Re: Small twin about to land gear up

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 21, 9:39 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> MSNBC is showing a small twin in Florida that is circling an airport.
> Apparently he can't get the nose gear down. Probably will have to land
> gear up on national news.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

I had to think a bit about what MSNBC was. I've always heard them
referred to as PMSNBC.

-Robert

[Maxwell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 21, 9:39 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>> MSNBC is showing a small twin in Florida that is circling an airport.
>> Apparently he can't get the nose gear down. Probably will have to land
>> gear up on national news.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> I had to think a bit about what MSNBC was. I've always heard them
> referred to as PMSNBC.
>
> -Robert
>

Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?

[gatt]

> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?

Me either. I only saw the reply.

-c

>
>

[Allen[_1_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>
> Me either. I only saw the reply.
>
> -c

Only the replies, SWBELL.net

Aircraft is a 1969 Cessna 310P, nose gear did not extend. Owner, his dog and
an instructor. Appears all are OK.

[Peter R.]

On 5/21/2007 2:24:08 PM, "Maxwell" wrote:

>
> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?

Me neither...

--
Peter

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> >> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message
> >> here?
> >
> > Me either. I only saw the reply.
> >
> > -c
>
> Only the replies, SWBELL.net
>
> Aircraft is a 1969 Cessna 310P, nose gear did not extend. Owner, his dog
> and an instructor. Appears all are OK.

Ok... So why would anyone take their dog on an instructional flight, errr,
any flight really??? That is really strange.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jose]

> Ok... So why would anyone take their dog on an instructional flight, errr,
> any flight really??? That is really strange.

Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too. Maybe he's a bird dog.

:) Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>> >> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message
>> >> here?
>> >
>> > Me either. I only saw the reply.
>> >
>> > -c
>>
>> Only the replies, SWBELL.net
>>
>> Aircraft is a 1969 Cessna 310P, nose gear did not extend. Owner, his dog
>> and an instructor. Appears all are OK.
>
> Ok... So why would anyone take their dog on an instructional flight, errr,
> any flight really??? That is really strange.
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8
> PP-ASEL
> Temecula, CA
> http://flying.4alexanders.com

We always take our Yorkies with us when we fly, how else would they get to
see Grandma? Doesn't seem to bother them, they are always eager to get in.

[Private]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Ok... So why would anyone take their dog on an instructional flight,
>> errr,
>> any flight really??? That is really strange.
>
> Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too. Maybe he's a bird dog.
>
> :) Jose
> --

I read a great post years ago discussing what plane was best to fly to
Alaska. The author said he always took his dog because "He was always ready
to drop whatever he was doing and just go." (for a ride)

Happy landings,

[Maxwell]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too. Maybe he's a bird dog.
>

Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:31:55 GMT, Private wrote:

> The author said he always took his dog because "He was always ready
> to drop whatever he was doing and just go." (for a ride)

So am I... but my phone never rings. :-(

--
Dallas

[ManhattanMan]

Shirl wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote:
>>> Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too.
>>> Maybe he's a bird dog.
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.
>
> Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.
>
> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've
> taken her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with
> us, why not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

Mine insists on having her head out the window in the car........ :)

[Shirl]

"Jose" > wrote:
> > Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too.
> > Maybe he's a bird dog.

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.

Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.

I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/21/07 13:35, Shirl wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote:
>> > Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too.
>> > Maybe he's a bird dog.
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.
>
> Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.
>
> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
> her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
> not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

Nothing odd, but you do have to be careful of CG issues. I remember
hearing about a group of guys that were going hunting and took their
hunting dogs with them. Upon take off, the dogs slid to the aft part
of the cargo area and the plane was rendered uncontrollable.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
> her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
> not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."

I had a dog as a kid, and I liked the dog and all. In the end, I realize
it is just a dog. Some people like to think they are "family" and what
not, but it is just an animal.

Maybe it is not the taking the dog flying that is odd. This is probably
the mindset that thinks it is ok to bring his do to the store to go
shopping.

I guess flying is so enjoyable, that even dogs like flying. <shrug> I
dunno. I can not imagine the loud noise is good on his keen hearing. That
has got to hurt its ears.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jose]

> This is probably the mindset that thinks
> it is ok to bring his do to the store to go
> shopping.

How else would he pick out the food the dog likes? :)

> I can not imagine the loud noise is good on his keen hearing.

Not good on people's hearing either. But it's a question of how often,
how long, how loud, and whether or not they wear noise cancelling
headsets. (yes, there are headsets for dogs).

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."
>
> I had a dog as a kid, and I liked the dog and all. In the end, I realize
> it is just a dog. Some people like to think they are "family" and what
> not, but it is just an animal.
>

If you find yourself saying "It's just a dog", then that says it all.

In my mind, any society is best judged on the way it treats it's animals.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> If you find yourself saying "It's just a dog", then that says it all.
>
> In my mind, any society is best judged on the way it treats it's animals.

Well, there ya have it then. I do like animals, quite a lot infact, but
they are just that; animals.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > This is probably the mindset that thinks
> > it is ok to bring his do to the store to go
> > shopping.
>
> How else would he pick out the food the dog likes? :)

HaHa Yeah, I suppose you got a point. ;-)

> > I can not imagine the loud noise is good on his keen hearing.
>
> Not good on people's hearing either. But it's a question of how often,
> how long, how loud, and whether or not they wear noise cancelling
> headsets. (yes, there are headsets for dogs).

Hmm. That is another thing I did not know. A dog headset... ANR at that.
Who would have thunk it.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message ...
>> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
>> her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
>> not on the plane? What's so odd about that?
>
> I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."

It is not just dog people that I don't get.

At an operation where I was taking instruction, one of the solo students
wanted to take his hamster up for a flight.

I can't imagine why.

The management told him "no way".

I can't imagine why.

Vaughn

[chris[_1_]]

On May 22, 8:35 am, Shirl > wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote:
> > > Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too.
> > > Maybe he's a bird dog.
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.
>
> Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.
>
> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
> her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
> not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

I rent and they're absolutely against dogs in aero club planes. Pity
really, would be nice to go away for the weekend and take the dog...
I was specifically warned about it once our chief met my dog. "I
don't want to see you coming out here with a doggy harness"

Mind you, our dog is terrified of loud noises, so I guess a roaring
airplane wouldn't be her idea of fun.

[Sylvain]

wrote:
>
> Hmm. That is another thing I did not know. A dog headset... ANR at that.
> Who would have thunk it.

haven't found any cat version though, this is blatant discrimination.

--Sylvain

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Sylvain wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. That is another thing I did not know. A dog headset... ANR at
>> that. Who would have thunk it.
>
> haven't found any cat version though, this is blatant discrimination.
>
> --Sylvain

Protecting a cat's hearing is not critical. It's not like they listen to
you.

[Jim Stewart]

Maxwell wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."
>>
>> I had a dog as a kid, and I liked the dog and all. In the end, I realize
>> it is just a dog. Some people like to think they are "family" and what
>> not, but it is just an animal.
>>
>
> If you find yourself saying "It's just a dog", then that says it all.

My thoughts too.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 21, 2:09 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."
>
> > I had a dog as a kid, and I liked the dog and all. In the end, I realize
> > it is just a dog. Some people like to think they are "family" and what
> > not, but it is just an animal.
>
> If you find yourself saying "It's just a dog", then that says it all.
>
> In my mind, any society is best judged on the way it treats it's animals.

In fact treating a dog as a person can be quite stressful on the dog.
Dogs have different ideas about social behavior and hierarchy and
trying to force them to live in a way that humans like to live is a
serious disservice to the animal. People who put clothes on their dogs
require psychological help.

-Robert

[Sylvain]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Protecting a cat's hearing is not critical. It's not like they listen to
> you.

oh, but they certainly do listen, they are just smart enough to ignore
the irrelevant bits. Dogs aren't that refined with all the tail wagging
and all :-)

seriously though: when you carry a dog -- the larger kind -- what kind
of restraint do you use (if any)?

--Sylvain

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-21 12:11:08 -0700, said:

>>>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message
>>>> here?
>>>
>>> Me either. I only saw the reply.
>>>
>>> -c
>>
>> Only the replies, SWBELL.net
>>
>> Aircraft is a 1969 Cessna 310P, nose gear did not extend. Owner, his dog
>> and an instructor. Appears all are OK.
>
> Ok... So why would anyone take their dog on an instructional flight, errr,
> any flight really??? That is really strange.

For whatever reason. The dog was in the baggage compartment. Some dogs
really like to fly.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-21 11:24:09 -0700, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On May 21, 9:39 am, C J Campbell >
>> wrote:
>>> MSNBC is showing a small twin in Florida that is circling an airport.
>>> Apparently he can't get the nose gear down. Probably will have to land
>>> gear up on national news.
>>> --
>>> Waddling Eagle
>>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>>
>> I had to think a bit about what MSNBC was. I've always heard them
>> referred to as PMSNBC.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?

Oddly enough, even I do not see it!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Shirl]

Shirl wrote:
> > I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
> > her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
> > not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

Mark Hansen > wrote:
> Nothing odd, but you do have to be careful of CG issues. I remember
> hearing about a group of guys that were going hunting and took their
> hunting dogs with them. Upon take off, the dogs slid to the aft part
> of the cargo area and the plane was rendered uncontrollable.

Yeah, with large dogs, especially two of them, it would/should take more
thought. Mine is a Jack Russell, only 14 lbs, and she happily travels in
a very small doggy crate. She keeps asking for a PTT.

As for them being "just animals", they can provide one heck of a lot of
companionship and enrichment to one's life just the same. I guess what
you don't know you don't miss.

[Jose]

> Dogs have different ideas about social behavior and hierarchy and
> trying to force them to live in a way that humans like to live is a
> serious disservice to the animal.

True, but that's not why "it's only a dog" is objectionalbe. It's
because the emphasis is not on "dog" but on "only".

> People who put clothes on their dogs
> require psychological help.

Agreed. But that's not what it's about either.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> As for them being "just animals", they can provide one heck of a lot of
> companionship and enrichment to one's life just the same. I guess what
> you don't know you don't miss.

But I do know... I had a dog for 12 years, and it certainly did suck when
he died. In addition, I've had many cats throughout the years. So I do
know. Frankly, I do not miss having animals and the extra work that is
associated with them. None the less, I would not classify me as a dog
person. But hey, if a dog likes flying it can't be half bad. ;-)

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> True, but that's not why "it's only a dog" is objectionalbe. It's
> because the emphasis is not on "dog" but on "only".

So now I guess my dog comments took us WAY off topic..,

I want to take this opportunity to clarify my original post. When I said
"Only a Dog" it was meant to be in the perspective of "just below human".
As I read your sentence, I interpret the "only a dog" comment as being read
as "on par with garbage." That is truely not my intent of the original
comment. I would never discard someones pet as such. However, at the same
time, it is not a human life.

So... Anyway... To each his own I guess, I will just not ever understand.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Sylvain]

wrote:

> "Only a Dog" it was meant to be in the perspective of "just below human".

it could be argued though that any species alive today has just as
successfully as the next passed the natural selection process that
brought us all here, and thus is neither below nor above any other
similarly successful species. Dinosaurs are dead, and therefore
were not as good as us, we won, they lost, at the only game that
matters. On the other hand, dogs, ants, amoebas, jelly fishes, etc.
and ourselves have an equal claim to success :-); actually, as far
as dogs and humans are concerned, one found a way to get fed and cared
for by the other one, for free... all depends on how you define
superiority or success :-) but I am digressing here quite a bit.

--Sylvain

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>
>it could be argued though that any species alive today has just as
>successfully as the next passed the natural selection process that
>brought us all here, and thus is neither below nor above any other
>similarly successful species. Dinosaurs are dead, and therefore
>were not as good as us, we won, they lost, at the only game that
>matters. On the other hand, dogs, ants, amoebas, jelly fishes, etc.
>and ourselves have an equal claim to success :-); actually, as far
>as dogs and humans are concerned, one found a way to get fed and cared
>for by the other one, for free... all depends on how you define
>superiority or success :-) but I am digressing here quite a bit.


And that says it all right there. I may need to rethink my pecking
order based upon your thoughts here. Makes you wonder who is really
at the top, don't it? :-)

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jose]

> Makes you wonder who is really
> at the top, don't it? :-)

The expression "top dog" ain't for nuthin'. :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> But hey, if a dog likes flying it can't be half bad. ;-)

I had one of those rare, super smart, obedient, loyal, easy-going dogs that
went everywhere with me, including riding the motorcycle for long distances
on the road.

Although she has been gone for many years, I'm sure she would love riding
airplanes.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote

> seriously though: when you carry a dog -- the larger kind -- what kind
> of restraint do you use (if any)?

A harness (not a collar) and a short leash tied off to a seat leg, or
seatbelt will do well to give the animal some room to move and get
comfortable, without flying around the cabin.
--
Jim in NC

[Shirl]

:
> But I do know... I had a dog for 12 years, and it certainly did suck when
> he died. In addition, I've had many cats throughout the years. So I do
> know. Frankly, I do not miss having animals and the extra work that is
> associated with them. None the less, I would not classify me as a dog
> person. But hey, if a dog likes flying it can't be half bad. ;-)

Cleaning up after (the "extra work") your spouse and kids gets old too,
but ya love 'em having them around just the same. On occasion, the dog
has even been known, by some, to be better company.
;-)

[Maxwell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In fact treating a dog as a person can be quite stressful on the dog.
> Dogs have different ideas about social behavior and hierarchy and
> trying to force them to live in a way that humans like to live is a
> serious disservice to the animal. People who put clothes on their dogs
> require psychological help.
>

Agreed!

I'm a firm beleiver that dogs (and most other animals) are people too, but
should still be treated per their respective needs. You have to let dogs be
dogs, just as kids will be kids, easly on the specific expectations. Room to
excercise is also just as important, and etc, etc.

Clothing only when it benefits and does not irritate the dog.

[BT]

do you have your filter set to short?
I got it all.. 12 hrs later

BT

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>
> Me either. I only saw the reply.
>
> -c
>
>>
>>
>
>

[Private]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007052115292427544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-05-21 11:24:09 -0700, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> On May 21, 9:39 am, C J Campbell >
>>> wrote:
snip
>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>
> Oddly enough, even I do not see it!
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

I got it on R.A.S., it never did show up on R.A.P.

Happy landings,

[Maxwell]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> do you have your filter set to short?
> I got it all.. 12 hrs later
>
> BT
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>>
>> Me either. I only saw the reply.
>>

I don't use any filters or kill files, and still haven't seen it.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I want to take this opportunity to clarify my original post. When I said
> "Only a Dog" it was meant to be in the perspective of "just below human".
> As I read your sentence, I interpret the "only a dog" comment as being
> read
> as "on par with garbage." That is truely not my intent of the original
> comment. I would never discard someones pet as such. However, at the same
> time, it is not a human life.
>

I value the life of both of my dogs much more than many of the so called
humans I have met in my lifetime. They are much more trustworthy friends,
and return a loyalty, commitment and unconditional acceptance than most
people can even fake long enough to take advantage of you.

My first dog raised me from the time I picked him out of a litter when I was
4 years old, until I had to put him down when I was 26.

[Maxwell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007052115292427544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>
>> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>
> Oddly enough, even I do not see it!

I think I see all your others CJ, but it seems this on escaped several of
us.

[Tom Conner]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > On May 21, 9:39 am, C J Campbell >
> > wrote:
> >> MSNBC is showing a small twin in Florida that is circling an airport.
> >> Apparently he can't get the nose gear down. Probably will have to land
> >> gear up on national news.
> >> --
> >> Waddling Eagle
> >> World Famous Flight Instructor
> >
> > I had to think a bit about what MSNBC was. I've always heard them
> > referred to as PMSNBC.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> Is it just me, or didn't anyone else not get CJs original message here?
>
>

For whatever reason, Earthlink has been dropping, missing, losing posts for
about a month now.

[Dave Stadt]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...

>actually, as far as dogs and humans are concerned, one found a way to get
fed and cared
> for by the other one, for free... all depends on how you define
> superiority or success :-)

Except those in the numerous countries that see them as a source of protein.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-21, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> Nothing odd, but you do have to be careful of CG issues. I remember
> hearing about a group of guys that were going hunting and took their
> hunting dogs with them. Upon take off, the dogs slid to the aft part
> of the cargo area and the plane was rendered uncontrollable.

I would never advocate this... but on 'unsecured dogs' - there's a video
out there (I'm sure it's on YouTube) where the camera is on top of the
instrument panel. In the picture, you can see two guys looking
completely deapan.

Then you see a dog gently levitate above their heads, wearing a very
surprised look, then gently disappearing behind them... very funny, but
not something I'd do or advocate!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[mike regish]

And it's women and children.

mike

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> In my mind, any society is best judged on the way it treats it's animals.
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-05-21, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> > Nothing odd, but you do have to be careful of CG issues. I remember
> > hearing about a group of guys that were going hunting and took their
> > hunting dogs with them. Upon take off, the dogs slid to the aft part
> > of the cargo area and the plane was rendered uncontrollable.
>
> I would never advocate this... but on 'unsecured dogs' - there's a video
> out there (I'm sure it's on YouTube) where the camera is on top of the
> instrument panel. In the picture, you can see two guys looking
> completely deapan.
>
> Then you see a dog gently levitate above their heads, wearing a very
> surprised look, then gently disappearing behind them... very funny, but
> not something I'd do or advocate!
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

It was no wonder the dog looked surprised--he could see the oil pressure
guage!

[Andy Lutz]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. That is another thing I did not know. A dog headset... ANR at
>> that.
>> Who would have thunk it.
>
> haven't found any cat version though, this is blatant discrimination.
>
> --Sylvain
>
I don't know if its discrimination, I have had lots of cats, and I think
they are all deaf anyway. None of them listen.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> I would never advocate this... but on 'unsecured dogs' - there's a video
> out there (I'm sure it's on YouTube) where the camera is on top of the
> instrument panel. In the picture, you can see two guys looking
> completely deapan.
>
> Then you see a dog gently levitate above their heads, wearing a very
> surprised look, then gently disappearing behind them... very funny, but
> not something I'd do or advocate!

It is also on Jay's website videos.
--
Jim in NC

[DR]

Shirl wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote:
>>> Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too.
>>> Maybe he's a bird dog.
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.
>
> Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.
>
> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've taken
> her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with us, why
> not on the plane? What's so odd about that?

Maybe the NOISE isn't good for them?

Cheers

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-22 19:01:02 -0700, DR > said:

> Shirl wrote:
>> "Jose" > wrote:
>>>> Why not take the dog? Dogs like to fly too. Maybe he's a bird dog.
>>
>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>> Yeah, or maybe an AIRdale.
>>
>> Yeah, or maybe a SKIPPERkee.
>>
>> I didn't take my dog ("Rudder") on instructional flights, but I've
>> taken her pleasure flights ... why not? We take them in the car with
>> us, why not on the plane? What's so odd about that?
>
> Maybe the NOISE isn't good for them?
>
> Cheers

Doesn't seem to bother them. Some people make earmuffs for dogs.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Maxwell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007052312004438165-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-05-22 19:01:02 -0700, DR > said:
>>
>> Maybe the NOISE isn't good for them?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Doesn't seem to bother them. Some people make earmuffs for dogs.

I have never take my dogs flying, but if noise bothers them, it's dependant
on the pitch. The often lay around the shop floor in some of the nosiest
situations and sleep, when they have the option of getting up and simply
walking outside. It's often made me wonder.

But on the other hand, the smoke detector, the weather channel warning tone,
or the EMS tone on television, obviously hurts them instantly.

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/23/07 15:11, Maxwell wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007052312004438165-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-05-22 19:01:02 -0700, DR > said:
>>>
>>> Maybe the NOISE isn't good for them?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> Doesn't seem to bother them. Some people make earmuffs for dogs.
>
> I have never take my dogs flying, but if noise bothers them, it's dependant
> on the pitch. The often lay around the shop floor in some of the nosiest
> situations and sleep, when they have the option of getting up and simply
> walking outside. It's often made me wonder.
>
> But on the other hand, the smoke detector, the weather channel warning tone,
> or the EMS tone on television, obviously hurts them instantly.
>
>

Not to mention the music played by some of the ice cream trucks ;-\ Those
things drive my dog nuts!


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> I have never take my dogs flying, but if noise bothers them, it's
>> dependant
>> on the pitch. The often lay around the shop floor in some of the nosiest
>> situations and sleep, when they have the option of getting up and simply
>> walking outside. It's often made me wonder.
>>
>> But on the other hand, the smoke detector, the weather channel warning
>> tone,
>> or the EMS tone on television, obviously hurts them instantly.

> Not to mention the music played by some of the ice cream trucks ;-\ Those
> things drive my dog nuts!

It is all in the frequency of the noise. High frequency noises drive them
nuts. They hear stuff we can not even begin to hear.

So yes, I agree that noise in general is not a great problem. That said, if
your dog flies a lot, I would get hearing muffs.

They can be trained to wear anything, with positive reinforcement (food and
associated praise) in short sessions, getting longer and longer, until they
think wearing them is going to get praise and ......FOOD !!!
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

Morgans wrote:


>> Not to mention the music played by some of the ice cream trucks ;-\ Those
>> things drive my dog nuts!
>
> It is all in the frequency of the noise. High frequency noises drive them
> nuts. They hear stuff we can not even begin to hear.

true, though I suspect in this case a more pavlovian response: ice cream
truck music means ICE CREAM!!! some dogs love it too :-)

> They can be trained to wear anything, with positive reinforcement (food
> and associated praise) in short sessions, getting longer and longer, until
> they think wearing them is going to get praise and ......FOOD !!!

the techique works relatively well across species; I hear that some great
apes can be convinced to stay hours on end in little boxes called cubicle
thinking that it is going to get them praise, food and avgas money as
well... but I digress. :-)

--Sylvaion

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-21 14:53:04 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > said:

> On May 21, 2:09 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't know. I guess I just do not get "dog people."
>>
>>> I had a dog as a kid, and I liked the dog and all. In the end, I realize
>>> it is just a dog. Some people like to think they are "family" and what
>>> not, but it is just an animal.
>>
>> If you find yourself saying "It's just a dog", then that says it all.
>>
>> In my mind, any society is best judged on the way it treats it's animals.
>
> In fact treating a dog as a person can be quite stressful on the dog.
> Dogs have different ideas about social behavior and hierarchy and
> trying to force them to live in a way that humans like to live is a
> serious disservice to the animal. People who put clothes on their dogs
> require psychological help.
>
> -Robert

There are exceptions. One is taking funny photos, of course.

Sled dogs usually wear booties now. The booties are becoming more
popular with dog owners who are concerned about frostbite.

Certain short-hair varieties should probably not be allowed outside in
winter without some sort of covering. But then, hairless dogs are just
wrong. :-)

No, you treat the dog as a dog. You make sure from the beginning that
the dog regards you as the alpha male and it makes training a lot
easier. You start treating a dog like a person and it will act like a
person -- ungrateful and likely to bite.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-21 16:07:59 -0700, Sylvain > said:

> wrote:
>
>> "Only a Dog" it was meant to be in the perspective of "just below human".
>
> it could be argued though that any species alive today has just as
> successfully as the next passed the natural selection process that
> brought us all here, and thus is neither below nor above any other
> similarly successful species.

The problem with that view is that once you begin to regard a chicken
as being as valuable as a human, you end up having no more regard for
the life of a human than you do for a chicken. This is the
philosophical trap that many animal rights activists have fallen into.
Some of these people are downright genocidal, openly advocating human
extinction. Timothy McVey was one such.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Private]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007052407404511272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
> No, you treat the dog as a dog. You make sure from the beginning that the
> dog regards you as the alpha male and it makes training a lot easier. You
> start treating a dog like a person and it will act like a person --
> ungrateful and likely to bite.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

Nicely said, and IMHO very true.

[Peter R.]

On 5/24/2007 10:40:48 AM, C J Campbell wrote:

> No, you treat the dog as a dog. You make sure from the beginning that
> the dog regards you as the alpha male and it makes training a lot
> easier. You start treating a dog like a person and it will act like a
> person -- ungrateful and likely to bite.

Sounds like a similar philosophy for raising children. :)

--
Peter

[Shirl]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> The problem with that view is that once you begin to
> regard a chicken as being as valuable as a human, you
> end up having no more regard for the life of a human
> than you do for a chicken.

That's a huge, unfounded leap.
Not everyone who generally values all life and doesn't see a need to
prioritize one over the other (generally speaking) automatically ends up
having *less* regard for human life than other creatures they care
about. Yeah, that's true for *some* activists -- and of course those are
the ones that *all* animal rights people are lumped together with -- but
not everyone who treats their family pet as a family member or who
respects farm animals or wild animals ends up as a wacko.