X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:05:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2454315 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:30:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.252.42; envelope-from=sbej@verizon.net Received: from your4105e587b6 ([75.82.233.22]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JQY009F6ELTOYK3@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:29:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:30:04 -0700 From: "Bryan Wullner" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Movie X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Message-id: <001301c81e71$76d334f0$6500a8c0@your4105e587b6> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: I agree. I could see public tagging our airplanes as "Go Fast Planes" just like the rep that Cigarette/offshore boats got from drug runners. They used them in Miami Vice show and movie. Wether or not it will change anything other than a new nick name of our airplanes, I dont know. ----- Original Message ----- From: "DaveG" To: Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Movie > Gotta go with Tom Gourley on this one. I can see ZERO POSITIVE PUBLIC > PERCEPTION of home built, experimental, EAA, private flyers, pilot > attitudes, etc. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Gourley" > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:06 AM > Subject: [LML] Re: Movie > > >> Yes, I am a little paranoid. I guess that's because the general public >> (those not knowledgeable about flying), bureaucrats and politicians, and >> in particular the media seem to delight in leaping to totally illogical, >> and inaccurate, conclusions about the dangers of "small" airplanes and >> their irresponsible pilots any time there is any sort of incident or >> perceived threat no matter how irrational that perception may be. >> Attempts at educating these folks are usually doomed to failure because, >> for the most part, they have no interest in being educated. They're much >> happier believing what they please (my mind's made up; don't confuse me >> with facts) or what they're told by the talking heads on TV and the >> Internet. Consequently I don't like to offer up any additional reasons to >> fuel their delusions. There are a lot more of them than there are of us. >> >> Over 800 people die every week in the US in automobile accidents but it's >> rare for one of those accidents to make the national news. (How many >> have you seen on CNN lately?) A GA aircraft fatality frequently shows up >> in the national news and it's not uncommon for one to generate rumblings >> about increasing the restrictions on where and how we fly. Over 40,000 >> traffic deaths per year cause no such reaction. For the majority of >> people cars are a big part of everyday life, and a major piece of our >> economy, and no one wants to have their driving privileges tampered with. >> That same majority couldn't care less if we're allowed to fly or not. >> Like it or not we're a very small minority but what we do is highly >> visible. >> >> Back to the movie. Yes, it looks like there is some really neat flying >> in the movie and I would like to see that part. It's the rest of the >> plot, at least the way it's presented in the trailer, that I'm not crazy >> about. >> >> Tom Gourley >> >> >> >> -- >> For archives and unsub >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >> > > > -- > For archives and unsub > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html