Bad pilots, bad maintenance ruining general aviation

"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!

That's great, but being an "extraordinarily safe pilot" doesn't mean
accidents won't happen.

Mxsmanic wrote:
They would be far less likely to happen than they would be if I were a
reckless pilot.

Yeah, and that's something none of us already know?
Accidents in ANY situation are less likely to happen than when people
are reckless. How basic is that?

Shirl:
Bad pilots and bad maintenance exist, sure ... but accidents can and do
occur in the most meticulously maintained aircraft flown by
"extraordinarily safe" pilots too. You shouldn't make any assumptions
about pilots or maintenance every time there is a crash.

Mxsmanic wrote:
I'm just going by the numbers. Random, unavoidable mechanical or other
failures are quite rare as causes of accidents, even in GA aircraft.

Not as rare as you assume.

Most accidents are avoidable, either with a better pilot
or a more carefully maintained aircraft, or both.

There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
aircraft isn't going to have a problem.

Skylune wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:18 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
BDS writes:
Wow, thanks for that sobering piece of advice. And here I was,
just about to go out and take some stupid risks without knowing
what I was doing in an airplane that wasn't in flyable (safe)
condition. I'm sure glad you stopped me. I'd hate to be the
reason that GA went away.

There are lots of pilots taking stupid risks. Some of them will
flippantly deny doing so, too, although it's hard to hide one's
errors from the NTSB.

I see the bait was taken, with only a slight delay. Nice.

Was there ANY doubt?????????????????????

----------------------------------------o__\
twannnnnggg............
(sound of taut line after setting the hook

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.

Shirl writes:

There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
aircraft isn't going to have a problem.

Then it must be a defect in design.

On Jun 5, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Shirl writes:
There are PLENTY of carefully maintained aircraft that have problems and
failures, some resulting in accidents and some not. The concept you
aren't understanding is that mechanical failure is not necessarily an
indication of poor/careless/inadequate maintenance, and in fact, more
frequently than you believe, things go wrong even on airplanes that are
vigilantly maintained. Bottom line, even though you and your mechanic do
everything humanly possible, there is simply no way to assure an
aircraft isn't going to have a problem.

Then it must be a defect in design.

Sorry to jump in here guys.

MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.

Skylune writes:

Sorry to jump in here guys.

MX, you are an insufferable fool. Your comments on other threads
regarding housing prices in the US, how a million dollars is not alot
of money, how middle class is shrinking in America, etc are absolutely
hysterical coming from an underemployed Frenchman like you.

Was your mistake deliberate, or just a coincidence?

On Jun 5, 2:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
birdog writes:
Get off it. A Cub can crash out of a dirt strip in the Ozarks and it makes
national news. On the same day, 1000 people can get killed on the highway in
Arkansas, and it's a footnote in the local paper.

Be that as it may, the stories on GA crashes do damage; the non-stories on
highway fatalities do not.

Been one of my gripes for 50 years.

What have you done about it?

This is toooooo funny. Doesn't France provide free psychiatric
care?

Since you are expert in everything, I am having a problem with low
pressure in one of the zones on my lawn sprinkler system. Could you
provide some advice on how to diagnose the problem and then fix it?

Where do you think housing prices in the US will settle out?

Why do you think $1mm is not alot of $$ in the US? Would it be worth
alot in France?

Please provide a comprehensive peace plan for Iraq and the Middle East
in general. Are you in touch with General Petraeus? If not, please
send him an e-mail. I am sure he could benefit from your wisdom.

On Jun 6, 2:31 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
John Theune writes:
For someone who insists that facts must be backed up with verifiable
proof, you seem awfully willing to accept a newspaper report of a crash
as the final word as to why something happened and who's fault it was.

As long as it was a crash, it's overwhelmingly probable that it was caused by
pilot error or inadequate maintenance.

moron !