Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Weidersein

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, mooniac58 said:

Yes, I warned 3-4 people on that topic.  Anyone that I saw bringing up politics at all.  There is no place for it here and it just leads to much nastier discussion.

From the outside it seems to reflect US politics in general.  People can't disagree with each other without taking it too far, or taking comments personally.

Clarence

[mooniac58]

29 minutes ago, kevinw said:

Why don't we chalk this up to "lesson learned" and let the banned member back in.

No one was banned.  That user just decided to leave, changed their username to XXX and put in a bogus email address.

[Browncbr1]

40 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

From the outside it seems to reflect US politics in general.  People can't disagree with each other without taking it too far, or taking comments personally.

Clarence

New age of hyper sensitive over nurtured populace.  Seems like few have any grit these days

[Mooneymite]

2 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

New age of hyper sensitive over nurtured populace.  Seems like few have any grit these days

I resent that!   

Im telling on you for inflamatory posting.  Sooooo insensitive.

(Humor [Humour for Clarence] intended.)

[DaV8or]

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Or people could just take a healthy dose of skin thickener with the morning cereal or coffee.

Clarence

No kidding. These "I'm outta here!!" threads are all alike. It doesn't matter what forum it is. Some forum personality gets butt hurt because they can't follow the rules and they get censored, or they get disciplined. Then they make a thread like this, declare they are through and repeatedly come back to check and see how the thread is going and who actually cares. Kinda sad.

[DaV8or]

4 hours ago, M20Doc said:

From the outside it seems to reflect US politics in general.  People can't disagree with each other without taking it too far, or taking comments personally.

Clarence

Yes, sadly I have to say, you Canadians would do well to kind of avoid the US, not because you are unwelcome here, but rather because the place is in the process of self destruction and is becoming toxic. People are now wearing their political affiliation like an armband and take as serious as religion, or their mother's reputation. It's really sad.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, DaV8or said:

 People are now wearing their political affiliation like an armband and take as serious as religion, or their mother's reputation. It's really sad.

They've managed to intertwine the two, politics and religion.

[Cyril Gibb]

11 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Yes, sadly I have to say, you Canadians would do well to kind of avoid the US, not because you are unwelcome here, but rather because the place is in the process of self destruction and is becoming toxic. People are now wearing their political affiliation like an armband and take as serious as religion, or their mother's reputation. It's really sad.

The level of vitriol is just as prevalent in Canada.  No different than almost everywhere now.  ....unfortunate

[Mooneymite]

4 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

The level of vitriol is just as prevalent in Canada.  No different than almost everywhere now.  ....unfortunate

Comes down to good versus evil....no middle ground.

I'm good , you're evil .

[laytonl]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:58 PM, Skates97 said:

LA, we used to call it that when I was in Montgomery, Selma, and Tuskegee. The locals knew what we were talking about, everyone else was confused thinking we were referring to the left coast where I live now. 

People also get confused if you say you went to school at UCLA (Upper Corner of Lower Alabama: i.e., Auburn)!  War Eagle!  Lee

[Hank]

19 minutes ago, laytonl said:

People also get confused if you say you went to school at UCLA (Upper Corner of Lower Alabama: i.e., Auburn)!  War Eagle!  Lee

Hail fellow, well met! 

War Eagle!

--BSME, Dec '86

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Comes down to good versus evil....no middle ground.

I'm good , you're evil .

My theory is it is all cuz of the internet - and Facebook - and cable channels - no common experience anymore.  We can pick and choose what "news" and alternative fact we wish to worship and never shall the two (or three or four) views meet.

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

My theory is it is all cuz of the internet - and Facebook - and cable channels - no common experience anymore.  We can pick and choose what "news" and alternative fact we wish to worship and never shall the two (or three or four) views meet.

That and the fact that you can be as obnoxious and rude as you want online without much fear of retribution. Years ago you would have had to do that to someone's face, and there's a good chance that sooner or later you do it to the wrong person and suffer the consequences. Common decency has taken a huge hit with the advent of social media. I disagree with a lot of friends and even some family members on politics, but we still get along, and dare I say still love each other.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Skates97 said:

That and the fact that you can be as obnoxious and rude as you want online without much fear of retribution. Years ago you would have had to do that to someone's face, and there's a good chance that sooner or later you do it to the wrong person and suffer the consequences. Common decency has taken a huge hit with the advent of social media. I disagree with a lot of friends and even some family members on politics, but we still get along, and dare I say still love each other.

At the risk of making this too political.

I agree with what you're saying, but when the man who is the president encouraged violence during his many campaign rallies, offers to pay legal expenses for anyone doing his dirty work, and now has offered his first presidential pardon, it proves that there are no consequences for poor behaviour.

Clarence

[Mooneymite]

17 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

At the risk of making this too political.

At the risk of making this too religious...

Too often we confuse cause and effect.  Politics are a result of, not a cause of our deep societal malaise.  We get what we vote for.

Our society has thrown down and dicarded the Christian values which were the underpinnings of our political/judicial system.  Without the "backbone" of Christianity, the body-politic is collapsing.

For some, this transition, while painful, is seen as "good", but others of us disagree.  Such disagreement runs deep and cannot be glossed over with social niceties.

[Tommy]

Welcome to the new age of internet, folks. 

You can't have the cake - a massive amount of readily available and free advice + opinions - and eat it too - not to be offended every now and then.  

If it's too much for you then you can either grow a thicker skin like what Clarence saying or leave like what the OP did.

Your choice... 

[CaptainAB]

On 8/23/2017 at 6:56 PM, LANCECASPER said:

Keep telling yourself that, someday you'll have yourself convinced. Airline flights on major carriers per mile flown are safer than miles driven because there are a lot of miles racked up between the two most critical phases of flight, takeoff and landing. Also the Crew Resource Management and the level of recurrent training add tremendously to their safety record. When it comes to GA, every statistic says otherwise. As an example, many Cirrus pilots want to believe that since they have a parachute their safety record is much better than other similar single engine airplanes without parachutes. The problem is that the numbers don't support that.

Here is what they are tellling us now Lance on the COPA forums, though I'd say the message is that it isn't because of The chute but because of the memberships commitment to type training and cirrus commitment to adding and implementing the best available safety features. 

For comparison, the Cirrus fleet-wide global fatal accident rate in 2014 was 0.32 fatal accidents per 100,000 flying hours (compares with GA fatal rate of 1.19 in the US).

I think it's funny that Cirrus gets the credit as if they own the safety systems/features (Brs, straight and level, ESP) These are all third party and cirrus just chooses to install them in their new airplanes as they come available.

 

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, CaptainAB said:

Here is what they are tellling us now Lance on the COPA forums, though I'd say the message is that it isn't because of The chute but because of the memberships commitment to type training and cirrus commitment to adding and implementing the best available safety features. 

For comparison, the Cirrus fleet-wide global fatal accident rate in 2014 was 0.32 fatal accidents per 100,000 flying hours (compares with GA fatal rate of 1.19 in the US).

I think it's funny that Cirrus gets the credit as if they own the safety systems/features (Brs, straight and level, ESP) These are all third party and cirrus just chooses to install them in their new airplanes as they come available.

 

Thanks for that - it's great to see the improvement in their record, but it's not the parachute that's done it since that's been on the airplane since day one.  I agree that it's their commitment to training in the past few years has made a much bigger difference so people don't get themselves in bad situations in the first place. I also applaud their recent decision to offer free initial training to any new Cirrus owner, regardless of whether they buy it used or new, from a dealer or private party.

[N9201A]

I want to say it was Richard Collins who wrote a piece discussing Cirri safety, and how the chute made no difference initially and may have made things worse as the attitude was "I can always pull the chute."   While subjective, my own observations during those dark times was that was exactly the mentality of many a Cirrus pilot, leading to some accidents where the chute was no help, like CFIT, including the high-profile one in NYC.  

It's great that they've improved their record and underscores that the most important safety "feature" -- as well as most potentially dangerous thing -- in any aircraft is the human at the controls. 

I read how many people think Cirrus kills Mooney in the marketplace "because of the chute," and perhaps that is the reason for new pilot sales or sales in the hundreds.  But Mooney sales are in the single digits.  

Am I really the only person who wouldn't base my purchase decision solely on the a chute?  And if there are even a few dozen new airplane buyers who think like me, why isn't Mooney selling to them?

[Mark89114]

I don't think the Cirrus rate is comparable to the entire GA fleet which includes airplanes with an average age of 40 years and flown by a range of different skill sets.  I think a fair comparison would be Mooneys and Bonanazas from the same year vintage.  Not knocking Cirrus parachute products and the training that goes with them, but really need apples to apples statistical comparison.

[LANCECASPER]

7 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

So i was off this thread for a couple of days, so ill go back to my point.  My statitics come form Richard Collins no less and are worked out on point to point flying, and miles travelled.  If you look at the accident rate per mile on the roads V the accident rate for GA per mile GA is thousands of times safer.  It is something like 1/32000 in a car (deaths) v 0.1/3200000 in a GA aircraft.  Thats taken not just in the USA though, but across the big picture.  

Yes if you include aeros, etc then the stats come down slightly but basic cross country GA flying is safer mile,for mile than driving a car.  

He may have said that many years ago, but if so, he now realizes he was wrong. He most recently he calls that thinking the "Big Lie".

Here's Richard Collins' recent article - look at the paragraph "Big Lie" : http://airfactsjournal.com/2016/02/changing-myths-aviation-faas-hand/

 

 

 

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

Actually in December 1993 Richard Collins said that driving a car was 8 to 12 times safer than flying a small airplane.

[ArtVandelay]

I want to say it was Richard Collins who wrote a piece discussing Cirri safety, and how the chute made no difference initially and may have made things worse as the attitude was "I can always pull the chute."   While subjective, my own observations during those dark times was that was exactly the mentality of many a Cirrus pilot, leading to some accidents where the chute was no help, like CFIT, including the high-profile one in NYC.  
It's great that they've improved their record and underscores that the most important safety "feature" -- as well as most potentially dangerous thing -- in any aircraft is the human at the controls. 
I read how many people think Cirrus kills Mooney in the marketplace "because of the chute," and perhaps that is the reason for new pilot sales or sales in the hundreds.  But Mooney sales are in the single digits.  
Am I really the only person who wouldn't base my purchase decision solely on the a chute?  And if there are even a few dozen new airplane buyers who think like me, why isn't Mooney selling to them?

I'm not being sexist but I get the impression the chute is appealing to the pilot's wives.

[N9201A]

Collins is methodical, smart, and IMHO usually correct.  He got it right in 1993, AND he is still right in 2017!  Perhaps the drive WAS more dangerous in the 1940s, with no seat belts, anti-lock brakes, no crash testing and drinking and driving being acceptable.  

But, hey, the "drive v. fly" myth dies hard!  Like every myth, we WANT to believe!  

So, what's next?  Downwind turn, anyone?  The "step"?  "Oversquare" operations?  Maybe "no-flap" landings in a Mooney?  

[kortopates]

Actually in December 1993 Richard Collins said that driving a car was 8 to 12 times safer than flying a small airplane.

 

Exactly right, except today we're only 7-8x worse than auto's - on a per mile basis too!

 

The good thing is I think the vast majority of newer private pilots got the memo in their training and realize this. But we still have a lot of long time pilots like myself that have been telling the lie for so long that are still in disbelief.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk