't interest me.

Someone else mentioned that it'd be like turning down an offer to drive
a friend's Corvette. I turned down an offer to drive my Brother in Law's
Corvette because driving it on the street didn't seem worthwhile. I
used to race motorcycles and get offers from friends with *really* nice
race-bred modern bikes to swap during street rides and I almost never
take them up on it. If I can't wring it out on a track I'd just as
soon pass. I understand I'm in the minority with that opinion.

As far as Jay's initial question - I think others have hit the nail on
the head that the passenger was probably just enjoying the scenery and
didn't want to be distracted by flying the plane.
--
Scott Post

[Jose[_1_]]

> But I often wonder what makes some people timid about trying new
> things, while others leap in recklessly with both feet. In my
> lifetime I've observed such a wide range of human behavior that I often
> remark that it's a wonder we're all related to each other.

When are you getting your instrument rating? :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
> or "get an instrument rating". :)

I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.

> In any case, it is quite easy to get a chance to try potting, or run
> spotlight. Have you done that? Why not?

I've worked a potter's wheel -- but no one has offered me the chance to
work a spotlight, yet.

Which is, of course, the whole point: When offered an opportunity,
don't turn it down!

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message
m...
> I was only answering for myself. I still offer non-pilots a chance to
> "fly" and most are tickled pink. My 8 year old "flew" with me on Friday
> and had a ball. It just didn't interest me before I could do everything
> myself.

Your prerogative. IMHO, you're missing out. Why limit your experiences to
things you can only do to some minimum standard? You're sitting there.
You've got nothing better to do. Why not take the moment? (I ask
rhetorically...IMHO, there is no suitable answer to that question).

> The difference between being handed the controls briefly as a passenger
> and taking a lesson is that the typical passenger only gets to hold the
> plane level and maybe do some gentle turns.

So, in other words it had nothing to do with "how much is really involved
with flying a plane" as it did with your dissatisfaction with the amount of
"stick time" you'd get. That is, IMHO, different from what you originally
said.

At the time, did you tell your wife that you would fly if you got to do more
than just guide the airplane in straight and level flight? I have had had
plenty of passengers do lots more than just hold onto the yoke while the
airplane flies itself. But if a passenger declined to control the airplane
without telling me that they simply wanted to do more, I would have no
reason to suggest that.

> A student gets to take off,
> climb, do climbing and decending turns, etc, all in the first lesson.
> In fact, I got to do stalls and steep turns in my first lesson. My wife
> (and most non-CFI pilots) wouldn't have been comfortable with me doing
> much of that.

Doing much of what? One doesn't normally do stalls or steep turns in a
typical flight anyway. As far as climbs, descents, turns during those, etc.
go I don't see why your wife wouldn't be comfortable with you doing those
things. I've had my share of passengers handle that sort of thing.

> A lot of people would be content just touching the yoke
> in level flight, but that didn't interest me.
>
> Someone else mentioned that it'd be like turning down an offer to drive
> a friend's Corvette. I turned down an offer to drive my Brother in Law's
> Corvette because driving it on the street didn't seem worthwhile. I
> used to race motorcycles and get offers from friends with *really* nice
> race-bred modern bikes to swap during street rides and I almost never
> take them up on it. If I can't wring it out on a track I'd just as
> soon pass. I understand I'm in the minority with that opinion.

Yup. You are unnecessarily limiting your experiences. Your loss and, as I
said, your prerogative. Me? Sure, I'd just as soon race a car or bike
around a track if I'm allowed, but if what's available is to just putter
down the street and back, well...that's more than I would have been allowed
otherwise. I'm not going to turn that down, just because I can't fully
utilize the experience.

I wouldn't give up doing something more fun, but if I'm just sitting around
twiddling my thumbs, doing *something*, anything, is better than just
continuing to twiddle my thumbs. :)

> As far as Jay's initial question - I think others have hit the nail on
> the head that the passenger was probably just enjoying the scenery and
> didn't want to be distracted by flying the plane.

Could've been anything. Some passengers really are panicked by the idea of
controlling the airplane, some simply are enjoying the moment of looking
outside, and some just don't think it's worth the trouble. If you don't ask
the passenger, there's no way to know.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> No, that's not it. I understand that humans are all uniquely wired,
> and that different folks are interested in different things.

No, you obviously don't understand that.

> However, I simply can't understand any sentient being passing up the
> opportunity to do something unusual, educational, affordable,
> challenging, and fun, in a safe, friendly environment.

Your description of the activity includes a variety of subjective terms. If
you truly understood that "humans are all uniquely wired, and that different
folks are interested in different things", you'd also understand that your
passenger may not necessarily agree with your labels.

It would be hard to argue with "unusual" (unless she's a often-passenger,
who flies other airplanes all the time) or "affordable" (it's my assumption
it would cost her nothing). But all of the other words you've used, they
are highly subject to one's perspective. You view the activity that way,
and expect everyone else to.

But not everyone shares your opinion.

> This young lady was offered the chance to do something that very few
> people will *ever* get to do, doing something that many would give
> anything to experience. Her refusal to take the yoke was an unusual
> display of timid behavior coming from someone who is normally far from
> timid -- which is why I remain puzzled and post my experience here.
>
> Your saying, by way of explanation, that "Everyone is different" only
> states the obvious, but doesn't really address the situation or explain
> the experience.

It's the best explanation anyone here can offer. You have to ask your
passenger if you want more specific information.

However, it seems to me that until you open your mind to what it means to
TRULY understand that "humans are all uniquely wired, and that different
folks are interested in different things", you are unlikely to have a
productive conversation with her. You're unlikely to comprehend what she
actually tells you, if you cannot get past the idea that she simply may not
characterize the activity using the same terms you do.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> However, it seems to me that until you open your mind to what it means to
> TRULY understand that "humans are all uniquely wired, and that different
> folks are interested in different things", you are unlikely to have a
> productive conversation with her. You're unlikely to comprehend what she
> actually tells you, if you cannot get past the idea that she simply may not
> characterize the activity using the same terms you do.

I guess you're right. I just think people who don't love to fly are
mis-wired...

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> I've worked a potter's wheel -- but no one has offered me the chance to
> work a spotlight, yet.
>
> Which is, of course, the whole point: When offered an opportunity,
> don't turn it down!

You are missing the point. First of all, I doubt you will get the
instrument rating someday. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you just don't
strike me as someone who has a serious intent to pursue that rating.

That said, secondly...just because Jose has picked examples that you have
chosen to claim you would do, that doesn't mean that he could not chose
activities for which you have absolutely no interest in.

For example, suppose a gentleman approached you and offered to sodomize you.
Would you accept that opportunity?

How about if someone offers you the opportunity to eat human flesh. Jump at
that, would you?

Everyone has their limits. Yours are likely more expansive than some, but I
doubt they are very far outside the bell curve, and in any case you still
have your limits, whatever they are.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I guess you're right. I just think people who don't love to fly are
> mis-wired...

I have an extremely hard time comprehending them too. But I do accept that
such people exist, and that no matter how hard I try, there will be an
inherent inability on my part to truly see the world through their eyes.

I'm not sure "mis-wired" is the right term. After all, that implies
something wrong with them. But certainly, they are outside my realm of
experience.

Pete

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in news:6_
:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>
>>
>> Name 3.
>
> Myself and because I don't, my two kids are not allowed to while they
> live here.

Your kids don't count if they haven't tried it yet.

[Jim Macklin]

When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up to
me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
some witnesses present who could talk about my clumsiness I
said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
Just to prove the point, the worst landing I ever made was
with 3 FAA Inspectors on the airplane.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> Jay, you sound like one of these guys "who just can't
understand how
| > somebody could be DIFFERENT than you are". I mean, just
HOW could that
| > be???
|
| No, that's not it. I understand that humans are all
uniquely wired,
| and that different folks are interested in different
things.
|
| However, I simply can't understand any sentient being
passing up the
| opportunity to do something unusual, educational,
affordable,
| challenging, and fun, in a safe, friendly environment.
|
| This young lady was offered the chance to do something
that very few
| people will *ever* get to do, doing something that many
would give
| anything to experience. Her refusal to take the yoke was
an unusual
| display of timid behavior coming from someone who is
normally far from
| timid -- which is why I remain puzzled and post my
experience here.
|
| Your saying, by way of explanation, that "Everyone is
different" only
| states the obvious, but doesn't really address the
situation or explain
| the experience.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
| Pathfinder N56993
|

[Jay Honeck]

> When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
> Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up to
> me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
> some witnesses present who could talk about my clumsiness I
> said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.

So Google her. Maybe she still wants to dance?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> For example, suppose a gentleman approached you and offered to sodomize you.
> Would you accept that opportunity?
>
> How about if someone offers you the opportunity to eat human flesh. Jump at
> that, would you?

Ah, Pete, you never let me down, or fail to amuse. Only a true pedant
could possibly take this argument to such extremes, with a straight
face.

Don't ever change!

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

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:W5qah.1003
:

> When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
> Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up to
> me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
> some witnesses present who could talk about my clumsiness I
> said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
> Just to prove the point, the worst landing I ever made was
> with 3 FAA Inspectors on the airplane.

Coulda been worse. One of the FAA inspectors coulda been Patti Jo.

[[email protected]]

(Scott Post) wrote:
> As far as Jay's initial question - I think others have hit the nail on
> the head that the passenger was probably just enjoying the scenery and
> didn't want to be distracted by flying the plane.

Exactly. Even a pilot can, or should be able to, appreciate that, IMO. I
don't see why, if a person declines, that automatically means he/she is
not experiencing life. That's a pretty big stretch. A lot of people
won't even get INTO a small airplane, so I'd say she's already a step
ahead. You don't have to have the controls to still enjoy the thrill of
flying, and who knows, if no one makes a huge production over the fact
that she declined this extraordinary opportunity, maybe she'll want to
try it one day.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> >His does....it goes 'round and 'round in about a five foot circle; has a
> >little rubber ball that goes "Toot".
>
> You owe me a monitor and a new beer...

you are not taking appropriate care of your beer.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[mike regish]

There goes that foot...

All the way to the knee this time, Jay?

mike

Oh yeah...:-)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >

> I guess you're right. I just think people who don't love to fly are
> mis-wired...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck

[Jose[_1_]]

> I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.

"Someday" is not the same as "all over it like stink on you-know-what".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I guess you're right.

Did I just hear Jay Honeck say that? i just lost a fortune on air
conditioning stock in Hades. :)

> I just think people who don't love to fly are
> mis-wired...

At least you didn't say "miss-wired".

<g,d> Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Darkwing]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message
m...
> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
>>it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
>
> My wife was a pilot for a number of years before I took up lessons. Not
> once before taking lessons did I touch the controls. I just had no
> interest. Motorcycles were my thing, flying was hers. My first lesson
> this past Spring was the first time I'd touched the yoke. I did it
> as a safety thing since we'd been doing regular $100 hamburgers and
> flights to her parents with the kids aboard and because I thought flying
> would be a nice thing for my wife and I to share.
>
> That first lesson was an eye opener - a plane is like a 3D motorcycle.
> Now I'm hooked. I'll be tooling around central Indiana in a J-3 Cub
> an hour and a half from now.
>
> --
> Scott Post


You're a brave man to share these Hoosier skies with me!

------------------------------------------
DW

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
>>or "get an instrument rating". :)
>
>
> I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.

Why not get it today? You are missing an opportunity that few people
(even fewer than those who get a chance to take the wheel of an
airplane) get to experience. I just can't understand any pilot who
wouldn't want to earn their instrument rating as soon as regulations
allow. I guess such pilots are just mis-wired. :-)

Matt

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>"Scott Post" > wrote in message
m...
>> I was only answering for myself. I still offer non-pilots a chance to
>> "fly" and most are tickled pink. My 8 year old "flew" with me on Friday
>> and had a ball. It just didn't interest me before I could do everything
>> myself.
>
>Your prerogative. IMHO, you're missing out. Why limit your experiences to
>things you can only do to some minimum standard? You're sitting there.
>You've got nothing better to do. Why not take the moment?

How does this jive with your question for Jay about experiencing being sodomized
by a guy? :-)

Just so you don't think I'm a total dud, I did drive a cherry picker
yesterday. My neighbor rented it to hang xmas lights. I took him up on
his offer to use it. Great fun - ended up hanging lights all over the
house and in every tree in the front yard. I hope he rents it again
after xmas 'cuz otherwise I'll have to cut down the trees to get the
lights down.

--
Scott Post

[BT]

I do a lot of first time intro flights or joy rides in gliders, I normally
begin after they've had a chance to look around and gather their awarness of
what is around them and the distant views.. some get concerned that they
are now alone up there, the powered aicraft that took them aloft is no
longer in front of them.

I have them follow me on the controls and show them the basics.. pitch
(fwd/aft) controls airspeed, left and right keeps the wings level (we have a
stick).. everythign happens slow and easy.. after awhile I ask them if they
are ready to fly.. or I comment that they are doing pretty good, me being in
the back seat, they don't know I took my hands off the controls a couple of
minutes earlier and they are doing the corrections.. some don't believe I
have let go until I show them my hands, some take coaxing to actually move
the stick..

One young lady, once the tow plane had left.. I had her pull the release....
then she says "now wait a minute, that plane pulled us up here, and now it
is gone.. how are we flying?"

I explained that we are flying on gravity and the wind currents.. gravity
pulls us back to earth, much like a falling leaf, but with these flight
controls, and the shape of the wing, I can control how we fall.. I can
control the direction and the forward speed.. I can turn.. slow down.. speed
up.. and every once in a while, you feel these bumps.. and that insturment
there tells us it is rising air.. so by trying to stay in the rising air..
we can stay aloft and climb higher... as the wind or air moves up and over
the ridge below us, we ride that rising air much like a surfer rides the
wave.. gravity pulls him to the bottom of the wave.. but he can control it
and ride the upswelling wave..

So in a sense... we are "Falling With Style"...

But yes.. I have had passengers that enjoyed the ride.. enjoyed the views..
seemed to understand everything going on around them... but dared not touch
the controls. I can only think that they must have been afraid that their
touch would undo everything that is keeping them aloft.

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mary and I have given rides to dozens of people over the years. I
> usually like to let a newbie ride in the right seat with me, and will
> usually let them "take the wheel" once we're safely at altitude. Most
> people love their new-found freedom, while others are tentative and not
> quite sure what to think.
>
> It is a rare person, indeed, who refuses the chance to "steer" -- but
> it happened Friday with a 24 year old girl in the right seat.
> Actually, Mary was up front with her, while I was in back with her
> boyfriend (which is still a very weird feeling, sitting in the BACK of
> your own plane, in flight) -- and when Mary offered her the controls,
> she politely refused.
>
> What *is* that, anyway? This girl is a wonderfully intelligent, highly
> educated young lady, with no tendency toward timidness or air sickness,
> yet, when given the chance to try something that VERY few people on
> this planet will ever get to do, she refused. Stranger still, she has
> flown with us before (albeit in the back seat), so it's not like she's
> afraid of flying.
>
> I'm trying to remember if that has ever happened with me in the left
> seat, and -- although I've sensed reluctance a time or two -- I don't
> think anyone has ever said "No, thanks" to my offer to take the yoke.
> Perhaps it's because I give them little choice, and Mary *asked*?
>
> It just seems odd to me, and rather sad. I don't want folks believing
> that airplanes fall out of the sky as soon as an experienced pilot lets
> go of the controls...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> Key word there being "almost".

I really do mean almost. I threw that in there to avoid, say, sex with anther
guy.

> I'm sure I can name quite a few things that, in spite of being popular with
> some people, you would refuse to try even once.

Darn few.

But that isn't really important to the discussion.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> Before you go accusing someone a troll, you might think about at least
> double-checking your impressions with Google first.

Probably should.

> Your last two pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved simply
> by looking at what those posters actually post.

Last two?

If you are talking about MX, you would have to prove me wrong. You couldn't do
it.

This one, I guess it is guilt by association with and support of troll number 1.
Perhaps it is wrong, so I'll wait and see.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

She's old and fat now. I've seen her picture on the web, 40
year HS reunion. She's also married. Ruined all those
wonderful memories of the sweet young innocent Patti Jo.

My memories of the girls of my youth are better than reality
today.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
| > Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up
to
| > me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
| > some witnesses present who could talk about my
clumsiness I
| > said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
|
| So Google her. Maybe she still wants to dance?
|
| ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Jim Macklin]

Her brother was my last of several CFIs when I got my PPL.


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in news:W5qah.1003
| :
|
| > When I was in the 8th grade, I was madly "in love" with
| > Patti Jo. At the graduation party she actually came up
to
| > me and asked me if I want to dance. Since there were 40
| > some witnesses present who could talk about my
clumsiness I
| > said no. That has bothered me for more than 40 years.
| > Just to prove the point, the worst landing I ever made
was
| > with 3 FAA Inspectors on the airplane.
|
| Coulda been worse. One of the FAA inspectors coulda been
Patti Jo.

[Peter Duniho]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message
...
>>Your prerogative. IMHO, you're missing out. Why limit your experiences
>>to
>>things you can only do to some minimum standard? You're sitting there.
>>You've got nothing better to do. Why not take the moment?
>
> How does this jive with your question for Jay about experiencing being
> sodomized by a guy? :-)

Because you clearly have a willingness to fly generally.

I take it as granted that there are things that any given person simply will
never have any interest in doing. But that's not the situation with respect
to you and flying.

> Just so you don't think I'm a total dud, I did drive a cherry picker
> yesterday. My neighbor rented it to hang xmas lights. I took him up on
> his offer to use it. Great fun - ended up hanging lights all over the
> house and in every tree in the front yard. I hope he rents it again
> after xmas 'cuz otherwise I'll have to cut down the trees to get the
> lights down.

Yeah, but would you have taken him up on an offer to simply operate the
cherry picker to no useful end for a few minutes? Or was it a requirement
that you actually *did* something with it?

I don't think you're a total dud at all. It's important that you do what
you want, and that you don't waste time doing things you don't want to do.
I just think you're missing some things that you might otherwise enjoy, and
simply don't realize it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> Your last two pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved
>> simply by looking at what those posters actually post.
>
> Last two?
>
> If you are talking about MX, you would have to prove me wrong. You
> couldn't
> do it.

No...Mxsmanic is clearly a troll, in spite of a handful of other people
defending him as otherwise.

I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context
of hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was
here. I don't recall.

> This one, I guess it is guilt by association with and support of troll
> number 1. Perhaps it is wrong, so I'll wait and see.

There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as
"Xmnushal8y" a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted
previously, that would be apparent. She goes some time between posts
occasionally, but isn't anything like a troll.

Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
been, he's really the only active troll around here these days. Not all
newsgroups are so lucky, nor has r.a.piloting been so lucky in days past
(recalling people like Mulcahy, Zoom, Eagleson, AcroCFI, etc....we've had
our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
will "Mxsmanic")

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I guess you're right.
>
> Did I just hear Jay Honeck say that? i just lost a fortune on air
> conditioning stock in Hades. :)

You still have your a/c stock. He did the Usenet equivalent of crossing his
fingers (attaching a smiley). :)

And, I'll point out, he only implied that he was wrong. He did not actually
explicitly admit it. :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> I'm sure I can name quite a few things that, in spite of being popular
>> with some people, you would refuse to try even once.
>
> Darn few.
>
> But that isn't really important to the discussion.

Sure it is. The fact is, just as having sex with another man may be
abhorrent to you, taking the controls of (or even riding as a passenger in)
an airplane may be abhorrent to someone else.

The concept is *extremely* important to the discussion. It is the *core* of
the discussion.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> For example, suppose a gentleman approached you and offered to sodomize
>> you.
>> Would you accept that opportunity?
>>
>> How about if someone offers you the opportunity to eat human flesh. Jump
>> at
>> that, would you?
>
> Ah, Pete, you never let me down, or fail to amuse. Only a true pedant
> could possibly take this argument to such extremes, with a straight
> face.

Nor do you let me down, nor fail to amuse.

You are completely failing to observe that your reluctance to do things that
you find abhorrent is no different than someone else's reluctance to do
things that they find abhorrent. Such as, for example, operating or riding
in an airplane.

Just because you don't find flying an airplane to be abhorrent, scary,
terrifying, disgusting, whatever, that doesn't mean that everyone shares
your feelings.

It's pretty funny, actually. You refuse to acknowledge a point when it is
too subtle for your simple, close-minded approach to the discussion to
comprehend, and then when someone comes along to adjust the example so that
it is so extreme, even someone like you could understand, you take issue
with it being extreme, calling it pedantry.

If I'm being so pedantic, how come you couldn't understand what Jose was
correctly pointing out before?

I'd say "only you, Jay", except unfortunately our country is filled with
non-thinkers such as yourself who treat every debate in this very way.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> If I'm being so pedantic, how come you couldn't understand what Jose was
> correctly pointing out before?
>
> I'd say "only you, Jay", except unfortunately our country is filled with
> non-thinkers such as yourself who treat every debate in this very way.

It's not that I don't "get" your argument, Pete. It's that I think
your argument is irrelevant to the thread, and your debate style is so
rude as to reduce your arguments to noise.

I try to be polite and explain *why* your argumentativeness is
irrelevant, and you continue to escalate your absurd examples until
you're talking about sodomy, and making personal attacks, in some sort
of a lame attempt to make a feeble point.

It doesn't matter if you believe I don't "get" it, nor does it matter
if you think I don't understand that people are "different". Your
"explanation" of why some people won't take the controls of an airplane
is, as usual, needlessly rude, pointlessly sarcastic, and over-blown to
the point where your absurd arguments themselves become the focal point
of an otherwise interesting thread.

Just once, try sticking to the point...please? It would be nice to
have a real discussion about growing general aviation without you going
off.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> And, I'll point out, he only implied that he was wrong. He did not actually
> explicitly admit it. :)

If he ever admits it, I'll open an ice skating rink down there. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
> Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context of
> hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was here.
> I don't recall.

Oh, I remember. Something like tater shood.

He was a troll, too. He was not nearly as staying and persistant, and is long
gone. He seemed to think you could fly on a minimum wage job, as part of his
central argument. Shoot, you can't even live on a minimum wage job.

> There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as "Xmnushal8y"
> a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted previously, that would
> be apparent. She goes some time between posts occasionally, but isn't
> anything like a troll.

OK, but I don't remember the name, without googling. It was her support of MX
that got me.

> Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
> been, he's really the only active troll around here these days.

If you call MX being here lucky, OK, but he is the most destructive I have seen
around here, ever, IMHO. His argumentative style, and hijacking of threads
reaches into every thread. I, for one, am sick of it, and of all of the people
responding to him as though he is just a lost soul, in need of support and
encouragement.

Dudley had it right, when he said he had not seen one play the group so
skillfully in a long time.

I have spent all of my energy that I want to on him, for a while. Somebody else
will need to take up the fight.
--
Jim in NC

[randall g]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:47:47 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
>>>or "get an instrument rating". :)
>>
>>
>> I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.
>
>Why not get it today? You are missing an opportunity that few people
>(even fewer than those who get a chance to take the wheel of an
>airplane) get to experience. I just can't understand any pilot who
>wouldn't want to earn their instrument rating as soon as regulations
>allow. I guess such pilots are just mis-wired. :-)
>
>Matt


You and Pete are both being unfair. I am sure you realize that obtaining
the IR is a very non-trivial task and requires considerable personal
time and effort. This is not always possible for a recreational pilot
and once you have your PP you are very aware of the further effort
required for the IR.

Personally my attitude was like Jay's - I'll get my IR someday. As it
happens I now have the time and money required and am persuing it (hope
to write the exam on Tuesday). And, having a couple hundred extra hours
of CC time has helped a lot in the situational awareness area - so say
my instructors. But, after getting the PP, I just wanted to fly for fun
for a while. I think it was worth doing it that way for my personal
situation.

Further, I now know that I have to schedule regular IFR flights and
approaches in order to remain current, as well as take the proficiency
checkrides. More work, time and effort. Not all pilots have that
available.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's not that I don't "get" your argument, Pete. It's that I think
> your argument is irrelevant to the thread, and your debate style is so
> rude as to reduce your arguments to noise.

"My argument"? It's not just "my argument". In fact, Jose is the person
who first attempted to politely put a fine point on it for you. In fact, he
tried twice, and both times you insisted on jerking him around in your
supposedly polite manner, while pointedly ignoring the underlying truth in
what he was saying.

As far as being "rude" goes, I suggest you look at your own reply to my post
elaborating on Jose's post. Rather than discussing the post itself, you
replied with an entirely condescending assessment of my own personality. I
hadn't written a single rude thing to you up until that point. It's a bit
disingenuous for you to accuse me of being rude, when in fact you serve up
great helpings of rudeness on a regular basis, in both veiled and overt
forms.

> I try to be polite and explain *why* your argumentativeness is
> irrelevant, and you continue to escalate your absurd examples until
> you're talking about sodomy, and making personal attacks, in some sort
> of a lame attempt to make a feeble point.

The point wasn't feeble, nor was the attempt lame. It only escalated to the
point to which it did because you refused to acknowledge Jose's point. The
point being made cuts right to the heart of the whole issue here. Your
inability to acknowledge the point is simply a symptom of your dismissively
rude treatment of anyone who might have an opinion different from yours.

And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
"disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
myself).

[Peter Duniho]

"randall g" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> You and Pete are both being unfair.

Hardly. None of us are trivializing the work it takes to get an instrument
rating. Heck, I think any of us who has one would readily acknowledge that
it is *at least* as great a challenge as the initial Private certificate
training.

The point is that Jay goes on about other people not wanting to do the
things he thinks everyone should want to do, and yet ignores the fact that
he himself doesn't want to do the things other people enjoy (even though we
don't necessarily think everyone should want to do them).

The instrument rating just happens to be one example of this. It only comes
up because of his reputation with respect to it...it has nothing to do with
anyone implying that the instrument rating is easy, or even that Jay
*should* get one (I personally have never said it's a requirement...Jay
clearly finds his own flying enjoyable and convenient without an instrument
rating, and it's not my place to say he should feel otherwise).

It seems to me that if you think I'm being unfair in my reference to the
instrument rating, then you have not understood why it is I refer to it in
the first place. Perhaps that's my fault for not being clear, but the fact
is that nothing you appear to have inferred from my comment about it has
anything to do with what I actually was writing about.

Pete

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:53:27 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Her brother was my last of several CFIs when I got my PPL.

If you had danced with her than you might have also srcewed her that night.
And her brother would have broken your nose instead of giving you flight
instruction. See? It always pays NOT to dance (hey! I always seach for
excuses not to dance ...). *g*

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:29:47 GMT, Jose wrote:

>> I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.
>
>"Someday" is not the same as "all over it like stink on you-know-what".

it is "jumping on the opportunity given" ... and beeing blessed to live in
a place where you can go for an instrument rating. And sharing all that
with a great bunch of people all over the world.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:33:26 GMT, randall g wrote:

>You and Pete are both being unfair. I am sure you realize that obtaining
>the IR is a very non-trivial task and requires considerable personal
>time and effort. This is not always possible for a recreational pilot
>and once you have your PP you are very aware of the further effort
>required for the IR.

IIRC Jay has started IFR training back then, but for a couple of reasons he
hasn't finished (mis-wired?? *eg*). He really hasn't jumped on the
opportunity ....

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>...we've had
> our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
> will "Mxsmanic")

actually, mx is a repeat offender. I killfiled it back in 2002.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> And you have the nerve to call ME rude. Right. Frankly, I prefer the term
> "disrespectful", and you have gone to great lengths to earn that disrespect,
> through your own disrespect of others (including but hardly limited to
> myself).

I used to work with someone like you, Pete. She was a died-in-the-wool
liberal, never wrong, always opinionated and willing to defend any
point to the death, no matter how irrelevant. The point of contention
was always the argument -- never the underlying point, which we both
knew the other would never concede, or even acknowledge.

At the end of a long day of sparring, we would occasionally end up at a
bar, and she would always close the evening with a tongue-in-cheek
imitation of me saying "The only abortion that I would have approved
was when your mother was pregnant with you!"

Well, at least I think it was tongue-in-cheek.... ;-)

I suspect that in-person, that's pretty much the way these threads
would end. Unfortunately, there is no written equivalent to that sort
of live-and-let-live tone, or, if there is, we haven't found it, yet.

You simply have a nasty habit of converting any thread into personal
attacks. It's a bad thing, and you really should take a chill-pill.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Douglas Eagleson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> >> Your last two pronouncments (including this one) are easily disproved
> >> simply by looking at what those posters actually post.
> >
> > Last two?
> >
> > If you are talking about MX, you would have to prove me wrong. You
> > couldn't
> > do it.
>
> No...Mxsmanic is clearly a troll, in spite of a handful of other people
> defending him as otherwise.
>
> I'm referring to your reply to another poster, whose name I've forgotten.
> Starts with a "T" I think. If I recall, their post came up in the context
> of hangar doors? Or maybe it was just around the same time that thread was
> here. I don't recall.
>
> > This one, I guess it is guilt by association with and support of troll
> > number 1. Perhaps it is wrong, so I'll wait and see.
>
> There is no way you could legitimately call the person posting as
> "Xmnushal8y" a troll. If you'd look at any of the articles posted
> previously, that would be apparent. She goes some time between posts
> occasionally, but isn't anything like a troll.
>
> Frankly, we're actually relatively lucky. As disruptive as "Mxsmanic" has
> been, he's really the only active troll around here these days. Not all
> newsgroups are so lucky, nor has r.a.piloting been so lucky in days past
> (recalling people like Mulcahy, Zoom, Eagleson, AcroCFI, etc....we've had
> our share of nutcases, and just as they all eventually faded away, so too
> will "Mxsmanic")
>
> Pete


Wow being knowledgable in aircraft flight dynamics as opposed to FAA
idiot aerodynamics gets you called a nut case.

You are a what?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> If you had danced with her than you might have also srcewed her that night.
> And her brother would have broken your nose instead of giving you flight
> instruction. See? It always pays NOT to dance (hey! I always seach for
> excuses not to dance ...). *g*


A vertical expression of a hortizontal idea....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> I have spent all of my energy that I want to on him, for a while. Somebody
> else will need to take up the fight.


No fight is necessary; let him die from neglect. I nuked him and never see his
posts. I've also gone and added a few of his supporters to the blocked senders
list as well. I figure if they're that far off in their assessment of him,
their judgement is obviously suspect. Why would I want to read any of their
crap? I couldn't come up with a reason so WHOOSH.... away goes trouble down the
drain.

Numbnuts will hang around as long as people respond to him. I am fairly certain
that all but the most thickheaded have finally figured him out. It's just a
matter of time before he decides it's more rewarding to post to
soc.muslim.ideology in order to engage some of those warm folks for some of his
exchanges of ideas. I have no doubt they would react even more enthusiastically
than we have to his endearing style of interogation.

Just let him go. He isn't worth the heartburn. And start nuking the folks who
answer him as well. Don't rail against them... just make them disappear from
your computer.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> You simply have a nasty habit of converting any thread into personal
> attacks.
>

Where exactly did he do that? I just can't see it in his posts.

FWIW and IMHO, he is also absolutely right in his assessment (sp?) and
his argument makes complete sense. But I guess for you that's just
another example of them in-the-wool liberals ganging up on you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Doug[_1_]]

I love to fly, but I'm mis-wired. Not perfect like you.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I guess you're right. I just think people who don't love to fly are
> mis-wired...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

randall g wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:47:47 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>Maybe instead of "make a pot..." I should have said "vote Democratic",
>>>>or "get an instrument rating". :)
>>>
>>>
>>>I've voted for Democrats, and I'll get the IR someday.
>>
>>Why not get it today? You are missing an opportunity that few people
>>(even fewer than those who get a chance to take the wheel of an
>>airplane) get to experience. I just can't understand any pilot who
>>wouldn't want to earn their instrument rating as soon as regulations
>>allow. I guess such pilots are just mis-wired. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>
> You and Pete are both being unfair. I am sure you realize that obtaining
> the IR is a very non-trivial task and requires considerable personal
> time and effort. This is not always possible for a recreational pilot
> and once you have your PP you are very aware of the further effort
> required for the IR.

You missed the point entirely. The comment wasn't about getting the IR
rating, it was about people having different interests and motivations
and that not implying that you are "mis-wired" as Jay suggested. The
point is that even Jay has aviation related things that aren't important
enough for him to pursue even though they would be an opportunity to do
something that few people get to do. That was the point.

Jay often seems unable to understand that not everyone who thinks
differently than him is weird or somehow lacking in some way. I enjoy
aviation, motorcycles and firearms, but I know a lot of people who would
rather spend a day walking through a museum or an art show. I can't
fathom why anyone would want to spend a day looking at paintings, but I
don't describe such people as mis-wired.


Matt

[zatatime]

On 26 Nov 2006 21:28:37 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>the focal point
>of an otherwise interesting thread.


This is not an interesting thread. This thread persists because you
don't understand what people are saying to you. You see the words,
but obviously don't get it.

z

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote

> Just let him go. He isn't worth the heartburn. And start nuking the folks
> who answer him as well. Don't rail against them... just make them disappear
> from your computer.

Thanks for the reality check.

Done.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> actually, mx is a repeat offender. I killfiled it back in 2002.

No joke? (well- yeah <g>)

Same screen name?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> > actually, mx is a repeat offender. I killfiled it back in 2002.
>
> No joke? (well- yeah <g>)
>
> Same screen name?

I think so, but I simply killfiled anything with "Mxsmanic" contained
in the author field.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Steve Schneider]

Danny Dot wrote:
>
> I have found that children ALWAYS take the controls and attempt to fly. It
> is only adults that make no attempt to attempt to fly.
>
> Danny Dot
> www.mobbinggonemad.org
>

I've had a couple of Young Eagle flights where the kids did not want to
handle the controls. I was quite suprised since they had an obvious
interest in flying given that they signed up for the event -- and in
each case they enjoyed their flight. But a couple of them just wanted to
observe rather than pilot the aircraft. I continue to hope that the
next time these kids had the opportunity to fly that they would feel
less inhibited and take the controls.

I've never had a child who knew me (my kid's friends, family members,
etc) refuse the chance to fly the plane. So perhaps for the reluctant
ones it is a matter of being too polite or a misguided sense of not
wanting to impose on the adult flying the plane.

Steve

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Schneider writes:

> I've had a couple of Young Eagle flights where the kids did not want to
> handle the controls. I was quite suprised since they had an obvious
> interest in flying given that they signed up for the event -- and in
> each case they enjoyed their flight. But a couple of them just wanted to
> observe rather than pilot the aircraft. I continue to hope that the
> next time these kids had the opportunity to fly that they would feel
> less inhibited and take the controls.

Some people enjoy being in the air but have no desire to actually
pilot the plane themselves.

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

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> Some people enjoy being in the air but have no desire to actually
> pilot the plane themselves.
>
WOW! That is such a really brilliant statement!
Did you figure it all by yourself?
It adds SO MUCH to the discussion.
And I'll bet you can prove it is a true statement.
How did we ever get along without your profundity for all these years?

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

Oh, by the way, transposing the above yields gmail@mxsmanic -- just
thought you'd like to know.

[mike regish]

Actually, our own Jay Honeck still hasn't figured it out.

Thanks, BTW, for your contribution.

mike

"N2310D" > wrote in message
news:dS6bh.15882$Uz.11958@trnddc05...
>>
> WOW! That is such a really brilliant statement!
> Did you figure it all by yourself?
> It adds SO MUCH to the discussion.
> And I'll bet you can prove it is a true statement.
> How did we ever get along without your profundity for all these years?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Actually, our own Jay Honeck still hasn't figured it out.

Perhaps a better example for Jay - you're at a party, and a friend
offers you the chance to try a line of some prime Coke. Most people
don't get a chance to do this. A lot of people think it's terrific. I
don't know the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number
of pilots is less than the number of drug users.

Do you decline?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Actually, our own Jay Honeck still hasn't figured it out.
>
> Perhaps a better example for Jay - you're at a party, and a friend
> offers you the chance to try a line of some prime Coke. Most people
> don't get a chance to do this. A lot of people think it's terrific. I
> don't know the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number
> of pilots is less than the number of drug users.

"better example"? Not!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> WOW! That is such a really brilliant statement!

Thank you.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
> a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

Ha!

Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> "better example"? Not!

Why not?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

> > However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
> > a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Ha!
>
> Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
> on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...

I'm one of the women pilots in this group, and I think the statement
above about flying *generally* appealing more to men than to women is an
accurate one. If it weren't, how else would you explain that probably
90% of the pilots at the airport on a Sunday afternoon are men? or the
large number of men who complain that their wives aren't even interested
enough to fly with them? How many women do you find in coveralls
*happily* on a creeper cleaning the belly of their airplane on a
Saturday morning?

That doesn't mean that many of us (women) aren't just as interested,
driven and passionate about flying as you -- Mary, Margy, Michelle and I
(Shirl) definitely are! -- but overall, I agree with whoever said that a
50/50 men/women ratio is unlikely. In a random group of 100 men and 100
women, no way the same number of women will say they would like to fly
an airplane as men.

It may indeed be stereotypical to say, but more men grow up around
engines, motors, and mechanics than women, and while there are *of
course* exceptions, that knowledge/education, or the desire TO HAVE that
knowledge/education, is less common to a lot of (not all) women. Some
men enjoy sewing, too, but the *majority* do not, nor do they have a
desire to learn it even though they can appreciate the skill.

Of the girlfriends that I've discussed flying with, many say they'd be
interested in learning how but are very intimidated and put off by the
fact that they would have to have some knowledge of the mechanics of the
engine, and they have an inherent negativity and lack of confidence in
their ability to adequately learn about it, especially when they get
around groups of aviators discussing mags, pistons, fouled plugs,
mixture leaning, CHT/EGTs, etc. Add to that the large number of men who
make women feel like their questions are dumb or that they don't belong
and aren't welcome (yes, there ARE still many out there!), and it's no
wonder the ratio is not 50/50.

Shirl

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Of the girlfriends that I've discussed flying with, many say they'd be
> interested in learning how but are very intimidated and put off by the
> fact that they would have to have some knowledge of the mechanics of the
> engine, and they have an inherent negativity and lack of confidence in
> their ability to adequately learn about it, especially when they get
> around groups of aviators discussing mags, pistons, fouled plugs,
> mixture leaning, CHT/EGTs, etc.

That is a negative point for some men, also, including myself. I was
never into cars in the way that standard men are because I had
absolutely no interest in playing around with engines covered in
filth, and small aircraft unfortunately also use this type of engine.

It is true that most men seem to enjoy such things. It mystifies me.
I'm the exception among my sex rather than the rule, though.

There are other aspects of flying that can have a gender-neutral
appeal, and I suppose these aspects attract the female pilots more
than the male pilots. For example, the sensations of flying or the
psychological satisfactions of piloting one's own plane could appeal
to someone of either sex. The mechanical aspects, the machine
aspects, and the turning dials would appeal to males. Some aspects of
navigation might appeal strongly to women, as they tend to be good at
some of the operations involved (such as arithmetic and memory tasks).

I'd expect piloting of airliners to appeal more to women than piloting
of small GA aircraft, because airliners have less of a mechanical
tinkering aspect to them and a higher intellectual workload, and
airline work has more social aspects. I'd also expect to see more
female air traffic controllers (percentage wise) than female pilots,
because ATC is a much more gender-neutral type of intellectual work.

There are many differences between men and women in the type of tasks
they prefer (which are often also the tasks at which they excel), and
this has an effect on the percentage of each sex working in each
profession. Men like things; women like people. Men like math, but
women like arithmetic. Men like spatial visualization, women like
memorization. And so on.

> Add to that the large number of men who
> make women feel like their questions are dumb or that they don't belong
> and aren't welcome (yes, there ARE still many out there!), and it's no
> wonder the ratio is not 50/50.

Just seeing how some pilots talk on this newsgroup makes it clear that
some of them are still living in the nineteenth century when it come
to gender issues.

In summary, I should think that a good part of the dearth of female
pilots is attributable to machismo, but the rest is due to a simple
difference in preferences between men and women. I think it's
important for women to have the same opportunity as men to become
pilots. But I don't think it's important to try to force the numbers
to come out 50/50.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
> on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...

They already realize that it's true, although they may not be happy
about it.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> That is a negative point for some men, also, including myself. I was
> never into cars in the way that standard men are because I had
> absolutely no interest in playing around with engines covered in
> filth, and small aircraft unfortunately also use this type of engine.

It probably interests me because I grew up with two older brothers who
were gearheads from birth. Neither are into airplanes, but it was
clearly a draw for me and for my young-adult daughter.

Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks are
messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a shop. I
won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in filth".

> I'd expect piloting of airliners to appeal more to women than piloting
> of small GA aircraft, because airliners have less of a mechanical
> tinkering aspect to them and a higher intellectual workload, and
> airline work has more social aspects. I'd also expect to see more
> female air traffic controllers (percentage wise) than female pilots,
> because ATC is a much more gender-neutral type of intellectual work.

I wasn't addressing *working* in aviation ... I was specifically
commenting on the statement that *flying* (in general, as a small
airplane pilot) is more appealing to men than to women and that a 50/50
ratio of men to women is unlikely.

> Just seeing how some pilots talk on this newsgroup makes it clear that
> some of them are still living in the nineteenth century when it come
> to gender issues.

Thankfully the majority seem accepting and welcoming to women; there
are, however, some who are not. The thing that bothers me more than that
is the idea that both genders express their interest and learn in
exactly the same way and that if you aren't as aggressive, confident or
quick to jump at opportunities right out of the gate, you are
timid/afraid or something is wrong with you. It's more often just that
we approach things differently and/or want more info before we begin,
even when our interest is just as compelling.

> I think it's important for women to have the same opportunity
> as men to become pilots. But I don't think it's important to
> try to force the numbers to come out 50/50.

For the most part, I think women *do* have the same opportunity as men
to become pilots. I don't think the horror stories are gender specific.
Not only do I agree that it isn't important that the numbers come out to
50/50, I don't think it ever would.

Shirl

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It probably interests me because I grew up with two older brothers who
> were gearheads from birth. Neither are into airplanes, but it was
> clearly a draw for me and for my young-adult daughter.

It might run in the family, too, like musical ability.

> Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks are
> messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a shop. I
> won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in filth".

The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

> I wasn't addressing *working* in aviation ... I was specifically
> commenting on the statement that *flying* (in general, as a small
> airplane pilot) is more appealing to men than to women and that a 50/50
> ratio of men to women is unlikely.

The same principles apply. Many people like to work at something they
like, and like their work.

> Thankfully the majority seem accepting and welcoming to women; there
> are, however, some who are not. The thing that bothers me more than that
> is the idea that both genders express their interest and learn in
> exactly the same way and that if you aren't as aggressive, confident or
> quick to jump at opportunities right out of the gate, you are
> timid/afraid or something is wrong with you. It's more often just that
> we approach things differently and/or want more info before we begin,
> even when our interest is just as compelling.

Testosterone clouds judgement. It's an affliction of males in
particular that requires constant active compensation in order to
maintain a cool head. And it seems to engender an attitude that says
anyone who is not equally hotheaded is somehow defective.

> For the most part, I think women *do* have the same opportunity as men
> to become pilots.

I've heard that it's much better now than it used to be.

> Not only do I agree that it isn't important that the numbers come out to
> 50/50, I don't think it ever would.

I'm sure it would not. It hasn't in many other domains.

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

[Chris G.]

1) Me
2) My wife
3) My mom

Judah wrote:
>> Some people don't like motorcycles, either.
>>
>
> Name 3.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
> brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

Have a look at some owner-maintained aircraft. My engine, and the
engines of most friends I have who own their own airplanes, are almost
spotless, and none are new. If you don't keep them clean, how can you
see if there are new leaks or anything out of the ordinary?

Shirl

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> "better example"? Not!
>
> Why not?

Because it's too extreme, of course. Haven't you been paying attention? If
you come up with an example that is so obviously not within the interests of
the people with whom you are "discussing" this, then you clearly are
hijacking the thread, using personal attacks for your own agenda and
distracting from the real issue (whatever that might be).

I mean, really...the nerve of you, Jose. Using an example that your
debating partners can't wiggle out of with a "sure, I'd do that". What are
you thinking? If you don't leave loopholes, how are they going to maintain
a facade of having a point?

Pete

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
>> brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.
>
> Have a look at some owner-maintained aircraft. My engine, and the
> engines of most friends I have who own their own airplanes, are almost
> spotless, and none are new. If you don't keep them clean, how can you
> see if there are new leaks or anything out of the ordinary?
>
> Shirl

Shirl,

Anthony has never looked at any real airplane engine up close.

[Jay Beckman]

Please Don't feed the Troll...

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>> Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks
>> are messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a
>> shop. I won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in
>> filth".
>
> The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
> brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

An engine covered in grime is probably leaking a fluid or someone spilled
oil or other fluids on it and didn't clean the spill up. For the most part,
engines aren't (or shouldn't be) covered in grime. (I've owned two Acura
Integra's in the last 20 years and both their engines stayed clean. I had
regular maintenance done by professional mechanics.)

I've had to work on a number of auto engines in my youth (i.e. plenty of
time, not so much money to take the car to a mechanic) and they were rarely
all the dirty. I owned a hand-me-down Chevy Vega once (included by some
people in their "worst cars ever made" lists) and I had to replace cracked
cylinder heads more than once. Really not that messy, even though I had to
take the top of the head off! Of course the tough part of doing those
replacements (besides tracking down parts) was I had to do them in an
uninsulated garage in Minnesota in the coldest days of the winter. Metal
just loves to suck the heat out of your hands! Brrr!

And unless its failed somehow, an aircraft engine had better not be covered
in grime. (There are no dirt roads in the sky. :-) )

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Have a look at some owner-maintained aircraft. My engine, and the
> engines of most friends I have who own their own airplanes, are almost
> spotless, and none are new. If you don't keep them clean, how can you
> see if there are new leaks or anything out of the ordinary?

I don't know. I'm not an engine mechanic. But it seems like every
engine I ever see is covered with oil or grease or something. I do
wonder where it all comes from (something must be leaking if it gets
all over the exterior), but mechanics don't seem to find it odd.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > > However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
> > > a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

> > Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
> > on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...
>
> I'm one of the women pilots in this group, and I think the statement
> above about flying *generally* appealing more to men than to women is an
> accurate one.

I agree. However, MX said "flying is ALWAYS likely to appeal to more
men" -- and I know for a fact that Mary would take serious umbrage at
such an absolute statement.

Both of us share the fervent hope that more women can (and will) be
drawn to flying. Mary is an active member of the 99s (I'm a "49
1/2"...), and our first successfully mentored new pilot was a woman,
just this past summer. We hope there will be many more to come.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Lee]

> > > However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
>> > > a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

I would guess that it is closer to 95/5 male to female.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I agree. However, MX said "flying is ALWAYS likely to appeal to more
> men" -- and I know for a fact that Mary would take serious umbrage at
> such an absolute statement.

Maybe, but in large populations, this will always be true. There are
many differences between the sexes that are so small that they are
overshadowed by differences between individuals, and yet they will
still be absolutely solid and consistent when large populations are
compared.

> Both of us share the fervent hope that more women can (and will) be
> drawn to flying. Mary is an active member of the 99s (I'm a "49
> 1/2"...), and our first successfully mentored new pilot was a woman,
> just this past summer. We hope there will be many more to come.

Removing factors that might discourage women will bring more women to
flying, but chances are that they will never be as interested in it as
men. This seems to apply to all motor vehicles, not just aircraft.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > "better example"? Not!
>
> Why not?

For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[zatatime]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:18:35 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>>> "better example"? Not!
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because it's too extreme, of course. Haven't you been paying attention? If
>you come up with an example that is so obviously not within the interests of
>the people with whom you are "discussing" this, then you clearly are
>hijacking the thread, using personal attacks for your own agenda and
>distracting from the real issue (whatever that might be).
>
>I mean, really...the nerve of you, Jose. Using an example that your
>debating partners can't wiggle out of with a "sure, I'd do that". What are
>you thinking? If you don't leave loopholes, how are they going to maintain
>a facade of having a point?
>
>Pete
>


Now THAT was hysterical.

z

[Jose[_1_]]

> For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.

Well, no. Russian Roulette does not provide any benefits for the
player. This is not just my opinion, it is an inference from the fact
that so few people actually play the game. However, a lot of people do
lines. There must be something in it.

And it is not without merit that some argue that the primary damage done
by (illegal) drugs is due to their illegality, and not their
pharmacology. In any case, there are places where it is legal to do
drugs. If Jay were at such a location, would he take the opportunity?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.
>
>
> Well, no. Russian Roulette does not provide any benefits for the
> player.



Neither do drugs.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Removing factors that might discourage women will bring more women to
> flying, but chances are that they will never be as interested in it as
> men. This seems to apply to all motor vehicles, not just aircraft.

I'd be careful how you phrase it ...
There will likely never be as MANY women interested in flying as men,
but some of us are definitely *just AS interested* as any male pilot.

Shirl

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I don't know. I'm not an engine mechanic. But it seems like every
> engine I ever see is covered with oil or grease or something. I do
> wonder where it all comes from (something must be leaking if it gets
> all over the exterior), but mechanics don't seem to find it odd.

I don't know what engines you're looking at, but all the aircraft
engines of airplane owners I know are clean, and our mechanics
definitely take issue with any grime/grease/oil on the engine. Again,
how would you know if something's there that shouldn't be if it is
covered with grime?

Shirl

[[email protected]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> Please Don't feed the Troll...

Arrrgh. Who is the troll?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Neither do drugs.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Many people find that (illegal
recreational) drugs =do= provide a benefit. That's why they take them.

There are those that say personal flying provides no benefit.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > For the same reason Russian Roulette would be a dumb example.
>
> Well, no. Russian Roulette does not provide any benefits for the
> player.

Well, yes. There is the rush of playing. While so few play it, those
that do must see a benefit to it.

> This is not just my opinion,

opinion.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well, yes. There is the rush of playing.

Is that why they call it RUSSian roulette?

(ok, I'll go sit in the corner)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
>> Please Don't feed the Troll...
>
> Arrrgh. Who is the troll?

Why our little Albatross, Mx, of course!!

What was the final disposition on your baby by the way? I don't recall if
you said it was salvagable or not?

Jay

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in

> That is a negative point for some men, also, including myself. I was
> never into cars in the way that standard men are because I had
> absolutely no interest in playing around with engines covered in
> filth, and small aircraft unfortunately also use this type of engine.

Can't drive really well either.
>
> It is true that most men seem to enjoy such things. It mystifies me.
> I'm the exception among my sex rather than the rule, though.

Anything else about masculinity that mystifies you?
>
> There are other aspects of flying that can have a gender-neutral
> appeal, and I suppose these aspects attract the female pilots more
> than the male pilots. For example, the sensations of flying or the
> psychological satisfactions of piloting one's own plane could appeal
> to someone of either sex. The mechanical aspects, the machine
> aspects, and the turning dials would appeal to males. Some aspects of
> navigation might appeal strongly to women, as they tend to be good at
> some of the operations involved (such as arithmetic and memory tasks).

That's so sexist.
>
> I'd expect piloting of airliners to appeal more to women than piloting
> of small GA aircraft, because airliners have less of a mechanical
> tinkering aspect to them and a higher intellectual workload, and
> airline work has more social aspects. I'd also expect to see more
> female air traffic controllers (percentage wise) than female pilots,
> because ATC is a much more gender-neutral type of intellectual work.

Wrong.
>
> There are many differences between men and women in the type of tasks
> they prefer (which are often also the tasks at which they excel), and
> this has an effect on the percentage of each sex working in each
> profession. Men like things; women like people. Men like math, but
> women like arithmetic. Men like spatial visualization, women like
> memorization. And so on.

Crap.
>
>> Add to that the large number of men who
>> make women feel like their questions are dumb or that they don't belong
>> and aren't welcome (yes, there ARE still many out there!), and it's no
>> wonder the ratio is not 50/50.
>
> Just seeing how some pilots talk on this newsgroup makes it clear that
> some of them are still living in the nineteenth century when it come
> to gender issues.
>
> In summary, I should think that a good part of the dearth of female
> pilots is attributable to machismo, but the rest is due to a simple
> difference in preferences between men and women. I think it's
> important for women to have the same opportunity as men to become
> pilots. But I don't think it's important to try to force the numbers
> to come out 50/50.

So how would you facilitate "opportunity"?

moo

[Jay Honeck]

> > Removing factors that might discourage women will bring more women to
> > flying, but chances are that they will never be as interested in it as
> > men. This seems to apply to all motor vehicles, not just aircraft.
>
> I'd be careful how you phrase it ...
> There will likely never be as MANY women interested in flying as men,
> but some of us are definitely *just AS interested* as any male pilot.

I truly hope that someday women will cringe when they read your
statement, above, just as they do now when we read how women regarded
driving, golfing and tennis as "men's sports" in the early 20th
century.

GA's best hope of survival right now is the woman pilot. We need more
of them, fast.
--
Jay Honeck
(Former Chicago Tribune Employee)
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Removing factors that might discourage women will bring more women to
>> > flying, but chances are that they will never be as interested in it as
>> > men. This seems to apply to all motor vehicles, not just aircraft.
>>
>> I'd be careful how you phrase it ...
>> There will likely never be as MANY women interested in flying as men,
>> but some of us are definitely *just AS interested* as any male pilot.
>
> I truly hope that someday women will cringe when they read your
> statement, above, just as they do now when we read how women regarded
> driving, golfing and tennis as "men's sports" in the early 20th
> century.

Not to mention shooting, engaging in free sex...

[[email protected]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> What was the final disposition on your baby by the way?
> I don't recall if you said it was salvagable or not?

Totaled. :-(
We are more grateful to be alive than anyone can imagine--a real event
like that makes it *SO clear* how much good LUCK (after extremely BAD
luck) is involved when people survive!

But it still hurts to lose something you put so much of your heart and
soul into passionately restoring. No gender difference there...I
challenge anyone to say I'm less upset than any male airplane owner
would be.

Shirl

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:16:25 -0700, wrote:

>"Jay Beckman" > wrote:
>> What was the final disposition on your baby by the way?
>> I don't recall if you said it was salvagable or not?
>
>Totaled. :-(
>We are more grateful to be alive than anyone can imagine--a real event
>like that makes it *SO clear* how much good LUCK (after extremely BAD
>luck) is involved when people survive!
>
>But it still hurts to lose something you put so much of your heart and
>soul into passionately restoring. No gender difference there...I
>challenge anyone to say I'm less upset than any male airplane owner
>would be.
>
>Shirl

Sorry to hear that.... FWIW, it doesn't take much for an insurance
adjuster to "total" a damaged aircraft these days (especially if it is
under-insured). Repair costs (labor, parts & materials) being what
they are, adjusters often jump at the chance to pay out the insured
amount & offer what's left over up for salvage to recover some of
their cost.

I'm involved on the aircraft recovery end, and the amount folks
bid on the crashed/wrecked carcasses (often times sight un-seen)
never ceases to amaze me!

Bela P. Havasreti

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> Neither do drugs.
>

Let's have a beer on that. Or a smoke.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Let's have a beer on that. Or a smoke.

I'll just have my highly caffienated sugar-laced soda, thankyouverymuch

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote:

>> What was the final disposition on your baby by the way? I don't recall
>> if you said it was salvagable or not?
>
>Totaled. :-(

:O( Indeed...

>We are more grateful to be alive than anyone can imagine--a real event like
>that makes it *SO clear* how much good LUCK (after extremely BAD luck) is
>involved >when people survive!

My heart just sank when I saw the news footage and was able to ID the plane
in question...but I was of course glad to hear that there were no serious
injuries.

>But it still hurts to lose something you put so much of your heart and soul
>into passionately restoring. No gender difference there...I challenge
>anyone to say I'm less >upset than any male airplane owner would be.

No doubt you are.

Yer Bud...

Jay B

[[email protected]]

Bela P. Havasreti > wrote:
> FWIW, it doesn't take much for an insurance
> adjuster to "total" a damaged aircraft these days (especially if it is
> under-insured). Repair costs (labor, parts & materials) being what
> they are, adjusters often jump at the chance to pay out the insured
> amount & offer what's left over up for salvage to recover some of
> their cost.

In my case, there were less than 200 of these aircraft made, so with the
unavailability of parts, it takes even less for them to total it.

> I'm involved on the aircraft recovery end, and the amount folks
> bid on the crashed/wrecked carcasses (often times sight un-seen)
> never ceases to amaze me!

Sometimes they are misrepresented when offered, too ... people don't
always fully understand what the full extent of the damage is when they
bid.

Shirl