n5151ts wrote:
you are NOT a pilot...are you?
Yesterday I couldn't spell pilot, today I are one.
I volunteer my skilled and trained time (for free) at a museum that flies a selection of historic military aircraft duplicated with static examples. The museum is nationally owned, and demonstrates the aircraft for free. What do you do?
I've actively supported both flying and static aviation for over a quarter century, been a senior editor for two magazines dedicated to flying warbirds, and banged a few neurones together to help people achieve their aims with both flying and static restorations, including currently publicising the build of an historic Australian warbird, and fundrasing to flight of an ultra rare British amphibian. In both cases I won't get an ego boost of being 'driver, airframe', just the quet satisfaction of getting it up there.
No, I'm not a pilot. I have flown (stick, rudder and the waggly-powery thing) a Vietnam veteran aircraft. I didn't know either was a membership criteria for this forum. I'd hope that able to propose and defend any point of view
was a criteria, rather than grafitti spraying threads with unrealistic remarks about 'murder' to do with national aviation collections (which in part protect aircraft from wanna-fly extremists).
Still waiting for you to put forward an argument in defence of your rather simplistic extreme views. In each case I think I've shown why flying those particular aircraft isn't a good idea - and in most cases, what the real alternative is - that
other examples could be flown. No one loses - except, it appears, to you. We can, and do, have both, and I'll argue the point with anyone who demands everything is grounded as vehemently as with the everything must fly view. Both
extremes aren't likely, possible or sensible.
Just put 'everything must fly' in your autosig, and we can move on, eh? Some of us recognise there's more to flying than tight-flightsuits, as someone recently pointed out.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
