If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
JJ Sinclair wrote in article ... Mark, I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate and instruct as they see fit. You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect themselves. You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our citizens to choose. It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with you chaps over this? Chris, Some gentle reminders about reality here in the UK.. RIGHT ON, JJ!!!! Well said. They may be the epitome of civility, but then, they don't have a choice. Cheers! , Pete |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
I've seen a lot of chutes (many legally expired) in single seat gliders as well. The FAA seems to leave these guys alone, recognising that since no chute at all is required, having an expired one in a single seater is not exactly front page news... Geez, I don't know any FAA types ignoring 61.307(a)... whenever a parachute is carried in any aircraft and made 'available for emergency use,' it must be in current pack. Judy |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
JJ,
The only point your original post made about spin avoidance training was that the UK government required us to do whereas in the land of the free etc you could do what you damn well wanted. I pointed out that the government did not require us to do anything, and the BGA (the SSA equivalent) made those decisions in a fully deregulated manner unlike you guys with the FAA all over you.. My original tetchy response was to a post that suggested that we did not try and look objectively at every accident and disseminate conclusions from that.. Now you've decided to address the substantive issue, my view is as follows.. 1. We do not 'routinely' spin students in during training. Guess what, not all Puch spin accidents occurred during instructor led spin exercises. 2. I've suggested there are some reservations about the specific use of the Puch amongst our instructor community 3. My understanding is that our accident rates overall compare favourably with elsewhere in the world - this was confirmed by our regional examiner at a CFI and coach meeting on Saturday. The problem with your analysis is that you focus on accidents of commission, but not accidents of omission.. we don't know how many lives have been saved by spin avoidance training, we do know how many have been lost. What we do know is that the number of spin related deaths has decreased. So I guess my answer is that in my view the cure is better than the disease, although we'd rather that noone died or was injured at any point during their flying career.. In my opinion any comparison with the withdrawal of spin training for US PPL's is invalid, power pilots do not routinely fly at high angles of attack, and tend not to use the rudder in most phases of flight. They also tend not to make the number of outlandings glider pilots do and tend not to have the same problems to solve in the pattern.. I hope this answers your question on where I stand.. At 21:18 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote: Mark, We have had a pleasant little discussion of parachutes, gun control and socialized medicine, however you have failed to address the core issue of the British requirement to teach full blown spins. You feel that those who survive the spin training will be better for it. This position fails to address the fact that you Brits are screwing students and instructors into the ground on a fairly regular basis. Some of us feel your cure (spin training) is worse than the desease (spin accidents). Your comments on the core issue? JJ Sinclair |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article ,
"Mark Stevens" wrote: And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight times the european average. If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few aboriginals, to which we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be much more economical than sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our surrounding moat is also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and I'm sure that reflects badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps you Brits would be willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these excessively incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful productive citizens of them simply by offering free medical care and an environment in which their potential victims have almost no means of defending themselves. If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms in UK culture, I'm sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them but also totally uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes there. Your expertise on matters social has been noted however, and I trust you won't mind our calling on you to help us find our footing in the swamp of inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves. When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates (whom we have so obviously failed) and made them welcome as members of your glider syndicate, perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress in teaching them to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on topic. ----- Jack ----- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jack,
What a delicious use of irony... However, I was merely responding to a comment made by one of your fellow countrymen who clearly had neither your delicacy of touch or restraint. Given the fact I'm about 20% english I don't really give a toss what happened 160 years ago, although I understand we're not the people these days shipping people to a far away island and holding them prisoner..:-) And it's today I'm mainly interested in.. Otherwise we can discuss how many people were moved involuntarily from where to where in the late 18th and 19th centuries.. Mark At 09:24 09 February 2004, Jack wrote: On 2/8/04 5:18 AM, in article -be rlin.de, 'Mark Stevens' wrote: And of course here in the UK we look with some amusement at...the preventative affect on crime of a prison incarceration rate about eight times the european average. If we just had a distant land, peopled only by a few aboriginals, to which we could send those misfits, I am sure it would be much more economical than sheltering and feeding them here at our expense. Our surrounding moat is also a bit narrow, in some places non-existent, and I'm sure that reflects badly somehow on our judgment and character. Perhaps you Brits would be willing to take on a few of tens of thousands of these excessively incarcerated individuals. Surely, you can make peaceful productive citizens of them simply by offering free medical care and an environment in which their potential victims have almost no means of defending themselves. If there were any imperfections or glaring anachronisms in UK culture, I'm sure I would be not only unqualified to criticize them but also totally uninterested, since I neither live, vote, nor pay taxes there. Your expertise on matters social has been noted however, and I trust you won't mind our calling on you to help us find our footing in the swamp of inadequacy and despair in which we find ourselves. When you have taken a goodly number of those unfortunates (whom we have so obviously failed) and made them welcome as members of your glider syndicate, perhaps you would be so kind as to report on your progress in teaching them to spin Puchaz, and thereby draw this thread back on topic. ----- Jack ----- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
At 18:00 08 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
At 16:00 08 February 2004, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Mark, I guess it comes down to a matter of government control, doesn't it? You Brits require fully developed spins and us Yanks allow our instructors to demonstrate and instruct as they see fit. You Brits collect all the guns and us Yanks allow our citizens to protect themselves. You Brits force everyone into a state health care system and us Yanks allow our citizens to choose. It all comes down to a matter of freedom to choose, didn't we fight a war with you chaps over this? I'm sorry, but I can't resist this even though it's a bit off-topic: (deliberate misinterpretation) the only war we fought with you (the one about independence) we lost. The other one involved the UK in conflict that was more about securing middle eastern resources and oil for the west and protecting a bunch of magpies living on the coast of the mediteranean sea than it was about protecting us from WMD's. The arguments being presented now about how wonderful it is that a despotic regime has been removed ignore the fact that the same regime was heartily supported through the 80's by the US and the UK, amonst others. Bring it on... Rgds, Derrick. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Peter Twydell | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 03 08:28 AM |