User Profile Header
cconrad
,
AB
Comments
Displaying 1-5 of 14
Impromptu Engine-Out Practice Gone Terribly Wrong
from cconrad
wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago
Thanks for sharing this with us. This is the kind of thing you don't feel comfortable telling others until years later.
This story also reminds me that there is always added risk to training maneuvers—more for things like engine-out practice and spins, and less for things like slow flight and steep turns. The added risk is often worth it for the training benefit, but I don't do the riskier ones with passengers.
As for flight simulators, I'm not confident that reality is modelled well-enough in the cheaper ones to tell me anything about whether a particular maneuver would actually work. If I remember right, MS flight simulator once let me fly a 172 around upside down for quite a while (several minutes) before failing the wing. In real life I think either the fuel would have stopped flowing or something else would have failed much faster.
Impromptu Engine-Out Practice Gone Terribly Wrong
from cconrad
wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago
I'm sure we've all exhibited questionable judgment at some point. My wife is quick to tell the story of when I flew us through a portion of the Rockies in forest fire smoke that was somewhat more opaque than we expected—I knew it was there—and than we would have liked. We were following the highway, but it was still very uncomfortable. (I don't mean physically uncomfortable, though it was a turbulent day too. I mean psychic discomfort.) I now have more respect for "FU".
I've also chosen a less safe route because at the time I felt it was much more direct. Upon doing the math later I realized the difference was only a few minutes.
I just hope I learn from each of these experiences and gradually learn to make ever safer (or at least better-informed) choices.
Of course there is always a balance to be struck. The very safest way to fly (ie, airline style) removes much of the value and joy associated with GA flight. But as they always said in each episode of the G.I. Joe cartoon on TV when I was a kid, "knowing is half the battle." The stupidest risk to take, I guess, is the one you don't even realize you're taking.
The Cost of Flying Is Down
from cconrad
wrote 2 years 46 weeks ago
In response to garnaut, regarding the fact that in 1960 "you could pay off that house or airplane in 10 years (five if you really set your mind to it). Today that is at least 20 years, 30 years or more. The cost of housing as a multiple of annual income has shot way up. So has the cost of airplanes."
Yes but are we comparing apples to apples? I'll bet if we were willing to live in the modestly-appointed 1000 sq. ft. houses that many middle class people bought in the 1960, then we would be able to pay those off much faster today too. But instead we've become addicted to ever more luxury at any cost. It is often said that a family just can't afford to live on one income anymore, but I think people are lying to themselves. They can't afford to live on one income *and* keep up with the Jones's nice big house with tile and hardwood floors and quartz countertops, two new cars, big TV(s), digital cable, four phones with mobile internet access (which we now replace every two years or so), meals out twice or more per week, garganchuan stainless steel appliances with matching gas grill out on the deck, and so forth. Things that were luxuries (or simply unheard of) in 1960 are things we all expect to have now. No wonder we can't get out of debt.
Anyway, my point is that if we were willing to live the way we did in 1960 we would be very rich indeed (if you define wealthy as income exceeding expenses). Of course almost nobody is willing to do this (I would be lost without my iPhone!).
The same might be true of airplanes? If we were willing to live with the performance, reliability, finishings, and avionics capability we had in 1960, perhaps that would be more affordable today?
Of course, ideally you find a place in the middle: Better quality and luxury than the previous generation had, and more affordable because of advances in technology and economies of scale, globalization, etc. But people's tendency is to spend everything they have to more than compensate for those advances. We sure live great but we're always one job loss or health issue away from ruin.
Pelton's Long-Term Worries
from cconrad
wrote 2 years 46 weeks ago
There is and there isn't a pilot shortage. Clearly if there was a shortage of commercial pilots then wages and benefits would rise and there would be few or no layoffs. So no, there is no shortage of commerical pilots. The best thing that could happen for those guys is probably to let a shortage develop.
But I think there is a huge shortage of new GA pilots compared with what is required to grow or even sustain GA. I'm in my late 30's—I learned to fly about seven years ago when we had a baby around—and yet when I look around the flying club cafe on a typical Saturday I'm one of the youngest people around by a large margin. It occured to me that maybe it's always been this way, that people just don't get into flying while they've got a young family and a mortgage. But when you talk to these guys you discover that most of them started flying long ago. I don't think we are putting enough young pilots in the hopper today to sustain GA.
If there were more of us there would be more demand, and prices of aircraft and avionics would go down with volume. It's a bit of a Catch-22. The right product might spur demand, but more demand would bring the right products too.
What's in a World Record?
from cconrad
wrote 2 years 45 weeks ago
Yeah, I was thinking of that 172 flight while reading this too.
- 1 of 3
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
