Bad pilots, bad maintenance ruining general aviation

I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

The bait is set. Now, the fish will begin to jump.

"Skylune" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of
crashes


"The large number of crashes." LOL!

The bait is set. Now, the fish will begin to jump.


Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING

gatt wrote:
Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING

Isn't that:

TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...
gatt wrote:
Yep. NOTAM: TROLL ACTIVITY REPORTED REC.AVIATION.PILOTING

Isn't that:

TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

LOL! Wilco!

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:37:35 -0700, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

TRLNG VCNTY RAP ADV ALTRN PSTNG. KLLFL AVBL, ADV USE TIL FTHR NTC.

An instant classic.

[two thumbs up]


--
Dallas

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

Still no bites??

On Jun 5, 9:51 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I see on the CNN Web page not one but two reports of GA plane crashes.
General Aviation isn't inherently dangerous, so the large number of crashes
can only mean that there are lots of bad pilots and poorly-maintained aircraft
out there. And the accidents that occur as a result are ruining the
reputation of GA in the eyes of the public.

If you must fly, make sure you know what you are doing, and don't take stupid
risks. And make sure that the aircraft you're flying is in flyable (safe)
condition. Otherwise there eventually won't be any general aviation any more.

Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
increase in the Avgas tax. When he gets it, he will proclaim victory
to the AOPA membership.

"Skylune" wrote in message
oups.com...

Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
increase in the Avgas tax.

Not according to the junkmail AOPA sends me with his name on it.

-c

On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "gatt" wrote:
"Skylune" wrote in message

oups.com...

Boyer is responsible for the decline in GA, and he supports a large
increase in the Avgas tax.

Not according to the junkmail AOPA sends me with his name on it.

-c

Well, here is what Boyer said on the website:
"Finally, if there is a need to address growing use of the system by
some segments of general aviation, primarily corporate operators, then
let's pay for that with an incremental increase in the fuel tax."

Incremental? The gubmint's original position was to ensure that a
smaller hike (I believe it will end up at about $.41) than that
originally proposed will be viewed as a victory by the Boyers of the
world. When the inevitable avgas increase takes effect, look for
Boyer to take credit for keeping it low. LOL.

He is already declaring it a victory that the funding bill came CLOSE
to being defeated. He sounds like a Democrat to me. But, regardless,
Boyer is just another politician, with average skills.

Take care.