Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.
Visit our Flying shop
Tom Benenson...I just read your latest article on fuel starvation. Please leave your liberal global warming agenda comments out of your future articles. I found it extremely offensive. I read Flying Magazine to learn and grow as a pilot. I find it in very poor taste that you would take a swipe at people who hold scientifically based and reasonable opposing views...If you are that worried about global warming maybe you should stop flying so you don’t contribute to the problem…If I didn’t enjoy the magazine so much I would have cancelled my subscription. You can be certain though I will not waste my time reading your articles anymore…
I had hoped to do this via personal email, but it apparently is not going to happen... oh, well.
1. As an Ercoupe operator, fuel exhaustion is truly the fool's paradise, as (most of) the aircraft have a fuel tank [which gravity feeds the carb. - the wing tank fuel is pumped into this last tank] in the cowl which is ordinarily equipped with an indicator, being a knob in a plexi (or similar) tube which is attached to a rod which is attached to a cork, floating in your last fuel reservoir, which is 5 or 6 gallons. Obviously this gauge is in plain view. Thus, when this indicator starts to descend, the pilot knows EXACTLY his/her fuel situation (at about 5.5 GPH, big DUHH). Thus, no problem, except for the severely intellectually challenged, who should not have been passed into Private (or Sport) Pilot Certification
2. Just a point of fact (I had suffered under a similar misapprehension for many years): the old VW Beetle had a single L-shaped fuel pick-up. When it sucked air, the driver kicked a lever which dropped the pick-up back into a pool of maybe two more gallons petrol. It was as simple as that - no "reservoir" tank, no secondary pick-up, just a steel tube that was kicked into a lower position in the singular gas tank.
Why do you grayhairs have to inject your political biases into everything you do? I can't agree more with the other commenter about this article. If you did a little research rather than believing the mainstream media, you would discover that global warming is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. And how does being a "birth denier" have anything at all to do with your subject - except to promote your far left political views?
Keep to the subject and leave your political bull on the ground.
I t appears Mr. Benenson is a liberal and an atheist. While I disagree with both viewpoints that’s not the reason I am responding. I am responding because I read FLYING magazine for articles and information about aviation. I believe it to be bad form for an aviation journalist to talk about his or her political or religious beliefs when they are not directly related to the story. I read the first paragraphs of Mr. Benenson’s story and was so disturbed by his poor taste that I did not finish the article, nor will I read any writings of Mr. Benenson’s from this time on.
I was going to write a long letter to Mr. Benenson about his offensive remark in his otherwise good article, but this seems a more appropriate way of responded. Hopefully the editors of Flying will pass this comment along to him.
First of all the general climate has been warming since the last cool period known as the Little Ice Age which ended in the mid 1800's. However, I suspect that Mr. Benenson's remark has more to do with the notion that humans are causing climate change, and that he thinks that anyone who might disagree with that statement is somehow beneath his obviously superior intellect.
If he would like, I will supply him with many of the scientific evidence counter to his position. I offer to meet with him personally, or we can do the exchange via email. It will take about an hour during which time I will lay out, from peer reviewed sources, all the counter data.
Science is not based on "believe", it is based on evidence and the standard is such that even ONE contrary piece of data can be enough to bring what looks like a proper theory crashing down. The scientist's job, especially those involved in lab/experiemental work, is to find those contrary data. When we find what we thought was correct is actually wrong, then we really learn something substantial about how nature operates.
I am encouraged that Mr Benenson is skeptical enough to visually inspect his fuel tanks before a flight. That attitude shows what I would consider to be a proper 'scientific approach'; i.e. "don't always believe your instruments". It's too bad he can't transfer that same skepticism to other areas.
Michael Monce, PhD, physics
Cancel my subscription.
I might reconsider when I no longer see tom benenson’s name in your magazine.
I read FLYING for AVIATION related topics.
If I care to read moronic, stupid, liberal political remarks from idiots – well, that’s what the main stream media is for.
Refuse to accept facts and face reality?
Hey tom, go take your “Certificate of Live Birth” and apply for a passport, or try to get a low level security clearance.
How’s that working for you tom?
As for “global warming”, untold billions of dollars are at stake for the promoters of this scam.
Brian Sussman just came out with a good read, “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam.”
Then again, since Brian’s book contains hundreds of citations and scientific references, you might refuse to accept facts and face reality.
Believing in something is far different from making rational decisions.
Oh wait – that was the point of tom’s article…..
Tom Benenson's column on fuel starvation has a point regarding proper fuel management but his presuppositions regarding "global warming disbelievers" and "birth deniers" reveals his naivete regarding "accepting facts and facing reality". Tom looks old enough to know better than to drink the global warming Koolaid.
Ditto his mocking comment regarding "God is your copilot". The assumption, of course, is the Christian doctrine and belief in angels is tantamount to believing in air "magically" turned into fuel.
Tom Benenson's superior and enlightened insights regarding ultimate reality are not universally accepted - in fact, I would wager that among the pilot population most do not share his liberal / progressive views.
Tom, keep your liberal views to yourself.
Well, I hope there was nothing of value to me in Beneson's fuel starvation article. I didn't make it past his offhand slap at readers that might have a differing opinion on the topic of global warming. Tell me this, Mr. Beneson: if you are not a denier, if you fully believe that our planet is in dire danger, then why are you still flying? Come to your senses, Tom! Save the planet: keep your feet on the ground!
And with your newly found free time, expand your world view. Spend a little time listening to what the "deniers" are saying. Take a more critical view of the claims of scientists that have a lucrative interest in getting grant money for producing research results that fit the narrative. Look into what a sham "peer review" is. Ask yourself why espousing counter-theories doesn't cause debate, but rather results in an ostracized scientist. True science welcomes open debate and the defense of theories. Opportunistic grant-chasing requires closed minds and closed doors to survive. Follow the money, Tom.
Failing that, live up to your words and ground yourself. Oh, and turn off your air conditioner.
Anyone know how to get in touch with Tom Benenson?
Wow! The invective hurled at Benenson here only goes to show that crotchety ideologues are at least as evident among Flying's readership as on its writing staff. Many of the comments made here are downright childish, no matter one's political perspective. We complain that our politicians don't play well together, but in fact it seems endemic of America today that polite conversation is a forgotten art. The American culture of victimhood, something I wouldn't have expected so in evidence among pilots, is not noble; it's pitiful.
As to the facts, climate change is hardly a belief: whether or not one subscribes to the view that it has been caused by humankind or not, global temperatures and sea level are rising. If reality can be simply dismissed as offensive where are we? Political correctness will not build a dike around our country. All that said, one can only dumbfounded by the advice to Benenson to "follow the money!" Really? It's about the money, is it? Thousands of academics spend at least twice the time and effort to complete advanced degrees at top universities compared to typical oil company executives and earn very low six-figure salaries in a highly competitive process, all so they can compete for grant money that collectively is not even a drop in the bucket compared to one 'golden parachute' paid to a failed CEO from Big Oil's top management. Follow the money indeed.
I've followed this thread with interest....in doing some research into the controversy I found that a number of talk-radio people have been relying on an article that appeared in the Daily and Sunday Mail of England. The article quoted a British scientist extensively. When I googled the scientist by name, the first citation was a reference to an article in the Guardian newspaper in England in which detailed the scientists refutation of the comments attributed to him in the Daily Mail article!!!
And then a couple days later there was an editorial in the NY Times (okay some think it's a liberal paper) that detailed the results of five investigations into ClimateGate in which the scientific findings of global warming were found to be accurate although there were some questions about the way they were expressed.
I have to agree that the idea that scientists have invented global warming in order to get grants and make a lot of money is a falacious argument and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The Third Reich learned that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes fact. I'm afraid that's happening and will prevent us from dealing with the real threat of global warming.
The poor guy just had to sell his airplane, can't we as pilots cut him some slack?
Since these posts have taken a political turn.. I feel his pain. I too am being squeezed out of aviation. It has just gotten to the point where I am finding it difficult to justify...
So, all I can say is " I feel his pain" ..
OMFG this benenson guy is a liberal nitwit - i also tried to find a way to contact him via email but this worthless clown hides
these people ( i mean douchebag leftist liberal cry babies) are wrong!
i also see them as the enemy - you are either with me or against me now
I've been eagerly awaiting to receive my first issue to your magazine. I got it; but like all good things, when you are really enjoying it, someone has to ruin it. Tom can leave his opinions to himself as it really detracts from his article and from your magazine.
I had a discussion over e-mail with Mr. Benenson about that sentence. I didn't get into the specifics too much, because I'm sure he is too busy to be lectured by the likes of me. I thought I'd post a portion of our discussion here for some feedback:
In the July issue, Tom Benenson wrote about the real causes of fuel exhaustion. I wonder if a politically-funded organization concluded that fuel exhaustion often correlated to bent airplanes, that bent airplanes must be cause of fuel exhaustion, would Mr. Benenson then conclude the same or would he use common sense, reasoning, and sound judgment? I'll stick to sound scientific principles rather than consensus. As the more reasonable climatologists state, correlation is not causation, Mr. Benenson. Although we obviously disagree on why the climate is changing, we should at least agree to respect each other's opinions.
I've found it fascinating that almost everyone who has written has cited an article that was printed in the Daily Mail in the UK....and none of them seemed to have seen the article a day or two later in the Guardian in which the scientist they quoted was irate that his conclusions on global warming had been so misconstrued and inaccuarately reported.
One of the wonderful things about this country is that we're allowed to have different views...Part of that privilege means that people on both sides of an issue can be swayed and influenced by "experts" who profess to have the answers. Some do. Some don't.
At least you seem to agree that the climate is changing?
Yes I agree the climate is in a state of change, and most of the educated skeptics don't argue that the climate isn't changing, but rather that is and always has. We know that historically the globe has been on a warming trend since the "little ice age". I ask you, when you hear that in the last 100 years the temperature has risen 0.6 degrees Celsius, have you ever asked yourself, "What portion of that 0.6 degrees is because of the natural upward trend?" Most people don't ask that when they hear of the rise, but assume it is entirely the result of CO2, something no climatologist claims. The truth is no one really knows what portion, yet that is fundamentally more important than the fact that there simply was a temperature change at all.
[edited for brevity]
...you should look at a page on Wikipedia listing many dissenting published scientists as well as their quotes here (link). If you browse through them, you will find only 3 on that list that state that there is no global warming at all, and 39 scientists stating that natural forces play a much bigger role than does anthropogenic carbon emissions. I'm not sure what 'facts they are not facing', but I would be hard-pressed to conclude that by-and-large these people are having trouble accepting reality.
Thanks for the civil--and interesting response.
It would seem I made a mistake using the analogy I did, since so many readers seem to be focusing not on the point of the column--people aren't realistic about how far they can get on the fuel in their airplanes but on the analogy.
I don't claim to know why there's global warming and whether at this point it's just one of the cycles, but I do accept the reasoning of the majority of experts....
Again, I appreciate your response.
just the fact that the left now call it "climate change" and not global warming should tell you there is an agenda and its gonna cost us!
I was surprised to see Benenson's remarks in print, and like most commenters here was very put off by them. Someone who finds the word of Al Gore more meaningful than the word of God has little in common with me and my way of thinking. But what I found even more remarkable is that the editors of Flying actually gave this article the green light. People higher up the food chain than Tom Benenson had to think that this article was a good idea, too. What were they thinking?
I had to go back to find these comments. I missed them the first time. Honestly, I can't remember any of his columns other than his quandry over keeping a plane that needs a engine rebuild and it is more than he makes in a year. Guess I'll try to pay attention for the next stupid liberal thing he says.
If I wanted alarmist climate change or global warming rhetoric there are plenty of print/online sources with more authoritative viewpoints. Tom, please stick to aviation writing.
P.S. I was sad when you "pull the plug" on your Cardinal RG. Hope you get another ride soon.
Make it a habit to check your fuel gauges to ensure the tanks are even.
Copyright © 2010 FLYING. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.