GA is priceless

On 31 Dec 2006 06:44:04 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,

I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
sinker.


Not at all.
I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
learning a musical instrument.

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
this stereotype ever since.

Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
you killed


It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

This too I disagree with.
Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.


Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In

Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
thought I was crazy.

fact, however, the reality of GA flying couldn't be farther from the
truth.

Now what I do and do not believe. I do not believe it takes any
special intelligence to lean to fly, nor do I believe in the macho
line as that can get a pilot killed, but it does as you have already
said, take dedication, time, and money.

You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
staggering.

I have no reason to think our area of the country is much different
than most others although I am sure there are exceptions in both
directions. But the statistics alone have eliminated a third of the
drivers from even being able to qualify for a license including the
sport license. Over a third in our county could not qualify for the
sport pilot license.

Having driven an average of over 30,000 miles a year since I was a
teen ager and I'm well on my way to 67 that makes about 50 years of
driving or 1.5 million miles. Given the people I have worked with,
socialized with, and just see around work and town I would eliminate
at least half of the 2/3rds left due to the reasons given in the
previous paragraph plus some are afraid to fly in anything be it large
or small. . They just are not suited for flying. None of these things
actually relate to intelligence or the need to be macho. They are
people I would be afraid to be around were they flying.

So we are down to 1/3 of the drivers out there that probably would be
capable of getting a license "If they wanted to do so", but only a
tiny fraction are, or would be interested. Of those interested a
portion would not follow through due to resistance from a spouse or
family. Part of them would not follow through due to cost even though
flying is not terribly expensive compared to some other "sports" or
pastimes but there are a lot of people out there that are just making
ends meet. . Part of them would not follow through as they would not
be willing to put in the time required to get the license and part of
them would not follow through just due to the inconvenience of no
airport close enough to suit them. Let's face it. There are few areas
where you could keep a plane in your garage and legally take off from
the road out front.

I would make an educated guess that no more than 10% of the drivers
would actually try to get a pilots license if time, money, family,
and qualifications were no problem.

However 10% is a lot of people but time, money, family, and
qualifications are in reality a problem for many of those. You only
need look at the number making poverty level wages to see that number
dwindel even more.


An illustration: On our last flight, we flew from Iowa City, IA to
Racine, WI, for Christmas. (This would be like frying from France to
Germany, to put that into perspective for you.)

This involved:

1. Pre-flighting the plane (a walk around, with oil and fuel checks)

You do have to know what to look for.

2. Loading the plane

don't forget the weight and balance.

3. Starting the plane
4. Programming two GPS's

Where most people have a problem with VCRs?

5. Taking off, and turning to course.

Don't forget the run up and all the checks prior to departure.
They are going to say: "You have to do all those checks to make sure
the engine is safe?"

6. Climbing to altitude
7. Following the course (as if we need it -- I've done this flight a

How many students have found the flight planning to be a daunting
task? We may do them in our heads now, but at one time they were
work.

hundred times) to Racine.
8. Land.



Compare this to the complexity of DRIVING to Racine, and you'll see
that flying there is by FAR easier. No traffic. No toll booths. No
maniac cab drivers. No complicated routing around Chicago. It was
literally as easy as falling off a log.

Again, to your and me.
How ever I've had ATC give me some routings that took me wayyyyy out
of the way. I've said before it seemed like they sent me half way to
Kentucky the one time I went around the south end of Lake Michigan
IFR.

To your and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

I'll give you this: The TRAINING to become a pilot is difficult -- and

There was nothing I found difficult, but a lot of it was time
consuming such as the flight planning and that was work. However I
don't figure work has to be difficult. It just took a lot of time.

commercial piloting is, of course, a WHOLE different kettle of fish.
They must fly in all weather, into difficult airports -- whereas I get
to choose the times, places and weather in which I fly.

If I can see to get up and I can see to get down without ice of
thunderstorms in between then I'll go. There is nothing like
descending into the clouds full of torrential rain, breaking out just
above minimums and seeing the runway right where the instruments say
it should be. I don't think I'll ever get over that feeling.

But we're talking GA flying, not commercial. Once you've become a GA
pilot and put a few hours under your belt, cross-country GA flying is
far easier than driving, IMHO.

To most who finally make the grade it is. To those who haven't
learned how it's a daunting task. OTOH I've set back and watched a 14
year old fly the Deb on a triangular course of roughly 60 miles, who
after just a bit of coaching could; hold altitude, hold altitude in
turns to the proper heading, and get us back home close to the flight
plan time. Conversely I've had experienced pilots having me say...I
will not get sick in my own airplane, I ... will... not... get ...
sick...inmyownairplane... from a PIO (2 Geeessss out of the bottom and
zzeeeroooo over the top) because they have been relying on the VSI to
hold altitude in the planes they fly.

I see only one real difference between most pilots and "ground
pounders'. It has nothing to do with intelligence or macho attitude.
It is one simple thing. Our love for flying which many can not
comprehend even when shown. Other times you take a non flyer up and
the transformation is miraculous.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:55:51 -0600, (Scott Post)
wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure.

No, the complexity of aviation--including general aviation--is a
reality, for better or for worse.

Just compare the instrument panel in just about any cockpit with the
instrument panel in just about any automobile, and this becomes
obvious.

I can vaguely see some dial thingy over my passenger's right shoulder,
but its so complicated I just ignore it so I don't get all flustered.

if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
because I have somebody else's airplane.

http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 31 Dec 2006 09:14:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Training is obstacle enough already. And if flying isn't complex, why
is the training so complex and difficult?

Ah, NOW we get to the meat of the issue. This is a problem that EAA
and AOPA have grappled with for decades.

There is simply NO reason for GA flight training to be so complex --
period. Unless you intend to move onto the airlines, or fly charters,
you simply do not need to learn much of what is in the current flight
training syllabus.
snip

After "Sport Pilot" proved to be ineffective, "Light Sport Aircraft"
were/was introduced, with simplified medical requirements and training.
Unfortunately, no one (in my area, anyway) is teaching with LSAs
(yet?), and thus that particular pilot community is not growing any
more than full-fledged Private pilots are.

We must have about 8 or 10 planes on the field that qualify for light
sport aircraft and I'm guessing we have about a dozen pilots about
half of which are new.


(Well, except for the older Private pilots who are opting to fly LSAs
rather than risk failing their medical exam. I'm sure you've heard
about the Catch-22 of LSA, that states "You can fly without a medical
UNLESS you have been denied a medical." This has made an awful lot of
older guys simply not try for the medical, for fear that they will
fail.)
Not necessiarily fear of failure. More likely a knowledge they would
be unlikely to pass.

We have a few of those too.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Terrorists kill the pilots and take over an airliner. Passengers overpower
the terrorists. Two people come forward and say they will land the 747:
One says he just learned to fly an ultralight.
The other says he mostly stays in a room and pretends to fly a 747 on a
borrowed computer and has 10,000 hrs in his pretend 747.
Who has the best chance of landing the plane?
Who would the other passengers want at the controls?

Personally, I'd vote for the sim pilot.**

In the scenario you have constructed, 10,000 hours flying a 747
simulator would be much more valuable than flying a hang glider.
Here's why:

Depending on how rigorous the sim pilot recreated "real life", he would
immediately be able to recognize proper approach speeds, where the
flaps and gear controls are, how to engage (or disengage) the
autopilot, etc. He may even know stall speed for a given load, proper
target deck angle for the approach -- the sim recreates all of this
stuff with amazing clarity and precision.

Coincidentally, just yesterday we had a REAL 747 pilot flying the Kiwi,
in a head-to-head test of Flight Simulator 2004 versus the new Flight
Simulator X. (FS2004 won the competition, BTW, thanks to much better
frame rates -- but that's another thread.) He gave the sim his stamp
of approval, with everything working as expected, just like the real
aircraft.

I doubt the hang glider pilot would know how to tune the radio, let
alone land. Flying an airliner is NOT "flying", in the GA sense of the
word. Watching our 747 pilot fly the Kiwi was an education in itself,
as his movements were barely perceptible, and he was thinking several
minutes ahead of the plane in order to accomplish a smooth approach and
landing.


** - Note: My vote is qualified, depending on the quality of the
simmer's equipment. If he's been running Flight Sim '98 on an old
Pentium I, with a 10" screen, using a mouse and keyboard to control it,
I'll throw my vote to the hang glider dude...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

if I see a dial thingy over my passenger's shoulder I'm in trouble
because I have somebody else's airplane.

http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/Cub_ty.jpg

Good one!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

At the other end of the scale is general aviation. Aviation is a
horrendously complex form of transportation--the most complex around,

I find this quite funny. You have fallen for it, hook, line and
sinker.


Not at all.

I think you're responding to a mix of my comments and MX's. In the
narrative, above, I was tellihng HIM that *he* had fallen for it -- not
anyone else.

I do not see learning to fly as any thing extra ordinary, or macho.
It, like any other discipline such as playing the guitar, or piano
takes time, practice and dedication. That is why in the over all
population you see so few good guitar and piano players but those two
disciplines consist of far more rote learning than flying. Yet flying
is much more of an art than driving a car and is much more related to
learning a musical instrument.

I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

Which doesn't mean I was ever unsafe in the first 500 hours, BTW. But
I was playing chopsticks, instead of Beethoven's Fifth.

The "complexity" of GA is a myth that has been foisted upon the general
public by the "big-watch" pilots who simply LOVE to flaunt how cool
they are under pressure. John Wayne movies in the '50s and '60s cast
the mold for this pilot stereotype (which was effectively skewered in
the "Airplane" movies, BTW), and pilots have done little to counter
this stereotype ever since.

Again we disagree although much is in terms and actions. I know of
few pilots who behave as you describe above. Even many air show pilots
are showing off a skill, not lauding their ability over the mere
mortals. To me, flying is a place where the macho attitude can get
you killed

Agree.

Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"
attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing. It's taken me a long
time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
be terribly difficult.

I think this attitude is what gives many airports their intimidating
persona, which has always adversely affected new pilots. We, as
pilots, need to become more welcoming and positive about what we love,
if we hope to attract new believers. (This really IS a religious
thing, BTW... ;-)

It's also, BTW, one of the major reasons GA is floundering. Too many
people think they're not "good enough" to be a pilot.

This too I disagree with.
Not that people aren't smart enough, but that they don't have the mind
set to make a safe pilot, nor do they care.

Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
the training weed out the incompetents.

To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
bad attitude.

Why? Quite frankly, too many of us love to portray the steely-eyed
God-pilot, laughing in the face of death and pressing on to our final
destination at all costs -- it makes picking up chicks easier. In

Again I disagree with you. I've flown for many years and the only
women it impressed were those already interested in flying. The rest
thought I was crazy.

You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys? ;-)

You have a far higher opinion of the average driver than I do. As I
mentioned, in our county the sheriff and several other officers have
stated that over a third of those on the road are driving on suspended
or revoked licenses. Plus we have a bunch that never made the grade.

Oh no I don't. I think most drivers are idiots. However, that's
beside the point. I think everyone should have equal access to both
flying and driving, provided they can pass the tests. The trouble with
the driving test, as it stands today (in Iowa, anyway), is that it is
SO rudimentary that only the physically and mentally disabled can be
expected to fail. (And even they can get waivers.)

And they've supposedly made the driving test harder in recent years.
Scary.

I would not let the average driver near my car let alone my airplane.
Be it from their mental state, drinking habits, refusal to take
responsibility, (blame the cop for the traffic ticket),poor judgmental
ability, inability to plan ahead, inability to multitask, and/or poor
communications skills I don't want them near my *stuff*. If I took the
time I could probably come up with a lot of other reasons. Oh! one
that comes to mind is the number that will have a criminal record is
staggering.

I agree that this is a problem. In my opinion, people with criminal
records should be exempted from many basic societal privileges,
including driving (and certainly flying). But then, I favor the death
sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.

To you and me it is simple because we've done it so many times we
don't need to think about it consciously. To the non flyer who never
even checks the oil in the car it would be a daunting list.

To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult. Imagine how hard
it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
than learning to drive.

If you break down the tasks involved with driving on Chicago's
Interstate 294 in rush-hour traffic (basically close formation flight,
with infrequent and sudden stops and starts) and compare it to the
tasks involved with the average $100 hamburger flight, I don't think
there's any comparison. Once you've got the rote procedures down pat,
flying is MUCH easier.

Too few of our non-flying brethren know this. We need to tell them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nomen Nescio writes:

Driving a Chevy Blazer isn't the same as driving a Lamborghini Diablo, either.

Which is why many people who can drive a Blazer safely cannot drive a
Diablo safely, and vice versa.

But I can say from experience that they're similar enough that if you can
do one, you can do both.

Only with extreme care. Lots of people get into trouble trying to
drive vehicles that are _similar_ to the ones they know, but not
really as close as they believe. And in aviation (particularly
commercial aviation), being allowed to fly one type or model of
aircraft does not entitle you to fly any type or model of aircraft.

Likewise, being able to drive an ordinary sedan doesn't make you
competent to drive a large truck or a racing car.

A 747 is just a big Cessna with with 4 engines and a faster approach.

How many 747s have you flown?

An F16 is just a Cessna with an afterburner, a roll rate that will loosen your
fillings, and a 20mm cannon.

See above.

Military pilots are usually excellent pilots, but even they have
trouble flying aircraft that are unlike the ones they know best.
Flying a Cessna like an F-16 is extremely unwise.

They all fly the same. They fly like REAL airplanes.

Real and unreal is only one variable among many.

Terrorists kill the pilots and take over an airliner. Passengers overpower
the terrorists. Two people come forward and say they will land the 747:
One says he just learned to fly an ultralight.
The other says he mostly stays in a room and pretends to fly a 747 on a
borrowed computer and has 10,000 hrs in his pretend 747.
Who has the best chance of landing the plane?

The one who flies a simulator. He'll know the instruments a lot
better than someone with only ultralight experience. A 747 handles
nothing at all like an ultralight, and the safest way for an
unqualified person to land it is using the heavily automated systems
aboard. Someone who has flown the 747 in simulation will be vaguely
familiar with these systems and can follow instructions in order to
set them for an autoland (he may even be able to do it without
instructions). Someone who has flown only an ultralight will know
nothing about using the instruments and may have trouble figuring them
out even with extensive help, and the aircraft handles so much
differently from an ultralight that he is likely to kill himself
trying to get the feel of it long before he can gain enough skill to
land it by hand.

Who would the other passengers want at the controls?

It depends on how smart they are. The smart choice would be the
person who has flown that aircraft in simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ok, I'm replying in a vain attempt to address some ignorance presented
in this post.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:43 +0100
Mxsmanic wrote:

You can fly 650 or 1000 miles on a Light Sport license? I thought all
the ones other than Private Pilot were distance-limited (?).

Affirmative. You can fly anywhere in the US with a sport pilot
certificate. You're restricted to day and VFR conditions, but otherwise
it's pretty much the same as the private.

Absurd is a strong word, but I'm not sure I see the need for a strict
medical certificate for anyone who isn't carrying paying passengers.
Even the medicals for people who are are a bit on the extreme side.

The drivers license for sport pilot is the medical certificate. If you
lose your drivers license, you also lose your medical ability to fly
sport pilot. Why should private and recreational be different?

The CT, for instance, has no sharp edges in the cockpit, a ballistic parachute,
great visibility to avoid an accident, seat belts with 2 shoulder
straps, carbon fiber and kevlar construction, and a safety cage
construction that prevents the engine from entering the passenger
compartment during a crash.

There isn't any kind of construction that can prevent the engine from
moving in a crash. These features do not harm, I suppose, and they
may help in a narrow range of survivable crashes, but they won't make
any different in a serious accident, or in a very minor accident.

The pilot is the primary safety device installed in a plane, and
there's no 100% effective safety device, but the safety cage design,
energy absorbing construction, engine designed to break away in a
crash, 39kt stall speed, and ballistic parachute sure improve the odds.
Additionally, to prevent a collision, you have better visibility than
most of the fleet to see and avoid.

Being the aeronautical expert you think you are, you have undoubtedly
seen Rod Machado's statement on energy dissipation in an airplane crash,
presented at where he states "The minimum distance you can travel and
stay under 9 Gs when you land at 50 knots is 12.8 feet. If you travel
at least that far before coming to a stop, the cockpit should not break
apart." The whole article is at
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...03fly-in3.html .

There's lots of information about the safety features and construction
on the company web site http://flightdesign.com/

Why would allowing currently certificated planes to be constructed
to similar consensus standards be any worse?

The market isn't always the ideal party to evaluate safety. People
tend to sacrifice safety for price, often more than they realize.

Considering the FlightDesign CT is presently one of the most expensive
light sport planes, as well as one of the best selling, the market
apparently disagrees with you.

Doug


--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Jay Honeck writes:

Personally, I'd vote for the sim pilot.**

That is wise.

You want someone whose experience most closely matches the real-world
task at hand. In this case, someone with simulation experience of a
747 is a lot closer to a real 747 than someone with real-world
experience of only an ultralight.

Many people might not understand that, but there it is. There's
nothing magic about piloting a real plane. The key question is how
closely the person's skills match the skills required.

In the scenario you have constructed, 10,000 hours flying a 747
simulator would be much more valuable than flying a hang glider.

Absolutely.

Here's why:

Depending on how rigorous the sim pilot recreated "real life", he would
immediately be able to recognize proper approach speeds, where the
flaps and gear controls are, how to engage (or disengage) the
autopilot, etc. He may even know stall speed for a given load, proper
target deck angle for the approach -- the sim recreates all of this
stuff with amazing clarity and precision.

Yes. All the procedures would be familiar to him. He might even be
able to program the FMS for an autoland at the destination of the
crew's choice. An ultralight pilot would be lost. And you can't just
grab the controls of a 747 and fly it in by hand if all your
experience is with a tiny ultralight.

I doubt the hang glider pilot would know how to tune the radio, let
alone land.

Add in the slightest hint of inclement weather, and the ultralight
pilot is doomed. The sim pilot would know how to operate the systems,
and thus would be able to land even in zero visibility.

Flying an airliner is NOT "flying", in the GA sense of the
word. Watching our 747 pilot fly the Kiwi was an education in itself,
as his movements were barely perceptible, and he was thinking several
minutes ahead of the plane in order to accomplish a smooth approach and
landing.

Simulation long ago taught me an interesting lesson about heavy
aircraft vs. small aircraft (one which I confirmed years later through
observation of real aircraft). And this was on an early version of
MSFS.

I discovered, purely by trial and error, that large aircraft can be
rolled more effectively by brief, sudden, small movements of the yoke,
rather than a continuous application of roll control. The reason is
(apparently) that the inertia of a large aircraft makes it want to
continue rolling once it begins, and keeps it from beginning a roll
easily. Holding the controls in position causes the roll to
accelerate, making it difficult to stop. Intermittent application of
the controls makes it much easier to assess how quickly the aircraft
is rolling into or out of a bank.

Much later, while flying as a passenger in a real airliner, I was
surprised and pleased to see that the pilots were flying as I do in
the simulator (easy to see by watching the aileron movement as the
aircraft flies).

I don't know that it would occur to a pilot with only ultralight
experience to control a large jetliner in this way. If he tried to
use the methods he uses on the ultralight, he'd be in big trouble.
Typically he'd apply the controls, see no reaction, apply them harder
until the aircraft starts to roll, and then panic when he discovers
that the aircraft doesn't stop rolling when he releases the control.
A bit of overcorrection and soon he's cruisin' for a bruisin'.

** - Note: My vote is qualified, depending on the quality of the
simmer's equipment. If he's been running Flight Sim '98 on an old
Pentium I, with a 10" screen, using a mouse and keyboard to control it,
I'll throw my vote to the hang glider dude...

I don't know that I would. Large aircraft are hard to fly by the seat
of the pants, and even a tiny bit of familiarity with aircraft systems
could more than compensate for real-world piloting experience by feel
alone.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

I have pondered this endlessly. Is flying an art, or a science?

Both. Many of the pilots here clearly think of it as an art. Others,
including myself, consider it more of a science. GA pilots are
probably more in the art camp; airline captains and more than a few
fighter pilots are probably in the science camp.

Pilots who think along artistic lines are naturally bewildered and
upset when anyone suggests that aviation without an actual aircraft
might be enjoyable. They get all their enjoyment out of sensations
and movement--wind in their hair, things like that. But pilots who
are scientists at heart like the instruments, the techniques, the
precision and discipline, and other aspects of aviation that are only
incidentally connected to real-life aircraft. I think the scientist
types probably make better airline and fighter pilots. The artist
types make better bush pilots and crop dusters.

I know it took me at least 500 hours to feel that I really *knew* how
to land an aircraft. Does that make me a dunce, or is it just an
admission that flying is more like playing the guitar?

Any aircraft, or just a specific aircraft? If you've always flown
small aircraft, would you really feel at home landing an A380?

Often the attitude I describe isn't professed as much as projected.
It's that quiet, Gary Cooper-type macho cloak of "I know everything"
attitude that we pilots are so good at wearing.

Pilots must be different in your neck of the woods. Or perhaps (and
more likely, I think) GA pilots and airline pilots and military pilots
are all different.

The scientific ones are not macho; they simply know what they are
doing and say so if asked. The artistic ones may or may not be macho;
certainly they are more emotionally based.

One notable thing about pilots who live long and prosper is that they
can keep a cool head when the situation requires it (even if they are
highly emotional under other circumstances). Pilots who cannot do
this tend to get killed, unless they are very lucky or fly very
rarely.

It's taken me a long
time to understand that this attitude is what gives the non-flying
public the *opinion* (remember, we're talking outside perceptions here,
not reality) that flying is some sort of a super-human feat that MUST
be terribly difficult.

The non-flying public doesn't have that opinion, as far as I can tell.
Some pilots might wish they did, but they don't.

Although I agree with you to some degree, this is NOT something that
we, as pilots, should be projecting to the general public. We need to
be trumpeting the joys and advantages of GA to all concerned, and let
the training weed out the incompetents.

I disagree. It's important to make people understand reality. If
they don't have the personality to fly, it's best for themselves and
everyone else to stay away from the cockpit, no matter what the joys
and advantages might be.

To do anything else results in the elimination of good, qualified pilot
candidates based on our perceptions and assumptions. Multiply these
assumptions by 400,000 pilots, and if we're wrong even 10% of the time,
we've eliminated a HUGE number of future pilots simply by projecting a
bad attitude.

Telling people the truth is not a bad attitude.

You haven't noticed that women are attracted to crazy guys?

Perhaps crazy women are, but not women in general.

But then, I favor the death
sentence for many lesser crimes, so I'm clearly in the minority.

Would that include FAR violations?

To most kids, learning to drive is fairly difficult.

I found it mostly boring. But where I lived, you had to drive in
order to get a job. I eventually tried to make it more interesting by
driving something with a manual transmission, which helped a little.

Imagine how hard
it would be if we didn't start teaching driving until folks were in
their 40s -- the average age of new pilots nowadays? Bottom line: If
kids regarded learning to fly as "normal" (the way they do driving),
and they had grown up flying everywhere (the way they do in their
parent's cars now) I believe they would find learning to fly no harder
than learning to drive.

Then all you have to do is make kids rich, so that they don't have to
save up until their 40s before they can afford to fly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.