You're Not Going To Believe This: Another Cirrus Is Down (Statesville, NC)
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
It's a gray crappy day here in Charlotte, about 50 miles south of Statesville.
Rain everywhere... some places are supposed to get up to 4" but we've just had a
steady soaking rain here.
No word yet if the Cirrus was coming or going but my money is on going. They
say it crashed only 50 feet off the airport but they also say it was wooded. I
haven't been there in some years so I just can't remember the layout. I believe
the open runway is 5-23.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Guy Elden Jr
On October 8, 2006, at 1555 UTC, a Cirrus Design Corp., SR-22, U. S.
registry N147SR, serial number 1970, operated by Air-OPS, sustained
substantial damage when during landing at Karlsruhe-Baden Airport,
Germany, the airplane departed the side of the runway and struck a
fence. The pilot and passenger on board were not injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The
personal, cross-country flight departed Schwabisch Hall Airpark,
Germany.
Honestly, it's human nature to notice these crashes when they happen so
close together, especially in light of the more famous one earlier in
the month. But I haven't heard of any SR-20 or 22 planes falling out of
the sky because of a severe control failure save for one (think it had
something to do with the linkage to the ailerons). All the rest, as far
as I've heard, have been pilot error related.
--
Guy
Guy Elden Jr
Guy Elden Jr
Larry Dighera
wrote in <1161981980....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Don't forget about the one in Germany
Um, that would be this one:
--------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061016X01522&key=1
NTSB Identification: DEN07WA005.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Non-U.S., Non-Commercial
Accident occurred Sunday, October 08, 2006 in Karlsruhe-Baden,
Germany
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N147SR
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
On October 8, 2006, at 1555 UTC, a Cirrus Design Corp., SR-22, U.
S. registry N147SR, serial number 1970, operated by Air-OPS,
sustained substantial damage when during landing at
Karlsruhe-Baden Airport, Germany, the airplane departed the side
of the runway and struck a fence. The pilot and passenger on board
were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at
the time of the accident. The personal, cross-country flight
departed Schwabisch Hall Airpark, Germany.
---------------------
How many does this make in the last three or four months?
---------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061004X01453&key=1
NTSB Identification: MIA06WA137
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Friday, September 22, 2006 in Bull Bay, Jamaica
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N181LM
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.
On September 22, 2006, about 1029 eastern standard time, a Cirrus
Design Corporation SR-22 airplane, N181LM, registered to and
operated by Colobri Aircraft Leasing Inc., had the pilot activate
the installed aircraft parachute system in the area of Bull Bay,
Jamaica. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a visual
flight rules flight plan was filed for the flight to the Dominican
Republic. The pilot and passengers were not injured, and the
airplane incurred minor damage. The flight originated at Norman
Manley International Airport, Kingston, Jamaica, about 1019.
---------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060831X01268&key=1
NTSB Identification: CHI06FA245
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 28, 2006 in Indianapolis, IN
Aircraft: Cirrus SR-22, registration: N91MB
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 3 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may
contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when
the final report has been completed.
On August 28, 2006, at 1038 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR-22,
N91MB, was destroyed when it impacted a water retention pond
located about 2.4 miles from the Eagle Creek Airpark (EYE),
Indianapolis, Indiana, after a loss of control during cruise
climb. The 14 Code of Regulations Part 91 personal flight departed
EYE at 1034 en route to Hilton Head Airport (HXD), Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina. The pilot received fatal injuries, and the
three passengers received serious injuries. Instrument
meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.
The flight was on an instrument flight plan.
---------------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060822X01223&key=1
NTSB Identification: NYC06WA203
14 CFR Non-U.S., Non-Commercial
Accident occurred Saturday, August 12, 2006 in Ligure Sea, Italy
Aircraft: Cirrus SR-22, registration: N357MV
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
On August 12, 2006, at 1036 universal coordinated time, a Cirrus
SR-22, N357MV, experienced a loss of power during cruise flight,
and was presumed damaged during a forced landing to the Ligure
Sea, near Genoa, Italy. The airplane sank, and has not been
recovered to date. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The
flight departed Olbia Costa Smeralda Airport (LIEO), Olbia, Italy,
and was destined for Lugano Airport (LSZA), Lugano, Italy.
---------------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060808X01114&key=1
NTSB Identification: CHI06FA218
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 05, 2006 in Boyceville, WI
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N658CD
Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may
contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when
the final report has been completed.
On August 5, 2006, at 1140 central daylight time, a Cirrus SR22,
N658CD, received substantial damage on impact with terrain during
approach to runway 26 (3,300 feet by 60 feet, asphalt) at
Boyceville Municipal Airport, Boyceville, Wisconsin. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.
The 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight was not operating on a
flight plan. The pilot received serious injuries, and the
certified flight instructor received minor injuries. The flight
originated from Duluth International Airport, Duluth, Minnesota,
at 1015, and was en route to Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, Eau
Claire, Wisconsin.
--------------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060816X01182&key=1
NTSB Identification: CHI06WA231
14 CFR Non-U.S., Non-Commercial
Accident occurred Monday, July 24, 2006 in Mantena, Brazil
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR-22, registration: PR-ESA
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.
On July 24, 2006, at 1625 universal coordinated time, a Cirrus
SR22, PR-ESA, received substantial damage on impact with terrain
during takeoff near Mantena, Brazil. The pilot seat moved aft when
the throttle was advanced forward and the pilot lost pedal
control. The airplane came to rest after it hit a hole near the
edge of the runway.
--------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060717X00959&key=1
NTSB Identification: CHI06FA186
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 11, 2006 in Edgewater, MD
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR-22, registration: N8163Q
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may
contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when
the final report has been completed.
On July 11, 2006, at 0943 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR-22,
N8163Q, was destroyed when it impacted a tree and terrain during a
go-around after an attempted landing on runway 30 (2,500 feet by
48 feet, asphalt) at the Lee Airport (ANP), Edgewater, Maryland.
The private pilot sustained serious injuries. The 14 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight departed the Ocean
City Municipal Airport (26N), Ocean City, New Jersey, at 0900 with
ANP as the final destination. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed at the time of the accident. An instrument flight rules
(IFR) flight plan had been filed.
The route of flight for the IFR flight plan was: SIE, ENO, V268,
BAL. The proposed time en route was 45 minutes at a speed of 165
knots with an en route altitude of 4,000 feet mean sea level
(msl).
A witness reported that he observed the airplane enter the
airport's landing pattern by entering a 45-degree entry from the
northeast. The witness reported that the airplane crossed runway
30 about mid-field and entered a left downwind leg for landing on
runway 30.
Another witness, who was standing on the ramp of the maintenance
hanger at ANP, reported that he heard the pilot make a radio call
over the airport's Unicom frequency stating that he was landing on
runway 30. The witness reported that he observed the airplane over
the approach end of the runway at an altitude of 150 - 175 feet
above ground level (agl). He reported that the airplane was
"diving for the runway" and was flying on the left side of the
runway over the grass between the taxiway and the runway. The
airplane continued to "dive" until it was about one half way down
the runway when the nose of the airplane leveled out at an
altitude of about 75 feet agl. He heard the engine noise increase,
but not to full power. He reported that the airplane "banked hard
to the left" and that he could see the top of both wings. He lost
sight of the airplane behind a line of trees, and later heard a
"thud" followed by another thud.
The same witness reported that the airplane's engine sounded
normal with no backfiring or sputtering. He heard a slight
increase of engine power when the nose of the airplane leveled
out. He reported that the flaps were partially extended.
A third witness, who was working in his hangar located about
mid-field at the airport, reported that he heard the airplane when
it was over the runway. He reported that the airplane sounded like
it was "not developing a lot of power" but was "coasting." Then
the airplane powered up "a little bit" and then turned to the
left. The witness reported that he did not see the airplane after
the turn, but he heard the engine "miss" or "stop" when it was
over the neighborhood. The witness ran to the accident site when
he heard the crash.
Two construction workers, who were working on a house on Lee's
Lane which was located about 1/8 of a mile from the accident site,
reported that they heard the airplane as it flew over the house.
They described the engine noise as being "extremely loud" prior to
the sound of the airplane impacting the trees.
Numerous witnesses arrived at the accident site located about 100
yards from the third witness's hangar. Fuel was spilling from both
fuel tanks. They removed the seat belt and shoulder harness from
the pilot and pulled him from the airplane. An emergency medical
helicopter arrived at the scene and the pilot was flown to a
hospital.
----------------------------
Guy Elden Jr
On October 8, 2006, at 1555 UTC, a Cirrus Design Corp., SR-22, U. S.
registry N147SR, serial number 1970, operated by Air-OPS, sustained
substantial damage when during landing at Karlsruhe-Baden Airport,
Germany, the airplane departed the side of the runway and struck a
fence. The pilot and passenger on board were not injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The
personal, cross-country flight departed Schwabisch Hall Airpark,
Germany.
Matt Whiting
> Don't forget about the one in Germany earlier this month too...
Did you really need to post it four times?
Matt
Guy Elden Jr
Jose
> as I've heard, have been pilot error related.
Yes, and that's what's wrong with the Cirrus.
It's a nice plane and all, but it's being touted as a plane for the
casual pilot. The casual pilot will make more errors. In a Cirrus,
those errors will kill where in a 172 they are less likely to do so.
Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Ron Natalie
> No word yet if the Cirrus was coming or going but my money is on going. They
> say it crashed only 50 feet off the airport but they also say it was wooded. I
> haven't been there in some years so I just can't remember the layout. I believe
> the open runway is 5-23.
>
Statesville is less than 3 miles from my field. The ONLY runway there
is 5-23. FlightAware shows they were heading into SVH and the news
reports say it was on an ILS approach in there. There's an ILS-23
and SVH is plenty long. The description says he ran off the end.
Saville
>> All the rest, as far
>> as I've heard, have been pilot error related.
>
> Yes, and that's what's wrong with the Cirrus.
>
> It's a nice plane and all, but it's being touted as a plane for the
> casual pilot. The casual pilot will make more errors. In a Cirrus,
> those errors will kill where in a 172 they are less likely to do so.
>
> Jose
You might be right. Wednesday I was midfield downwind at Hanscom, in a Super
Decathlon (taking aerobatic lessons), heading easterly. I was going to be
#3 says the tower but the other two were waaaay out there on straight in
approaches, so I asked the tower for a 360 rather than flying halfway to
England before turning base. ATC says sure BUT to head North for a bit
first as there was a Cirrus behind me.
OK so I turn North and look and yeah he was behind me...RIGHT friggin
behind me! Both I and the CFI were rather ummmm surprised at how close he
was. So I let him blow by, happy that he's in front of me rather than
behind, do my 360 and proceed to land.
Now sure ATC is responsible for the spread but so is the pilot and that
Cirrus was closing I bet. The CFI informs me it's a fast, slippery plane
with a smallish wing so it has to be flown fast to stay in the air.
So it makes me wonder if the Cirrus pilot understood all of that, and the
ramifications of flying a fast plane in the pattern. Not the aircraft's
fault, of course, but as you say - maybe it's not the plane for the casual
pilot.
john smith
Saville <sav...@comcast.net> wrote:
> So it makes me wonder if the Cirrus pilot understood all of that, and the
> ramifications of flying a fast plane in the pattern. Not the aircraft's
> fault, of course, but as you say - maybe it's not the plane for the casual
> pilot.
Many pilots are clueless in the pattern when it comes to following
slower traffic. They have never been taught and do not have the
capability to process the capabilities of their aircraft relative to the
aircraft they are following. I have encountered this numerous times
while flying a 65 hp Aeronca Champ. Which is why I fly a tight, low
pattern. They expect me to be higher, wider and faster, allowing me to
land without encountering near mid-air conditions.
Viperdoc
that they do not need to fly patterns the same size as someone in a 747. You
do not need a five mile final in a 152- it does tend to back up everyone
else in the pattern.
Ron Natalie
Now the scuttlebutt was that he crashed while attempting to circle
to land.
Roy Smith
> Many pilots are clueless in the pattern when it comes to following
> slower traffic.
That's because while they were training, they *were* the slower traffic :-)
Larry Dighera
wrote in <fQz0h.24342$7I1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>The casual pilot will make more errors.
Piloting is serious business. There shouldn't be any casual pilots.
Kyle Boatright
"Viperdoc" <jni...@NOattglobalSPAMM.net> wrote in message
news:OaK0h.36910$IO2....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
A lot of it goes back to training. One of the local flight schools from a
towered field teaches B-52 style approaches in their C-172's. That makes
sense for someone who is just attempting his/her first landings, but once
the student has the landing thing figured out, the instructor(s) really,
really need to retrain their students to fly a tighter pattern. They don't.
When they come to my non-towered home field, it makes for a lot of cranky
people in the pattern.
Something that puts a big grin on my face is watching someone at SnF or
Oshkosh *really* fly their airplane in the pattern. The tower asks for a
close tight base and final and the pilot complies, flying a perfectly
coordinated, tight base and short final ending with the airplane rolling out
right on the runway centerline and in position to set the airplane down
exactly where the controller has requested. I love that kind of thing,
regardless of aircraft type.
As opposed to the guy who blunders around, drops to 5' AGL at the runway
threshold with the tower saying "Cessna, fly your airplane 2,000' down the
runway and land on the orange dot". In the meantime, the Cessna is flying
at 5' AGL, wiggling and waggling at minimum airspeed and a half dozen
aircraft are scrambling to maintain adequate spacing behind the bozo who is
flying his Cessna at 45 knots in ground effect.
Mxsmanic
This is something that confuses me about patterns: Isn't the purpose
of the pattern to keep everyone moving in the same path? Clearly, if
you fly lower or higher than someone else, or inside or outside their
path, you're separated, but isn't there still a risk that you'll
collide at some point?
I always picture aircraft in a pattern following each other in a neat
line, but it sounds like it doesn't work this way in real life, and so
I'm still a bit confused on how they avoid hitting each other if they
are all flying at different altitudes and distances with legs of
different lengths.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Jose
True enough, but misses the point. I was being more metaphorical than
anything, but the truth is that it is harder (requires more training,
more alertness, more attention) to fly a fighter mission in hostile
terretory in an F-111 than it does to fly in nice weather from somewhere
to somewhere near in a 172.
It therefore, of necessity, takes =less= of the "right stuff" to do the
aforementioned 172 trip.
A fatal accident can still kill you in either case. But the likelyhood
of carelessness causing a fatal accident is higher in the former case.
This is why most pilots never qualify for that, and most pilots do
qualify for the blue sky rating.
Dudley Henriques
"Kyle Boatright" <kboat...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xNmdndjrHbL8Cd7Y...@comcast.com...
I had a P51 in the pattern at Oshkosh with a Breezy in front of me. The
tower had me on the same downwind at co-altitude with about a 150kt overtake
and I couldn't get a word in edgewise. (Oshkosh can be a real problem if you
need a quick head's up to ATC about something and can't key the mike for the
traffic noise.
Anyway, I was caught between a rock and a hard place obviously since I
figured if I sliced up the Breezy it would really ding my prop and probably
really piss off the Breezy guy.
I had to alter my downwind drastically or over run the Breezy . I had full
flaps on the airplane, was way behind the power curve, and nibbling with my
CL max carrying about 45 inches and had to do something quick and on my own.
I could see the Breezy guy looking back over his shoulder like I was a T Rex
about to have him for lunch.
I was clear on my right side and altered enough to extend, just as the tower
broke in and asked me why I WAS extending. I told them the guy in the Breezy
was about to have a heart attack or an 11 foot 2 inch Hamilton Standard
24D50 prop up his butt if I didn't extend! :-)
Moral is that in a controlled VFR pattern that's busy, you comply, but never
blindly!!
Dudley Henriques
Roy Smith
"Kyle Boatright" <kboat...@comcast.net> wrote:
> One of the local flight schools from a
> towered field teaches B-52 style approaches in their C-172's. That makes
> sense for someone who is just attempting his/her first landings, but once
> the student has the landing thing figured out, the instructor(s) really,
> really need to retrain their students to fly a tighter pattern.
It's much easier to teach somebody the right way the first time.
Don Tuite
Isn't this the "stabilized approach" rubric carried to an extreme?
Don
swag
casual. The fifth definition is "careless; unmethodical;unconcerned;
uninterested". None of us should be that. The second definition is
"irregular; occasional". Many of us are that. I put in 100 hours a
year and yet I am a casual pilot compared to many.
Dudley Henriques
"Roy Smith" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-EEF772.1...@reader2.panix.com...
I totally agree. I've shunned the hard, rigid, and non-flexible approach to
flight instruction from day 1. Its fine to have an established datum for a
specific task, and indeed, all instructors should use some kind of lesson
plan as all flight schools should set specific standards and procedures, but
along with this, a good CFI has to include flexibility and common sense all
through the learning curve.
Pilots are well taught from the very beginning that the ability to work a
plan while maintaining a flexible approach to working that plan is one of
the most important assets a pilot can attain through training.
Dudley Henriques
Mxsmanic
> True enough, but misses the point. I was being more metaphorical than
> anything, but the truth is that it is harder (requires more training,
> more alertness, more attention) to fly a fighter mission in hostile
> terretory in an F-111 than it does to fly in nice weather from somewhere
> to somewhere near in a 172.
Generally true, but flying in intensely congested, heterogenous
civilian traffic while following a thick book full of rules and
regulations and peering at charts and screens isn't necessarily any
easier. I've heard of many former military pilots who were great at
handling their fighter aircraft but had difficulting transitioning to
the civilian world of aviation where there are many procedures and
rules to be followed and many different types of other aircraft and
pilots sharing the skies (with equal rights).
> A fatal accident can still kill you in either case.
A fatal accident is guaranteed to kill you.
steve
I can rent the plane in the future. I am also doing my IFR cross country in
it. This is a fantastic aircraft, but it has alot of stuff, especially with
the dual Garmin 430s and a large display screen, than can distract you from
your first requirement, fly the plane. It has a constant speed prop that is
automatic and fixed gear, but it is a very complicated aircraft nontheless.
The high rate of crashes does concern me, so I will have to see how much I
actually use that aircraft.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pvidnSvTOq6P-t_Y...@giganews.com...
Larry Dighera
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:07:55 GMT, Jose <teac...@aol.nojunk.com>
>> wrote in <fQz0h.24342$7I1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>>
>> >The casual pilot will make more errors.
>>
>> Piloting is serious business. There shouldn't be any casual pilots.
On 28 Oct 2006 14:02:37 -0700, "swag" <cm_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1162069357....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>The English Shorter Oxford dictionary lists 5 major definitions of
>casual. The fifth definition is "careless; unmethodical;unconcerned;
>uninterested". None of us should be that. The second definition is
>"irregular; occasional". Many of us are that. I put in 100 hours a
>year and yet I am a casual pilot compared to many.
>
The citizens who are our passengers, and those over whom we navigate,
expect pilots to exercise responsibility and prudence in addition to
skill in conducting their flight operations. When pilots are publicly
characterized as hobby pilots, or casual pilots it fails to inspire
confidence in their diligence and dedication to competent and
responsible flight operations within federal regulations in the mind
of the public. And the airman who sees himself as a hobby pilot or
casual pilot, has probably not invested adequate cogitation to
appreciate the depth of his responsibilities.
Think of how you'd personally characterize a casual motorist or a
hobby motorist compared to a thoughtful, well trained, skillful, law
abiding motorist who fully appreciates his responsibility to his
passengers and those with whom he shares the highway; then realize
that automobiles operate on highways and aircraft operated over the
heads of the public, and you'll begin to understand what I'm trying to
convey.
Below are some of my past thoughts on the subject:
>Message-ID: <8pr8c253tt53rau2v...@4ax.com>
>When I see someone refer to GA flying as a hobby, it always makes me
>cringe. To me, it means that the flight training of the pilot who
>wrote it failed to truly ready the airman for assuming the command
>role in flight as set forth in the federal regulations.
>
>While there is usually great emphasis on learning the technical arcana
>of flying, navigating, and metrology, it would appear that the
>training failed to cause the airman to fully appreciate the
>responsibility a Pilot In Command assumes for the lives of those over
>whom he flies and his passengers.
>
>
>If the flight student's mental outlook isn't fundamentally changed as
>a result of his flight training, he probably doesn't really appreciate
>the depth of that responsibility. And imagine how the layman feels
>when he thinks hobby-pilots are noisily traversing the "sovereign"
>airspace overhead, rather than a federally certified airman who
>solemnly accepts his true command responsibility for the right to
>exorcize the authority granted him by his airmans certificate.
>
>
>If we refer to it as recreational flying, rather than a hobby, perhaps
>the lay readers of this international forum will see that we airmen
>take our responsibilities more seriously than mere hobbyists.
>
------------------------
>Message-ID: <0l85j1l99ve2p0trb...@4ax.com>
>There are those hobbies, such as rock climbing, SCUBA diving, even
>sailing, that are potentially life and death matters, but they don't
>demand the public to extend their trust for their participation as
>does aviation.
>
>
>That is why I feel it is important for airmen to act responsibly and
>prudent in the air and in public.
>
------------------------
Message-ID: <O9Ch7.53$fG6....@typhoon.we.rr.com>
>The point I was trying to make is that commanding a flight is very
>serious business whether you think it's just a relaxing leisure hobby
>activity or not. Unlike most leisure hobbies (golf, tennis, stamp
>collecting, ...), a PIC flying in congested airspace cannot relax his
>vigil for a moment least he shirk his duty and responsibility to those
>whom his flight may affect.
------------------------
Message-ID: <66mqq0h3ctka0v0nj...@4ax.com>
>Flying is inherently dangerous and unforgiving. The airman who fails
>to keep constant vigil on the weather, equipment and navigation will
>be at peril. Flying is serious business, and needs to be addressed
>from a professional perspective.
>
>
>>I think he should focus on this hobby
>
>
>If he views flying as a hobby, he will be a hazard to himself, his
>passengers and those over whom he navigates. Flying may be
>recreation, but it isn't a hobby in the usual sense. An airman's
>constant adherence to all regulations and safe operating and planning
>practices (as he was taught) is imperative, as is an appreciation of
>his responsibility to those whose trust he has accepted. It will take
>time and experience for him to appreciate that responsibility.
---------------------
Message-ID: <uEvh7.60814$Ug.18...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
>It would appear that someone feels that it is going to be necessary to
>hobble GA pilots if NASA's Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS)
>program is to succeed. While I favor SATS implementation, I see no
>reason to impose additional requirements on GA pilots, so that
>unqualified SATS pilots can share our airspace.
>
>
>This dispatch "solution" is predicated on the erroneous assumption(s)
>that GA pilots face overwhelming social pressure that influences them
>to fly unsafe trips (and potential capitalistic gain). While social
>pressure may have been a causing factor in the case of JFK Jr.'s last
>flight, he was not a typical GA pilot; he seldom felt confident enough
>to fly without an instructor aboard. I suspect that the source of his
>errors was his lack of appreciation for the _dedication_ required to
>be a _competent_ PIC. Assuming command of a flight is NOT a casual
>matter, it is a serious undertaking with potentially grim
>consequences.
>
>
>Dedication and competency go hand in hand. If a pilot thinks of
>aviation as a "hobby", s/he is overlooking the responsibility to
>his/her passengers, and those on the ground, that a Pilot In Command
>must shoulder. Becoming a competent pilot should change your life.
>Because a pilot must master several arcane subjects (aircraft systems
>and operation, meteorology, navigation, ATC operations,
>communications, governing regulations of several codes, ...), the
>mastery of any single one of which is suitable for a lifetime of
>study, his/her view of life is necessarily changed by that knowledge.
>If it doesn't change your attitude toward dedication to being the best
>competent pilot you are able, and instill the awesome responsibility a
>PIC must have toward the lives of those who may be affected by his/her
>decisions, the training has failed.
>
>
>A better solution would be to revise the FAA pilot training curricula,
>and bring them up to date with greater emphasis on the decision making
>process, safety and the required mindset to be competent Pilot In
>_Command_. Currently, students' flight training focuses on the
>technical aspects of controlling the aircraft, and does not
>_explicitly_ emphasize the mindset required to safely _command_ a GA
>flight.
>
>
>It is the training process that is flawed. It will remain flawed
>until the curricula are changed to teach the skills required to
>_command_ a flight as well as those necessary to pilot it. That is
>the place to make the changes.
>
>
>If, on the other hand, your agenda is to put inexperienced people, who
>lack the required mindset and knowledge of potential pitfalls, in the
>role of PIC, you are doomed to failure. Piloting is a way of life,
>not just a skill.
>
-------------------------------
Message-ID: <9c1mfvs9ig79g9086...@4ax.com>
>
>An airman MUST make that promise to those who have handed her
>responsibility for their safety.
>
>A pilot does NOT enjoy the freedom to indulge her emotional instincts
>while plying the skies as PIC. She MUST overcome her fear, and
>attempt to pilot her aircraft as competently and skillfully as the
>situation permits in ALL circumstances. Any airman who fails to
>appreciate this fundamental truth does not fully accept her
>responsibility to those (on the ground and in the air) who have placed
>their faith and trust in her for their personal safety.
>
>
>There is NO room for equivocation in this matter, for an airman
>derives her power to navigate the skies from those on the surface and
>in the air who tacitly grant her their permission to hold their lives
>in the airman's hands. An airman solemnly accepts this responsibility
>to the public with the utmost of reverence, honor, and respect, or she
>doesn't belong in the sky acting as PIC.
>
>
>That's why piloting an aircraft is not a hobby. It may be
>recreational, but an airman is NEVER permitted the luxury of relaxing
>his vigilance nor responsibilities as would a hobbyist.
>
-------------------------------
Message-ID: <BmO65.106264$WS3.8...@typhoon.we.rr.com>#1/1
> WHY FLY?
>
>
>The benefits of being an Airman and experiencing flight are not all
>tangible. Here are some thoughts:
>
>
>The ability to navigate in the third dimension in many ways places you
>above most of humanity.
>
>
>The fulfillment of dreams of liberating flight brings forth a magical
>feeling of accomplishment unmatched by earthly accomplishments.
>
>
>Escaping the dusty little trials and tribulations on the planet's
>sweltering surface, even for a brief moment, is fresh, cool therapy
>beyond that available from ground-bound professionals.
>
>
>The indelible feeling of exaltation while wandering among billowing
>altocumulus turrets is so magical as to permanently imprint the soul
>with majesty.
>
>
>Vaulting a mountain range in a few short minutes to explore the clean
>desert environment on the other side expands one's frame of reference,
>and sphere of operation beyond his peers.
>
>
>Skimming over inhospitable terrain to land at a desert oasis
>(Laughlin, NV) on the Colorado River makes restorative rest and
>relaxation a day trip instead of a grueling multi-day expedition.
>
>
>While below you the sail boats float for 5 hours at the snail's pace
>of 6 knots, you are atop the Pacific island of Catalina in only a few
>minutes.
>
>
>Freedom from monitoring the roadway centerline second-by-second frees
>the pilot to revel in the sky's liberating realm.
>
>
>The power to introduce your fellows to the delights of the sky
>provides you with an ability few who walk this planet possess.
>
>
>Providing your friends with photographs of their property taken from
>an aerial prospective fills them with gratitude and respect.
>
>
>Joining the brotherhood of Airman binds us together through shared
>experiences as no other covenant is able.
>
>
>Sharing the camaraderie of fellow aviators is a worldwide phenomenon.
>
>
>Once the responsibility, required knowledge, and dedication transform
>a person into a Pilot, s/he no longer regards life with the banal
>ennui of the common man.
>
>
>The pilot has experienced the Earth's geologic and cultural features
>from a lofty vista that yields an insight unavailable to those
>restricted to a ground-level perspective.
>
--------------------------
Stefan
> And the airman who sees himself as a hobby pilot or
> casual pilot, has probably not invested adequate cogitation to
> appreciate the depth of his responsibilities.
Flying is one of my hobbies, so I can't help being a hobby pilot.
Claiming something else would just be ridiculous. Maybe you could argue
that I should call myself a sports pilot (not in the legal sense), but
since pushing around gliders on the ground is about the only sportive
part of my flying activity, this wouldn't be less ridiculous. I invested
a fair amount of cogitation, besides of time and money, into my
responsibilities as a pilot, but this doesn't change the fact that I
still am and most probably will remain a hobby pilot. I don't have the
slighest difficulty with this.
> Think of how you'd personally characterize a casual motorist or a
> hobby motorist compared to a thoughtful, well trained, skillful, law
> abiding motorist who fully appreciates his responsibility to his
> passengers and those with whom he shares the highway;
I would characterize a hobby motorist as one who drives as a hobby in
his spare time. And I would expect him to be well trained, skillful and
law abiding.
Stefan
Jose
> abiding motorist who fully appreciates his responsibility to his
> passengers and those with whom he shares the highway;
Do you know any? :)
Larry Dighera
wrote in <8cdcc$4544aeea$54497d2b$54...@news.hispeed.ch>:
>Maybe you could argue
>that I should call myself a sports pilot (not in the legal sense), but
>since pushing around gliders on the ground is about the only sportive
>part of my flying activity
Why do you see yourself as a hobby pilot and not a recreational pilot?
Stefan
> Why do you see yourself as a hobby pilot and not a recreational pilot?
Why do you think a recreational pilot is more serious about flying than
a hobby pilot? Usually, you call a recreational activity a hobby when
you start to pursue it more seriously. Frankly, this word picking debate
is ridiculous, silly and outright childish.
Stefan
Larry Dighera
wrote in <25ab6$45451171$54497cbc$55...@news.hispeed.ch>:
So, you just choose to call yourself a hobby pilot for no reason?
Dudley Henriques
I've seen pilots in my career who did nothing but fly for fun and recreation
who were among the finest pilots I've ever known, and I've seen pilots with
a professional title a mile long who were the worst of the worst.
That being said, conversely, I've seen recreational pilots not worth a pail
of spit and professionals who were a tribute to the term.
I'm not quite sure how fancy titles fit in with the competence issue. :-))
Dudley Henriques
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ic5ak2h05mepgbj3n...@4ax.com...
Matt Whiting
> I've seen pilots in my career who did nothing but fly for fun and recreation
> who were among the finest pilots I've ever known, and I've seen pilots with
> a professional title a mile long who were the worst of the worst.
> That being said, conversely, I've seen recreational pilots not worth a pail
> of spit and professionals who were a tribute to the term.
> I'm not quite sure how fancy titles fit in with the competence issue. :-))
It sounds to me like you ARE sure. :-)
Matt
Dudley Henriques
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:JIc1h.414$Oc.5...@news1.epix.net...
My wife insisted I go to "tact school". :-)))))
Dudley
Matt Whiting
Cool! I always wanted to go to tactical school, but then I'm more of a
strategic sort. :-)
Matt
Dudley Henriques
So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter in
the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
:-)
Dudley
Jay Beckman
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote in message
news:Gp-dna2DX6FD9NjY...@rcn.net...
"No Honey, that dress doesn't make you look fat...your ass makes you look
fat..."
<g d r>
Jay B
Dudley Henriques
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nSd1h.58942$SV1....@newsfe09.phx...
Ah HA!!!! I knew it!!! Another candidate for TACT school!!!!! :-))
Dudley
Bob Noel
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote:
> So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter in
> the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
"I like how you look in the blue dress."
--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
Dudley Henriques
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-18C...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <Gp-dna2DX6FD9NjY...@rcn.net>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote:
>
>> So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter
>> in
>> the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
>
> "I like how you look in the blue dress."
Spoken as a TRUE married man......a REAL graduate from tact school if ever
there was one.
:-)
DH
Jim Macklin
totally wrong!
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote in message
news:BpSdnWeMPLLu8djY...@rcn.net...
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:Nge1h.6142$2A4....@newsfe24.lga...
>I tend to say, "You look thinner in any dress." which is
> totally wrong!
Nah!!! Bad move Jim. Girls can see right through that one. I think girls are
born with something called the "he's as full of s** t as a Christmas turkey
gene" or something close to this that seems to get us guys in a pack of
trouble if we try that one :-)
Dudley
Jose
> the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
"Honey, do I look fat?"
"Do I look stupid?"
Mxsmanic
> I've seen pilots in my career who did nothing but fly for fun and recreation
> who were among the finest pilots I've ever known, and I've seen pilots with
> a professional title a mile long who were the worst of the worst.
That is not necessarily surprising. Hobby pilots most probably enjoy
or even adore aviation, and this affection for flying may well
motivate them to improve their own piloting skills. Professional
pilots, on the other hand, earn a living by flying, and they may or
may not be actually interested in aviation. Those who just want the
job may not be motivated to do anything more than the absolute minimum
required to earn a paycheck, and thus may be mediocre pilots.
There are many variables, of course. And this phenomenon is not
unique to aviation. Some people engage in certain activities just for
the sake of earning money; others engage in them both out of a love of
the activity and the need or desire to earn money; and still others
engage in them out of an affection for the activity alone, without
monetary compensation.
Dudley Henriques
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:MBe1h.23409$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter
>> in the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
>
> "Honey, do I look fat?"
> "Do I look stupid?"
Ah... the famous and somewhat dubious lawyer (i.e. politician approach);
never answer a question directly with an answer but rather counter with a
counter question gambit.
This works extremely well on political TV commentary shows but when
attempted on wives will most certainly be countered with the famous and
somewhat dubious female counter to the double question counter
answer........"yes you do" followed immediately with "yes you do" :-)
Women are natural born chess players!!! :-))
Dudley Henriques
Jim Macklin
thinner!
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote in message
news:BZOdnfqi6MCT6NjY...@rcn.net...
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> Well, it is better than saying, a Mumu makes you LOOK
> thinner!
Absolutely!!
:-)
DH
Stefan
news:ic5ak2h05mepgbj3n...@4ax.com...
>> Why do you think a recreational pilot is more serious about flying
>> than a hobby pilot? Usually, you call a recreational activity a hobby
>> when you start to pursue it more seriously.
> So, you just choose to call yourself a hobby pilot for no reason?
You can read, can you? I call myself a hobby pilot because piloting is a
hobby of mine. Unlike e.g. lying on the sofa, which I also ocasionally
practise for recreational reasons, but which I wouldn't call a hobby.
Stefan
Matt Barrow
Evidently the right thing -- he's still alive...sorta.
Matt Barrow
Mine insists I go to "obedience school". Growl.
Matt Barrow
Matt Barrow
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
>I tend to say, "You look thinner in any dress." which is
> totally wrong!
>
You guys got it easy; those are all canned answers.
My wife is skinny -- how does one answer when she keeps complaining that her
"upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
Matt Barrow
"Hey, if you wanna look thin, hang around with fat people!" - Rodney
Dangerfield as Thornton Melon in "Back to School".
Matt Barrow
"Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"
"Certainly not" (under ones breath: "Everything make you look fat").
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> You guys got it easy; those are all canned answers.
>
> My wife is skinny -- how does one answer when she keeps complaining that her
> "upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
Tell her to wipe between them every day with toilet paper. If she questions
you, just point out all the success it had enlarging her ass. Don't worryif she
gets pissed at you; women get testy at times.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Bob Noel
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@noware.com> wrote:
> >> So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter
> >> in
> >> the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
> >
> > "I like how you look in the blue dress."
>
> Spoken as a TRUE married man......a REAL graduate from tact school if ever
> there was one.
Nope, never been married. Just had time to consider an answer with
the least probability of getting killed. Time, something we NEVER have
when faced with the impossibly question.
Bob Noel
"Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@site_fill.com> wrote:
> You guys got it easy; those are all canned answers.
>
> My wife is skinny -- how does one answer when she keeps complaining that her
> "upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
No such thing.
mike regish
mike
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0go7k29hii9mvtub4...@4ax.com...
>
> A fatal accident is guaranteed to kill you.
Dudley Henriques
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Nope, never been married. Just had time to consider an answer with
> the least probability of getting killed. Time, something we NEVER have
> when faced with the impossibly question.
You don't actually have to be married to understand the marraige equation.
All that's really necessary is superior intelligence and an uncanny desire
to remain living :-))
DH
Anno v. Heimburg
> So, you just choose to call yourself a hobby pilot for no reason?
Help out a non-native english speaker here, but that question seems to imply
that "hobby pilot" is somehow an insult. To me, "recreational activity in
which I regularly engage" is just a verbose way of saying "hobby",
so "hobby pilot" and "recreational pilot" are synonymous. (I would even
argue that "hobby" implies a certain frequency, while "recreational" just
means a one-off thing). Certainly, "hobby" to me has no negative
connotations.
Perhaps we have a classic case of "lost in translation". I would actually
consider the German word for recreational pilot - Freizeitpilot - as a
potentially more derogative term than Hobbypilot, certainly, the latter
implies a measure of dedication and seriousness that the former doesn't.
Since Stefan seems to be from Switzerland, he may experience the same
disconnect here.
So, anybody help us out?
Anno.
Ron Lee
I am a pilot.
Ron Lee
Peter R.
> My wife is skinny -- how does one answer when she keeps complaining that her
> "upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
Breast size is inversely proportional to intelligence.
--
Peter
B A R R Y
>
> Breast size is inversely proportional to intelligence.
I've known some women who could shoot that theory down in flames.
One is a Yale / Stanford educated doctor, who also happens to be tall
and blond! <G>
Gary Drescher
news:ei4vbm$236$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> Help out a non-native english speaker here, but that question seems to
> imply
> that "hobby pilot" is somehow an insult. To me, "recreational activity in
> which I regularly engage" is just a verbose way of saying "hobby",
> so "hobby pilot" and "recreational pilot" are synonymous. (I would even
> argue that "hobby" implies a certain frequency, while "recreational" just
> means a one-off thing). Certainly, "hobby" to me has no negative
> connotations.
The literal meaning of 'hobby' is just as you say, and is not disparaging.
However, words such as 'hobbyist' or 'amateur' are sometimes used to suggest
a superficial level of competence, in contrast with the presumed expertise
of a 'professional'. People may become defensive about that connotation.
--Gary
Thomas Borchert
> However, words such as 'hobbyist' or 'amateur' are sometimes used to suggest
> a superficial level of competence, in contrast with the presumed expertise
> of a 'professional'.
>
The author Robert Littel makes extensive use of the definition of a
professional of someone that is of the opinion that if something is worth doing
at all, it is worth doing well, IIRC.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Stefan
> Help out a non-native english speaker here, but that question seems to imply
> that "hobby pilot" is somehow an insult.
Although not a native English speaker, I think I understand those
connotations sufficiently well. Which doesn't prevent me from finding
this discussion ridiculous, though. But then, I don't believe that small
persons become bigger when you call them vertically challenged, either.
Stefan
Howard Nelson
"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yc2dnb_xWuphidvY...@comcast.com...
Here is my definition
Professional Pilot - Gets paid for flying. Salary + Equipment provided.
Pilot - May or may not get paid for flying (usually has to bear all the
expenses himself -herself).
Level of competence doesn't play a part. However if someone was paying for
my training and expenses and providing the aircraft I would fly 1000+
hours/year and my level of proficiency would be higher than it is now
Howard C182P
Larry Dighera
I don't know why I'm having so much difficulty conveying the idea that
airmen should not be, or bee seen to be, dilettantes, but because the
general public tacitly agrees to the potential hazard of our piloting
our mechanical equipment over their property and persons, airman must
be seen by the lay public as exercising prudence, respect, and a
professional diligence in pursuing aviation. Anything less invites
public ridicule of airmen....
Gig 601XL Builder
"Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@site_fill.com> wrote in message
news:4545bd1c$0$498$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> news:Nge1h.6142$2A4....@newsfe24.lga...
>>I tend to say, "You look thinner in any dress." which is
>> totally wrong!
>>
>
>
> You guys got it easy; those are all canned answers.
>
> My wife is skinny -- how does one answer when she keeps complaining that
> her "upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
>
A few AMUs will fix that right up. About half the price of a Garmin 430
installed for a good set.
john smith
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote:
> > So this would mean that when your wife asks you whether she looks fatter
> > in the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
> > :-)
> > Dudley
>
> "No Honey, that dress doesn't make you look fat...your ass makes you look
> fat..."
Sounds like something a single- (or soon to be) guy would say.
john smith
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote:
> I tend to say, "You look thinner in any dress." which is
> totally wrong!
I usually don't respond at all which serves two purposes.
1) I have avoided having to answer the question.
2) I have deflected the ensuing response from the initial question onto
one I can successfully answer.
Of course, for those with hearing aids, you can pretend you didn't hear
the question and simply walk out of the room unscathed.
john smith
> > her "upper level proportion" is too SMALL?
> A few AMUs will fix that right up. About half the price of a Garmin 430
> installed for a good set.
Parts and labor included.
john smith
> > >> in the red dress than she does in the the blue dress, you say what?
> > > "I like how you look in the blue dress."
> > Spoken as a TRUE married man......a REAL graduate from tact school if ever
> > there was one.
> Nope, never been married. Just had time to consider an answer with
> the least probability of getting killed. Time, something we NEVER have
> when faced with the impossibly question.
Star Fleet's Kobiashi test is childs play compared to the some of the
questions women ask.
Bob Noel
<jsmith-758EE9....@network-065-024-007-027.columbus.rr.com>,
john smith <jsm...@net.net> wrote:
> > Nope, never been married. Just had time to consider an answer with
> > the least probability of getting killed. Time, something we NEVER have
> > when faced with the impossibly question.
>
> Star Fleet's Kobiashi test is childs play compared to the some of the
> questions women ask.
I believe the spelling is: Kobayashi Maru
And of course it's childs play; after all, it had a solution (or should it be
"will have a solution"?).
Jay Beckman
IIRC, Kirk admitted that he cheated and technically, he didn't solve the KM
scenario.
Was there another scene in any of the follow on Star Trek movies where an
honest solution for the Kobayashi Maru scenario was disclosed?
Fly Long and Prosper...
Jay B
Bob Noel
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote:
> IIRC, Kirk admitted that he cheated and technically, he didn't solve the KM
> scenario.
Did he actually say he cheated?
>
> Was there another scene in any of the follow on Star Trek movies where an
> honest solution for the Kobayashi Maru scenario was disclosed?
Not that I recall.
Ron Wanttaja
<ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <WsA1h.102763$SV1....@newsfe09.phx>,
> "Jay Beckman" <jnsbe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, Kirk admitted that he cheated and technically, he didn't solve the KM
> > scenario.
>
> Did he actually say he cheated?
IIRC, he admitted to hacking into the computer to change things so he COULD
win.... his son then claimed that he cheated.
Ron Wanttaja
john smith
Ron Wanttaja <ron.wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
Kobayashi Maru scenario
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
See Kobayashi Maru (disambiguation) for related links.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was
part of the curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in
the 23rd century. It was primarily used to assess a cadet's discipline,
character, and command capabilities when facing an impossible situation.
In the scenario, a cadet was placed in command of a starship on patrol
near the Organian Neutral Zone. The starship would receive a distress
signal from the Kobayashi Maru, a civilian freighter that had been
disabled in the zone after having struck a gravitic mine. If the cadet
chose to enter the neutral zone in violation of treaties, the starship
would be confronted by three Klingon K't'inga-class battlecruisers. The
test was considered a no-win scenario because it was impossible for the
cadet to simultaneously save the Kobayashi Maru, avoid a fight with the
Klingons, and escape from the neutral zone with the starship intact.
There were likely several variations of the Kobayashi Maru scenario
that existed at various times. It's probable that the Academy
instructors periodically retool the scenario to fit current events in
the galaxy.
In the 2250s, James T. Kirk became the first (and only known) cadet to
ever beat the no-win scenario. After taking the test and failing twice,
Kirk took the test a third time after surreptitiously reprogramming the
computer to make it possible to win the scenario.
Kirk got a commendation for "original thinking", and later commented
wistfully that his stunt "had the virtue of never having been tried."
Kirk would later defend his "cheating" by arguing that he didn't believe
in the no-win scenario. Ironically, Kirk also defended the test itself
by suggesting "how we face death is at least as important as how we face
life".
During the filming of The Wrath of Khan, some people voiced concern
at the notion of Kirk having "cheated" to pass the test. However,
Nicholas Meyer defended the notion, saying it revealed an aspect of
Kirk's character, and that the film, or Kirk, shouldn't be restricted by
"television mentality".
In 2285, Kirk, then an admiral serving as an instructor at the Academy,
supervised Lieutenant Saavik's performance in the Kobayashi Maru
scenario. Former USS Enterprise crew members Spock, Sulu, Uhura, and
McCoy participated as "actors" in the simulation. Saavik's performance
was predictably dismal; as Kirk observed, "She destroyed the simulator
room and [the crew] with it." (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
The term was later generally applied by Dr. McCoy to define an
unwinnable or potentially fatal situation. He considered his and James
T. Kirk's imprisonment on Rura Penthe to be a "Kobayashi Maru". (Star
Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
A similar simulation was later used in the 24th century. It involved a
damaged Ferengi ship and Romulan warbirds instead of Klingon
battlecruisers, and was performed on the holodeck. (VOY: "Learning
Curve")
Background
Spock stated that he had never taken the Kobyashi Maru test, suggesting
the test may have been introduced in the period between Spock's Academy
training and Kirk's. However it's also possible that as a science
officer for much of his Starfleet career, Spock was not required to take
the test. In his death scene at the conclusion of Star Trek II: The
Wrath of Khan, he would describe his sacrifice as his solution to the
scenario.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario has appeared in several novels and short
stories (as published by Pocket Books, these are not canon, but have
been approved by Paramount). Julia Ecklar's The Kobayashi Maru tells how
Kirk, Pavel Chekov, Montgomery Scott, and Sulu each faced the problem.
Kirk won the scenario by reprogramming the simulation so that the
Klingons believed he was a famous starship captain, though he was only a
cadet at the time. Comic book stories of the Star Trek (DC volume 2)
series are based on Ecklar's scenario. Three short stories in the
Strange New Worlds anthology series have also tackled it. In "The Bottom
Line," by Andrew Morby (SNW III) and Shawn Michael Scott's "Best Tools
Available," (SNW VI) cadet Nog solves it in two entirely different (and
thoroughly Ferengi) ways. Kevin Lauderdale's "A Test of Character" (SNW
VII) depicts a different solution from Ecklar's, one in which Kirk's
tampering is "cheating without cheating," since Kirk merely creates a
level playing field, where success is not guaranteed. Pocket TNG:
"Boogeymen" depicts Wesley Crusher's Kobayashi Maru-type test. In Peter
David's New Frontier novel, Stone and Anvil, cadet Mackenzie Calhoun
faces the challenge in his own unique way.
Screenwriter Jack B. Sowards named the scenario after the Kobayashi
family who were his neighbors.
Bridge Officer's Test
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
The Starfleet bridge officer examination is a series of tests for
Starfleet officers who wish to be able to take command, besides the
command officers such as Captain, First Officer, and Second officer. The
test has many stages, but the final exam requires the officer to make a
choice that sends one person under their direct command to certain
death. No one who fails the test can serve as a command officer on the
bridge of a starship except in emergency situations.
In 2370, after attending her Starfleet Academy reunion, Deanna Troi felt
she was one of the few classmates who hadn't risen to command level
status. This combined with the bitter memory of how badly she acted
under pressure two years earlier when the Enterprise hit a quantum
filament, led her to talk to Commander Beverly Crusher. Crusher, who
takes the night watch of the bridge, tells her that she took the exam in
2362 when she wanted to contribute more than just in sickbay. (TNG:
"Disaster")
This led Deanna to try the test, which Commander Riker administered. The
final portion of the test, which also included a question and answer
portion, was to make decisions in a holodeck simulation. In it, the
officer is required to ask an officer to sacrifice themself to save the
ship. She had failed the final exam several times before realizing that
its purpose was to ascertain whether or not she would be able to send a
subordinate to certain death. Afterwards she passed the exam, and was
promoted to Commander. (TNG: "Thine Own Self")
Maule Driver
Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>> No word yet if the Cirrus was coming or going but my money is on
>> going. They say it crashed only 50 feet off the airport but they also
>> say it was wooded. I haven't been there in some years so I just can't
>> remember the layout. I believe the open runway is 5-23.
>>
>
> Statesville is less than 3 miles from my field. The ONLY runway there
> is 5-23. FlightAware shows they were heading into SVH and the news
> reports say it was on an ILS approach in there. There's an ILS-23
> and SVH is plenty long. The description says he ran off the end.
Morgans
"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote
> The literal meaning of 'hobby' is just as you say, and is not disparaging.
> However, words such as 'hobbyist' or 'amateur' are sometimes used to suggest a
> superficial level of competence, in contrast with the presumed expertise of a
> 'professional'. People may become defensive about that connotation.
Right. It could be that it is because we think of a hobby as play. No one
wants to think of themselves as "playing" at flying.
--
Jim in NC
Larry Dighera
<jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in <pCP1h.36$q06...@newsfe04.lga>:
>
>"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> The literal meaning of 'hobby' is just as you say, and is not disparaging.
>> However, words such as 'hobbyist' or 'amateur' are sometimes used to suggest a
>> superficial level of competence, in contrast with the presumed expertise of a
>> 'professional'. People may become defensive about that connotation.
>
>Right. It could be that it is because we think of a hobby as play.
I think both of you nailed it.
>No one wants to think of themselves as "playing" at flying.
Neither do our passengers nor those over whom we fly.