Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. Rob wrote:
Like I said, SAD. There is nothing in our geological history that
comes close to the changes we are seeing now.
Not only is there geological history that indicates we are in a
typical GW cycle, but some of those previous cycles are worse than
what we're observing in this one.
Very true. Bubbles is typical of those who myopically choose to see
only one side of an issue, failing completely to examine the facts
which might dispute their contention.

My take on global warming: The ardent environmentalists, of which I
consider myself one of the most ardent, have had little or no success
in passing measures, either legislatively or economically, which will
effectively begin to clean up the planet's air, water, and land.
Neither have they/we been successful in just mitigating the expansion
of pollution, let alone reducing it. Subsequently the most radical
environmentalists have contrived a plan to get everyone's attention:
global warming. It is little more than a scare tactic to attempt to
frighten a world populace into adopting some clean and green practices.
But it has been a failure, and will be forgotten soon, much the same as
the aluminum cookware/cancer scare of the 1960s. The GW movement has
gotten a lot of folks on board--mostly those who want to believe, as
opposed to those who can be convinced by hard science and an
examination of both sides of the issue--but even they will eventually
put their vigorous, evangelistic dogma aside for lack of substantive
evidence. Thirty years from now, GW will be something people chuckle
about--just another chapter in the humor of human existence.

You might claim I'm not an environmentalist at all because I'm not on
board with the whole GW thing. Not true. I believe that cleaning up
the planet and reducing the levels of pollution are paramount for a
future environment that will be conducive to a healthy human existence.
But the evidence *against* GW is at least as substantial as that *for*
it, and to turn a blind eye toward it is a fool's errand. The human
race may, indeed, be responsible for some component of the warming of
the planet, but the degree of that contribution is unknown, and the
significance of it cannot be accurately predicted at this time. Until
we have better data, I see no reason to jump on the GW bandwagon. Show
me the money . . . er, evidence, and I'll be among GW's most outspoken.
Until then, I'm more than just a little ****ed at the distraction that
the GW folks have created, taking the impetus away from the known and
quantifiable aspects of global pollution. I'll continue to work for
cleaner air, water, and land. The sooner we get past this GW
phenomenon and get back to the real business of cleaning up the planet,
the better.

Max
Well said. I've been in the same camp for years.
Do you own a Cessna 310? One of my favorite airplanes. I've got about
400 hours in type.

Max
Flew one in corporate charter for years. Great plane. Got about 3000 in
type, 4500tt. Still my fav.

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized. You've got me by a couple thousand hours. I flew skydivers
off and on for a decade, most in Super Twin Otters and King Airs. My
favorite airplane is a Pilatus Super Porter--ugly as sin (big box) but flies
like a dream and carries just about anything you can cram into it. After
dropping jumpers, I'd aim the spinner at Mother Earth, reverse the prop and
descend with them at 115 kts. I could usually get on the ground before
them. Got written up by the Friendly Aviation Agency a couple of times for
"flying too close to jumpers." Great plane.

Max



Sounds cool. Have seen pictures of that maneuver. Have some time in 18s
and 99s, but that was maybe the most unpleasant part of my aviation
life. Not the planes, but the circumstances.

Interesting that I was on the same track before the bottom fell out of
commercial airline opportunities. I got out 20 years ago and started
down a different path.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. Rob wrote:
Like I said, SAD. There is nothing in our geological history that
comes close to the changes we are seeing now.
Not only is there geological history that indicates we are in a
typical GW cycle, but some of those previous cycles are worse than
what we're observing in this one.
Very true. Bubbles is typical of those who myopically choose to see
only one side of an issue, failing completely to examine the facts
which might dispute their contention.

My take on global warming: The ardent environmentalists, of which I
consider myself one of the most ardent, have had little or no success
in passing measures, either legislatively or economically, which will
effectively begin to clean up the planet's air, water, and land.
Neither have they/we been successful in just mitigating the expansion
of pollution, let alone reducing it. Subsequently the most radical
environmentalists have contrived a plan to get everyone's attention:
global warming. It is little more than a scare tactic to attempt to
frighten a world populace into adopting some clean and green
practices. But it has been a failure, and will be forgotten soon,
much the same as the aluminum cookware/cancer scare of the 1960s.
The GW movement has gotten a lot of folks on board--mostly those who
want to believe, as opposed to those who can be convinced by hard
science and an examination of both sides of the issue--but even they
will eventually put their vigorous, evangelistic dogma aside for lack
of substantive evidence. Thirty years from now, GW will be something
people chuckle about--just another chapter in the humor of human
existence.

You might claim I'm not an environmentalist at all because I'm not on
board with the whole GW thing. Not true. I believe that cleaning up
the planet and reducing the levels of pollution are paramount for a
future environment that will be conducive to a healthy human
existence. But the evidence *against* GW is at least as substantial
as that *for* it, and to turn a blind eye toward it is a fool's
errand. The human race may, indeed, be responsible for some
component of the warming of the planet, but the degree of that
contribution is unknown, and the significance of it cannot be
accurately predicted at this time. Until we have better data, I see
no reason to jump on the GW bandwagon. Show me the money . . . er,
evidence, and I'll be among GW's most outspoken. Until then, I'm more
than just a little ****ed at the distraction that the GW folks have
created, taking the impetus away from the known and quantifiable
aspects of global pollution. I'll continue to work for cleaner air,
water, and land. The sooner we get past this GW phenomenon and get
back to the real business of cleaning up the planet, the better.

Max
Well said. I've been in the same camp for years.
Do you own a Cessna 310? One of my favorite airplanes. I've got about
400 hours in type.

Max
Flew one in corporate charter for years. Great plane. Got about 3000
in type, 4500tt. Still my fav.

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized. You've got me by a couple thousand hours. I flew
skydivers off and on for a decade, most in Super Twin Otters and King
Airs. My favorite airplane is a Pilatus Super Porter--ugly as sin (big
box) but flies like a dream and carries just about anything you can cram
into it. After dropping jumpers, I'd aim the spinner at Mother Earth,
reverse the prop and descend with them at 115 kts. I could usually get
on the ground before them. Got written up by the Friendly Aviation
Agency a couple of times for "flying too close to jumpers." Great plane.

Max

Sounds cool. Have seen pictures of that maneuver. Have some time in 18s
and 99s, but that was maybe the most unpleasant part of my aviation life.
Not the planes, but the circumstances.

Interesting that I was on the same track before the bottom fell out of
commercial airline opportunities. I got out 20 years ago and started down
a different path.

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max

Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor, but
with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military, there
was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but I just
couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled checks in
a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate" career went.
Talk about boring work.

Max


Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
news
Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military,
there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but
I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled
checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate"
career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words.

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the numbers
in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its operational limits
and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and relatively easy to get
into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s, albeit one was simply a
navigational error (read: side of mountain). I've flown right seat in a 35
Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior airplane in all respects. Very
stable and forgiving, right up to the edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
news
Maxprop wrote:

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military,
there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but
I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled
checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate"
career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words.

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the numbers
in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its operational limits
and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and relatively easy to get
into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s, albeit one was simply a
navigational error (read: side of mountain). I've flown right seat in a 35
Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior airplane in all respects. Very
stable and forgiving, right up to the edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max



Nope. Only in 18s and 99s. And not what I consider much time in those.

But speaking of losing friends, lost my best friend in college to a twin
Comanche single engine rollover. The only plane I ever hated.

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
news
Maxprop wrote:

I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the
military, there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying
corporate, but I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I
did fly cancelled checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far
as my "corporate" career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words.

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the
numbers in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its
operational limits and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and
relatively easy to get into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s,
albeit one was simply a navigational error (read: side of mountain).
I've flown right seat in a 35 Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior
airplane in all respects. Very stable and forgiving, right up to the
edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max

Nope. Only in 18s and 99s. And not what I consider much time in those.

But speaking of losing friends, lost my best friend in college to a twin
Comanche single engine rollover. The only plane I ever hated.

The Twin Comanche had a bad rep. Piper added counter-rotating props later
to attempt to save the model, but it was too little too late. I've ridden
right seat in them, but no PIC time. Just as well, I think. My favorite
twin, beside the Duke, is a Cessna 337 Skymaster. Great performance, if
noisy, and engine-out events were no big deal.

Max