GA is priceless

[Jay Honeck]

We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.

In 90 minutes (as opposed to 5.5 hours) we were parked on the ramp in
Racine, plugging Atlas in for the night. Twenty minutes later, we were
sipping egg nog and enjoying the warmth of the holiday spirit with
Mary's family.

Today, we slept in late, enjoyed a late brunch with friends, and flew
home in 100 minutes. The kids were back home, playing with their new
games, 20 minutes after we landed.

3 hours and 10 minutes of enjoyable, XM-radio-enhanced flight, versus
11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
isn't an airplane in every American garage...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...

Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
cellphone in his ear?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Burns]

Couldn't agree with you more Jay. 4 hours in the Aztec not only saved us 19
hours of driving, but made our holiday travel possible. We simply wouldn't
have driven.
Jim

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>
> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
> cellphone in his ear?
>
> Jose

Darwin would take care of that!

[Montblack]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
> Couldn't agree with you more Jay. 4 hours in the Aztec not only saved us
> 19 hours of driving, but made our holiday travel possible.


If it had been better flying weather, would you have crossed Lake Michigan
in your Aztec?

What's that flight, in hours?


Montblack

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

The only downside of the trip is that it was in fact to RACINE, not exactly
the most scenic world attraction.

It kind of makes Kenosha look like the Taj Mahal. However, if you ever get
stuck or weathered in, you always have a place to put Atlas in our hangar at
Waukesha (also not a great tourist attraction)

Have a great holiday.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Agree as well. We spent Thanksgiving in Santa Fe- six hours flying time,
which was actually less than commercial, especially considering the
connections, need to park at the airport, security checks, lost luggage,
etc.

I was actually able to bring my own can of shaving cream and a leatherman on
the plane!

[Aluckyguess]

I had to drive to Oregon a couple of months ago. I hated every minute of it.
12 hours to get there and 13 to get back. I flew the Bonaza a few weeks
earlier 3.5 there and 5 to get back. I had some stong winds and we stopped
to eat..I wont drive again.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
> a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
> but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.
>
> In 90 minutes (as opposed to 5.5 hours) we were parked on the ramp in
> Racine, plugging Atlas in for the night. Twenty minutes later, we were
> sipping egg nog and enjoying the warmth of the holiday spirit with
> Mary's family.
>
> Today, we slept in late, enjoyed a late brunch with friends, and flew
> home in 100 minutes. The kids were back home, playing with their new
> games, 20 minutes after we landed.
>
> 3 hours and 10 minutes of enjoyable, XM-radio-enhanced flight, versus
> 11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
> traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
> a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
> but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.

Had the weather been bad, GA would have been useless to you. General
aviation isn't consistently useful and convenient enough to be used as
reliable transportation.

> 3 hours and 10 minutes of enjoyable, XM-radio-enhanced flight, versus
> 11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
> traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...

Be glad there isn't, or driving through Chicago-area traffic would
seem like a picnic in comparison.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> Darwin would take care of that!

Darwin would do so at such high expense in lives and property damage
that GA would rapidly be outlawed.

Those who have the time and money to become pilots are fortunate that
there are so many other people who don't.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I had to drive to Oregon a couple of months ago. I hated every minute of it.
> 12 hours to get there and 13 to get back. I flew the Bonaza a few weeks
> earlier 3.5 there and 5 to get back. I had some stong winds and we stopped
> to eat..I wont drive again.

Even in thunderstorms or driving snow?

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

[gpsman]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...

Just thank your God there isn't, or you'd be more likely to be able to
pose your query in person, sooner.
-----

- gpsman

[Jay Beckman]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>
>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>> cellphone in his ear?
>>
>> Jose
>
> Darwin would take care of that!

Once upon a time that was true. Lately the "Guvmint" won't let Darwin do
his thing so well anymore.

Jay B

[skym]

Jay Honeck wrote:
God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...
> --
> Jay Honeck

Jay,
I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."

Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?

[Jay Beckman]

"skym" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>> isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>
> Jay,
> I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
> of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
> the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
> not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
> totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
> a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."
>
> Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?

Speaking of "being out of touch..."

As one who is also self-employed, I find it entirely impossible for your
accusation to hold up when you consider what Jay and Mary do for a living.

I think you'd better Google Jay Honeck's participation here and his views on
GA before you go casting aspersions.

There is nothing "cake" related about having a desire to see GA grow and
prosper anymore than should participating in GA be viewed as some form of
royalty.

To agree with Jay in one sentence (especially in light of your own aircraft
ownership status) and then damn him in the next (for expressing the desire
that everyone be able to enjoy similar access to personal
transportation..which you yourself enjoy) is, IMNSHO, hypocritical in the
extreme.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> 11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
> traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...

Now imagine all this aggravating Chicago-area traffic in the air around you.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Jose > wrote:
>>
>>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>>
>>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>>> cellphone in his ear?
>>>
>>> Jose
>>
>> Darwin would take care of that!
>
> Once upon a time that was true. Lately the "Guvmint" won't let Darwin do
> his thing so well anymore.
>
> Jay B
>

The "Guvmint" let's it happen all the time. This link
http://www.nsc.org/issues/driving/memorial05fatality.htm at the National
Safety Council was a look at traffic death during Memorial Day weekend 2005.
They estimated there would be 25,400 disabling non-fatal auto accidents and
3,747 fatalities. That's in one long weekend.

But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO weakened
this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as regulated as
flying.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

We usually do, and we did on the way home. 1:20 over the lake vs 2.5-3 hrs
going around.
Jim

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jim Burns" wrote)
> > Couldn't agree with you more Jay. 4 hours in the Aztec not only saved
us
> > 19 hours of driving, but made our holiday travel possible.
>
>
> If it had been better flying weather, would you have crossed Lake Michigan
> in your Aztec?
>
> What's that flight, in hours?
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO weakened
> this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as regulated as
> flying.

It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it is
illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour, but it
is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in clouds.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> The only downside of the trip is that it was in fact to RACINE, not exactly
> the most scenic world attraction.

Actually, Racine's harbor is now as beautiful as any I've visited.
They've spent millions of dollars obliterating any trace of their
industrial past -- at least along the lakeshore. With the man-made
peninsula, and a now-thriving downtown, it's not at all the pit it was
when I was a kid. (Think coal piles and green water...)

Now, drive ten blocks inland, and you'd better have your body armor on
-- but that's true of every formerly-industrial city in America.

And thanks for the offer! We'll be back to see you next summer, I'll
bet, assuming Milwaukee throws another airshow?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
> of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
> the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
> not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
> totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
> a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."

Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
actually want to do it. Just like automobiles in the early 1900s,
airplanes today are hand-built, luxury items, with prices to match.

If "Every Man" in America wanted to fly, airplanes would cost about
what a new car costs -- maybe less, given how little structure is
actually involved. (Don't ever look too closely at the stabilator
attachment points on a Cherokee, or the wing spar attachment points on
a Skyhawk, unless you're prepared to be shocked at how little "there"
is actually there.)

Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

> Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?

Sadly, (except for the weeks around Oshkosh, of course) less than 5% of
our guests are pilots, by my count. (A large proportion of that 5%
*are* aircraft owners, however.) Probably another 50% are interested
in aviation, or aviation history -- but pilots are a small, dying
breed, way too small a group to ever support a hotel. Even one as
small as ours... :-(

But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
gears start turning...

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>
> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
> cellphone in his ear?

If that's the price we must pay to save all of our GA infrastructure,
yes.

I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
a pattern that's full, thank you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
> > a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
> > but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.
>
> Had the weather been bad, GA would have been useless to you. General
> aviation isn't consistently useful and convenient enough to be used as
> reliable transportation.

True, but irrelevant, since no one claims otherwise. Most times the
weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus turboprop level or
higher, weather will control your flying. (And even then you're not
invincible.)

Mary and I have flown our family coast to coast, all VFR, for over 12
years. The key is to be flexible in your planning, don't push the
limits of your aircraft and ability, and view the journey as the
adventure -- not the destination.

GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
way to go.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

Because there isn't an airport at every garage. Change your situation a
bit. Suppose you lived forty miles from work, twenty miles from the
airport, and six miles from the train station that takes you three miles
from where you work. (This is not atypical). Chances are pretty good
you'd get a lot of use out of your car, and your car horn.

Now, imagine you have to give up either your plane or your car. Which
is it going to be?

Of course you can say "well, I'd just move closer to the airport...
yadda yadda", but not everyone can do that. There isn't enough room
even if they wanted to. So, there won't be an airplane in every garage.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
> given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
> a pattern that's full, thank you.

Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

:) Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>> weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as
>> regulated as flying.
>
> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a license
> and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I can't think
> of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In aviation, it is legal
> to do things that require skill, and prudent not to if you don't have the
> skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it is illegal. For example,
> it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour, but it is perfectly legal to fly
> 210 feet above the ground while in clouds.
>

I know exactly what you mean and if they REALLY wanted to cut down on
traffic accidents they would require 40 hours of training supervised by a
professional instructor not by dad in the family truckster. The problem is a
lot of people would then not drive and cars would then be built in the
quantities that GA planes are and a Ford Fiesta would cost $500,000.

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course you can say "well, I'd just move closer to the airport...
> yadda yadda", but not everyone can do that. There isn't enough room
> even if they wanted to. So, there won't be an airplane in every garage.

Oh, I know. Until the personal flight vehicle (AKA: "Flying Car") we
were all promised in the 1960s is developed, flying will never be as
popular as driving.

But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

We simply must figure out a better way to communicate the fun and
utility of flying to the masses.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

But sometimes "nowhere" is exactly where you want to go. The boat is
ideal for that.

The airplane is not ideal for everything. And not everything you think
is fun is actually fun for everyone.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RomeoMike]

That may be part of the reason, but flying was considered expensive in
the late '40's, when I flew with my father, and in the mid '50's, when I
took my first lessons. During that period of time flying was more
popular and romantic, and airplane companies thought they were going to
sell a lot of airplanes. Veterans were getting free flying lessons on
the GI Bill. But it was still expensive to rent and buy and maintain
planes, even then. )-:

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
> actually want to do it.

[john smith]

Jose wrote:

>> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
>> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
>> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...
>
>
> But sometimes "nowhere" is exactly where you want to go. The boat is
> ideal for that.
> The airplane is not ideal for everything. And not everything you
> think is fun is actually fun for everyone.

Sure you can! That's what floats are for.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The problem is a
> lot of people would then not drive and cars would then be built in the
> quantities that GA planes are and a Ford Fiesta would cost $500,000.

A large part of society would also grind to a halt, because in many
parts of the United States, you need a car to be a part of society (in
particular, you need a car and license in order to have a job).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> If that's the price we must pay to save all of our GA infrastructure,
> yes.

Fortunately, we don't need to pay that price. Our GA infrastructure
would be crushed under that weight of users, anyway.

Be careful what you wish for.

> I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
> given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
> a pattern that's full, thank you.

See above. A world in which everyone flew an aircraft would be
nothing like the world you know now.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> True, but irrelevant, since no one claims otherwise.

You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

This is why commercial aviation has invested so much over the decades
in making all-weather flying possible, safe, and practical.

> Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
> turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.

Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
time (or even within a span of several days).

> Mary and I have flown our family coast to coast, all VFR, for over 12
> years. The key is to be flexible in your planning, don't push the
> limits of your aircraft and ability, and view the journey as the
> adventure -- not the destination.

Naturally ... but that is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that GA
cannot be depended upon for transportation. Cars and buses and
commercial airlines can be seen as modes of transportation; GA is
still largely a fair-weather hobby. If GA allows you to actually
travel in a useful way, that's just a happy (and occasional)
coincidence.

> GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
> weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
> way to go.

Yes. But I was taught not to depend on motorcycles for
transportation, for exactly this reason.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
> actually want to do it.

In part, but there are also other obstacles. It's extremely hard to
get a pilot's license as compared to a driver's license, for example
(independent of the extremely high cost).

> Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
> Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
> from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Which is more comfortable across country?

> And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

Too expensive, too difficult, too inconvenient. This limits flying to
the real enthusiasts.

> But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
> wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
> shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
> gears start turning...

Until clocks, calendars, and wallets lock those gears in place again.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Oh, I know. Until the personal flight vehicle (AKA: "Flying Car") we
> were all promised in the 1960s is developed, flying will never be as
> popular as driving.

There won't be any flying cars with the current state of technology.
The only way to make flying safe for large numbers of people would be
to automate it, which isn't likely any time soon.

> But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
> bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
> an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

Most of our planet is covered by water and is thus navigable by boats.

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jose writes:
>
> > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
>
> There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>> Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
>> turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.
>
>Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
>your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
>time (or even within a span of several days).
>
I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
(twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
years while flying only VFR.

Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Ron Lee

[Jay Honeck]

> > > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.
>
> Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
> pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

Both approaches are fine, unless the pattern is full.

Jose is referring to my vocal disdain for the (usually corporate)
pilots who come blasting into a full pattern from all angles, landing
on any runway, from any point in the pattern, without regard for
procedure or protocol, putting everyone at risk in order to save a few
gallons of Jet-A/Avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
> > Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
> > from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.
>
> Which is more comfortable across country?

Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
> (twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
> Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
> years while flying only VFR.

Aviation is good for sightseeing.

> Sounds pretty useful to me.

Useful for sightseeing, not for transportation.

When I drive a car, I do so to get from point A to point B, not to
admire the sights along the way. That's what makes it transportation.
Similarly, I don't book a seat on a commercial flight so that I can
admire the Rockies outside the window.

> Can you claim to have driven to a
> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Why would I want to?

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Sure you can! That's what floats are for.

But the pilot can't down a sixpack while out there.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
> True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
> it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.

Do you sleep inside the aircraft, or do you land it inside the parking
lot of the hotel?

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

[Marco Leon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
> neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
> weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

I fly my Warrior in any type of weather that's thrown at me. I've flown
in the worst icing conditions and terrible thunderstorms and I've made
it to my destination every single time. Don't give me that crap about
GA not being useful. If it get's too bad, I just hit "P" to pause
everything and rethink my options. When it gets really bad (or if I
just don't have the time), I use the all-powerful "Go to Airport"
function from the top menu bar and viola! I'm there with nary a
scratch. Sometimes, when I'm really up for an adventure, I even switch
to my trusty Pilatus and the icing becomes a cakewalk.

Sheees, these amateurs should learn how to fly their airplanes and use
basic Microsoft Windows skills before putting down GA.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
> > True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
> > it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.
>
> Do you sleep inside the aircraft, or do you land it inside the parking
> lot of the hotel?

Personally, I have never slept in my plane(s). I know guys who do,
however, routinely.

It's not as uncomfortable as you might think. Interestingly enough
(and slightly OT), I can fit MORE stuff in our Pathfinder than I can in
our Subaru station wagon with the seats folded down. It doesn't *look*
like it should all fit, but it does.

We've got plywood sheets (from a previous owner) that have been cut to
fit from behind the front seats, all the way to the baggage compartment
bulkhead. (You take the back seats out to do this, obviously.) The
end result is a mini-van-sized area that would easily fit an air bed,
if desired.

Anyway, flying cross country will get me to Reno, NV by suppertime, or
to the east coast of the United States by mid-afternoon. Or, I can be
in Florida in six hours, and to Canada in three.

With GA, there is little need for too many intermediate en route
hotels!

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

[Gene Seibel]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Naturally ... but that is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that GA
> cannot be depended upon for transportation. Cars and buses and
> commercial airlines can be seen as modes of transportation; GA is
> still largely a fair-weather hobby. If GA allows you to actually
> travel in a useful way, that's just a happy (and occasional)
> coincidence.

If one wants to be a spoiled little robot to whom all things must be
guarenteed, GA isn't for him. It is for me and my wife.

Just took a 4 day trip where we visited family in two states and
brought home a plane load of merchandise we had purchased on the
internet. Saved 8 hours over driving. Useful? Yes. Did we have a Plan
B? Yes. But still, in the middle of winter we had a great GA trip.

I work at home but travel to remote sites a couple times per month to
work, using either GA or commercial aviation depending on
circumstances. In the last year about 2/3 of such trips have been by
GA, and were usually faster and more convenient than commercial would
have been. Usually I could land closer to my destination and could
choose my own schedule. And it was all VFR. In only two cases did I
have to cancel a trip I had planned by GA and in each case I simply and
easily shifted to Plan B. Once I drove and once I went commercial. The
worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
commercial flights were grounded by ice.

We have learned and experienced more interesting and memorable things
when our plans have been challanged than we ever would have if our
every move was planned and results guarenteed. This is simply the icing
on the cake of the useful thing called GA. I am not a robot. I
experience life. GA gets me what I want. You can't convince me
differently because I'm living it. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Mxsmanic]

Marco Leon writes:

> I fly my Warrior in any type of weather that's thrown at me. I've flown
> in the worst icing conditions and terrible thunderstorms and I've made
> it to my destination every single time.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

> If it get's too bad, I just hit "P" to pause everything and rethink
> my options.

That cannot be done in real life. Even in simulation, pausing the
simulation may only delay the inevitable.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gene Seibel writes:

> If one wants to be a spoiled little robot to whom all things must be
> guarenteed, GA isn't for him.

If a person wants reliable transportation on demand, GA isn't for him,
either.

> The worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
> commercial flights were grounded by ice.

How many GA flights were departing at the time?

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

[Gene Seibel]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > The worst experience was sitting in a passenger terminal for two days when
> > commercial flights were grounded by ice.
>
> How many GA flights were departing at the time?

Actually in that case I had planned on commercial because of the length
of the trip. If I had gone GA I'd have left a day earlier and gotten
out before the storm. The first day I spent in the airport was because
of ice. The second day was because of the incompetence of the airline
as they ran out of deicing fluid. The sky was blue and aircraft of
every description were flying. Commercial over GA was the wrong choice
that time.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Morgans[_5_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Do you really want to be drawn into responding to this putz?
--
Jim in NC

[Marty Shapiro]

Jose > wrote in
. net:

>> But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>> weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become
>> as regulated as flying.
>
> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
> license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
> can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
> aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
> to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it
> is illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour,
> but it is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in
> clouds.
>
> Jose

Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marco Leon]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> There are bold pilots and old pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

That's a catchy phrase full of wisdom! Never hear that before, I gotta
remember that one.

>
> That cannot be done in real life.

I get it, you've "been there, done that, got the T-shirt" right?

> Even in simulation, pausing the simulation may only delay the inevitable.

Ahh, not when you use the "Go to Airport" function! Microsoft even
makes it easy and pauses the simulation for you. You didn't know that?
Don't tell me you're one of those guys that "pretends" to fly the
simulator.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?

It isn't. But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe). It's
also illegal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in clouds unless
you're on an instrument approach with an MDA of 210 or less. But that's
not my point.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
. net:

> It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
> license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
> can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
> aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
> to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it is
> illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour, but it
> is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in clouds.

One requires special training and certification in order to be able to
legally fly 210' above the ground in clouds, however a significant number of
pilots do not have this certification, and thus are not permitted to do so
legally.

In driving, there is no training or certification one can take in order to
drive 70MPH on a 55MPH road. The limitation is for one and all. They apply
the same to me as they do to Dale Earnhardt Jr. and to off-duty Police and
Military personnel who indeed have had high-speed driving training.

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Ron Lee writes:
>
>> I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
>> (twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
>> Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
>> years while flying only VFR.
>
>Aviation is good for sightseeing.
>
>> Sounds pretty useful to me.
>
>Useful for sightseeing, not for transportation.

Getting from point A to Point B to see stuff and so things is what I
want. If all you wish to do is go to and from the grocery store that
is your choice.

>When I drive a car, I do so to get from point A to point B, not to
>admire the sights along the way. That's what makes it transportation.
>Similarly, I don't book a seat on a commercial flight so that I can
>admire the Rockies outside the window.
>
>> Can you claim to have driven to a
>> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?
>
>Why would I want to?

Good point. You live in a simulated world. I live in the real world
where I like to enjoy doing things and seeing parts of this great
country.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote
>
>> Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
>> similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?
>
>Do you really want to be drawn into responding to this putz?
>--
>Jim in NC

We have a snow period now and I need some excitement.

Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

Marty Shapiro wrote:

> Jose > wrote in
> . net:
>
>
>>>But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO
>>>weakened this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become
>>>as regulated as flying.
>>
>>It's less regulated in the sense that just about anybody can get a
>>license and drive. It's more regulated (there's a better phrase but I
>>can't think of it) in the sense that minima are much higher. In
>>aviation, it is legal to do things that require skill, and prudent not
>>to if you don't have the skill. In driving, if it requires skill, it
>>is illegal. For example, it's illegal to go seventy miles an hour,
>>but it is perfectly legal to fly 210 feet above the ground while in
>>clouds.
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> Why is it illegal to drive at the posted speed limit of 70 MPH?
>

Obviously it isn't, but many parts of the country have 65 MPH as the
highest posted speed limit.


Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
> is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).

Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal, as long as
your speed is still reasonable and prudent. However, speeding tickets
are a source of revenue, and this is often allowed to override
considerations of fairness and justice.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> In driving, there is no training or certification one can take in order to
> drive 70MPH on a 55MPH road. The limitation is for one and all.

.... which is my point. Driving is set to the lowest common denomenator.
Flying is set to the highest standard.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Lee]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Jose writes:
>
>> But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
>> is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).
>
>Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
>driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal, as long as
>your speed is still reasonable and prudent. However, speeding tickets
>are a source of revenue, and this is often allowed to override
>considerations of fairness and justice.

Name one.

Ron Lee

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

OK Jay, you have tolerated this guy, and have been one of the most open
minded and welcoming of the "regulars" on this NG.

Do you still feel the same way, or are you rolling your eyes or gnashing
your teeth yet at his imbecilic replies? I find it pretty intolerable to
accept responses from a person who admits that they are afraid to fly, yet
somehow makes pronouncements like a 5,000 hour pro.(example: "straight in
approaches are OK")

You're probably right in not responding, but I guess I'm more intolerant of
idiots and lunacy. I suppose it's better to feel sorry for him and accept
him for what he is, but when he argues with no factual basis, it becomes
hard to take.

I guess that's newsgroup at it's worst. It sure was nice not seeing his
posts for a few days.

[Jay Honeck]

> You're probably right in not responding, but I guess I'm more intolerant of
> idiots and lunacy. I suppose it's better to feel sorry for him and accept
> him for what he is, but when he argues with no factual basis, it becomes
> hard to take.

I do feel sorry for him. He's built a reality that only he can
appreciate, and a strange intolerance for something he apparently
loves. Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

But the world is full of interesting folks, and anything that confuses
me I usually find difficult to ignore. So, I keep swinging for the
fence.

MX is obviously not stupid, yet his responses are stubbornly illogical
at times. In my experience with the public I have found that this
trait isn't unusual -- so perhaps I'm just more used to it than you
are?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Lee writes:

> Name one.

California, which is the model for a number of other States. Others
include Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island.

In these States, exceeding a posted speed limit may be taken as prima
facie evidence of speeding, but it is not actually illegal. A person
cited for speeding under this type of statute may successfully defend
against the citation by demonstrating that his speed was in fact
reasonable and prudent for conditions despite being above the posted
speed limit.

There are also absolute limits, which may be universal in some States,
but may apply only to certain situations in others. For example, in
Arizona, speed limits in school zones and on highways are absolute,
but most others are subject to the "reasonable and prudent" law.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> ... which is my point. Driving is set to the lowest common denomenator.
> Flying is set to the highest standard.

If flying were set to the highest standard, you wouldn't need a
special rating to fly IFR. Instead, "non-IFR" would be a special
restriction applied only to those pilots who had demonstrated their
inability to fly IFR.

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

[Montblack]

("Ron Lee" wrote)
> We have a snow period now and I need some...


(NAC) Necessary Aviation Content:
"Super absorbent, designed with wings to fit the way..."


Mont-don't-eat-that-yellow-snow-Black
46 years in Minnesota and I have NO IDEA what a snow period is? <g>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.

Perhaps because you assume that flying in reality is unconditionally
preferable to flying in simulation. However, just as flying for real
has advantages that simulation does not, flying in simulation has
advantages that flying for real does not. Thus, it's entirely to be
expected that some people would prefer simulation to real flight.

I've given examples before, but I can repeat a few. One example is
that flying for real actually requires that one go somewhere. For
people who don't like to travel or commute, this is a huge drawback to
flying for real. Simulation takes you nowhere in real-world terms,
and so it's ideal if you don't actually want to go anywhere.
Simulation allows you to fly without paying the price of actually
moving from place to place, with all the inconveniences that the
latter brings.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.

Quite so, and many people do just that. Examples of simulation being
preferred over the real thing are legion. Many people enjoy
first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
in real life. Many people enjoy virtual football play, but have no
desire to play football for real. The list goes on and on.

Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
hobby. It all depends on what you want, and how well that matches
what you get.

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

[Martin Hotze]

Montblack schrieb:

> 46 years in Minnesota and I have NO IDEA what a snow period is? <g>

maybe red snow? *pehehehe*

scnr, #m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Ken Chaddock]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>
>>Well, I might prefer to emulate Indy 500 racing than actually doing it.
>
>
> Quite so, and many people do just that. Examples of simulation being
> preferred over the real thing are legion. Many people enjoy
> first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
> in real life. Many people enjoy virtual football play, but have no
> desire to play football for real. The list goes on and on.
>
> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby. It all depends on what you want, and how well that matches
> what you get.

One would think you've never flown in a *real* light aircraft...nothing
making real flying inherently superior to simulation...sheesh.
Ever had the wind in your face at 75 knots in a open cockpit bi-plane ?
Ever had that *wonderful* experience of an engine-out 50 miles from the
nearest airstrip ? Ever had the dizyiny execeleration of spinning in a
*real* aircraft ? Ever experienced the sudden terror of realizing that
you're in a sprial dive and rapidly nearing Vne ?
I've been in a "couple" of simulators in my time but have yet to find
one that can simulate a loop or an Himmelman...and let's not even talk
about "games" like Flight Simulator !

....Ken

[mad8]

people said that about motorcycle riders for years, but stats show that
the "squid" factor is actually increasing...

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
> > > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> > > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
> >
> > Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
> > cellphone in his ear?
> >
> > Jose
>
> Darwin would take care of that!

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I agree, although it is frustrating to see an interesting discourse get
disrupted by argumentative comments and lack of logic or experience.

You almost sound like a closet democrat! It must come from living in that
liberal town!

Best wishes.
JN

[Morgans[_5_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote

>I agree, although it is frustrating to see an interesting discourse get
>disrupted by argumentative comments and lack of logic or experience.

I agree, but it is clear that there a tons of people on this group that
don't seem to mind the constant interruptions.

I don't understand why; 1) They put up with him. 2) They don't understand
why they can't see that every response of any kind, keeps him around. 3)
This is trolling taken to the ultimate factor. He has done this to other
groups, including groups on breast feeding. His interest in aviation is
just an excuse to troll here.

The ONLY way to deal with a troll is to let them dry up on the vine. Don't
water, feed, or pick them.

Please everyone: Wake Up!!!
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby.

I can name a dozen things that make flying inherently superior to
simulation as a hobby. But then, you already know what they are.

The Kiwi is a lot of fun, and MS Flight Sim is a terrific program, but
it'll never match flying as a hobby -- no matter *how* perfect I can
make the experience.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mad8]

tell that to rec.sport.paintball

Mxsmanic wrote:
>Many people enjoy
> first-person shooter games, but have no desire to shoot or be shot at
> in real life.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Nothing makes real flying inherently superior to simulation as a
> hobby.
>

Once again, you're showing your very serious psychological illness. Get
help! Real help, not simulated help.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Ken Chaddock writes:

> One would think you've never flown in a *real* light aircraft...nothing
> making real flying inherently superior to simulation...sheesh.

It's hard for some people to recognize the subjectivity of such
opinions.

> Ever had the wind in your face at 75 knots in a open cockpit bi-plane ?

No. I don't like being in high winds.

> Ever had that *wonderful* experience of an engine-out 50 miles from the
> nearest airstrip ?

No. I don't like unsafe situations.

> Ever had the dizyiny execeleration of spinning in a *real* aircraft ?

See above.

> Ever experienced the sudden terror of realizing that you're in a sprial
> dive and rapidly nearing Vne ?

See above.

> I've been in a "couple" of simulators in my time but have yet to find
> one that can simulate a loop or an Himmelman ...

Why would you want to simulate these?

> ... and let's not even talk about "games" like Flight Simulator !

At least in a simulator a bad pilot can survive his mistakes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I can name a dozen things that make flying inherently superior to
> simulation as a hobby.

No, you cannot.

I'm sure you can easily name a dozen things that you personally prefer
about flying for real as opposed to flying in simulation. But that's
not the same thing as objective superiority, of course.

> The Kiwi is a lot of fun, and MS Flight Sim is a terrific program, but
> it'll never match flying as a hobby -- no matter *how* perfect I can
> make the experience.

You'll never die in a simulator, either.

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

[Buck Murdock]

Is anyone else picturing our resident troll playing Flight Sim when they
watch this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pgOmlHE2k

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
> > Why in the world someone would want to emulate flying without
> > ever really *doing* it is simply beyond my comprehension.
>
> Perhaps because you assume that flying in reality is unconditionally
> preferable to flying in simulation. However, just as flying for real
> has advantages that simulation does not, flying in simulation has
> advantages that flying for real does not. Thus, it's entirely to be
> expected that some people would prefer simulation to real flight.
>
> I've given examples before, but I can repeat a few. One example is
> that flying for real actually requires that one go somewhere. For
> people who don't like to travel or commute, this is a huge drawback to
> flying for real. Simulation takes you nowhere in real-world terms,
> and so it's ideal if you don't actually want to go anywhere.
> Simulation allows you to fly without paying the price of actually
> moving from place to place, with all the inconveniences that the
> latter brings.

I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
etc.

[Morgans[_5_]]

"Buck Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Is anyone else picturing our resident troll playing Flight Sim when they
> watch this video?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pgOmlHE2k

Thanks, so much!

That kid needs help!

And now I have a picture of MX to go by. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
> thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
> etc.

I'm not interested in sex, and I'd prefer flying (real or simulated)
over it any day (provided there were no safety issues).

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

[BucFan]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee writes:
>
>> Name one.
>
> California, which is the model for a number of other States. Others
> include Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island.


Site the statute please.

> In these States, exceeding a posted speed limit may be taken as prima
> facie evidence of speeding, but it is not actually illegal. A person
> cited for speeding under this type of statute may successfully defend
> against the citation by demonstrating that his speed was in fact
> reasonable and prudent for conditions despite being above the posted
> speed limit.

This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
decided to fight his $5 ticket.


> There are also absolute limits, which may be universal in some States,
> but may apply only to certain situations in others. For example, in
> Arizona, speed limits in school zones and on highways are absolute,
> but most others are subject to the "reasonable and prudent" law.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BucFan writes:

> Site the statute please.

You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

> This is crap. Not true. If you get a tciket for going over the posted
> limit and try to get out of it using the defense described above, the judge
> will probably give you a greater fine than if you had just paid the ticket.

Some judges are corrupt. But reasonable and prudent speed is a valid
defense, and the corruption of individuals does not invalidate the
law.

> Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
> hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
> decided to fight his $5 ticket.

MCA 2005 61-8-803 still mentions reasonable and prudent speeds,
although they are quite restricted in application.

In any case, California and Arizona still have reasonable and prudent
laws, as I've just demonstrated, so Montana is not the "last state."
You can look up the specifics for other States yourself.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic writes:

> In Arizona, see the Arizona Revised States, 28-701.

States = Statutes

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

[john smith]

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

> With GA, there is little need for too many intermediate en route
> hotels!
> :-)

And if you are an enterprising enturpreneur who happens to fly, you want
to believe that the middle of the continent is probably a good place to
put a hotel.

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> MX is obviously not stupid, yet his responses are stubbornly illogical
> at times. In my experience with the public I have found that this
> trait isn't unusual -- so perhaps I'm just more used to it than you
> are?

Or possibly based on his virtual perception of reality.

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
> neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
> weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
missed an airshow because of a weather delay.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>
>>But it is illegal to drive at 70 when the posted speed limit
>>is 55 (which it is for many places where 70 is perfectly safe).
>
>
> Many States have "reasonable and prudent" laws for speed control, so
> driving over the posted limit isn't necessarily illegal,

No states do.

[Newps]

BucFan wrote:

>
> Montana was the last state that had reasonable and prudent, during daylight
> hours and good weather, speed limits. They were lost when some a**hole
> decided to fight his $5 ticket.

It wasn't a $5 ticket. He got a ticket for going about 120 mph on a two
lane highway. His car was a late 70's big hunk of steel, a big old
Caprice or similar. Ticket was well over $100. He went to court.
Judge upheld the ticket but threw out the reasonable and prudent law,
which forced the next legislature to set a speed limit. That's how we
have a 75 MPH limit and the first 10 over are still the $5 ticket that
does not get entered into the computer.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No states do.

I've already cited relevant statutes. I suggest you read them.

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

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
> week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
> missed an airshow because of a weather delay.

What is your point?

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No states do.
>
>
> I've already cited relevant statutes. I suggest you read them.



You links are irrelavant. No state has laws that allow drivers to speed
and then escape the ticket because I tell the judge 100 MPH is
reasonable. Not happening. Anywhere.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You links are irrelavant. No state has laws that allow drivers to speed
> and then escape the ticket because I tell the judge 100 MPH is
> reasonable. Not happening. Anywhere.

Nobody has made this claim, so it's puzzling that you feel compelled
to refute it.

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

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> john smith writes:
>
> > Duane Cole flew from one corner of the United States to another every
> > week for many years in a single seat, clipped wing Tcraft. He never once
> > missed an airshow because of a weather delay.
>
> What is your point?

You made a statement in an earlier posting to the effect that general
aviation was not practicle because weather delays prevent one from
getting to ones destination on time. I simply pointed out that you made
an inaccurate statement.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> You made a statement in an earlier posting to the effect that general
> aviation was not practicle because weather delays prevent one from
> getting to ones destination on time. I simply pointed out that you made
> an inaccurate statement.

No, you mentioned a person who had been lucky enough (or reckless
enough) never to be delayed by weather. There are many other unlucky
pilots who are dead because they would not tolerate weather delays.

The fact remains that weather is by far the most important obstacle to
GA as utility transportation, and that is not likely to change, unless
general aviation aircraft are equipped and built like airliners (and
GA pilots begin receiving the same training and experience as airline
pilots). The technology required for safe all-weather flight is
extremely expensive and is thus absent from GA aircraft. The training
required to successfully and safely fly in inclement weather is also
very expensive and tedious and most GA pilots have neither the
resources nor the ambition to undertake it.

I don't understand the irrational insistence that general aviation
provides some sort of utility transportation, in the way that cars,
trains, or commercial airlines do. That is manifestly untrue, and the
failure to acknowledge this mystifies me, and makes me wary of
anything else that is said to me by the people who refuse to see the
obvious.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> And if you are an enterprising enturpreneur who happens to fly, you want
> to believe that the middle of the continent is probably a good place to
> put a hotel.

Well, for an ever-increasing number of pilots, it is!

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

[Tom Conner]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

After reading what feels like 1000s of posts I have to ask just what in the
world does "Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail" mean?

Does it mean change " to "? Does it
mean change " to "? Or something
else?

[Buck Murdock]

In article et>,
"Tom Conner" > wrote:

> Does it mean change " to "? Does it
> mean change " to "? Or something
> else?

Whatever it is, we can rest easy knowing the spambots have it now. Heh.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:40:57 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>
>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>> cellphone in his ear?
>>
>> Jose
>
>Darwin would take care of that!

Yah, but all us pilots would be exposed to them thar drivers!


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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:21:47 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Jose > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
>>>> > isn't an airplane in every American garage...
>>>>
>>>> Would you really want Joe Sixpack on approach doing his lipstick with a
>>>> cellphone in his ear?
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>
>>> Darwin would take care of that!
>>
>> Once upon a time that was true. Lately the "Guvmint" won't let Darwin do
>> his thing so well anymore.
>>
>> Jay B
>>
>
>The "Guvmint" let's it happen all the time. This link
>http://www.nsc.org/issues/driving/memorial05fatality.htm at the National
>Safety Council was a look at traffic death during Memorial Day weekend 2005.
>They estimated there would be 25,400 disabling non-fatal auto accidents and
>3,747 fatalities. That's in one long weekend.

They will have about 12 times that number of deaths in a year. If the
multiplier holds true that is almost 400,000 disabling injuries per
year. However it depends on what they mean by disabling. Missed
work, broken bones, hospitalized, or permanent disabilities? That
makes the number sustaining injuries almost unbelievably large.
..
>
>But you are right, given the risk aversion that has swept and IMHO weakened
>this country I really surprised that driving hasn't become as regulated as
>flying.
>
That is because the average driver isn't smart enough to know it can
happen to him/her/them. It'll always be the other guy. So they make
their own rules of the road and with every one driving by their own
rules who knows what the car ahead is going to do be it coming or
going. There was a note in the local paper a while back stating that
every one knew it was far safer to drive in the passing lane and
probably close to 50% around here do so. That means some one pulling
out from your right will probably cross in front of you and into the
passing land. Never mind when some one pulls out your natural tendency
is to go left to miss them. It's not uncommon to see one from the
left go to the passing lane while one from the right goes to the
driving lane when they pull out, crossing in front of you.

It's difficult enough to get them to wear seat belts let alone
shoulder harnesses. I think the figure is some where up around 75% are
finally wearing seat belts, or restraining devices. We had to have
more powerful air bags to protect *unrestrained* passengers compared
to other countries.

Of course in Midland the have most of the traffic signs painted on the
road surfaces instead of overhead. One snow and no one knows which
road or lane goes where.
Drivers will not put up with things they find inconvenient.

So far, bicyclists and pedestrians are still fair game. You hit
another car and kill some one it'll probably be manslaughter and jail
time. Run over a pedestrian of bicyclists and it the court is in a
bad mood you might get a 6 month suspension.

Highway deaths and injuries doesn't even garner a mention in the local
papers or TV news unless it's a really bad one or buss load of kids.
Most don't even give them a second thought unless some one they know
was involved.

They have become "the *accepted* cost of doing business with "I think
it was 43,000 plus change, killed last year. Multiply by many times
for personal injuries which totals up to many billions of dollars in
medical bills (not counting the suffering) and more billions of
dollars in lost wages and production in industry.

One type of plane has five fatals in a year and there is an
investigation, the results of which will most likely cost the rest of
us money.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Montblack]

("Buck Murdock" wrote)
> Whatever it is, we can rest easy knowing the spambots have it now. Heh.


I wouldn't want THE TROLL, Ms Maniac X, to do that to me ...or anyone else,
and I don't think one of us should do that to him.

I absolutely hate calling someone out (or whatever the term is). So, I'm
sorry if that's what I'm doing here Buck, but it was a line of civility that
I didn't think needed crossing.

As always, YMMV ...I guess.


Montblack :-(
I always get a little nervous around feeding frenzies

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
><...>
>> GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
>> weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
>> way to go.
>
> Yes. But I was taught not to depend on motorcycles for
> transportation, for exactly this reason.


Well, you were taught wrong. A car may be warmer and drier, but when push
comes to shove, a motorcycle will get through a lot more than a car. How do
I know? Because for years, ALL I owned was a motorcycle. Summer, (Michigan)
winter, rain, snow, no problem. There were lots of time when a snow storm
would pretty much shut down the city - so I always would take the
oppurtunity to go for a ride. Very little traffic. Plus I got to wave at all
the poor saps that were stuck in their cars. Now, cars are convienent, but
now that I don't own a bike any more, I have had to miss an occasional day
of work because I couldn't get in due to snow. That never happened on the
bike.

The funny thing is, when I sat down to type this, the talking heads on the
TV were going on and on about the National Gaurd having to rescue all the
stranded drivers in Colorado. If they were on small motorcycles with knobby
tires, they wouldn't be stranded.

The only thing tha twas a problem was ice. But cars don't do that well on
icy hills either.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Ken Chaddock]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn writes:
>
>
>>I would hazard a guess that "MX" prefers porn/"simsex" to the real
>>thing, too -- no STDs, no pregnancies, no "red plague," no "headaches,"
>>etc.
>
>
> I'm not interested in sex, and I'd prefer flying (real or simulated)
> over it any day (provided there were no safety issues).

What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
simulated member ?

....Ken

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Buck Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Is anyone else picturing our resident troll playing Flight Sim when they
> watch this video?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pgOmlHE2k

Actually, I am reminded of the guy I sit next to at work. Except he swears
in English.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 28 Dec 2006 14:04:14 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> > > Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?
>> >
>> > There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.
>>
>> Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
>> pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.
>
>Both approaches are fine, unless the pattern is full.

Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full.

>
>Jose is referring to my vocal disdain for the (usually corporate)
>pilots who come blasting into a full pattern from all angles, landing
>on any runway, from any point in the pattern, without regard for
>procedure or protocol, putting everyone at risk in order to save a few
>gallons of Jet-A/Avgas.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Negative Ghostrider the pattern is full.

Sorry, Goose...but it's time to buzz the tower....

Great balls of fire!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I wouldn't want THE TROLL, Ms Maniac X, to do that to me ...or anyone else,
> and I don't think one of us should do that to him.
>
> I absolutely hate calling someone out (or whatever the term is). So, I'm
> sorry if that's what I'm doing here Buck, but it was a line of civility that
> I didn't think needed crossing.

One really nice thing about Google Groups is that it hides email
addresses that are in the text of any message. Makes it impossible for
the Spambots to get them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, iA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
> simulated member ?

Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On 28 Dec 2006 09:33:53 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> I agree with you 100% on the convenience and utility of, and the love
>> of owning, my own airplane. However, to state "I can't understand for
>> the life of me why there isn't an airplane in every American garage" is
>> not only a disgusting comment, but one that suggests that you are
>> totally out of touch with the condition of this country. Sounds like
>> a person who once commented..."Let them eat cake."
>
>Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
>actually want to do it. Just like automobiles in the early 1900s,
>airplanes today are hand-built, luxury items, with prices to match.
>
>If "Every Man" in America wanted to fly, airplanes would cost about
>what a new car costs -- maybe less, given how little structure is

Unfortunately there are a number of things that doesn't take into
account. One is liability. Reportedly at least half the price of
each new airplane is for liability. Much of an increase in planes
flying and we'd be moving from the more hours we fly the cheaper out
insurance due to proficiency to the more we fly the more we pay due to
exposure.

Another are the regulations and certified parts. Production on a large
scale would reduce the cost of individual parts as the basic cost
would be spread over more numbers.

So, although the idea would certainly bring the price down, I doubt
it'd be possible to ever come close to price of a new car. Maybe on
the order of two to three times to cost.

Another problem would be proficiency: We kill between 40,000 and
50,000 per year with something as simple as the automobile. I doubt
we'd be able to bring many of those people in before we'd see a lot of
restrictive legislation. That is one of the reasons I see the
"personal" aviation, or plane in every garage as pure science fiction
even if NASA has a program working on it.

I seriously doubt that even 10% of the drivers would even be
interested in flying if a new plane cost no more than a new car.
Most people have no interest in flying, and most have no aptitude for
it. Although most of us have at one time or another told at least one
person, that if we could get our license any one could, that is
unfortunately a longggg way from being true. It's not that it takes
superior intelligence to fly as it doesn't, but it does take the
proper mind set, judgmental ability, and willingness to commit. We've
all seen students who just couldn't make the grade be it personality
problems, ability to commit, or the ability to take responsibility.
I'm sure most of us who have been around for a while have seen pilots
that made us wonder how they ever got through the system. Fortunately
for us all those are few. Still if you watch traffic arriving at
Oshkosh for even a day it can alter your view a bit.

Then assuming we get a large influx of new pilots and airplanes, comes
the problem of air space congestion. Busier small airports would mean
more neighborhood resistance. How many more VFR flights could the
class C and D airports take before it became a problem? Soon they'd
either limit VFR traffic into these airports or prohibit it which
would mean still more traffic for the small airports.

I think we could get away with doubling or even tripling the traffic
at our airport, but that would only put us back to where we were in
the 70's and I'll bet the neighbors would be constantly complaining.

>actually involved. (Don't ever look too closely at the stabilator
>attachment points on a Cherokee, or the wing spar attachment points on
>a Skyhawk, unless you're prepared to be shocked at how little "there"
>is actually there.)

They are all built like beer cans. Look at the heft in the main spar
itself. It's just a few sheets of aluminum on edge held in place with
caps. On the Bo the front and rear of the wing are held to the spar
with piano wire. Albeit that is a very strong connection.
Two locals were pushing a Cherokee 180 back into a hangar. The door
wasn't quite to the stop and the beacon light atop the tail hit the
door. It folded the rear of the fuselage about three feet forward of
the horizontal stab leading edge.

>
>Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.

You can buy an *old* airplane for the price of a high end car.

>Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
>from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Today you are still looking at basically $50,000 to $60,000 for a used
4-place airplane with a few going for a little less. Most aircraft
aren't known for having much shoulder room. The Deb is not bad, but
it sure snug with a couple of good sized guys up front. OTOH when I
last flew the old Cherokee 180 I used to fly I felt cramped and that
is spacious compared to the 172 which is absolutely gigantic compared
to a 150.

Actually in the Deb one of us can take the controls and the other step
over the carry through into the back seats. On long trips we've done
that when we were reminded not so pleasantly that it's much colder in
Michigan than Georgia or Florida. Our jackets and sweaters were in
back. We went from the 80's to just out of the teens in one hop. that
sure did make me appreciate that new heater.

>
>And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

There aren't very many of those old airplanes in that price range out
there unless they have many thousands of hours on the airframe. Still
there just aren't a lot of airplanes out there of any kind.

BUT even if we could ignore price completely, as I said earlier,
probably 90% of the drivers have absolutely no interest in flying
regardless of cost. Many of them would not even get in a small plane.
They do not share our view of flying and would rather take a new bass
boat or big SUV and go mudding even if they could get a plane for the
same money.

>
>> Are the proletariat welcome at your motel, or only the AIRPLANE OWNERS?
>
>Sadly, (except for the weeks around Oshkosh, of course) less than 5% of
>our guests are pilots, by my count. (A large proportion of that 5%
>*are* aircraft owners, however.) Probably another 50% are interested
>in aviation, or aviation history -- but pilots are a small, dying
>breed, way too small a group to ever support a hotel. Even one as
>small as ours... :-(

Even in its hay-day aviation was a drop in the bucket compared to the
automobile.

>
>But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
>wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
>shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
>gears start turning...

That certainly is a good feeling. Our EAA Chapter 1093 has an Aviation
Camp for teens, twice each summer. We have an aviation scholarship
which takes one all the way to their private license, and we have a
"Kids to Oshkosh" day where we fly three over for the day with all
expenses paid. That includes a years membership, flight line passes,
food, and $20 for spending. I think we've been doing that now for
around 14 years which would mean we've sent 41 kids over there. It
would be 42 but we got caught short one year and I had to fly them
over in the Deb which mean the copilot was also chaperon and we could
still only take two.

A while back one of those kids from the aviation camp who flew the Deb
on his Aviation Camp, dual cross country took me for a ride in the 172
he's now flying. I talked to a girl from one of the camps who is
getting ready for college. She has been accepted into Embry Riddle on
a scholarship. She went to the camp one year and has helped with the
camp for the past couple of years. Her involvement also made her one
of the "Kids to Oshkosh".

It is a wonderful feeling to see the magic when the interest takes
hold. Even more so when it actually becomes something.
>
>;-)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

>>mile high club...even a simulated member ?
> Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!

A "profit center", no doubt. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> One really nice thing about Google Groups is that it hides email
> addresses that are in the text of any message. Makes it impossible for
> the Spambots to get them.

The spambots don't use Google Groups.

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Chaddock writes:
>
>> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>> simulated member ?
>
> No, I don't. I'm interested in aviation, not sex.

I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.


Fifteen hours and counting......

[Jay Honeck]

> Real spambots don't harvest addresses using Google Groups. <G>

True enough. The point being that if ALL newsreader software truncated
in-line email addresses like Google Groups, perhaps the spammers would
start to wither...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,

I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
sinker.

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
this stereotype ever since.

It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
truth.

An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)

This involved:

1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
2. Loading the plane
3. Starting the plane
4. Programming two GPS's
5. Taking off, and turning to course.
6. Climbing to altitude
7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
hundred times) to Racine.
8. Land.

Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
literally as easy as falling off a log.

I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
far easier than driving, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On 31 Dec 2006 06:29:26 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Real spambots don't harvest addresses using Google Groups. <G>
>
>True enough. The point being that if ALL newsreader software truncated
>in-line email addresses like Google Groups,

google groups is only a (free) nntp provider with a web frontend.

>perhaps the spammers would
>start to wither...

ha! and what keeps a spammer off from setting up his own nntp server?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Scott Post]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.
>

Until your kids have to pee and it's a holiday so you can't raise a
single UNICOM along your route. I'll always be indebted to the Mooney
who heard our plea and taxied back to unlock the FBO. :-)

--
Scott Post

[john smith]

Hmm? A new suite in the offing?

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>>simulated member ?
>>
>>
>
>Ha! Yet another use for our "Kiwi" flight simulator in the hotel!
>
>:-)
>
>

[Blueskies]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message ...
: In article om>,
: Jay Honeck > wrote:
: >
: >But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
: >pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
: >far easier than driving, IMHO.
: >
:
: Until your kids have to pee and it's a holiday so you can't raise a
: single UNICOM along your route. I'll always be indebted to the Mooney
: who heard our plea and taxied back to unlock the FBO. :-)
:
: --
: Scott Post


He heard our plea...
Our kid has to pee!!!!
so back to the FBO for thee....


;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.

They are variations on the same theme.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
dials as the simplest aircraft.

Aircraft also move in three dimensions, whereas automobiles move in
only two. Already motorcycles are more complex than cars because they
must also lean in turns, but they are still simpler than aircraft.

> John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> this stereotype ever since.

Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
(as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
even without these exaggerations.

> It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

It's only one of many reasons. The cost of flying in time and money
puts off a great many people, as do medical requirements and safety
issues.

> Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
> God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
> destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier.

Are there still women falling for that?

> In fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
> truth.

Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

> This involved:
>
> 1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
> 2. Loading the plane
> 3. Starting the plane
> 4. Programming two GPS's
> 5. Taking off, and turning to course.
> 6. Climbing to altitude
> 7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
> hundred times) to Racine.
> 8. Land.
>
> Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
> that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
> maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
> literally as easy as falling off a log.

Going there in a car involves:

1. Loading the car.
2. Starting the car.
3. Driving onto the highway and following the signs.
4. Pulling into a parking place.

As you can see, it's a lot easier than flying.

> I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
> commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
> They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
> to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

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

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> they are under pressure.
>
>No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
>reality, for better or for worse.
>
>Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
>instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
>obvious.

I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg


--
Scott Post

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
> attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
> (as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
> even without these exaggerations.

Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.
You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
themselves. Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like. I would go
on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly insult the very
people who have made this possible for you and on whom you depend.

> Traditionally, it has been the airline and military pilots who got the
> girls, not the GA pilots. A Piper Cub doesn't have quite the same
> aphrodisiac effect as an F-18 or a 747.

How would you know? Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give
out your credit card number first?

> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> is the training so complex and difficult?

What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the
>> general public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt
>> how cool they are under pressure.
>
> No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
> reality, for better or for worse.
>
> Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
> instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
> obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
> dials as the simplest aircraft.
>
Who needs a control panel in the simplest of aircraft?

http://www.jet-man.com/actuel_eng.html

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> is the training so complex and difficult?

Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
training syllabus.

Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
relatively severe limitations on flying.

It's kinda like the old saying "An elephant is a horse designed by a
committee." After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
fail.)

Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
to support the GA infrastructure?

FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
and we need them NOW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
> attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
> (as opposed to simulation).

I doubt that sitting in front of your computer playing MSFS gives you the
same feeling that I get when I take a late evening flight after work. I
cruise along in the glassy-smooth air with the sun on the horizon and all my
problems left far below and gone from my concsiousness. I do not need to
actually go anywhere, the experience itself is enough - it is a freedom and
an internal peace that I cannot describe and that I cannot get from any
other activity.

I doubt that playing MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am
soaring my hang glider and a hawk joins me in the thermal off of my wingtip,
completely unafraid of the large "bird" he is sharing the thermal with, and
we rise to 6,000 feet together.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am in a
sailplane scratching for lift so I can make it back to the airport, or
looking down from 10,000 feet having gotten there using nothing more than
thermals.

I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I see the
runway appear out of the mist at DH on an ILS, or the feeling of a perfectly
executed loop or hammerhead.

There is mystical significance in the actual experience that you will never
understand because your mind is closed and you think you already know
everything there is to know. I feel sorry for you.

BDS

[Doug Spencer]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:33:58 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> For example, to go somewhere in an elevator, all you have to do is
> push a button. It's about the easiest type of discretionary
> transportation (one that gives you a choice of destinations) that
> exists. As a result, it is widely accepted and used--elevators
> transport more people than any other forms of transportation.
> However, the simplicity of an elevator's use also means that there are
> very few elevator enthusiasts, as the enthusiast requires complexity
> to retain his interest.

Apparently, you've not ever seen the behind the scenes equipment and
complexity that goes into play to make button push so easy and
effective. Especially in modern high-rise buildings, there are embedded
computer systems to handle queuing and parking of elevators on
particular floors at different busy times, electrical and hydraulic
systems, algorithms to avoid a sudden start or stop of the elevator to
improve passenger comfort.

I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
average general aviation aircraft. General aviation aircraft have the
advantage of allowing the pilot to travel literally anywhere in the
world, rather than just to the 6th floor. Part of the interest of
flying is visiting far away places, friends, family, and taking people
on a flight to see their world from a unique perspective. You can't get
that from a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Simulation without the real thing to back up theory would be meaningless.

A great many users of simulators for training in real-world flight
would disagree with you.

> You owe everything you know about what flying is like to people who have
> actually had the desire, courage, dedication, and talent to do it
> themselves.

They owe their safety in the air to people like me, who design the
instruments and systems that allow them to stay alive while flying.
However, I don't expect them to salute me. And I don't salute them.

> Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
> the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
activity.

> I would go on to say that it is quite impolite of you to constantly
> insult the very people who have made this possible for you and on
> whom you depend.

Failing to bow and scrape before them is not an insult. And if one
tallies the personal attacks exchanged on this newsgroup, one finds
that I'm at the bottom of the list.

> How would you know?

I have many female friends.

> Have you ever spoken to a woman without having to give out your
> credit card number first?

Regularly. Virtually all of my friends are women. I wish more of
them were interested in aviation.

> What makes you think it is either complex or difficult?

My research into training requirements.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
> and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

Then it is not my imagination.

> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.

What parts could be safely removed? And what things (if any) should
be added?

> Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
> time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
> to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
> Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
> relatively severe limitations on flying.

I suppose the FAA has been conditioned to emphasize safety at all
costs. While I can understand and support this position, I think that
some allowances can be made for people who potentially endanger only
themselves. A solitary pilot is unlikely to kill anyone besides
himself through his own incompetence. Carrying passengers is a bit
different ... however, there are no special requirements to carry
passengers in a car, so I'm not sure why there should be in an
airplane. As long as it's not for hire, of course.

> After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
> recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
> of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.

Unfortunately, that fear is probably justified. Today's society is
based on fear.

> I'm sure you've heard about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states
> "You can fly without a medical UNLESS you have been denied a medical."

I've heard of it, and it mystifies me.

> This has made an awful lot of older guys simply not try for the medical,
> for fear that they will fail.

The medical requirements for private pilots are excessive in a number
of ways.

> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?

From what I've read, the current system allows a lot of undertrained
pilots to slip through, while simultaneously locking out many
potentially good pilots.

> FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
> by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
> dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
> that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
> to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
> and we need them NOW.

There are cost issues that get in the way. But fear is a big factor:
it influences liability, insurance, licensing requirements,
regulation, and many other aspects of flying (and many other
activities in society). People need to stop being so afraid of
everything. No pain, no gain.

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

[Doug Spencer]

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
> (yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
> more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

There are a few fields a fairly short flight away from you that ARE
teaching primarily sport pilots now.

http://www.stantonairfield.com/ in Stanton, MN is a very nice turf
field with a few FlightDesign CTs that have been extremely popular with
new pilots training for sport pilot and private pilots as well. The
Light Sport aircraft have also garnered very favorable stories in the
local news, both television and print. Everyone who sees or flies the
CT really enjoys the experience.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> I doubt that sitting in front of your computer playing MSFS gives you the
> same feeling that I get when I take a late evening flight after work. I
> cruise along in the glassy-smooth air with the sun on the horizon and all my
> problems left far below and gone from my concsiousness.

You might be surprised.

> I do not need to
> actually go anywhere, the experience itself is enough - it is a freedom and
> an internal peace that I cannot describe and that I cannot get from any
> other activity.

There are often many roads leading to the same destination. Try to
accept the possibility that your way may not be the only way.

> I doubt that playing MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am
> soaring my hang glider and a hawk joins me in the thermal off of my wingtip,
> completely unafraid of the large "bird" he is sharing the thermal with, and
> we rise to 6,000 feet together.

Maybe. I doubt that the feeling you get is one that I'd want to
experience. But perhaps we're both wrong.

> I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I am in a
> sailplane scratching for lift so I can make it back to the airport, or
> looking down from 10,000 feet having gotten there using nothing more than
> thermals.

I'm not into gliding, even in simulation. I've tried it, and it bored
me.

> I doubt that MSFS gives you the same feeling that I get when I see the
> runway appear out of the mist at DH on an ILS ...

Actually, I suspect it may. The source of satisfaction in that case
may come from factors that have nothing to do with the reality or
irreality of the act. After all, some people are greatly pleased when
they win a chess game, even though it isn't anything more than an
extremely symbolic "battle."

> There is mystical significance in the actual experience that you will never
> understand because your mind is closed and you think you already know
> everything there is to know. I feel sorry for you.

I have to smile reading this. Whose mind is really closed? When have
I ever asserted that there are things you can never experience without
using a simulator? Ponder on this: Not everyone is like you.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> Apparently, you've not ever seen the behind the scenes equipment and
> complexity that goes into play to make button push so easy and
> effective.

Actually, I have looked into it, albeit not recently.

But that is irrelevant. The important complexity is that which must
be mastered by the "driver" or "pilot" of the vehicle. To use an
elevator, the "driver" need only push a button, so the complexity with
which he must cope is extremely low. In contrast, a great deal of the
complexity of aviation is exposed to pilots, and they must master it
directly.

For someone who is interested in the complexity itself--the mode of
transportation for its own sake--high complexity is a plus. For
someone who just wants transportation, any sort of complexity is a big
minus.

> Especially in modern high-rise buildings, there are embedded
> computer systems to handle queuing and parking of elevators on
> particular floors at different busy times, electrical and hydraulic
> systems, algorithms to avoid a sudden start or stop of the elevator to
> improve passenger comfort.

I know. But users still just push a button.

> I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
> average general aviation aircraft.

It's not the complexity of the system as a whole, it's the complexity
that is exposed to users ... the complexity that they must master in
order to use the system.

> General aviation aircraft have the
> advantage of allowing the pilot to travel literally anywhere in the
> world, rather than just to the 6th floor.

Not relevant. The aviation equivalent of an elevator would be an
aircraft in which you just push a button corresponding to your
destination, after which you are flown there automatically. The
elevator equivalent of an aircraft would be an old-fashioned elevator
with a bank of controls in the cabin, operated by a specialist in
elevator "driving."

> Part of the interest of flying is visiting far away places, friends,
> family, and taking people on a flight to see their world from a
> unique perspective. You can't get that from a simulator.

But you can get it from a car, and that's how most people do it.

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

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>>horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>>
>>
>
>I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
>sinker.
>
>The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
>the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
>the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
>this stereotype ever since.
>
>It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>
>Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
>fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
>truth.
>
>An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
>Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
>Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
>This involved:
>
>1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
>2. Loading the plane
>3. Starting the plane
>4. Programming two GPS's
>5. Taking off, and turning to course.
>6. Climbing to altitude
>7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
>hundred times) to Racine.
>8. Land.
>
>Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
>that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
>maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
>literally as easy as falling off a log.
>
>I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
>commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
>They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
>to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.
>
Aha! This is where we, as Americans, have the advantage (for the time
being).
We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/basic_unit_rates.html

[Tony]

Jay, exactly what part of your training would you have liked to have
been reduced or eliminated?

Once I demonstrated I could fly straight and level under the hood,
nearly all of my IFR stuff was related to dealing with emergencies. I
still hire CFIIs to polish those skills, don't you?

Now, if you said getting legal in a car should be made harder, I'd
agree with that! For what it's worth, I think a car should be disabled
until the person in the driver's seat can pass some sort of a reaction
time test -- screw trying to blow a low number -- so that would keep
many of us too tired, or too old, off the roads.






On Dec 31, 12:14 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> > is the training so complex and difficult?Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
> and AOPA have grappled with for decades.
>
> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.
>
> Unfortunately, the FAA bureaucracy is inflexible and unbending. Every
> time EAA or AOPA proposes a simplified pilot certificate, in an effort
> to expand flying to regular folk, we end up with abortions like "Sport
> Pilot", which simplified things only slightly, but resulted in
> relatively severe limitations on flying.
>
> It's kinda like the old saying "An elephant is a horse designed by a
> committee." After the FAA gets through amending any EAA/AOPA
> recommendations, common sense has been tossed out the window, for fear
> of the inevitable "liability" issues that have so crippled our society.
>
> After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
> were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
> (yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
> more than full-fledged Private pilots are.
>
> (Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
> rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
> about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
> UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
> older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
> fail.)
>
> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?
>
> FBOs and maintenance shops throughout the Midwest are barely scraping
> by -- and new pilot training is not replacing all the pilots who are
> dying. This is a one-way trip with a predictable and profound ending
> that is (unfortunately) pulling into sight faster than any of us want
> to believe. We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
> and we need them NOW.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Aha! This is where we, as Americans, have the advantage (for the time
> being). We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.

I didn't know about this, but it sounds very typically European. Just
one more step towards making Europe the world's backwater.

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

[Stefan]

john smith schrieb:

> We do not have EuroControl and all their outragous fees.
>
> http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/public/standard_page/basic_unit_rates.html

Those fees are only for IFR flights. IFR is using the system and relying
on it. *Somebody* has to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> they are under pressure.
>
> No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
> reality, for better or for worse.
>
> Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
> instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
> obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
> dials as the simplest aircraft.

But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap is
loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> They owe their safety in the air to people like me, who design the
> instruments and systems that allow them to stay alive while flying.

I owe you exactly nothing.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>>horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>
>
> I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
> sinker.
>
> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> this stereotype ever since.
>
> It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

Yes, I think that is a very unhelpful myth.


> An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
> Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
> Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
> This involved:
>
> 1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
> 2. Loading the plane
> 3. Starting the plane
> 4. Programming two GPS's
> 5. Taking off, and turning to course.
> 6. Climbing to altitude
> 7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
> hundred times) to Racine.
> 8. Land.
>
> Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
> that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
> maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
> literally as easy as falling off a log.
>
> I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
> commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
> They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
> to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.
>
> But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
> pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
> far easier than driving, IMHO.

Living at the airport is a huge advantage in this regard. The biggest
problem I have is that I live 40 minutes from the airport. So, I spend
1:20 minutes of driving for every flight I make. Unless I'm flying at
least 120 miles away, I can't beat driving time-wise. I also live in a
rural area with no toll booths, etc., and traffic that would be
considered light by urban standards other than for summer holiday
weekends. By the time I add in preflight time, taxi time, tie-down at
the destination, etc., flying only makes sense for me time-wise if the
drive is 3 hours or more. And cost simply can't be compared so I don't
compare it! :-)

My hope is to retire to a home near an airport, but for now that isn't a
possibility given where I work and where my kids attend school.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now, of course, we'll hear from 100 guys who claim that they don't want
> to share the skies with a bunch of under-trained pilots. To which I
> can only say: What will we do when there are not enough of us around
> to support the GA infrastructure?

Unfortunately, I think we are already there. All of the airports near
me that used to have restaurants have at best a vending machine now. I
used to be able to fly to at least 6 nice airport restaurants within 80
nm and I know know of only two, and one is at my home field and thus not
all that attractive as a "fly to" destination. The other is at IPT, but
you now have to park a mile away as they closed the east ramp that let
you park right out front of the restaurant.

And the field I learned to fly at, N38, sells fuel (self service), but
has no flight instruction, no maintenance, etc. I fear that the
inevitable has already begun and we just haven't realized it yet. I
suspect that just as the airlines went to the hub structure, so soon
will GA have a similiar structure. There will be a few larger airports
where you can get maintenance done and the rest of the airports will
either disappear or have at most a self-service fuel farm.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> http://www.stantonairfield.com/ in Stanton, MN is a very nice turf
> field with a few FlightDesign CTs that have been extremely popular with
> new pilots training for sport pilot and private pilots as well. The
> Light Sport aircraft have also garnered very favorable stories in the
> local news, both television and print. Everyone who sees or flies the
> CT really enjoys the experience.

That's cool!

I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it
were just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids,
plus luggage, to lug around with us...

;-)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I owe you exactly nothing.

Then we are even.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap is
> loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.

Apparently I haven't made myself clear. The complexity in the system
is not the same as the complexity exposed to the user.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Those fees are only for IFR flights. IFR is using the system and relying
> on it. *Somebody* has to pay for it. There's no free lunch.

It implies that pilots are an elite, rather than simply ordinary
people who like to fly. The same underlying social assumptions are
behind toll highways.

Some things that are truly specific to a small group of users are
logically billed to those users, but parts of a national
infrastructure are usually best paid for by the public at large.

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

You've made yourself perfectly clear (to me, at least).

Seven Hours, thirty eight minutes.

Bye-Bye


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> But you need to hook a coimputer up to your car to find out the gas cap
>> is
>> loose. Sounds pretty complex to me.
>
> Apparently I haven't made myself clear. The complexity in the system
> is not the same as the complexity exposed to the user.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I owe you exactly nothing.
>
> Then we are even.

Not in my book.

Seven hours, fourty minutes


Bye Bye

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it were
> just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids, plus
> luggage, to lug around with us...


Q. Am I the only one who sees the solution here?
A. Thanks for the lift Atlas!

Three pilots - two planes!
CT#1 and CT#2 :-)

The Honecks are a throw-back to that 19th Century spirit of adventure, lived
fully (and written about) by the likes of Jack London and Samuel Clemens (to
name only two). IMHO, it's a uniquely American spirit, one of changing
scenery, limitless opportunities ...and, much the way the (1804) Lewis and
Clark Expedition learned about Grizzly bears: a new discovery around every
bend.

Unfortunately, it seems that a once potent Corps of Discovery spirit
eventually calcifies, in people, families, groups, institutions ...and
nations, over the course of enough time.

That's why Jay and Mary are so entertaining. They still have it ...that
'Westward' spirit. They make plans, sure, but will pull up stakes in a
heartbeat, and move on - if an interesting opportunity presents itself.

I see a CT (or two) in the Honeck's future. <g>


Montblack
And Jay, next time I say I'm thinking about buying a hangar at ANE - hold my
feet to the (branding iron) fire until I write the darn cheque!

[Doug Spencer]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:26:07 -0600
"Montblack" > wrote:

> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> > I flew the CT this past summer, and would buy one in a hearbeat if it were
> > just Mary and me. However, we've got 250 pounds worth of kids, plus
> > luggage, to lug around with us...
>
>
> Q. Am I the only one who sees the solution here?
> A. Thanks for the lift Atlas!
>
> Three pilots - two planes!
> CT#1 and CT#2 :-)

The CT will haul 110lbs of stuff in the luggage compartment, 55lbs per
side. One of the CT's at Stanton Sport Aviation will haul 650 lbs of
fuel, people and baggage.

With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.

I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

It would be nice to see some of the success from Light Sport and Sport
Pilot carry over to recreational and private pilots and larger planes.
The requirement for a medical certificate for a private pilot for
personal flying is absurd considering all the open space when flying in
most areas. As for airframes, the market seems to be deciding pretty
well for itself which safety features desired in light sport. The CT,
for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
compartment during a crash. Why would allowing currently certificated
planes to be constructed to similar consensus standards be any worse?

I've seen the combination of features the CT provides really drive up
interest in aviation. I'd like to see similar innovations in larger
planes as well.

I know, preaching to the choir.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.

What is so complex about it?

And what would you eliminate?

(i) Preflight preparation;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(ii) Preflight procedures;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(iii) Airport and seaplane base operations;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;
(seems reasonable to me and are these operations complex?)

(v) Performance maneuvers;
hey, what are these?

(vi) Ground reference maneuvers;
ok, these could probably be deep-sixed, but how much time
is wasted doing these?

(vii) Navigation;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(viii) Slow flight and stalls;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(ix) Basic instrument maneuvers;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(x) Emergency operations;
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(xi) Night operations, except as provided in 61.110 of this part; and
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)

(xii) Postflight procedures.
(seems reasonable to me and not complex)


have I missed something?

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

[Montblack]

("Doug Spencer" wrote)
> The CT will haul 110lbs of stuff in the luggage compartment, 55lbs per
> side. One of the CT's at Stanton Sport Aviation will haul 650 lbs of
> fuel, people and baggage.
>
> With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
> about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
> that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
> the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.
>
> I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
> The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
> axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
> with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
> is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.


What were your observed cruise speed(s) and climb rates? Thanks.

120mph = 2 miles/minute
30 miles takes 15 minutes ...and (~30mpg)

So, 1 gallon every 15 minutes? 4gph?

Were your numbers close?


Montblack

[Ken Chaddock]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>
>>I thought you were interested in simulation, not aviation.
>
>
> They are variations on the same theme.

Hahahahaha....you have NO idea do you ?

....Ken

[Ken Chaddock]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ken Chaddock writes:
>
>
>>What, don't want to become a member of the mile high club...even a
>>simulated member ?
>
>
> No, I don't. I'm interested in aviation, not sex.

Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

....Ken

[Ken Chaddock]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BDS writes:
<snip>
>>Those people make it possible for games like MSFS to give you
>>the smallest possible glimpse at what flying is actually like.

> It gives a pretty good glimpse, actually. It's quite a pleasant
> activity.

Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

....Ken

[Doug Spencer]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:43:28 -0600
"Montblack" > wrote:

> What were your observed cruise speed(s) and climb rates? Thanks.
>
> 120mph = 2 miles/minute
> 30 miles takes 15 minutes ...and (~30mpg)
>
> So, 1 gallon every 15 minutes? 4gph?
>
> Were your numbers close?

Yeah, it was pretty close to their claimed specs during that flight.
This was a three blade CT, which I've noticed to be slightly slower than
the 2 blade FlightDesign CT. The plane had about 20 hobbs hours at the
time. The prop is also ground adjustable, so some tweaking could be
done there.

After 650 statute miles, I filled 24 gallons. The round trip was 11.6
hobbs hours for 1300 miles total, with a quick stop to drop off and
pick up a friend/future pilot on each leg (doing my part to promote
aviation -- he really liked the plane and his first XC flight). It was
averaging a bit over 112MPH in flight. The fuel totalizer was
indicating 3-4.5GPH depending on the power setting selected. Usually I
was at 4700 RPM and burning 4.4GPH. I could pull power back and get it
to around 2GPH at around 70 kts indicated, so it would be great on
local flights as well.

Climbs at ~900+ FPM from KSYN (Stanton, MN - 920ft MSL) in the fall
fully fueled with 2 people and bags on board. I took it up to 7500 ft
on the trip and it still climbed very well, surprisingly little
performance loss at altitude. Take-off only takes a couple hundred feet
to break ground on the grass runway, especially with 15 degrees of
flaps.

It also burned no oil during the flight, a refreshing change from the
engines we're familiar with. There is no mixture control with the
altitude compensating dual carbs.

Overall, a very nice plane. It can be extremely efficient for local
flights, yet delivers about the same speeds as a Cessna 172 or Warrior
on cross country flights for about 1/2 the fuel burn. It ran very well
for the entire 1300 mile flight with no hiccups.

The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS. Apparently you can get it
with the 912S, which seems to be the exact same 100HP engine with more
paperwork and costs more AMUs, and fly at night as a private pilot. The
airframe can be equipped for night flight from the factory, though.

Everything on the plane looks easy to maintain. The ailerons are
controlled by pushrods and the ends are easily accessible, reducing
cable tensioning adjustments. The brakes are via a very effective and
easy to use hydraulic hand brake and the parking brake is a one-way
valve you can set and pump the brake lever to set, so no cables to
stick or parking brake problems. If used as a trainer, you won't likely
have student pilots riding the brakes on a CT, since the brake is
mounted in the center of the console. There are no gyroscopic
instruments to wear out. All the avionics except backup altimeter and
backup airspeed are solid state. Solid state equipment usually dies
during the warranty period or lasts forever. The airframe, built of
carbon fiber and Kevlar (the stuff bullet proof vests are made of),
should be very strong and long lasting. The cowling is easily removed
and everything on the engine is easy to get to. The fuel gauges are
tubes that show actual fuel and are visible in the cockpit, very simple
and effective with no pickups to go bad or anything. Even the position
and beacon lighting is LED based, so solid state and probably never has
to be replaced.

The TS Pictorial Pilot autopilot did GPSS off the GPSMAP 396, including
course intercepts and sequencing based on the programmed route. If it
weren't so fun to hand fly, you could have the autopilot do a whole
trip except the take off and landing.

Steep turns are very easy in the plane and stalls consist of a mushing
and the angle of attack indicator on the EFIS-D100 indicating in the
red area. Stalls are for the most part non-events.

The seats in the 2006 model were a bit nicer than the 2005. More
padding, better back support, and more comfortable seat belts, and even
more leg room. Visibility is incredible, there is a sunroof right over
the seats, so you can look to see what you're turning into even though
it is a high wing. The windshield wraps around the top of the plane, so
you can lean forward and see straight up there as well. The side
windows are great, with no struts or anything to block your view and
are large enough to easily see out of. The cabin is very roomy, with
lots of head room, leg room and elbow room.

The open and free feeling of the cabin has really helped to get people
interested in the freedom of learning to fly. It also looks "friendly."
People flock to the plane whenever I fly it somewhere. The instrument
panel is well configured without a myriad of cloudy dials to intimidate
prospective pilots.

Oh, and it doesn't leak oil or gas, doesn't have rivets that pop out,
aluminum to crack, or most of the things people have to overlook when
they go to train in a lot of the existing fleet. It feels solid. It
doesn't take a huge leap of faith for people to see themselves flying
in it. Oh, and moving it around on the ground is really easy for even
one person.

I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
about it for a while now.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope that answers your question. ;-) I realize I've been going on
> about it for a while now.

Don't feel bad, Doug -- I did the same thing after my flight in a CT.
It's just a great airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tobias Schnell]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:41:37 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>Those fees are only for IFR flights.

And there ae no fees for aircraft under 2 tons MTOW, so most of the
private IFR flights are excluded.

Tobias

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> With 34 gallons to fill the tanks (up to 1000 miles range), you have
> about 440lbs capacity remaining. It is impressive when you calculate
> that at ~30mpg it is more fuel efficient to fly than drive many cars and
> the CT planes will even run on auto fuel or 100LL.
>
> I've flown a CT 650 statute miles and still had a very good reserve.
> The one I flew had a full glass panel (EFIS, engine monitor, GPS), 3
> axis autopilot coupled to the panel mounted GPSMap 396 with XM weather
> with altitude hold. It really is amazing the amount of innovation that
> is occurring due to the deregulation in the light sport category.

You can fly 650 or 1000 miles on a Light Sport license? I thought all
the ones other than Private Pilot were distance-limited (?).

> The requirement for a medical certificate for a private pilot for
> personal flying is absurd considering all the open space when flying in
> most areas.

Absurd is a strong word, but I'm not sure I see the need for a strict
medical certificate for anyone who isn't carrying paying passengers.
Even the medicals for people who are are a bit on the extreme side.

> The CT, for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
> great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
> straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
> construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
> compartment during a crash.

There isn't any kind of construction that can prevent the engine from
moving in a crash. These features do not harm, I suppose, and they
may help in a narrow range of survivable crashes, but they won't make
any different in a serious accident, or in a very minor accident.

As with cars, safety devices can create a false sense of security and
skewed priorities. The real objective, after all, is to avoid an
accident, not to try to find ways to survive it.

> Why would allowing currently certificated planes to be constructed
> to similar consensus standards be any worse?

The market isn't always the ideal party to evaluate safety. People
tend to sacrifice safety for price, often more than they realize.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> The primary drawback is no night flying due to the engine
> manufacturer's restrictions on the 912ULS.

What is a 912ULS? How can nighttime be a problem for an engine??
Does it get scared in the dark?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ken Chaddock writes:

> Perhaps, but only in the most theoretical sense...

In both a theoretical and practical sense.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ken Chaddock writes:

> Ah, that would be a big negatory good buddy...being both a pilot AND a
> user of MSFS, I can attest from first hand experience of both that MSFS
> isn't even *close* to the real thing and unless and until you gain some
> really real world experience you cannot even comprehend the
> difference...as is painfully obvious from your comments here.

The real thing isn't close to the real thing, either. Flying a tin
can is not the same as flying big iron, and flying big iron is not the
same as flying a fighter aircraft, and flying a fighter is not the
same as being a bush pilot, and being a bush pilot is not the same as
piloting a helicopter.

Flying a real aircraft is different from flying a simulator, but
flying different aircraft in different situations involve similar
differences, so despite what some pilots with circumscribed experience
may believe, flying one aircraft in one situation doesn't necessarily
say much of anything about flying other aircraft in other situations.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On 31 Dec 2006 06:44:04 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>
>I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
>sinker.
>

Not at all.
I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
learning a musical instrument.

>The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
>the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
>the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
>this stereotype ever since.

Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
you killed

>
>It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

This too I disagree with.
Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

>
>Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In

Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
thought I was crazy.

>fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
>truth.

Now what I do and do not believe. I do not believe it takes any
special intelligence to lean to fly, nor do I believe in the macho
line as that can get a pilot killed, but it does as you have already
said, take dedication, time, and money.

You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
staggering.

I have no reason to think our area of the country is much different
than most others although I am sure there are exceptions in both
directions. But the statistics alone have eliminated a third of the
drivers from even being able to qualify for a license including the
sport license. Over a third in our county could not qualify for the
sport pilot license.

Having driven an average of over 30,000 miles a year since I was a
teen ager and I'm well on my way to 67 that makes about 50 years of
driving or 1.5 million miles. Given the people I have worked with,
socialized with, and just see around work and town I would eliminate
at least half of the 2/3rds left due to the reasons given in the
previous paragraph plus some are afraid to fly in anything be it large
or small. . They just are not suited for flying. None of these things
actually relate to intelligence or the need to be macho. They are
people I would be afraid to be around were they flying.

So we are down to 1/3 of the drivers out there that probably would be
capable of getting a license "If they wanted to do so", but only a
tiny fraction are, or would be interested. Of those interested a
portion would not follow through due to resistance from a spouse or
family. Part of them would not follow through due to cost even though
flying is not terribly expensive compared to some other "sports" or
pastimes but there are a lot of people out there that are just making
ends meet. . Part of them would not follow through as they would not
be willing to put in the time required to get the license and part of
them would not follow through just due to the inconvenience of no
airport close enough to suit them. Let's face it. There are few areas
where you could keep a plane in your garage and legally take off from
the road out front.

I would make an educated guess that no more than 10% of the drivers
would actually try to get a pilots license if time, money, family,
and qualifications were no problem.

However 10% is a lot of people but time, money, family, and
qualifications are in reality a problem for many of those. You only
need look at the number making poverty level wages to see that number
dwindel even more.

>
>An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
>Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
>Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)
>
>This involved:
>
>1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)

You do have to know what to look for.

>2. Loading the plane

don't forget the weight and balance.

>3. Starting the plane
>4. Programming two GPS's

Where most people have a problem with VCRs?

>5. Taking off, and turning to course.

Don't forget the run up and all the checks prior to departure.
They are going to say: "You have to do all those checks to make sure
the engine is safe?"

>6. Climbing to altitude
>7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a

How many students have found the flight planning to be a daunting
task? We may do them in our heads now, but at one time they were
work.

>hundred times) to Racine.
>8. Land.


>
>Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
>that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
>maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
>literally as easy as falling off a log.

Again, to your and me.
How ever I've had ATC give me some routings that took me wayyyyy out
of the way. I've said before it seemed like they sent me half way to
Kentucky the one time I went around the south end of Lake Michigan
IFR.

To your and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

>I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and

There was nothing I found difficult, but a lot of it was time
consuming such as the flight planning and that was work. However I
don't figure work has to be difficult. It just took a lot of time.

>commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
>They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
>to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

If I can see to get up and I can see to get down without ice of
thunderstorms in between then I'll go. There is nothing like
descending into the clouds full of torrential rain, breaking out just
above minimums and seeing the runway right where the instruments say
it should be. I don't think I'll ever get over that feeling.
>
>But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
>pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
>far easier than driving, IMHO.

To most who finally make the grade it is. To those who haven't
learned how it's a daunting task. OTOH I've set back and watched a 14
year old fly the Deb on a triangular course of roughly 60 miles, who
after just a bit of coaching could; hold altitude, hold altitude in
turns to the proper heading, and get us back home close to the flight
plan time. Conversely I've had experienced pilots having me say...I
will not get sick in my own airplane, I ... will... not... get ...
sick...inmyownairplane... from a PIO (2 Geeessss out of the bottom and
zzeeeroooo over the top) because they have been relying on the VSI to
hold altitude in the planes they fly.

I see only one real difference between most pilots and "ground
pounders'. It has nothing to do with intelligence or macho attitude.
It is one simple thing. Our love for flying which many can not
comprehend even when shown. Other times you take a non flyer up and
the transformation is miraculous.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:55:51 -0600, (Scott Post)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>>> they are under pressure.
>>
>>No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
>>reality, for better or for worse.
>>
>>Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
>>instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
>>obvious.
>
>I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
>but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
because I have somebody else's airplane.
>
> http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
>> is the training so complex and difficult?
>
>Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
>and AOPA have grappled with for decades.
>
>There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
>period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
>you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
>training syllabus.
<snip>

>After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
>were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
> Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
>(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
>more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

We must have about 8 or 10 planes on the field that qualify for light
sport aircraft and I'm guessing we have about a dozen pilots about
half of which are new.

>
>(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
>rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
>about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
>UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
>older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
>fail.)
Not necessiarily fear of failure. More likely a knowledge they would
be unlikely to pass.

We have a few of those too.


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

[Jay Honeck]

> Terrorists kill the pilots and take over an airliner. Passengers overpower
> the terrorists. Two people come forward and say they will land the 747:
> One says he just learned to fly an ultralight.
> The other says he mostly stays in a room and pretends to fly a 747 on a
> borrowed computer and has 10,000 hrs in his pretend 747.
> Who has the best chance of landing the plane?
> Who would the other passengers want at the controls?

Personally, I'd vote for the sim pilot.**

In the scenario you have constructed, 10,000 hours flying a 747
simulator would be much more valuable than flying a hang glider.
Here's why:

Depending on how rigorous the sim pilot recreated "real life", he would
immediately be able to recognize proper approach speeds, where the
flaps and gear controls are, how to engage (or disengage) the
autopilot, etc. He may even know stall speed for a given load, proper
target deck angle for the approach -- the sim recreates all of this
stuff with amazing clarity and precision.

Coincidentally, just yesterday we had a REAL 747 pilot flying the Kiwi,
in a head-to-head test of Flight Simulator 2004 versus the new Flight
Simulator X. (FS2004 won the competition, BTW, thanks to much better
frame rates -- but that's another thread.) He gave the sim his stamp
of approval, with everything working as expected, just like the real
aircraft.

I doubt the hang glider pilot would know how to tune the radio, let
alone land. Flying an airliner is NOT "flying", in the GA sense of the
word. Watching our 747 pilot fly the Kiwi was an education in itself,
as his movements were barely perceptible, and he was thinking several
minutes ahead of the plane in order to accomplish a smooth approach and
landing.


** - Note: My vote is qualified, depending on the quality of the
simmer's equipment. If he's been running Flight Sim '98 on an old
Pentium I, with a 10" screen, using a mouse and keyboard to control it,
I'll throw my vote to the hang glider dude...

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

[Jay Honeck]

> if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
> because I have somebody else's airplane.
> >
> > http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg

Good one!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> >> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
> >> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
> >
> >I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
> >sinker.
> >
>
> Not at all.

I think you're responding to a mix of my comments and MX's. In the
narrative, above, I was tellihng HIM that *he* had fallen for it -- not
anyone else.

> I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
> It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
> takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
> population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
> disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
> is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
> learning a musical instrument.

I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

Which doesn't mean I was ever unsafe in the first 500 hours, BTW. But
I was playing chopsticks, instead of Beethoven's Fifth.

> >The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
> >public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
> >they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
> >the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
> >the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
> >this stereotype ever since.
>
> Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
> few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
> are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
> mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
> you killed

Agree.

Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"
attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing. It's taken me a long
time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
be terribly difficult.

I think this attitude is what gives many airports their intimidating
persona, which has always adversely affected new pilots. We, as
pilots, need to become more welcoming and positive about what we love,
if we hope to attract new believers. (This really IS a religious
thing, BTW... ;-)

> >It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
> >people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>
> This too I disagree with.
> Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
> set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
the training weed out the incompetents.

To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
bad attitude.

> >Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
> >God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
> >destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
>
> Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
> women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
> thought I was crazy.

You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys? ;-)

> You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
> mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
> stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
> or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

Oh no I don't. I think most drivers are idiots. However, that's
beside the point. I think everyone should have equal access to both
flying and driving, provided they can pass the tests. The trouble with
the driving test, as it stands today (in Iowa, anyway), is that it is
SO rudimentary that only the physically and mentally disabled can be
expected to fail. (And even they can get waivers.)

And they've supposedly made the driving test harder in recent years.
Scary.

> I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
> Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
> responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
> ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
> communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
> time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
> that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
> staggering.

I agree that this is a problem. In my opinion, people with criminal
records should be exempted from many basic societal privileges,
including driving (and certainly flying). But then, I favor the death
sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.

> To you and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
> don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
> even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult. Imagine how hard
it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
than learning to drive.

If you break down the tasks involved with driving on Chicago's
Interstate 294 in rush-hour traffic (basically close formation flight,
with infrequent and sudden stops and starts) and compare it to the
tasks involved with the average $100 hamburger flight, I don't think
there's any comparison. Once you've got the rote procedures down pat,
flying is MUCH easier.

Too few of our non-flying brethren know this. We need to tell them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Driving a Chevy Blazer isn't the same as driving a Lamborghini Diablo, either.

Which is why many people who can drive a Blazer safely cannot drive a
Diablo safely, and vice versa.

> But I can say from experience that they're similar enough that if you can
> do one, you can do both.

Only with extreme care. Lots of people get into trouble trying to
drive vehicles that are _similar_ to the ones they know, but not
really as close as they believe. And in aviation (particularly
commercial aviation), being allowed to fly one type or model of
aircraft does not entitle you to fly any type or model of aircraft.

Likewise, being able to drive an ordinary sedan doesn't make you
competent to drive a large truck or a racing car.

> A 747 is just a big Cessna with with 4 engines and a faster approach.

How many 747s have you flown?

> An F16 is just a Cessna with an afterburner, a roll rate that will loosen your
> fillings, and a 20mm cannon.

See above.

Military pilots are usually excellent pilots, but even they have
trouble flying aircraft that are unlike the ones they know best.
Flying a Cessna like an F-16 is extremely unwise.

> They all fly the same. They fly like REAL airplanes.

Real and unreal is only one variable among many.

> Terrorists kill the pilots and take over an airliner. Passengers overpower
> the terrorists. Two people come forward and say they will land the 747:
> One says he just learned to fly an ultralight.
> The other says he mostly stays in a room and pretends to fly a 747 on a
> borrowed computer and has 10,000 hrs in his pretend 747.
> Who has the best chance of landing the plane?

The one who flies a simulator. He'll know the instruments a lot
better than someone with only ultralight experience. A 747 handles
nothing at all like an ultralight, and the safest way for an
unqualified person to land it is using the heavily automated systems
aboard. Someone who has flown the 747 in simulation will be vaguely
familiar with these systems and can follow instructions in order to
set them for an autoland (he may even be able to do it without
instructions). Someone who has flown only an ultralight will know
nothing about using the instruments and may have trouble figuring them
out even with extensive help, and the aircraft handles so much
differently from an ultralight that he is likely to kill himself
trying to get the feel of it long before he can gain enough skill to
land it by hand.

> Who would the other passengers want at the controls?

It depends on how smart they are. The smart choice would be the
person who has flown that aircraft in simulation.

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

[Doug Spencer]

Ok, I'm replying in a vain attempt to address some ignorance presented
in this post.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:43 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You can fly 650 or 1000 miles on a Light Sport license? I thought all
> the ones other than Private Pilot were distance-limited (?).

Affirmative. You can fly anywhere in the US with a sport pilot
certificate. You're restricted to day and VFR conditions, but otherwise
it's pretty much the same as the private.

> Absurd is a strong word, but I'm not sure I see the need for a strict
> medical certificate for anyone who isn't carrying paying passengers.
> Even the medicals for people who are are a bit on the extreme side.

The drivers license for sport pilot is the medical certificate. If you
lose your drivers license, you also lose your medical ability to fly
sport pilot. Why should private and recreational be different?

> > The CT, for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
> > great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
> > straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
> > construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
> > compartment during a crash.
>
> There isn't any kind of construction that can prevent the engine from
> moving in a crash. These features do not harm, I suppose, and they
> may help in a narrow range of survivable crashes, but they won't make
> any different in a serious accident, or in a very minor accident.

The pilot is the primary safety device installed in a plane, and
there's no 100% effective safety device, but the safety cage design,
energy absorbing construction, engine designed to break away in a
crash, 39kt stall speed, and ballistic parachute sure improve the odds.
Additionally, to prevent a collision, you have better visibility than
most of the fleet to see and avoid.

Being the aeronautical expert you think you are, you have undoubtedly
seen Rod Machado's statement on energy dissipation in an airplane crash,
presented at where he states "The minimum distance you can travel and
stay under 9 Gs when you land at 50 knots is 12.8 feet. If you travel
at least that far before coming to a stop, the cockpit should not break
apart." The whole article is at
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060603fly-in3.html .

There's lots of information about the safety features and construction
on the company web site http://flightdesign.com/

> > Why would allowing currently certificated planes to be constructed
> > to similar consensus standards be any worse?
>
> The market isn't always the ideal party to evaluate safety. People
> tend to sacrifice safety for price, often more than they realize.

Considering the FlightDesign CT is presently one of the most expensive
light sport planes, as well as one of the best selling, the market
apparently disagrees with you.

Doug


--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Personally, I'd vote for the sim pilot.**

That is wise.

You want someone whose experience most closely matches the real-world
task at hand. In this case, someone with simulation experience of a
747 is a lot closer to a real 747 than someone with real-world
experience of only an ultralight.

Many people might not understand that, but there it is. There's
nothing magic about piloting a real plane. The key question is how
closely the person's skills match the skills required.

> In the scenario you have constructed, 10,000 hours flying a 747
> simulator would be much more valuable than flying a hang glider.

Absolutely.

> Here's why:
>
> Depending on how rigorous the sim pilot recreated "real life", he would
> immediately be able to recognize proper approach speeds, where the
> flaps and gear controls are, how to engage (or disengage) the
> autopilot, etc. He may even know stall speed for a given load, proper
> target deck angle for the approach -- the sim recreates all of this
> stuff with amazing clarity and precision.

Yes. All the procedures would be familiar to him. He might even be
able to program the FMS for an autoland at the destination of the
crew's choice. An ultralight pilot would be lost. And you can't just
grab the controls of a 747 and fly it in by hand if all your
experience is with a tiny ultralight.

> I doubt the hang glider pilot would know how to tune the radio, let
> alone land.

Add in the slightest hint of inclement weather, and the ultralight
pilot is doomed. The sim pilot would know how to operate the systems,
and thus would be able to land even in zero visibility.

> Flying an airliner is NOT "flying", in the GA sense of the
> word. Watching our 747 pilot fly the Kiwi was an education in itself,
> as his movements were barely perceptible, and he was thinking several
> minutes ahead of the plane in order to accomplish a smooth approach and
> landing.

Simulation long ago taught me an interesting lesson about heavy
aircraft vs. small aircraft (one which I confirmed years later through
observation of real aircraft). And this was on an early version of
MSFS.

I discovered, purely by trial and error, that large aircraft can be
rolled more effectively by brief, sudden, small movements of the yoke,
rather than a continuous application of roll control. The reason is
(apparently) that the inertia of a large aircraft makes it want to
continue rolling once it begins, and keeps it from beginning a roll
easily. Holding the controls in position causes the roll to
accelerate, making it difficult to stop. Intermittent application of
the controls makes it much easier to assess how quickly the aircraft
is rolling into or out of a bank.

Much later, while flying as a passenger in a real airliner, I was
surprised and pleased to see that the pilots were flying as I do in
the simulator (easy to see by watching the aileron movement as the
aircraft flies).

I don't know that it would occur to a pilot with only ultralight
experience to control a large jetliner in this way. If he tried to
use the methods he uses on the ultralight, he'd be in big trouble.
Typically he'd apply the controls, see no reaction, apply them harder
until the aircraft starts to roll, and then panic when he discovers
that the aircraft doesn't stop rolling when he releases the control.
A bit of overcorrection and soon he's cruisin' for a bruisin'.

> ** - Note: My vote is qualified, depending on the quality of the
> simmer's equipment. If he's been running Flight Sim '98 on an old
> Pentium I, with a 10" screen, using a mouse and keyboard to control it,
> I'll throw my vote to the hang glider dude...

I don't know that I would. Large aircraft are hard to fly by the seat
of the pants, and even a tiny bit of familiarity with aircraft systems
could more than compensate for real-world piloting experience by feel
alone.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

Both. Many of the pilots here clearly think of it as an art. Others,
including myself, consider it more of a science. GA pilots are
probably more in the art camp; airline captains and more than a few
fighter pilots are probably in the science camp.

Pilots who think along artistic lines are naturally bewildered and
upset when anyone suggests that aviation without an actual aircraft
might be enjoyable. They get all their enjoyment out of sensations
and movement--wind in their hair, things like that. But pilots who
are scientists at heart like the instruments, the techniques, the
precision and discipline, and other aspects of aviation that are only
incidentally connected to real-life aircraft. I think the scientist
types probably make better airline and fighter pilots. The artist
types make better bush pilots and crop dusters.

> I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
> to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
> admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

Any aircraft, or just a specific aircraft? If you've always flown
small aircraft, would you really feel at home landing an A380?

> Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
> It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"
> attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing.

Pilots must be different in your neck of the woods. Or perhaps (and
more likely, I think) GA pilots and airline pilots and military pilots
are all different.

The scientific ones are not macho; they simply know what they are
doing and say so if asked. The artistic ones may or may not be macho;
certainly they are more emotionally based.

One notable thing about pilots who live long and prosper is that they
can keep a cool head when the situation requires it (even if they are
highly emotional under other circumstances). Pilots who cannot do
this tend to get killed, unless they are very lucky or fly very
rarely.

> It's taken me a long
> time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
> public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
> not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
> be terribly difficult.

The non-flying public doesn't have that opinion, as far as I can tell.
Some pilots might wish they did, but they don't.

> Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
> we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
> be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
> the training weed out the incompetents.

I disagree. It's important to make people understand reality. If
they don't have the personality to fly, it's best for themselves and
everyone else to stay away from the cockpit, no matter what the joys
and advantages might be.

> To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
> candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
> assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
> we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
> bad attitude.

Telling people the truth is not a bad attitude.

> You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys?

Perhaps crazy women are, but not women in general.

> But then, I favor the death
> sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.

Would that include FAR violations?

> To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult.

I found it mostly boring. But where I lived, you had to drive in
order to get a job. I eventually tried to make it more interesting by
driving something with a manual transmission, which helped a little.

> Imagine how hard
> it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
> their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
> kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
> and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
> parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
> than learning to drive.

Then all you have to do is make kids rich, so that they don't have to
save up until their 40s before they can afford to fly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> Affirmative. You can fly anywhere in the US with a sport pilot
> certificate. You're restricted to day and VFR conditions, but otherwise
> it's pretty much the same as the private.

Daytime and VFR would be quite a chafing restriction for me. Part of
the fascination of aviation for me is flying at night and in IMC.
Carefully watching and adjusting instruments for an hour or two in
zero visibility and then seeing the runway magically materialize
seconds before you land is always a fun experience.

> The drivers license for sport pilot is the medical certificate. If you
> lose your drivers license, you also lose your medical ability to fly
> sport pilot. Why should private and recreational be different?

I don't know ... why? The driver's license notion sounds fine to me.

> The pilot is the primary safety device installed in a plane, and
> there's no 100% effective safety device, but the safety cage design,
> energy absorbing construction, engine designed to break away in a
> crash, 39kt stall speed, and ballistic parachute sure improve the odds.

As long as the pilot understands that they just improve the odds _if_
there is an accident, fine. But a lot of people take the next step
and unjustifiably assume that they can be less careful because they
have all the gadgets to keep them alive in case they do something
stupid.

> Being the aeronautical expert you think you are, you have undoubtedly
> seen Rod Machado's statement on energy dissipation in an airplane crash ...

No, but I've done the calculations, which are straightforward.

> ... he states "The minimum distance you can travel and
> stay under 9 Gs when you land at 50 knots is 12.8 feet. If you travel
> at least that far before coming to a stop, the cockpit should not break
> apart."

A well-braced person in normal health can withstand 46 Gs without
permanent sequelae.

The real key is the integration of acceleration and time. Extremely
high accelerations are fine if they are of short duration. Lower
accelerations can be deadly if sustained (like redout). Surviving in
an accident involves limiting the peak accelerations and their
durations. Most of these peak accelerations occur when a human body
continues to move unrestrained after the compartment it is in stops;
when it hits the stopped compartment, the short-term accelerations are
much higher than they would have been if the body had moved with the
compartment as a single unit.

This is the theory behind seatbelts and harnesses. It works for any
type of vehicle.

> Considering the FlightDesign CT is presently one of the most expensive
> light sport planes, as well as one of the best selling, the market
> apparently disagrees with you.

Perhaps it has snob appeal.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Doug Spencer writes:
>
> > Considering the FlightDesign CT is presently one of the most expensive
> > light sport planes, as well as one of the best selling, the market
> > apparently disagrees with you.
>
> Perhaps it has snob appeal.
>
> --

Heh. Know what a Flight Design CT looks like? Not much snob appeal
there. :>)

My teenage daughter thinks it's "cute".

That being said, the next brand new airplane I buy will be a CT. My big
iron, IFR days (KC135) are long behind me, and the CT fits my mission
profile nowadays, which is pretty much day VFR flying around Montana.
If I had 90 large ones laying around I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

--Walt
Bozeman, Montana

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
> period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
> you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
> training syllabus.

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard all year.

Ok, the year is new. But still... Flying is incredibly easy if nothing
goes wrong. "Push, the houses get bigger. Pull, the houses get
smaller". The training is needed for the third part: "Keep pulling,
the houses get bigger again". There is a lot to learn in aviation if
you want to know how to stay safe (and actually succeed). It's easy
once you know it (and it's also easy to forget if you don't use it).
And it's not all that difficult =to= learn it in the first place. I
don't really see what it is that you think is "so complex" about flight
training. After all, you =are= maneuvering in three dimensions,
balancing on nothing more than a blast of air whose properties are not
intuitive, and there is no pause button.

> We need more pilots, and we need more aircraft owners --
> and we need them NOW.

While attractive, and there is some truth to it, it is as senseless as
"we have to do =something=" in justification for the FRZ, cops and metal
detectors in schools, and patrolling the borders with UAVs.

Aviation is {fill in wonderful phrase} and I'm glad that you get to live
that to the fullest. I am somewhat envious, because even though I also
love to fly, I don't do it as much as I might like to. There are many
reasons for that; it might be useful to explore them as a proxy for why
non-pilots don't fly airplanes.

1: Although cloud dancing is fun, in and of itself, it's not the kind of
fun I would be drawn to do all the time, just for the fun value of
boring holes in the sky. That said, it is sometimes just =awesome=, and
I wouldn't miss it for (most of) the world.

2: It is expensive. It costs me on the order of a hundred dollars an
hour. It costs you the same, if you add it all up (though you probably
get the government to pick up some of the tab). So, with a finite
supply of money, I do have to balance how much of this kind of fun I
want to pursue, at the expense of that kind of fun I could be having.

3: It's usually not as useful as a car. Most of my trips are five to
twenty miles. I have to drive that far just to get to the airport;
flying twenty miles to go get groceries is not very practical where I
live. If I had to choose between a car and a plane, the car is far more
useful overall.

4: I love to share my love of flying with others. But this depends on a
supply of others who are willing and able. Schedules get in the way;
most of the people I come in contact with are not on vacation. I know
several people who are dying to get in the cockpit with me, and we still
haven't been able to arrange a ride.

5: The =usefulness= of aviation depends on having a place to go. I
suspect that most such places are invented as an excuse to fly. That's
fine; I do the same thing myself, but a $100 hamburger doesn't make the
airplane useful, it makes it entertaining. See #1 above. I don't go
places often for which an airplane is a significantly better way to get
there (but when I do, it is a boon). Recent trips (from Connecticut)
have included Georgia, Delaware, Ohio, and soon, Kentucky. But trips
like this don't come up all that often, especially since they usually
involve several days or weeks at the destination.

6: Weather is a factor too, especially in the Northeast. Although most
trips can be completed, even VFR, a schedule cannot necessarily be
relied upon. As you point out, flexibility is necessary, and sometimes
that is not an option.

Not everyone is like you. Not everyone lives next to the airport, owns
their own business, has a wife that flies, and lives in the middle of
the country (a few hours flight from most places). Just pretend for a
moment that you were someone else, say, living in NYC, working in an
office in Westchester, with most of your travel being to the DC area.
How practical would aviation be to you in that situation?

Sure, you would quit your job and open an aviation themed hotel in the
midwest instead doing that, but that's not the point. If everybody did
that, nobody would staff your hotel, deliver your goods, or make the
fuel you fly with. If you pretend you =can't= change the scenario,
maybe you'll understand that real life isn't just living in Iowa running
a business. There are other people with =real= lives that are
different, and have to deal with those differences.

Aviation is a distant fifth to those differences.

Jose


--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'd say there is probably more complexity in a modern elevator than the
> average general aviation aircraft.

The average GA aircraft has a (complex) pilot doing (relatively complex)
tasks to make it fly. If you want something to =be= simple to operate,
it is likely to be complex underneath.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> That being said, the next brand new airplane I buy will be a CT. My big
> iron, IFR days (KC135) are long behind me, and the CT fits my mission
> profile nowadays, which is pretty much day VFR flying around Montana.
> If I had 90 large ones laying around I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

If you had the means, would you go out and buy some big iron to fly,
or would you still stick with a small aircraft? Do you miss flying
large aircraft?

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > That being said, the next brand new airplane I buy will be a CT. My big
> > iron, IFR days (KC135) are long behind me, and the CT fits my mission
> > profile nowadays, which is pretty much day VFR flying around Montana.
> > If I had 90 large ones laying around I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
>
> If you had the means, would you go out and buy some big iron to fly,
> or would you still stick with a small aircraft? Do you miss flying
> large aircraft?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Miss it? In a way. But probably not in the way that you may think.
People on this list who have flown in the military probably know what I
mean. And, I have two good friends, both retired, who flew 757's and
747's for an airline. After a day of flying we have fun talking about
those days over a few beers. But, one flies a Huskie and the other
flies a restored Waco. THAT is flying.

But, fly those big things for fun? No. If I had the means I'd still be
flying a small aircraft.

--Walt

[Jay Honeck]

> Is this an admission that you can't stay several minutes ahead of your plane?
> You'd better let your wife do the flying from now on. :)

Ouch. That's low... ;-)

The point is, you don't have to stay that far ahead of any plane moving
at 130 knots. When you're moving at 250 knots, however, in a plane the
size of a 747, you make tiny little movements that make your aircraft
move to a spot in the sky a full minute or three ahead.

This is why simmers trying to land a 747 (myself included) usually
crash. We're trying to raise a wingtip with abrupt turns of the yoke
(as we would in a Cherokee, for example) -- and that just doesn't work
in an aircraft the size of a destroyer.

Our pro pilot NEVER made a motion that you could even see, yet the 747
ended up greasing the runway. It was fun to watch.

> And, BTW, if you ever set up that little toy of yours to run Falcon 4.0, I'd be
> happy to link up and blow you out of the sky in a few dogfights. In my small
> circle of F-16 gamers around the world, I've become the "one to beat"
> lately.(small, shameless brag)

Cool! I've not played Falcon since version 3.0 (and quickly discovered
that it is so complex that you can't play it casually), but I've heard
4.0 is THE combat sim to have.

I've fought the urge to put any combat sims on the Kiwi, simply because
I'm trying to emphasize the educational aspects of it -- but eventually
I'll have to give into the urge. (I let my son install "Need for Speed
- Most Wanted", the latest-greatest racing sim, and it's pretty
awesome...!)

> But I still think that in a real F-16, my real experience in real planes would
> serve me better than all the time I've spent shooting down other gamers
> in Falcon 4.0.

Depends again on how "real" your flight controls are in the sim. If
you have emulated a REAL F-16, your sim time will serve you well. If
you're "flying" with a keyboard, it won't help you at all.
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Then I realized that you confused an "ultralight" with a "hang glider".

I don't see any confusion. Experience with an ultralight is almost as
worthless in the scenario described.

> All those are available with a quick look in the manual.

In that case, he can learn to fly with a quick look in the manual, and
he doesn't even need the sim.

> I've flown the 747 in FS9, also. I've even done an aerobatic routine
> with the 747 that would be VERY impressive if performed in the real
> thing (picture a 747 doing a loop and leveling out 150 ft over the runway).

Why did you do that?

> You've seen the results of an experienced 747 pilot playing a game.
> Do you really think you'd get similar results if you took an experienced
> "gamer" and put them in a real 747?

The results would be quite close.

> If someone can't figure out how to tune a radio, they should be kept on
> a leash.

Why do so many people need to be shown how to do it, then?

> Is this an admission that you can't stay several minutes ahead of your plane?

Minutes? I'd be more tempted to think in terms of seconds in most
situations.

> And, BTW, if you ever set up that little toy of yours to run Falcon 4.0, I'd be
> happy to link up and blow you out of the sky in a few dogfights.

Lots of thrill-seeking and aggressive behavior there. Hmm.

> In my small circle of F-16 gamers around the world, I've become the
> "one to beat" lately.

What is the attraction to flying an F-16?

> But I still think that in a real F-16, my real experience in real planes would
> serve me better than all the time I've spent shooting down other gamers
> in Falcon 4.0.

I don't know. Sensations are more important in fighters and aerobatic
aircraft, but there are still other factors, particularly for
fighters. And I don't think that any other aircraft you've flown has
caused you to black out.

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

[john smith]

In article >,
Nomen Nescio > wrote:

> But I still think that in a real F-16, my real experience in real planes would
> serve me better than all the time I've spent shooting down other gamers
> in Falcon 4.0.

1) How do you link falcon 4 over the internet?
I would like to do that.

2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
military sims. So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
real thing. It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article m>,
"Walt" > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Walt writes:
> >
> > > That being said, the next brand new airplane I buy will be a CT. My big
> > > iron, IFR days (KC135) are long behind me, and the CT fits my mission
> > > profile nowadays, which is pretty much day VFR flying around Montana.
> > > If I had 90 large ones laying around I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
> >
> > If you had the means, would you go out and buy some big iron to fly,
> > or would you still stick with a small aircraft? Do you miss flying
> > large aircraft?
> >
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Miss it? In a way. But probably not in the way that you may think.
> People on this list who have flown in the military probably know what I
> mean. And, I have two good friends, both retired, who flew 757's and
> 747's for an airline. After a day of flying we have fun talking about
> those days over a few beers. But, one flies a Huskie and the other
> flies a restored Waco. THAT is flying.
>
> But, fly those big things for fun? No. If I had the means I'd still be
> flying a small aircraft.
>
> --Walt

A local friend of mine retired from United as #1 bid. He now flies a
RV-8 and a Baron and says that he never realized how much he hated the
airline job! He is having a ball!

[Roger[_4_]]

On 1 Jan 2007 06:04:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> >> At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
>> >> horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,
>> >
>> >I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
>> >sinker.
>> >
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>I think you're responding to a mix of my comments and MX's. In the
>narrative, above, I was tellihng HIM that *he* had fallen for it -- not
>anyone else.
>
Damn attributes<:-))

>> I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
>> It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
>> takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
>> population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
>> disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
>> is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
>> learning a musical instrument.
>
>I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

I think it, like skating is a mixture of both. There is a great deal
of rote learning at first, then there is the repetitive practice with
each maneuver building from what has gone before. Ground reference
maneuvers aid pattern work. Stalls not only help to keep the student
out of trouble they aid in learning to land. Eventually the pilot who
practices enough will get a "feel" for the maneuvers be they the basic
ones or aerobatic. I'd liken this stage to the pilots who never
progress beyond flying stabilized patterns and never gain the feel and
flexibility to have the controllers at Oshkosh tell them what to do
when and where to set down.

>
>I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
>to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
>admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

I *knew* how to land one early on but it took a long time before I
could do a decent job of it. <:-))
>
>Which doesn't mean I was ever unsafe in the first 500 hours, BTW. But
>I was playing chopsticks, instead of Beethoven's Fifth.

I think most "real" pilots can identify with that.
>
>> >The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> >public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> >they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
>> >the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
>> >the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
>> >this stereotype ever since.
>>
>> Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
>> few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
>> are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
>> mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
>> you killed
>
>Agree.
>
>Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
>It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"

Here the pilot has to walk a fine line between sounding like a know it
all and projecting an air of confidence that will instill confidence
in the passenger(s)

Following a sudden bump with "Ohhhh...****! What the devil was that?,
or is that floppy thing still hooked on to the wind is not exactly the
thing to do either. <:-))

OTOH I do have to plead guilty to having had at least a fleeting
though of doing such with a couple of passengers over the years.

>attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing. It's taken me a long
>time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
>public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
>not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
>be terribly difficult.

That;s kinda, sorta, almost, showing confidence is arrogant while not
showing it is projecting incompetence. Damned if we do and damned if
we don't.<:-))

>
>I think this attitude is what gives many airports their intimidating
>persona, which has always adversely affected new pilots. We, as
>pilots, need to become more welcoming and positive about what we love,

If you pull into Midland's Barstow Airport (3BS) and spot a hanger
with a *bunch* of cars around it, all a newbie would have to do is go
over and introduce themselves, ask a few questions, and it's quite
likely some one would take them for a ride in any thing from a Sonex
to a Bonanza or even a 310.

>if we hope to attract new believers. (This really IS a religious
>thing, BTW... ;-)

Amen!
And it's a religion to which I can subscribe with a clear conscience.

>
>> >It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>> >people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>>
>> This too I disagree with.
>> Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
>> set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.
>
>Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
>we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
>be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
>the training weed out the incompetents.

I try. We have a very active group of pilots here at Midland (3BS) and
I described the EAA Chapter 1093 activities in another post. When it
comes to the Young Eagles program I try to get a parent or two to go
along. Some members thing we should only be taking kids but when you
look at the fence hangers look at dad's or mom's eyes. You can tell
some of them want to go as bad or even worse than the kid. One of my
most rewarding projects was being chairman of the "Kids to Oshkosh"
program for quite a few years.


>
>To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
>candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
>assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
>we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
>bad attitude.
>
>> >Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>> >God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>> >destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In
>>
>> Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
>> women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
>> thought I was crazy.
>
>You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys? ;-)

I've noticed a lot of the young women with kids at the skating arena
don't think an old guy out on the ice is crazy. Some of the remarks
are better for the ego than flying and that's saying a lot<LOL>

>
>> You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
>> mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
>> stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
>> or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.
>
>Oh no I don't. I think most drivers are idiots. However, that's
>beside the point. I think everyone should have equal access to both
>flying and driving, provided they can pass the tests. The trouble with
>the driving test, as it stands today (in Iowa, anyway), is that it is
>SO rudimentary that only the physically and mentally disabled can be
>expected to fail. (And even they can get waivers.)

Michigan is the same. Miss a question and they'll give you the
answer.

>
>And they've supposedly made the driving test harder in recent years.
>Scary.
>
>> I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
>> Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
>> responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
>> ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
>> communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
>> time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
>> that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
>> staggering.
>
>I agree that this is a problem. In my opinion, people with criminal
>records should be exempted from many basic societal privileges,
>including driving (and certainly flying). But then, I favor the death
>sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.
>
>> To you and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
>> don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
>> even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

Come to think of it, I don't check the oil in the car either.<:-))
I do look under it, just in case, but that's usually to make sure the
cat isn't sleeping there.

>
>To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult. Imagine how hard
Some never manage but still get their licenses. Coming home from the
university one night in an ice storm where the roads were covered with
about an inch of black ice I watched the car ahead wiggle a little.
The driver immediately stomped on the brakes. This of course put the
car into a skid. She never took her foot off the brake until the car
came to a stop out in a field. Had she simply taken her foot off the
brake in about the first 10 seconds (we were moving really slow) the
car would have become controllable and straightened out on it's own.
That driver didn't have the faintest idea as to how to get out of a
skid and did an action opposite of what should have been done..


I started driving when I had to stand up to see out. OTOH cars were a
bit different back then and a floor shift was considered old
fashioned. I had a regular license, not a farm permit at 14. Of course
if a car had 40,000 miles it was almost over the hill.

>it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
>their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
>kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
>and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
>parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
>than learning to drive.

I think it's a mind set that may have developed with age rather than a
limitation placed by age. People are good at convincing themselves age
is going to slow them down. I quit work and went to college full time
at age 47. I did far better than an earlier try just out of high
school.

I did find it took more work than it did when I was younger, but I
didn't find that a hindrance. I did find it required I get by on less
sleep than I was used to. Also I was one of those kids who never had
to study to get good grades in my early years so when I entered
college I did not know how to study. At 47 I had learned how to study
even if it was more work.

One major surprise was how my abilities had changed. In high school,
English was my poorest subject. In college some 30 years later it was
an absolute breeze. In high school, Chemistry was my best subject. In
college it was my worst.

If I hadn't taken 8 hours of chemistry I'd have graduated with honors
at age 50. (just missed by a fraction of a point) I went into a good
job and retired just 7 years later.

As to age: After retiring, Joyce got me started in figure skating. I
picked up most of the moves far faster than all but two of the kids in
the classes. It took me about a year to learn to do a good scratch
spin that was fast, prolonged and controllable. I did have a couple
of very good coaches. My point is that with no preconceived
limitations I was able to tackle both mental and physical tasks that
are normally considered only for the young.

>
>If you break down the tasks involved with driving on Chicago's
>Interstate 294 in rush-hour traffic (basically close formation flight,
>with infrequent and sudden stops and starts) and compare it to the
>tasks involved with the average $100 hamburger flight, I don't think
>there's any comparison. Once you've got the rote procedures down pat,
>flying is MUCH easier.

I'd try to avoid driving in those conditions even if flying cost a lot
more.

>
>Too few of our non-flying brethren know this. We need to tell them.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On 1 Jan 2007 15:19:21 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Is this an admission that you can't stay several minutes ahead of your plane?
>> You'd better let your wife do the flying from now on. :)
>
>Ouch. That's low... ;-)
>
>The point is, you don't have to stay that far ahead of any plane moving
>at 130 knots. When you're moving at 250 knots, however, in a plane the
>size of a 747, you make tiny little movements that make your aircraft
>move to a spot in the sky a full minute or three ahead.
>
>This is why simmers trying to land a 747 (myself included) usually
>crash. We're trying to raise a wingtip with abrupt turns of the yoke
>(as we would in a Cherokee, for example) -- and that just doesn't work
>in an aircraft the size of a destroyer.
>
>Our pro pilot NEVER made a motion that you could even see, yet the 747
>ended up greasing the runway. It was fun to watch.

Get hooked up to fly a Bo for a few hours. They are light on the
controls and quick. I'll bet you'll enjoy it. As I've said before,
I've had experienced pilots put it into a PIO with 2 Gs out of the
bottom and zero over the top. Actually it's quite common. I can fix
it by telling them to look outside and put the horizon at a specific
spot in the windshield or covering the VSI which forces them to look
outside. The Bo, or Deb in this case is quick enough I can do a PIO
like that and keep the VSI pretty much centered.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> 2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
> feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
> military sims. So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
> simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
> real thing. It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
> 1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
> high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
> over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

True enough.

After just 25 minutes of relatively low-G aerobatics, I was extremely
tired. I can't imagine what a dogfight with 6 - 8 G pulls must be
like. No sim can recreate that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard all year.

Har har...

;-)

> Sure, you would quit your job and open an aviation themed hotel in the
> midwest instead doing that, but that's not the point. If everybody did
> that, nobody would staff your hotel, deliver your goods, or make the
> fuel you fly with. If you pretend you =can't= change the scenario,
> maybe you'll understand that real life isn't just living in Iowa running
> a business. There are other people with =real= lives that are
> different, and have to deal with those differences.
>
> Aviation is a distant fifth to those differences.

Hey -- I didn't say aviation was for everyone. Nothing is for
*everyone*.

However, general aviation could easily be made to appeal to far more
people simply by changing a few basic perceptions, and a few basic
procedures.

I've given this some thought, however, and I don't see how it could
happen. For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
simpler, less litigious time. We, as a society, would have to
mentally accept and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
way that we treat travel by road -- and that means that people are
going to die.

We would simply have to *accept* the fact that upwards of 30,000 people
were going to be killed and maimed in general aviation flying EVERY
YEAR, and we would have to simply accept this risk as a matter of
course. Only then would we ever see a "plane in every garage".

Obviously, that won't happen. Even driving is becoming less and less
"free", as the lawyers and lawsuits increasingly constrict the free
flow of traffic in exchange for a false feeling of "safety". All you
have to do is look at the way traffic lights are currently set up to
realize that "traffic engineers" are no longer interested in the free
flow of traffic -- all they care about is covering their ass so that no
one will sue them.

Thus was born the "left turn only arrow", and stop lights that are
specifically timed to slow traffic.

So, given this state of affairs, we're going to have to settle for some
half-steps. We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
afraid of dying that they can never live.

The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
appreciate general aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Hey -- I didn't say aviation was for everyone. Nothing is for
> *everyone*.

No, but what you do say is that you don't understand why aviation isn't
so much more popular, since after all, you love it so much.

> For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
> simpler, less litigious time.

That would help, but not the way I think you think it does.

> We, as a society, would have to mentally accept
> and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
> way that we treat travel by road

We don't treat road travel in a casual, callous way. What we =do= do is
treat it as a necessity, a given, almost a right. And for driving, this
is a good choice. With people spread out all over the place, the
automobile is just about the most practical method of transportation
there is, in most cases. Even in the city, where driving is pretty
aggravating, it usually still beats the bus, the subway, and certainly
the airplane, for the kinds of trips most people take (which is to
commute to work, to school, to the store, and to visit friends). These
destinations are rarely in walking distance, only in the larger cities
is mass transit really practical, and as you know yourself, the midwest
is pretty spread out. If you want to get along in present day society,
most people need to be able to drive a car.

Thus, we (as a society) accept more collateral damage in order to
accomodate this basic necessity.

> ...almost callous > way that we treat travel by road
> -- and that means that people are going to die.

This is not the way society treats driving, and that is the reason for
all the (new) rules surrounding driving. It is an attempt to =reduce=
the number of people that die, while infringing as little as possible on
people's need for auto travel, and their percieved basic right to drive
a car. High risk, low necessity activities are curtailed, such as
driving home after a bender at the bar. I agree with this restriction.
Seat belt laws, while an infringement on people's personal freedom to
risk their own lives, are a counteraction to the other infringement on
people's rights to keep their money. MY money pays for YOUR injuries
when you crash unbelted, and this infringes on MY freedom. So, I don't
have a problem with seat belt laws (though I might favor a different
approach - crash unbelted and lose your health benefits). Laws that
make cars more crashworthy are also IMHO (mostly) a good thing, as it
brings economy of scale to something people want anyway (but don't want
to be the only one paying for).

I do find the strobes inside the red lights to be over the top, and rear
turn signals that can be seen for miles away are worse than silly. But
these are minor details - the need for which is probably driven not by
litigation, but rather, by the need to penetrate the fog of
overstimulation and underattention drivers are in now, be it from iPods
or from the increase in traffic.

Thus, another reason for what you view as restrictions on your freedoms
to drive are based on the simple fact that there just are more cars on
the road - exactly what you want to do to aviation. It creeps up
gradually, and we don't notice it happening, but I went to college in
Pasadena twenty years ago, and remember it being a certain way. I had
no trouble driving there, although there were a few busy streets, and I
had no trouble bicycling all over the place.

After twenty years, I went back. There is =no= =way= I would bicycle
there now, and it's damn near impossible to cross the street in a car
unless there is a traffic light. Driving on the streets that cross
avenues for more than a few blocks is well nigh hopeless unless there
are traffic lights.

> All you
> have to do is look at the way traffic lights are currently set up to
> realize that "traffic engineers" are no longer interested in the free
> flow of traffic -- all they care about is covering their ass so that no
> one will sue them.

Please elaborate. I don't see that, nor do I hear about people suing
traffic engineers. Is this a new trend?

> Thus was born the "left turn only arrow", and stop lights that are
> specifically timed to slow traffic.

I know about left turn only arrows, but have no reason to believe that
this is ass-covering. I see it as a natural result of having too many
cars coming the other way, compared with twenty years ago, when there
probably wasn't even a light, and you could wait for hours before seeing
a single car.

I don't know of stop lights designed to =slow= traffic. There are those
that are set for a speed which is slightly less than the speed limit.
This is appropriate. There are those that are simply not syncronized.
This is unfortunate, and wasn't a problem until there were just too many
traffic lights, because there is just too much traffic. Because that's
the bottom line. There just is too much traffic. Too many people in cars.

> We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
> time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
> afraid of dying that they can never live.

I agree with you here, but I don't see it coming from the same place you do.

> The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
> freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
> appreciate general aviation.

Yes, that is very very true. However, were I to elaborate on that, we'd
argue about what this administration is doing to our freedoms, and how
our government is keeping us artificially scared and ignorant in order
to further its extremely damaging agenda.

But let's not get into that in this thread. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> I've had experienced pilots put it into a PIO with 2 Gs out of the
> bottom and zero over the top.

I give up: What's a PIO?

Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

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

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> 2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual control
> feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full motion
> military sims.

True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant. Instrument
flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
motion can be useful). Movement is useful for enhancing realism (in
the best simulators, it's very easy to forget that it's all
make-believe). It _can_ help a bit with spatial disorientation,
although the movements of a full-motion sim aren't identical to those
of real life in some respects that can be significant for
disorientation. But mostly full motion is frosting on the cake.

> So, while you may be able to "fly" your home computer
> simulator with your choice of input devices, you would be "toast" in the
> real thing.

That is completely untrue.

Multiple people have already pointed out that some people are
naturally good at flying, even with zero experience. Others need
training. A few are so bad at it that no amount of training helps.

My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
instruments alone. Pilots who are very accustomed to specific
aircraft types that provide control feedback, and depend on that
feedback, may also have trouble.

> It is easy to sit in front of you home computer and "fly"
> 1-g maneuvers throughout the envelope, and quite another to pull
> high-g's repetitively while jinking in the real thing while looking back
> over your shoulder for the guy(s) trying to get you.

Granted, but in the vast majority of aircraft, pulling Gs is so bad
for the airframe that you'll never do it, anyway, unless you are
already in serious trouble.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I've given this some thought, however, and I don't see how it could
> happen. For aviation to truly expand would require stepping back to a
> simpler, less litigious time. We, as a society, would have to
> mentally accept and treat air travel in the same casual, almost callous
> way that we treat travel by road -- and that means that people are
> going to die.

But it also means that they would die in much greater numbers.

I'm sure most of us have heard that the sea is less forgiving than the
land, and the air is less forgiving than the sea (and space is less
forgiving than the air). This means that death rates go up with each
type of transportation. All else being equal, far more people will
always die in the air than on the ground. Commercial airlines reverse
this by fanatical devotion to safety (most of which is admittedly
forced upon them by the government), but fundamentally aviation is
many times more dangerous than travelling on land.

> So, given this state of affairs, we're going to have to settle for some
> half-steps. We're only going to be able to promote GA a little at a
> time, and hope that that's enough to save it, because our people are so
> afraid of dying that they can never live.
>
> The sad truth is that our society is no longer set up to embrace
> freedom -- and that means that most folks will never be able to
> appreciate general aviation.

I can fully agree with this part. Modern society is a culture of
fear, and a culture of fear is also one of diminishing freedoms.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> We don't treat road travel in a casual, callous way. What we =do= do is
> treat it as a necessity, a given, almost a right. And for driving, this
> is a good choice. With people spread out all over the place, the
> automobile is just about the most practical method of transportation
> there is, in most cases.

It is interesting to note that, based on what I've heard, air travel
in remote and rugged areas like Alaska has achieved a similar status.
Driving requires flat roads, but in places where flat roads are
impossible or impractical to construct, sometimes travel by air
becomes the more practical and widespread mode of transportation.
Unfortunately, it's still more dangerous than driving, but apparently
within certain limits it can be improved considerably.

> Even in the city, where driving is pretty
> aggravating, it usually still beats the bus, the subway, and certainly
> the airplane, for the kinds of trips most people take (which is to
> commute to work, to school, to the store, and to visit friends).

That depends. Here in Paris, which arguably has the best subway and
bus system in the world, these forms of transportation are superior to
travel by car. Once you're out in the suburbs where public
transportation is thin on the ground, though, the situation reverses.

> Seat belt laws, while an infringement on people's personal freedom to
> risk their own lives, are a counteraction to the other infringement on
> people's rights to keep their money. MY money pays for YOUR injuries
> when you crash unbelted, and this infringes on MY freedom.

I think it would be easier if insurance companies simply exempted
coverage for anyone not wearing a seat belt at the time of an
accident.

> So, I don't
> have a problem with seat belt laws (though I might favor a different
> approach - crash unbelted and lose your health benefits).

Almost the same as above. It provides more freedom at lower cost.

> I do find the strobes inside the red lights to be over the top, and rear
> turn signals that can be seen for miles away are worse than silly.

Strobes inside red lights?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Oh nonsense. How would you know what "a lot of people" do anyway.

Because some aspects of human behavior are well established.

> Actually most pilots I know are scared of using the chute and try
> anything to avoid the situation.

I don't blame them. If you're in a position to use a chute, you're in
serious trouble.

> Incidentally the European style microlight licence is valid in all
> countries part of the JAR group, which includes many European
> countries. It can be had at around 4000 EUR total costs, give or take.
> Downsides are the inability to fly at night or in certain airspaces.

The restrictions would probably be unacceptable to me. That's a lot
of money just to exclude night flight and some controlled airspaces.

In any case, I wouldn't have much use for a European license, as I'm
mostly interested in flying in U.S. airspace. In the U.S., the rules
are the same from coast to coast.

> Then again, the initial PPL VFR licence has the same regulations and
> requires "upgrades" to do anything else.

See above.

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

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Even driving is becoming less and less
> "free", as the lawyers and lawsuits increasingly constrict the free
> flow of traffic in exchange for a false feeling of "safety".

I imagine a certain J.H. after his wife and kids have been killed by
some freedom loving "casual" driver. Of course he will relaxedly lie
back and happily say "I accept it as the price for the free flow of
traffic. Get over it."

Stefan

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> john smith writes:
>
>> 2) Something the home computers will not simulate is the actual
>> control feel and mass/inertia effect of the actual aircrafat or full
>> motion military sims.
>
> True, but for many types of aviation, this is irrelevant.
>
It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
on course.

> Instrument
> flying doesn't require it; indeed, you're supposed to be _independent_
> of motion when flying on instruments (so to some extent a lack of
> motion can be useful).
>
See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
of motion.

> My theory is that real pilots who cannot land a PC simulator probably
> depend a great deal on sensations and visibility in real life. Pilots
> who can land a sim perfectly probably have a lot more experience with
> instruments alone.
>
My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
motion into something that works on the sim. That does NOT mean that the
same physical movement translations would work in the real thing, and has
nothing to do with "experience with instruements alone".

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> In any case, I wouldn't have much use for a European license, as I'm
> mostly interested in flying in U.S. airspace.
>

Stop bull****ting us! You have made it firmly clear here that you have
no interest in flying in any real airspace! Stop twisting the truth at
your convenience!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
> real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft and/or
> on course.

The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.

> See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is independent
> of motion.

Instrument flight is independent of motion.

> My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is dependent
> on the ability to translate the sim's representations of control vs.
> motion into something that works on the sim.

I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
for many pilots, especially GA pilots.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I give up: What's a PIO?

Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
phase of flight. I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category,
but apparently it is.

> Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

Planes are built to handle it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It's only irrelevant to simming. These effects are quite important to
>> real-world flying, as the pilot must counteract them to stay aloft
>> and/or on course.
>
> The actual control feel is not a big factor in many aircraft and many
> situations. The mass and inertia and so on are simulated correctly.
>
You are posting to a group that is largely GA. I don't know of any GA
planes where the effects of mass and inertia are not important to flying.
And, no, the mass and inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

>> See above. The simple fact is that *no* real-world flying is
>> independent of motion.
>
> Instrument flight is independent of motion.
>
Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
instrument or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that it is not the
motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

>> My theory is that the ability to land a simple PC sim (MSFS) is
>> dependent on the ability to translate the sim's representations of
>> control vs. motion into something that works on the sim.
>
> I partially disagree, as the absence of movement is probably a problem
> for many pilots, especially GA pilots.
>
So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
probability that you can't verify. Real intelligence at work, there.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> Real intelligence at work, there.
>

This discussion about instrument flight and motion was the very first
we went through with the village troll. He has gone through it
completely unchanged. Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
this guy is here to learn?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

> Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
> this guy is here to learn?

It's hard to tell, because so many are here to ridicule him.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
> the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
> phase of flight.

Like the book _Airframe_. I guess I should have remembered it.

> I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category, but apparently it is.

I've read about phugoid (what a bizarre word!) oscillations, both
pilot-induced and otherwise, and apparently they are universal to some
degree. When I first encountered these in simulation, I thought it
was an artifact of the simulation.

> Planes are built to handle it.

Well, a 737 can handle only 2.5 Gs. That's not a very wide margin of
safety.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You are posting to a group that is largely GA.

Yes. Unfortunately they think that anything they know about GA
applies to all the rest of aviation as well.

> I don't know of any GA planes where the effects of mass and
> inertia are not important to flying. And, no, the mass and
> inertia are not simulated correctly in MSFS.

What parts of mass and inertia are not simulated correctly,
specifically?

> Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as you have done no flying,
> instrument or otherwise.

But that is _your_ opinion, isn't it? I have found that GA pilots are
the least informed and competent of all pilots. That's why I take
whatever they say with a grain of salt, unless I know them personally
to be more competent than average.

> The fact of the matter is that it is not the
> motion you feel that is relevant to instrument flying, but the effects
> weather on the inertia and motion on the course and attitude of the
> airplane. These are not accurately simulated in MSFS.

What parts of the MSFS simulation are incorrect?

> So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
> probability that you can't verify.

No, I simply disagree. The rest is conjecture on your part.

Why do you persist in personal attacks? They just waste your time and
mine.

> Real intelligence at work, there.

Yes. It irritates some people, unfortunately.

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

[H. Adam Stevens]

"Walt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Doug Spencer writes:
>>
>> > Considering the FlightDesign CT is presently one of the most expensive
>> > light sport planes, as well as one of the best selling, the market
>> > apparently disagrees with you.
>>
>> Perhaps it has snob appeal.
>>
>> --
>
> Heh. Know what a Flight Design CT looks like? Not much snob appeal
> there. :>)
>
> My teenage daughter thinks it's "cute".
>
> That being said, the next brand new airplane I buy will be a CT. My big
> iron, IFR days (KC135) are long behind me, and the CT fits my mission
> profile nowadays, which is pretty much day VFR flying around Montana.
> If I had 90 large ones laying around I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
>
> --Walt
> Bozeman, Montana
>

Cuter than a bug.

http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

I used to feed a P Baron, this looks positively affordable.

Cheers
H.

[Mxsmanic]

H. Adam Stevens writes:

> Cuter than a bug.

And about the same size, too, from the looks of the photos.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> . That's why I take
> whatever they say with a grain of salt,
>

Then what are you doing here? Don't bother...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
> > Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
> > the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
> > phase of flight.
>
> Like the book _Airframe_. I guess I should have remembered it.
>
> > I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category, but apparently it is.
>
> I've read about phugoid (what a bizarre word!) oscillations, both
> pilot-induced and otherwise, and apparently they are universal to some
> degree. When I first encountered these in simulation, I thought it
> was an artifact of the simulation.
>
> > Planes are built to handle it.
>
> Well, a 737 can handle only 2.5 Gs. That's not a very wide margin of
> safety.

I don't know where MX gets hid info, but transport category are
certificated to 3.3g max, 4.9g ultimate loading (standard category).

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> What parts of the MSFS simulation are incorrect?
>
Why would you care?

>> So, you disagree based on a total lack of experience and a notion of
>> probability that you can't verify.
>
> No, I simply disagree. The rest is conjecture on your part.
>
It is not conjecture that you lack flight experience, as you have stated
that fact many times. It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your
notion of probability, because, among many other factors, you don't like
to meet people in real life (again, your own statement). There is no way
that you can get a relevant sample size to permit you to conclude
*anything* about pilots with that kind of policy.

> Why do you persist in personal attacks?
>
Just because your attacks lack a specific target does not mean that they
are impersonal when posted to a group of GA pilots. For example, you
stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least informed and competent
of all pilots." It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than you are
about flying real airplanes. You feel the need to make such comments, and
in response, I point them out to readers of this NG.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Anyone out there who wants to eplain again how
>> this guy is here to learn?
>
> It's hard to tell, because so many are here to ridicule him.
>
I read your comment as, "It's hard to tell (...how this guy is here to
learn) because so many are here to ridicule him." How would people wanting
to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation, should one exist? Or, did you
mean something else?

Happy New Year

Neil

[Blueskies]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
: Mxsmanic,
:
: > . That's why I take
: > whatever they say with a grain of salt,
: >
:
: Then what are you doing here? Don't bother...
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

The key is to not feed the troll, no matter how much we want to....

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> The key is to not feed the troll, no matter how much we want to....

Of course it would help if a clue-bird landed and people could
figure out that it's a troll.

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

[mad8]

as long as it has a runway and some lightly-leaded go-go juice, i'll
probably be a customer ;)
Jay Honeck wrote:
> > And if you are an enterprising enturpreneur who happens to fly, you want
> > to believe that the middle of the continent is probably a good place to
> > put a hotel.
>
> Well, for an ever-increasing number of pilots, it is!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> How would people wanting
> to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation...

It adds noise. I have found that he responds (slowly) to careful,
focused discussion which teases out the roots of his misconception or
miscommunication. However, this is hard to see if a great percentage of
the comments to him and about him are designed to ridicule. I will also
add that the pilots here ridiculing him have made aviation comments that
are also not very accurate or perceptive. (I've seen, and even made,
such errors myself in other unrelated threads, so this is not unique to Mx).

Mx's noise doesn't seem to be intended that way. It is just the natural
result of a headstrong attitude. However, those who ridicule him make
noise that =is= intended to be noise. It hides what signal there is,
and that is also intentional.

This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I think
he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Orval Fairbairn writes:

> I don't know where MX gets hid info, but transport category are
> certificated to 3.3g max, 4.9g ultimate loading (standard category).

I had the maneuvering limits in mind. With flaps retracted, for the
737, the positive limit is 2.5 Gs.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Then what are you doing here?

Some people here occasionally provide good, thorough answers. It's
worth the noise, which I'm very good at ignoring.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Why would you care?

I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
answer the question.

With someone like me, it's best not to say anything like "X exists"
unless you are prepared to describe it.

There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

> It is not conjecture that you lack flight experience, as you have stated
> that fact many times.

True.

> It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of probability,
> because, among many other factors, you don't like to meet people in real
> life (again, your own statement).

Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant. I
don't see how meeting people has anything to do with the accuracy of
MSFS simulation.

> Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...

What attacks?

You have not answered my question: Why do you persist in personal
attacks?

> For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
> informed and competent of all pilots."

It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.

> It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
> of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than you are
> about flying real airplanes.

Here again, this is conjecture. I find it worrisome that so many
self-described GA pilots cannot answer my questions, or give
demonstrably incorrect answers, or cannot even agree on an answer
among themselves. Clearly, if they were truly all well informed,
these things would be improbable.

> You feel the need to make such comments, and
> in response, I point them out to readers of this NG.

You feel the need to concentrate your discussion and attacks on me. I
feel the need to discuss aviation. When you are ready to discuss
aviation also, let me know. I am not interested in discussing you.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I think
> he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.

Well put.

While I admit that I don't understand MX, I also don't understand the
ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks. He's just
not *that* annoying, and is occasionally enlightening.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> I also don't understand the
> ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks.

I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I also don't understand the
> > ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks.
>
> I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
> pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Dang, I wouldn't have lasted two hours here, if I took stuff like that
personally....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
> pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.

Ego ... it is a difficult concept.

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

[Frank....H]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
>> public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
>> they are under pressure.
>
> No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
> reality, for better or for worse.
>
> Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
> instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
> obvious. The most complex automobiles have roughly the same number of
> dials as the simplest aircraft.

The lack of dials isn't really a good measure. My friends dump truck has
more dials than my Cessna. He drives on the same roads as my car. Does that
mean driving a dump truck is more complex than flying?

<snip>

>
> Some pilots exaggerate the complexity of flying, just as some pilots
> attach mystical significance to actual experience in a real aircraft
> (as opposed to simulation). However, flying is still complex enough
> even without these exaggerations.
>
>> It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
>> people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.
>
> It's only one of many reasons. The cost of flying in time and money
> puts off a great many people, as do medical requirements and safety
> issues.
>
>> Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
>> God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
>> destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier.
>
> Are there still women falling for that?

I wish.....


<snip>

>> This involved:
>>
>> 1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)
>> 2. Loading the plane
>> 3. Starting the plane
>> 4. Programming two GPS's
>> 5. Taking off, and turning to course.
>> 6. Climbing to altitude
>> 7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a
>> hundred times) to Racine.
>> 8. Land.
>>

<snip>

>
> Going there in a car involves:
>

What happened to checking tire pressures, oil and fuel levels, and lights?
Just because it's largely not done doesn't mean a "predrive" inspection
isn't a good idea. In fact, it's usually mentioned in the owner's manual.
You did read that didn't you?

> 1. Loading the car.
> 2. Starting the car.
> 3. Driving onto the highway and following the signs.

Which signs? Last time we went by car there were no signs that said
"Grandma's House". IOW, we had to navigate too.

You also left out the part where you had to apply skills/techniques like
merging, judging braking distances, and general car control at freeway
speeds.

> 4. Pulling into a parking place.

Judging by our lot here at work it's a lot tougher than you make it out to
be...... ;-)


>
> As you can see, it's a lot easier than flying.

I agree it's easier but...... If we treated driving the same we treated
flying it would appear more complex.

>
>> I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and
>> commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
>> They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
>> to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.
>
> Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
> is the training so complex and difficult?
>

I don't suggest that flying and driving are equal in complexity. I do think
that people tend to gloss over some of the complexity in driving, at least
in driving well. We drive so much that some of the skills needed become so
ingrained that we don't consider them anymore.

And to use training as the yardstick isn't fair either. Driver's Ed doesn't
include map reading skills, lost procedure skills, or anything else that
has to do with navigation.

Far less time is spent on regulations. Even less is spent on regulations
that have might have changed recently [1].

Pilots spend considerable time learning communications procedures.
Apparently the Drivers Ed equivalent has been eliminated altogether as I
haven't seen much proper use of turn signals in quite a while.

Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
skid" but we never practice it. Same with threshold braking, even in todays
world of ABS it is still worth doing.

No (formal) mention of weather is included in Drivers Ed. Particularly,
there is nothing taught about ice and fog.

Systems are largely untouched. Pilots are taught about fuel systems,
electrics, etc. even though there is little they can do about them while
airborne. Besides knowing how to change tanks, there is probably little
value to actual flying in me knowing how my fuel system's plumbing minutia.

As the old saying goes, flying is much more intolerant of error than
driving. We tolerate bad driving, much of which is due to inattention, to
the point where we believe it is so much easier than something that
requires constant attention to be done well.

Perhaps if we started investigating car accidents and issuing final cause
and recommendations like the NTSB does we would cut down on them. Of course
that would make driving more complex.

[1] An example that illustrates the different mind sets that leads to much
of what this discussion is all about:

An intersection near us that was a two way stop was recently rebuilt as a
roundabout. A good idea since the traffic, both in and out of the
intersection, was about equal. The drawback of course is that few of the
drivers using it have the first clue about how a roundabout is supposed to
work.

If driving were treated the same as flying there would be a campaign to
educate the drivers in proper use of the roundabout. I drive in Europe and
so I know you're supposed to yield to traffic in the roundabout and signal
your exit from it. I get mad when I see someone miss-using it, but I really
can't expect folks around here to know this because there has been zero
effort to explain it to them.



--
Frank....H

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> BucFan writes:
>
> > Site the statute please.
>
> You can look this up in about eight seconds on Google, but the statute
> in California is the California Vehicle Code, Division 11, Chapter 7,
> Article 1, Section 22350, Basic Speed Law.

You are, of course, wrong.

Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
endangers the safety of persons or property."

OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
which is reasonable and prudent. It does NOT establish that it
is LEGAL to drive at any reasonable and prudent speed, if your
reasonable and prudent speed exceeds the speed established
by other law.

In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
"Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
and traffic survey."

Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
that the department of transportation may, after conducting
an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
any conditions.

Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
meaning that you may be able to get away with
exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
absolute.

The law you cited never gives you the right to
exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
law means that you may be charged with
speeding in California even while travelling well
UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
or imprudent.

All the California vehicle code is available online
at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm

[Roger[_4_]]

On 2 Jan 2007 05:56:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> I give up: What's a PIO?
>
>Pilot Induced Oscillation. It's usually something that happens during
>the landing flare, but can happen on a short-coupled aircraft in any
>phase of flight. I wasn't aware that a Bonanza was in that category,
>but apparently it is.

It's more of a short coupled pilot that airplane.<:-))
A lot of pilots get used to responses of a Cherokee or 172 and for
some reason lean to rely on the VSI to stay level. That doesn't work
in the Bo which is much quicker in response. Where as if they see the
VSI showing a climb in the Cherokee and correct the Bo is quick enough
they can end up 180 degrees out of phase which makes for an
interesting ride. I usually start out by saying, "Remember, the VSI
is a *trend* instrument".
>
>> Isn't it bad for your aircraft to put it through 2 G stresses?

The Deb is utility category when loaded properly.
2Gs. Loop entry in the G-III is or can be around 5.<:-)) Or a little
more if you want to do two with one on top of the other. Of course
entry speed is a bit higher at 350 MPH.

BTW one of the things I enjoyed out of 16R was seeing an old Ford Tri
motor (think it was a Ford) doing a "low altitude" loop

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> And to use training as the yardstick isn't fair either. Driver's Ed doesn't
> include map reading skills, lost procedure skills, or anything else that
> has to do with navigation.

That's because you can pull over. In a plane, you can't. But point made.

> Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
> skid" but we never practice it.

I wonder if it would make a difference. Neutral question.

> No (formal) mention of weather is included in Drivers Ed. Particularly,
> there is nothing taught about ice and fog.

I don't see anything hazardous that is not obvious. The same is not
true in aviation. We are held away from death by nothing but a blast of
air.

> If driving were treated the same as flying there would be a campaign to
> educate the drivers in proper use of the roundabout.

The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
=know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug Spencer]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:09:58 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There are no incorrect parts of the simulation. Prove me wrong.

Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products. If
the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way? I'm
certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
pricing than to write new software in-house.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Doug Spencer]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:50:33 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> H. Adam Stevens writes:
>
> > Cuter than a bug.
>
> And about the same size, too, from the looks of the photos.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You mean this photo? It sure demonstrates the threat GA poses to
exclude it from the ADIZ FRZ... The CT looks like it'll eat you up and
spit you out. ;-)

http://flightdesign.com/__jpeg.php?image=gallery/gal/1159792001_115979200138.JPG&size_x=1000&size_y=700&type=b&logos=ok&ugol=3&logo_inv=1

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> How would people wanting
>> to ridicule Mx prevent such an explanation...
>
> It adds noise. I have found that he responds (slowly) to careful,
> focused discussion which teases out the roots of his misconception or
> miscommunication. However, this is hard to see if a great percentage
> of the comments to him and about him are designed to ridicule. I
> will also add that the pilots here ridiculing him have made aviation
> comments that are also not very accurate or perceptive. (I've seen,
> and even made, such errors myself in other unrelated threads, so
> this is not unique to Mx).
>
> Mx's noise doesn't seem to be intended that way. It is just the
> natural result of a headstrong attitude. However, those who ridicule
> him make noise that =is= intended to be noise. It hides what signal
> there is, and that is also intentional.
>
> This makes it hard to tell whether Mx is here to learn, or not. I
> think he is, and is just not very good at the necessary social skills.
>
Thanks for the explanation, Jose. While I agree with some of your
observations, I don't agree with your conclusion. I don't think it's very
hard to tell when someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt, and
the repeated attempts to disrupt are met with disdain, also a "natural
result" when confronted with such behavior.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Section 22350 says that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon
> a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having
> due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface
> and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which
> endangers the safety of persons or property."

Yes, I know.

> OK, so that establishes that it's illegal to drive faster than a speed
> which is reasonable and prudent.

See above.

> It does NOT establish that it is LEGAL to drive at any
> reasonable and prudent speed, if your reasonable and prudent
> speed exceeds the speed established by other law.

But in many cases there is no other governing law, in which case any
reasonable and prudent speed is legal.

> In particular, it doesn't override section 22349, which says
> "Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive
> a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles
> per hour. ... Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
> person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided
> highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless
> that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a
> higher speed by the Department of Transportation or
> appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering
> and traffic survey."

Yes, I know. Those are two special circumstances.

> Nor does it override section 22356, which says (paraphrased)
> that the department of transportation may, after conducting
> an engineering traffic study, raise the speed limit to 70
> mph on designated sections of freeways, but that no person
> shall drive faster than 70 MPH on any highway under
> any conditions.

I've read all these, thanks.

> Some of California's speed limits are prima facie,
> meaning that you may be able to get away with
> exceeding them if you can convince the judge that
> your speed was reasonable and prudent. But the
> 55, 65, and 70 mph limits quoted above are
> absolute.

I know.

> The law you cited never gives you the right to
> exceed an absolute speed limit, regardless of
> how safe the conditions were. In fact, that
> law means that you may be charged with
> speeding in California even while travelling well
> UNDER the posted speed limit, if conditions are such
> that the posted speed limit would be unreasonable
> or imprudent.

Yes. I know. I've done this research. In fact, I did most of it
years ago.

You said I was wrong about something, but you haven't said what it is.
Where was I wrong?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> Places like FlightSafety International spend a lot of money getting
> certification on their full motion, level-D flight simulators. That
> testing includes verifying the flight model, controls, sounds, motion
> response, and visual representation is as close to the original as a
> simulation can be. Even things like screen vibration from the sound
> harmonics in the Osprey simulator have held up certification.

I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

Certification doesn't mean the closest possible approach to real life
overall. It means an acceptably close approach to real life in
certain domains for which certification has been sought.

> I seriously doubt Microsoft puts anywhere near the effort required to
> represent true flight characteristics in their consumer products.

Microsoft didn't invent Flight Simulator, and it has a long tradition
of gradually improving simulation.

What are the specific flaws in the MSFS simulation?

> If the flight characteristics were correct in MSFS, then why doesn't
> FlightSafety just run MSFS on the back-end and certify that way?

If MSFS has flaws, why can't you name them?

> I'm certain it would cost less for them to leverage the consumer product
> pricing than to write new software in-house.

I don't see why they have to write their own software. For all I
know, they may be running MSFS. It would be kind of sad to reject it
just out of religious belief.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Frank....H writes:

> The lack of dials isn't really a good measure. My friends dump truck has
> more dials than my Cessna. He drives on the same roads as my car. Does that
> mean driving a dump truck is more complex than flying?

Maybe, if all else is equal.

> What happened to checking tire pressures, oil and fuel levels, and lights?

That stops at the end of Driver's Ed, I think.

And I'm sure that, for some pilots at least, preflight stops when they
get their license.

> Just because it's largely not done doesn't mean a "predrive" inspection
> isn't a good idea. In fact, it's usually mentioned in the owner's manual.
> You did read that didn't you?

I always do.

> Which signs?

The big ones by the road that indicate directions. They don't have
those in the sky.

> You also left out the part where you had to apply skills/techniques like
> merging, judging braking distances, and general car control at freeway
> speeds.

Nothing like entering a traffic pattern around a busy untowered
airport.

> I agree it's easier but...... If we treated driving the same we treated
> flying it would appear more complex.

And almost nobody would ever die in a car.

> Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
> skid" but we never practice it.

My high school did that, if you took the advanced classes.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Why would you care?
>
> I was just calling your bluff, knowing that you would not be able to
> answer the question.
>
You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question. Every
pilot who has used MSFS, including a pilot who is a MSFS MVP has told you
that there are significant differences between its behavior and real
flying. This is just one more example, and to us, it isn't a problem worth
discussing. So, why would anyone here be motivated to provide you with
such details?

>> It is not conjecture that you can not confirm your notion of
>> probability, because, among many other factors, you don't like to
>> meet people in real life (again, your own statement).
>
> Sorry, but not only is this conjecture, but it is also irrelevant.
>
No conjecture required. You have to meet people -- a significant number of
GA pilots in this case -- in order to assess their probable behaviors or
attitudes. You have done neither, therefore you can't possibly verify the
probability you tried to infer.

>> Just because your attacks lack a specific target ...
>
> What attacks?
>
See this:

>> For example, you stated: "I have found that GA pilots are the least
>> informed and competent of all pilots."
>
> It is an accurate generalization, as far as I know. And it is to be
> expected, given the requirements for various types of piloting.
>
Your "knowledge" is based on no training and/or real experience, so as far
as you know isn't very far at all. Such comments are simply attacks on GA
pilots in a group populated by GA pilots.

>> It is not insignificant that, regardless of your opinion
>> of GA pilots, the worst of them are more and better informed than
>> you are about flying real airplanes.
>
> Here again, this is conjecture.
>
No conjecture required. I simply stated the obvious; we fly, you do not,
ergo we are better informed about what it takes to fly than you are.

Neil

[Doug Spencer]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:23:14 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'm glad to hear that. What are the specific flaws in MSFS?

For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
known and specified time period with no overage.

Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
accurately portrayed at all times. QED

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger" > wrote

> As to age: After retiring, Joyce got me started in figure skating. I
> picked up most of the moves far faster than all but two of the kids in
> the classes. It took me about a year to learn to do a good scratch
> spin that was fast, prolonged and controllable.

FIGURE SKATING?

You doing a good scratch spin is something I might pay money to see! <g>

Not that I have anything against guys skating, or anything, but I just can't
imagine you skating. Sorry! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> While I admit that I don't understand MX, I also don't understand the
> ire he draws out of so many (normally) level-headed folks. He's just
> not *that* annoying, and is occasionally enlightening.

I don't understand how (normally) level headed folks can NOT get irked. He
IS that annoying, and I don't understand your defense of him. I'm about
ready to stop reading your posts, to get rid of his posts. I can't believe
that it is coming to this.

He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
have stopped reading this group because of him.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote

> The key is to not feed the troll, no matter how much we want to....

Therein lies the problem. Many people, for reasons unknown, do not think he
IS a troll.

Go figure.
--
Jim in NC

[Kevin Clarke]

worse yet, someone who is learning to fly might actually listen to him!
The kill file makes it somewhat manageable. If people would just quit
responding to his bluster and inanity we'd be fine.

KC

Morgans wrote:
>
> He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
> contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
> have stopped reading this group because of him.

[Kevin Clarke]

Nice thread Jay! :^) This one might be a record setter!

KC

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We just returned from a quick, overnight flight to Wisconsin, to attend
> a holiday gathering of family and friends, and I simply couldn't help
> but remark on the incredible utility and convenience of GA.
>
> In 90 minutes (as opposed to 5.5 hours) we were parked on the ramp in
> Racine, plugging Atlas in for the night. Twenty minutes later, we were
> sipping egg nog and enjoying the warmth of the holiday spirit with
> Mary's family.
>
> Today, we slept in late, enjoyed a late brunch with friends, and flew
> home in 100 minutes. The kids were back home, playing with their new
> games, 20 minutes after we landed.
>
> 3 hours and 10 minutes of enjoyable, XM-radio-enhanced flight, versus
> 11 hours of mind-numbing driving through aggravating Chicago-area
> traffic. God almighty, I can't understand for the life of me why there
> isn't an airplane in every American garage...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> He will never be part of the solution to get more people flying. In
> contrast, I would say that a lot of people that might be learning to fly,
> have stopped reading this group because of him.

Most people are completely indifferent to my presence here,
particularly those who are level-headed.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
> deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
> particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
> memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
> known and specified time period with no overage.
>
> Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
> accurately portrayed at all times.

Not every application requires a certification of this kind.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question.

When you have an answer, let me know.

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

[Doug Spencer]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:31:01 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Doug Spencer writes:
>
> > For one thing, to pass certification at level-D, your model has to be
> > deterministically "hard" real-time to process inputs and outputs in a
> > particular set time. This doesn't mean merely having a fast CPU and
> > memory, this means that an interrupt to the system is handled within a
> > known and specified time period with no overage.
> >
> > Without a hard real-time response, the flight model cannot be
> > accurately portrayed at all times.
>
> Not every application requires a certification of this kind.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Yes, but you asked for an example/reason why the flight model was
incorrect on your MSFS X simulator. I provided the reason. If your
computer is going to be non-deterministic, it cannot be an accurate
simulation.

Real, actual flying occurs in real-time. Read that previous sentence a
couple of times. If your flight model is not computed with inputs and
outputs being done in a hard real-time fashion, it is not going to be
an accurate model. If your computer will delay the processing of
your simulator's input or output because you've received a new e-mail,
it is busy processing a disk access, network request, or similar items
that occupy the resources of a computer, it is not an accurate
representation of flight.

Jay has already indicated that on his slower machine, there was a lag
in processing at various times. You will have similar lags to various,
unknown degrees on any system that is not a hard real-time system. That
is just one area where a simulation like MSFS will be incorrect. Even
on a realtime operating system, the program has to be written to
properly process tasks in realtime or it will still fail to represent
flight.

I used to play with the PC based flight simulator before taking lessons
and found it to be a very poor representation of the reality of flying.
There are far too many ways to fudge things in the simulator that just
don't work in real life.

Perhaps the group should scrape together a first flight gift
certificate for you and be done with the continued banter about things
you know little about? I expect you will find it a very different
experience than the simulator in ways you don't realize without that
experience.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Jose[_1_]]

> I don't think it's very hard to tell when
> someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt

It seems that those insulting Mx are trying to disrupt, and they often
post incorrect "information" too. The certainly succeed in disruption
more than the OP, who is easy to ignore, and easy to respond to.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> I think it's because when Mx clumsily questions the answers he gets from
> pilots, those pilots take it personally as a hit to their ego.
>

Hits on egos are, to a degree, an objective thing. There can be no doubt
that MX hits on egos of people trying to answer his questions. I am
convinced that he does so intentionally, but admit that is not clear. How
anyone cannot be annoyed and offended by his way of treating people is
beyond me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I don't understand how (normally) level headed folks can NOT get irked.
>

I couldn't agree more.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You know nothing other than I'm unwilling to answer your question.
>
> When you have an answer, let me know.
>
I have had the answer long before you asked.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> I don't think it's very hard to tell when
>> someone is trying to learn vs. trying to disrupt
>
> It seems that those insulting Mx are trying to disrupt, and they often
> post incorrect "information" too. The certainly succeed in disruption
> more than the OP, who is easy to ignore, and easy to respond to.
>
I don't think the issue is posting misinformation alone, at least that
isn't the issue for me. I don't expect to be right all the time, nor do I
expect it of others. Perhaps those insulting Mx are exhibiting typical
human behavior by responding to his insults?

Other things related to his presence generate disruptions to the group as
well. Posts that discuss him that he didn't start nor directly involve him
come to mind. One question is why someone would generate such reactions
from others? I understand it as a typical response to an outsider whose
primary objective is to provoke. One can witness such behavior in almost
any social venue.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> Yes, but you asked for an example/reason why the flight model was
> incorrect on your MSFS X simulator.

No, I wanted one of the actual defects in the simulation, not an
explanation of why alleged defects might be present.

> Real, actual flying occurs in real-time. Read that previous sentence a
> couple of times. If your flight model is not computed with inputs and
> outputs being done in a hard real-time fashion, it is not going to be
> an accurate model. If your computer will delay the processing of
> your simulator's input or output because you've received a new e-mail,
> it is busy processing a disk access, network request, or similar items
> that occupy the resources of a computer, it is not an accurate
> representation of flight.

So only analog computers can simulate flight correctly? They are the
only ones that react instantaneously.

> I used to play with the PC based flight simulator before taking lessons
> and found it to be a very poor representation of the reality of flying.

How long ago was that?

> Perhaps the group should scrape together a first flight gift
> certificate for you and be done with the continued banter about things
> you know little about?

What if I had exactly the same viewpoint after that first magic
flight? How would they explain it then?

> I expect you will find it a very different experience than the simulator
> in ways you don't realize without that experience.

Maybe, or maybe not. I haven't found that to be true with other types
of simulation.

I was reading a cockpit voice transcription from an incident in which
an aircraft had to move suddenly to avoid traffic after a TCAS alert.
In it, the pilots mention that, when they had done the maneuver in
simulation, everything had been the same, except that they had not
thought about the passengers and FAs in the back who might get thrown
around by the maneuver (since the pilots are securely strapped in, but
passengers and especially FAs are not). But I'm not sure how you'd
simulate that. A couple of recorded shrieks coming through the
cockpit door, perhaps?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I used to play with the PC based flight simulator before taking lessons
> and found it to be a very poor representation of the reality of flying.
> There are far too many ways to fudge things in the simulator that just
> don't work in real life.

Doug, you need to come fly the Kiwi before you can make a blanket
statement like that.

Last night, at Movie Night, I had the pleasure of watching a real
back-country pilot flying a Maule into a mountain airstrip on the Kiwi.


Watching him carve his way through familiar canyons, following the
creek he knows by heart back to the tiny little grass strip, then
watching him expertly perform a steep slip over the trees to a perfect
wheel landing was truly something to behold.

My reward: He was sweating. He's pronounced it as close to perfect as
it gets in a non-motion sim.

The 747 pilot had similar remarks. The B-26 check-pilot before him
pronounced it superior to the Link trainers that were used to train
WWII pilots. The accolades continue to pile up.

Dozens and dozens of pilots have "flown" the Kiwi, with similar
results.

Try it -- you'll like it!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm about
> ready to stop reading your posts, to get rid of his posts. I can't believe
> that it is coming to this.

Let me see if I'm following you here, Jim.

You're chiding *me* in a thread that *I* started for responding to a
guy who responded to me?

Have you been taking Montblack's pain meds again?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> The most important thing is to =stay= in the roundabout until you
> =know=, with sufficient lead time, where you get out.

No, the most important thing is for taxpayers (AKA: "Users") to lynch
traffic "engineers" who insist on foisting such silliness as
"roundabouts", "left turn only" arrows, and other "traffic calming
devices" on the rest of us.

A couple of years ago, right here in Iowa City, a bunch of these
so-called "engineers" installed (without warning or local input)
"chicanes" on a straight length of residential street, in an effort to
slow traffic. (Apparently one of the neighbors had repeatedly
complained about speeders.)

These chicanes were asphalt blockades, essentially, put in every couple
of hundred yards, forcing traffic to make a sharp swerve to the left or
right, in an effort to slow people down.

Within days the neighbors went absolutely ballistic, followed by the
city snow plow drivers, followed by the area teenagers -- who promptly
turned the street into a Grand Prix race course. "Hey, let's see how
fast we can make it through the chicanes!"

Within a month the "engineers" quietly removed the chicanes -- at a
cost of several hundred thousand dollars. They've now re-directed
their efforts into installing "round-abouts" and more "left turn only"
arrows...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Nice thread Jay! :^) This one might be a record setter!

Yeah, it's a good one.

Strangely, no one has blamed the failed Bush Administration, or the war
in Iraq, for ANYTHING...yet.

It'll come...it *always* comes...

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Watching him carve his way through familiar canyons, following the
> creek he knows by heart back to the tiny little grass strip, then
> watching him expertly perform a steep slip over the trees to a perfect
> wheel landing was truly something to behold.
>
> My reward: He was sweating. He's pronounced it as close to perfect as
> it gets in a non-motion sim.

Cool!

That reminds me of the video of the landing into that tiny French
mountain airport on your site. I can't even see the field until he's
practically on top of it, and it sounds like he has a lot of
experience flying into that kind of field. I can't remember if I
succeeded in finding that airport in MSFS. I think it is near Lyons.

> The 747 pilot had similar remarks. The B-26 check-pilot before him
> pronounced it superior to the Link trainers that were used to train
> WWII pilots. The accolades continue to pile up.

Simulation has come a long way.

> Try it -- you'll like it!

Yes!

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> And to use training as the yardstick isn't fair either. Driver's Ed
>> doesn't
>> include map reading skills, lost procedure skills, or anything else that
>> has to do with navigation.
>
> That's because you can pull over. In a plane, you can't. But point made.
>

But they don't teach you When to pull over and common sense isn't really all
that common.


>> Emergency procedures do not get practiced. We are told to "steer into a
>> skid" but we never practice it.
>
> I wonder if it would make a difference. Neutral question.
>

Tons, I did some autocrossing when I was in my early 20s. Before that I
thought I was a fairly good driver. After that I was a fairly good driver.


>> No (formal) mention of weather is included in Drivers Ed. Particularly,
>> there is nothing taught about ice and fog.
>
> I don't see anything hazardous that is not obvious. The same is not true
> in aviation. We are held away from death by nothing but a blast of air.
>

Again common sense isn't that common. Just look at what happens in most
places, even those where the hazard happens often (like snow in the North)
when the hazard develops.