Snowbirds down

Icebound wrote:
Oh, sure I agree with it.

It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per
year,

Actually it's a lot different - quantitatively, not qualitatively.
Sure, we have 50,000 or so (give or take 20%) automobile fatalities per
year - but we have 250,000,000+ drivers on the road, most of them on a
daily basis. There are numerically a lot of fatalities, but on a
per-participant basis (or a per-hour or per-mile basis) the fatality
rate is actually pretty low - way better than GA, pretty much on a par
with the airlines - and getting lower every year with no impact on
utility.

but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and
necessary.
Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is

extremely difficult to make that judgement.

In reality, probably most of it is not strictly necessary - but it's
something we WANT to do. We don't want to ride buses and trains, we
want to go where we want to go when we want to go there, and we're
willing to accept the fatality rate as the price of doing this. And
once again - I have no problem with this. I don't like public
transportation either, even if it is safer and cheaper.

Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good",
whether
in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also
extremely
difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of
value
that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".

I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
- justifies having more fatalities. I don't have a problem with that
conclusion either.

In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing
as
much as reasonable to improve it,

Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
exactly known for its airshow excellence.

and as long as those directly involved are
okay with it, then so am I.

I don't have a problem with that. I was only pointing out that when
the reporters brought up the safety issue, they were bringing up a real
issue, not an imaginary one.

I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
argument.

It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding
idiotic
projects.

No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
is a bad place to start.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Icebound wrote:
Oh, sure I agree with it.

It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per
year,

Actually it's a lot different - quantitatively, not qualitatively.
Sure, we have 50,000 or so (give or take 20%) automobile fatalities per
year - but we have 250,000,000+ drivers on the road, most of them on a
daily basis. There are numerically a lot of fatalities, but on a
per-participant basis (or a per-hour or per-mile basis) the fatality
rate is actually pretty low - way better than GA, pretty much on a par
with the airlines - and getting lower every year with no impact on
utility.

Well, now you have compared apples, oranges, and even bananas all in the
same group, so I will just quietly let it go by.




but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and
necessary.
Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is

extremely difficult to make that judgement.

In reality, probably most of it is not strictly necessary - but it's
something we WANT to do. We don't want to ride buses and trains, we
want to go where we want to go when we want to go there, and we're
willing to accept the fatality rate as the price of doing this. And
once again - I have no problem with this. I don't like public
transportation either, even if it is safer and cheaper.

Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good",
whether
in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also
extremely
difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of
value
that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".

I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
- justifies having more fatalities. I don't have a problem with that
conclusion either.

In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing
as
much as reasonable to improve it,

Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
exactly known for its airshow excellence.

and as long as those directly involved are
okay with it, then so am I.

I don't have a problem with that. I was only pointing out that when
the reporters brought up the safety issue, they were bringing up a real
issue, not an imaginary one.


Well, you can take the position that any death is a "real" issue of safety,
so sure they brought up a real issue...nobody said it was imaginary. But
"when reporters brought up the (real) safety issue", they should does not
immediately and necessarily imply an unacceptable level of risk....

I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
argument.

It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding
idiotic
projects.

No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
is a bad place to start.


It is very easy to argue that entertainment is the worst possible place to
start.

Without entertainment, the human condition would be impossible to bear, the
suicide rate would skyrocket. So why not invest a few dollars to help the
poorest of the citizenry keep their minds off their worries for a Sunday
afternoon?

"Michael" skrev i melding
oups.com...
Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
exactly known for its airshow excellence.

As far as I know this is not entirely correct. Frank Versteegh from The
Netherlands flies excellent displays with his Extra 300L and has an
Unlimited aerobatics authorization down to 30 feet AGL.

Rgds

Clamer

"Michael" wrote in

I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
- justifies having more fatalities.

Do you have some statistics that show that better shows are riskier shows?

Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.

Got a cite for this?

No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
is a bad place to start.

It's a bad place to start. "Entertainment" expenditures often bring in more
revenue benefits than other types of spending. Or do you object for ethical
reasons?

le m

Clamer Meltzer wrote:
As far as I know this is not entirely correct. Frank Versteegh from
The
Netherlands flies excellent displays with his Extra 300L and has an
Unlimited aerobatics authorization down to 30 feet AGL.

Actually, it's not correct at all. I just got email from this guy and
it's from a .dk domain. I believe that's Denmark, not Holland. I got
the country wrong. Sorry about that.

Michael