Angel Flight gets some good local press

Dan Luke wrote:

That seemed to be your point.

No, it wasn't my point.

You were the one going on about the
sacrifices you make for Angel Flight. Do they make you miserable?

I never used the term sacrifice, as it was too strong a word for this
context. You were the one who used it first.

Drescher minimized his stature as a humanitarian for being an Angel
Flight pilot, with which I agree. I don't think I'm making any
sacrifices; it's hard for me to pat myself on the back for doing
something that is so much fun.

If my post were interpreted by you as a pat on my back, my apologies for my
poor attempt at communication. Tough medium here.

My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else. My point was that I disagreed with this
interpretation.


--
Peter













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

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
As much as some pilots hate to pat themselves on the back, IMHO the local
newsies should be notified about every Angel Flight. Gotta get the word
out that we are not rich playboys.

Bob, I volunteer for Angel Flight too; it's a worthy organization. But I
don't think that sort of volunteerism speaks as well for pilots as you
suggest. After all, if the main goal were to help others, there'd be *much*
more cost-effective ways to do so than by flying Angel Flight missions.
Angel Flight does make recreational flying a bit less uselessly hedonistic
than it would otherwise be--which is why I volunteer for the missions. But I
don't think we sould kid ourselves into thinking that Angel Flight
volunteering makes us especially humanitarian.

Gary:

I live in the Rocky Mountain area and Angel Flight here is really
necessary. All too many of our pax are nowhere near a major airport
or even a train station. And when they need to be in Denver (or
Phoenix or SLC or...) every week or every other week, it becomes
both an emotional and physical drain. One couple I've flown needs to
travel from middle Kansas to Denver every other week. It's
a 10-12 hour drive yet only 3-4 hours by Angel Flight. It's a 3 hour
drive just for them to get to an airport that's served by a commuter
flight. Yet there's a GA airport 30 min from where they live.

My memory is often faulty but IIRC Angel Flight was the only non-military,
non-govt. "airline" in the skies, moving blood to the East Coast
after 9-11. But I could be wrong. Often am.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else.

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
encourage others to do the same.

--Gary

"Blanche Cohen" wrote in message
...
I live in the Rocky Mountain area and Angel Flight here is really
necessary. All too many of our pax are nowhere near a major airport
or even a train station.

True, my perspective is colored by my own local experiences with AF. Here in
the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience (albeit a significant
one!) rather than necessity.

--Gary

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:57:17 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else.

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
encourage others to do the same.

I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.

Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
their medical conditions.

How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
finances to help them?

-Nathan

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.

Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
their medical conditions.

How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
finances to help them?

It's not that the same resources could necessarily be put to better use for
the *same beneficiaries* (although if they're close to bankruptcy, they
might actually benefit more if we stayed at home and just donated to them
what the cost of the flight would have been--including all expenses, plus
the value of our time). Rather, my point is that for the cost of a single
Angel Flight, we could e.g. buy antibiotics for children who would otherwise
die of easily preventable diseases, saving many lives.

Again, Angel Flights do accomplish a great deal of good, and it's not
necessarily unreasonable for us to act from a combination of altruistic and
selfish motivations. I just want to maintain a realistic perspective about
what that combination is.

--Gary

Gary wrote:

Here in the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience
(albeit a significant one!) rather than necessity.

A 4 year old child loses both kidneys and is on dialysis. He needs a
transplant and the doctor who is to perform the transplant is 8 hours
away by car. His family hears about Angel Flight and asks for help.
Angel Flight Northeast steps in and is able to fly this boy and his
mother to the transplant and for every follow-up appointment over the
next year (from Rochester, NY, to Boston) to see if the kidney is being
rejected.

Convenience or necessity?

A woman is in the late stages of cancer and is close to death. She
wants more than anything else to witness her daughter's wedding, which
is located in the middle of Maine, far from any commercial airport.
She is unable to make the seven-to-ten hour car ride and cannot fly the
airlines due to her lower immune system. She hears about Angel Flight
and is able to get a flight from Teterboro to mid-Maine. She
witnesses her child's wedding, then dies sometime soon thereafter.

Convenience or necessity?

Gary, I don't mean to stir the waters here with you, but I do perceive
flying for AF a bit differently than my interpretation of how you
perceive it. I perceive it as more of a necessity for these people
than a convenience. How many of AF's patients would opt to skip an
important follow-up appointment if they were faced with a long car ride
each month?

--
Peter R.
(via cumbersome Google Groups)

Gary wrote:

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.

I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.


To me flying for AF seems like it has a greater, direct impact on those
who utilize the service.

--
Peter R.

"Peter R." wrote in message
ups.com...
Gary wrote:

Here in the northeast, AF is often a matter of convenience
(albeit a significant one!) rather than necessity.

A 4 year old child loses both kidneys and is on dialysis. ...
Convenience or necessity?

Peter, I did say 'often', not 'always'.

In any case, I'm glad we both do volunteer for AF, even if we appraise the
effort slightly differently.

--Gary

Blueskies wrote:

And there are tax benefits too, right?

Sure, take the cost of fuel and oil for the flight, divide by 50%, then
deduct the expense as a charitable contribution, which results in
perhaps 32% back on that amount.

In other words, spend $100 and receive back $15.

There are much better tax deductions in the US than charity, if one is
only looking to reduce taxable income.


--
Peter R.