What Toys "R" Not: All I Wanted was a Simple Wooden Airplane

Recently, I became indoctrinated into the world of 21st century "toys" when I made a visit to the local big box toy store in search of a gift for my granddaughter's first birthday. Of course, my goal was to find a nice simple wooden airplane toy, hopefully painted with non-toxic paint, without any lead whatsoever, and possibly Made in America.

Yeah, right.

You see, the last time I looked at toys, I was about eight years old, and Tonka trucks ruled the day. O.K., Hot Wheels were pretty groovy too, and I'm guessing both of these product lines were made somewhere in the Heartland of this country by hard-working Union men and women who earned decent wages and had very nice health care and retirement plans.

Oh how times have changed:

As I walked along the endless aisles of the Big Box toy store, I quickly became aware of two things. (1) There were very few airplanes to be found, and (2) each and every "toy" was not a "toy" at all, but some sort of branded promotional item for a movie, TV show, boy band, or any number of hot fads fabricated out of some marketing department to sell stuff to brainwashed little people. Yes, there was "baby's first" everything, most of it made by a large company a guy named Walt founded way back when his "Land" was known for a Matterhorn ride instead of 1,001 "toys" branded with their logo.

One of the things that was a possibility on my list was a spaceship/airplane ride-on toy made by a venerable company from my past, Radio Flyer. Of course, the item looked great online, but was not available in stores. In fact, what was also missing in action was a good old fashioned Radio Flyer red wagon. That is blasphemy in Toyland. While I could not find a little red wagon, I could find some of the tackiest crap this side of a swap meet:

There was the two-foot-tall remote control dinosaur, which reared up on its hind legs and roared so loud, a child might actually injure him/herself as they escaped sure death in the jaws of this Chinese beast with glow-in-the-dark eyeballs. Gee, I wonder what fun materials were used to get that dramatic effect. Hope it wasn't spent nuclear waste painted neon green. Then there was everything Barbie, all boxed in hot pink packaging and all wearing very little doll clothing. I am not a prude, but is a crop top, hot pants, Go-Go boots and big boobs the look you want your little girl to strive for? Then there was the Fairy Princess lounge pillow, with gold lame' ribbing and a sorry excuse for a decal on the back showing three unidentified princess-type ladies...one of them might have been Snow White, not sure, no Dwarfs would be caught dead anywhere near this "toy" trainwreck.

We left Big Box Toy World very disgusted with the current crop of what the toy industry calls "toys". On every shelf down every aisle we saw promotional items being shoved down Junior's throat in the name of fun. I am not kidding when I say that over in one corner of the large store was one tiny shelf with "Wooden Toys", about 20 items, none of them with wings.

My step-son and daughter-in-law are adamant about never bringing their daughter any sort of Hannah Montana paraphernalia, or anything that sells our granddaughter a brand. No, they want her to be brought up in a world where she makes her own decisions about things without having to like Thomas the Tank Engine just because everything she owns has his face on it. Now that I have delved into the dark underbelly of today's "toy" industry, I fully see their point and if I somehow fathered a toddler today, I too would do everything in my power to make sure they are not brainwashed to HAVE to own everything Wally World sells with a princess on it.

The takeaway from this lesson is this: There are a great deal of very cool toymakers in this country that build high quality wooden toys, including this company that makes completely awesome wooden airplane toys in Wisconsin. And when you really think about it, doesn't it just make sense that really sweet airplane toys are made just a couple hours southeast of Oshkosh?

Makes sense to me. Sounds like I will have to place an order with these guys soon.

Secret Airline DocumentExposes Profit Plan for 2010

This weekend as I taxied out on Eugene's north ramp, I couldn't help but to notice an Airbus A320 in JetBlue livery parked near the main terminal. It made my air traveler heart race as I wondered if somehow I missed the memo that JetBlue was starting service to/from my fair city. But a quick question to ground controllers confirmed it was the charter aircraft of the California Bears Pac-10 football team, in town to get their ass handed to them 42-3 by the University of Oregon Ducks.

What got me temporarily excited was the possibility of flying one of the few airlines left that doesn't gig their customers with so many additional fees and charges. So it got me wondering how any airline can survive today without these fees...and off to the Internets I jaunted in search of answers.

In an attempt to discover just how some airlines are planning to get back in the black for 2010, I came across a scheduled carrier you may have never heard of (because they really don't exist). While deep-diving in researchland, I uncovered a secret document from their CEO that spells out an ambitious plan for turning things around in the coming year:

From: [name redacted], CEO, MajorBux Airlines

To: Board of Directors

Ref: Profit Plan for 2010 - Additional Fees [CONFIDENTIAL]

Gentlemen:

As you well know, 2009 was a very bad year for the stockholders of MajorBux Airlines. We've seen passengers decline steadily as these pax are choosing Southwest and JetBlue, for some damned reason. But even though our focus groups have clearly determined that our passengers will run away if we impose more fees, I am the boss, and it's my way or the airway. Get it? Airway..not highway. Airline CEO humor.

So as of Jan. 1, 2010, our airline will impose the following new fees:

(1) Seat Fee: By removing all seats from the back half of the coach cabin, we will create a new section similar to United's "Economy Plus", only ours is called "Seating Plus". The fee to sit in one of these remaining "seats" is $49.95, and those flyers who do not wish to pay this new fee can stand in the back of the cabin. This new fee will generate $123 Million in revenue, a ridiculous pile of dough that is somewhat mitigated by the personal injury lawsuits that will surely come from those standing pax flailing about the cabin during periods of heavy turbulence.

(2) Oxygen Fee: O.K., has anyone on this Board ever actually SEEN those oxygen masks drop down? Our research contends that we could remove those masks across our fleet and save $45 million a year. Our new Oxygen fee of $34.95 per passenger offers those who want a "first class breathing experience" to opt for the new MajorBux Airlines P.O.D., or Personal Oxygen Device. With this device, a passenger can choose to breathe our special air imported from Aruba if the cabin de-pressurizes, or if their row neighbor is well, just stinky.

(3) Pets Fly Free Program: In order to counter the upstart Pet Airways, we are allowing any passengers to bring their pet with them on any flight, absolutely free. Fido or Fluffy will ride in a heated, pressurized section of our cargo hold and be fed gourmet pet food in a real silver-plated dish. And while the pet does fly free, the pet's carrier or cage will incur a $395 charge, one-way.

(4) Jet Bridge Access Fee: All of you on the MajorBux Airlines Board surely remember the good old days, when passengers boarded after walking across a hot ramp and climbing actual stairs leading up to the cabin. Today's travelers are spoiled brats, and DEMAND jet bridges, a costly addition to the boarding process. Our new Jet Bridge Access fee adds a mandatory $27 to any one-way flight, which will generate over $56 million for our bottom line.

(5) Food: Our marketing research has concluded that passengers will spend major dollars on in-flight food and snacks. Therefore, we are installing real pizza ovens into the galleys of every MajorBux Airlines MD-80, an addition that will fill the cabin with the enticing smell of poached pepperoni. We have instructed our ramp personnel to delay push back for two hours per flight, and after smelling freshly cooked pizza pie during this delay period, we anticipate a 90% purchase rate for our new line of airline pizzas, which will sell for $34.97 each and generate $34 million for MajorBux.

(6) Carry-on Bag Fee: We have determined that there is a gold mine in those overhead bins. In 2010, we will be the first airline to charge passengers $12.50 per carry-on, plus an additonal $49.95 for any roller bag gate checked on a Jet Bridge. Ingenious, yes, and profitable too!

I anticipate a record year for MajorBux Airlines in 2010 as we go far beyond where any airline has gone before in our attempt to further squeeze the flying public out of their money.

There you have it, a post on how at least one portion of the airline industry is poised to do far better in 2010 than they have done at any time since 2008. Of course, this post was complete horse crapola, my twisted way of ranting about how unsavory these airline fees are. It was prompted by Southwest's current ad campaign about how they do not charge for checked bags. You can download a PDF of all the Bigs fees here courtesy of smartertravel.com.

Man how I wish Southwest or JetBlue would start flying out of KEUG.

Venus and Mars: GWW's Meeks on Gender Differences on the Flight Deck

In part one of my interview with Girls With Wings founder Lynda Meeks, her own words proved my point that as far as GA's efforts to recruit females into our community, there is no better ambassador out there than Meeks, known in the Twittosphere as @GirlsWithWings.

Her answers in part one told the tale of why we need to grow the female pilot population, and how that starts with introducing young girls to flying. In part two below, Meeks gets into what a female might expect once they earn those wings.

World of Flying: Do you think there is any difference between male and female pilots?

Lynda Meeks: Definitely. I used to tell girls I present to that I had a secret for them: that girls make better pilots than boys because they have a better control touch. But I stopped doing that because I didn’t want them to think that is the only quality important in a pilot. There are technical and mechanical aspects to being a pilot that girls may shy away from, so in my interactive demonstration of “everything” a pilot knows to complete a flight, I show them that even these intimidating portions of our training can be successfully mastered if they are willing to break down the big concepts and learn them a bit at a time. Women also learn differently than men, so a woman may struggle more with a training subject as a man might explain it.

I have only twice received any type of flight training from another woman and just briefly. The last time this happened I asked a simulator instructor about a system in the Citation X I was struggling to understand. In two minutes she explained it to me in a way that allowed the “fog” to lift. Women like to fully comprehend a subject they are studying more than men do and will tend to get tangled up in the weeds. Most men are O.K. with not understanding things initially, figuring, eh, they’ll get it eventually. Many w have told me they fear falling behind their peers and are concerned with disappointing their instructors if they don’t immediately pick a subject up. But on the other hand women WILL work their heinies off to succeed when they put their minds to it.

Of course I’m generalizing, but I find the above to be true in most cases. Because of gender differences I insist on doing my Girls With Wings presentations to audiences of girls only. When the teacher doesn’t want to exclude the boys, I say that having both boys and girls in the group will inhibit the girls from fully participating. Boys are more aggressive and self-assured , and when in a group entirely of girls, girls feel more comfortable expressing themselves. It is not that I’m anti-boy, and most teachers do agree with this assessment. It reminds me of a time in flight school, in a class populated with all guys except for me (as it usually ends up - even now there is little chance of my being in a training class attended by another woman) when I bit my tongue to answer a question that I was sure I knew. The ground instructor kept asking what a part of the rotor system was called and my flight instructor had always insisted I named everything I touched on the preflight. Finally in frustration I yelled, “It’s a delta hinge!” My classmates were stunned. I hadn’t been known for speaking up in class for fear of being wrong and looking like “the stupid girl.” I’m still reluctant to speak up in my training classes because if I ask for clarification the male ground instructors (yes, they’ve always been male) spend the rest of the class helpfully (and embarrassingly) asking me if I am understanding everything.

World of Flying: As a professional charter pilot, do you ever run into males (or females) who are not comfortable having their jet flown by a woman?

Lynda Meeks: Thus far, no one has deplaned on me, thankfully, though I have heard of it happening. Whether my passengers just simply left their doubts unspoken, I have no idea. I have had quite a few times when people thought I was the flight attendant, but some get really excited when they find out I’m the pilot. As in, “I’ve never had a female pilot before!” I get a few people telling me its “cute” I’m a pilot, but after 16 years I feel like I should be seen as a professional, not as a novelty. As a captain on the airlines there were so many times when I’d be sitting up front filling up the paperwork and people would board the plane and wonder why I was sitting so far in front and not “attending” to the passengers. I had maintenance guys at the airline REFUSE to talk to me, and I remember one FO in particular that finally screamed at them, “Why are you talking to me? Go talk to her, she’s the captain!”

World of Flying: If there was one thing you could do to help add more females to the licensed pilot community, what would that be?

Lynda Meeks: Girls With Wings uses women in aviation as role models to inspire girls to achieve their full potential. We realize girls don’t all want to be pilots, and that’s fine, but we want them to know it’s an option. I have had more than one person say to me, “I didn’t know there was such a thing as a girl pilot,” which I find amazing. Many more say, “Yes, but are you a ‘real’ pilot?” I at least want to make sure many more people want to at least SEE a girl pilot and recognize her as such (I’ve even had female flight attendants hesitantly ask me if I’m a pilot while I’m in uniform!). Research has shown that we can tell girls that they can be anything that they want to be, but if we can’t show them examples of women succeeding, it negates the message. Plus, we need more positive role models for kids, and who better than aviation professionals, who need to show dedication, stay healthy, have a good driving/academic record, etc.? We even have a branch of Girls With Wings, called Mommies With Wings, since there’s very little information out there about being able to raise a family as a pilot.

Being a pilot is not only something a girl can aspire to, she can be very successful at it! Although Girls With Wings does not provide flights for girls, we do direct folks to seek out Young Eagles flights if they want to pursue this option further. We just need to get them in the cockpit. And we need to get more opportunities for girls to see younger, more women pilots. The average age of a student pilot is 43, and just like going to the airport with your dad to see other middle aged male pilots, this does not encourage their participation. Once they’re hooked on the idea of an aviation career or hobby, they can continue to visit the website and its message board, as well as follow the Girls With Wings Facebook Group or Twitter page for more encouragement.

World of Flying: How can pilots and aviation businesses help Girls With Wings and you in achieving your goals?

Lynda Meeks: When I started Girls With Wings I was told more than once that “there was no market for such an concept.” Not only have I proven them wrong, I have found that the encouragement for the GWW mission is much greater than I had ever imagined. Girls With Wings is growing by leaps and bounds and I do need the assistance of others to help GWW succeed. I can always use more role models and presenters to join the clubs that I am forming around the country to do presentations, We would appreciate sponsorship so that we can purchase the materials for the presentations as well as donations for our scholarship to fund flying lessons toward a PPL. I need more publicity to spread the word about what we’re doing, as well as assistance in the things I’m not experienced in, for example, website design and online games, PR and Marketing, merchandise research, legal advice, publication editing, administrative assistance, video recording, etc.; the list is endless really. Volunteers provide the framework for the success of Girls With Wings, and you don’t need to be a woman or a pilot to help. Anyone with skills and willingness to be a self-starting individual should get in touch with me at Lynda@GirlsWithWings.com. Thank you!

Why Charlie?

I get an email once in a while that asks about my involvement in writing the screenplay for Three-Eight Charlie, the authorized life story of Jerrie Mock. For those new to this conversation, Jerrie was the first woman to fly solo around the world, making this fantastic journey in 1964 in a basically stock 1953 Cessna 180 named Charlie.

Since I have been producing a fair amount of new readers mostly due to Twitter, I thought it would be a great time to bring the World of Flying tweeples up to speed on a project that has been my passion since 2000. Here is the how the whole thing started:

I had been visiting the Fresno County Library since about age 10 when in 2000, I pulled a ratty copy of Three-Eight Charlie off the shelf of the aviation section. I had never heard of Jerrie Mock, but I seriously dig Skywagons, and this looked like a good hangar flying tale of one courageous woman's romp around our globe. Once into the book, I could not put it down, it was Mock's masterpiece, a tale of epic size and scope, with all the ups, downs pitfalls and triumphs you would expect that comes from a solo flight around this rock we live on.

Intrigued by the story, I read that Mock's plane, FAA N1538C, was in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. I had a planned trip there in 2000, so I made the National Air and Space Museum a required stop to visit Charlie. After you read Mock's book, you feel as if you had ridden jump seat with her, and you gain a great admiration for her trusty airplane, who comes to life in the book. And since this flight was such a major part of aviation history, I expected to see Charlie hanging right there next to Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis. Oh how wrong I was:

After searching from one end of the NASM to another, I could not find Charlie. I asked a clerk and found that Mock's plane was "in storage" at the Smithsonian's Paul Garber Restoration Facility in nearby Suitland, MD. I caught a train and bus out there, and slipped onto the tail end of the last tour of the day. In the last building on the tour, I stumbled across Charlie, stuffed back in a corner with his wings removed and resting between the gear. One tire was a little low, and the plane looked like it had seen better days. I was blown away. No, check that, I was pissed. And confused.

I stood there for a few minutes staring at one of aviation's most important historical artifacts, and could not understand how this woman could make such a big flight only to see her plane so far away from the public eye. None of this computed to me...I had to learn more...and I SWEAR the following happened:

As the rest of the tour wandered to the far side of the building housing Charlie, I stepped over the rope that separated the public from the artifacts. I walked slowly up to the side of Charlie, and soon found myself completely mesmerized. I stood in a trance, my fingers soon running softly across the large red "N" number on the side of the fuselage. To myself, I said "how the hell could this have happened, Charlie? What ARE you doing here?" As I stood there, I was overwhelmed with the feeling that in some otherworldy way, Charlie was communicating with me, and he was telling me to get him out of there. It literally gives me chills to even write this today, because I know what I felt that day, and it was an airplane pleading with it to help get his and his pilot's story told. And while I know you can't actually talk to a flying machine, I did that day, and promised Charlie I was going to do whatever I could to right this wrong. At this point the security guard showed up and politely ordered me to step away from the artifact.

From that day to today, I have been working to bring Charlie's and Jerrie's story to the masses. I met with Jerrie in 2004 and after convincing her I had her best interests at heart, I obtained the Life Story Rights from her and spent the next two years working with some professional editors and directors polishing the script to Three-Eight Charlie. I choose to write this as a feature film and not a documentary because I intend to someday get this movie made as a work of family entertainment that will introduce flying to a whole generation of young kids and their thirtysomething parents. The way to accomplish this goal is to see it in major release in theaters across the country.

For full disclosure, the Smithsonian's Dorothy Cochrane did help me out big time in this project. She explained that the NASM had just ran out of room, and that Charlie had a permanent home waiting when the new Steven Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport was complete. And the museum kept their word, as Charlie is indeed on display there for everyone to enjoy, and I cannot take credit for that. I will however take credit for raising awareness of the story, the airplane and the pilot.

Where does this project go from here? Traditional channels to get into Hollywood's inner circle have not yet paid off, and I am exploring other independent routes to get this film funded and produced. It might not be this year, no, this year a film is coming out about a woman who while colorful, did not make it around the world.

Someday, everyone will get to enjoy the story of the women who did make it around the world, solo. When that happens, when the public learns about Jerrie and Charlie, my quest will be complete. All that stands in the way is one giant "A" list actress to attach herself to the project, and about $20 million to bring Jerrie's world in 1964 back to life.

Biased USA Today Article Proves AgainThat Traditional Media Hasn't a Clue

This week's hatchet job on general aviation by USA Today again showed everyone in the GA community how misinformed the traditional media can be. This article goes far beyond the scope of "reporting" and is a classic case of a media outlet bowing at the feet of a large lobbying group. If you wish to read the industry response to this charade of an article, AOPA, NBAA and EAA have their replies now online.

Years ago when I was in the traditional media, we were taught to investigate both sides of an issue, track down reliable sources for each argument, verify the information those sources provided, and report a story as an unbiased third party. Any journalist who has been in this game for a while knows that what is left out of a story is as powerful as what is put in. And, by leaving out key facts that would have put into question the very nature of the article, a writer is as guilty as if they had made the whole thing up out of thin air.

First, let's look at what AOPA had to say about the piece:

“The story is completely devoid of journalistic balance that fails to acknowledge the millions of Americans who benefit from the nation's 5,200 general aviation airports every day,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller. AOPA’s media relations staff learned of the story a week before it was published and had a lengthy conversation with the USA Today reporter, but was not included in the article."

So the reporter had facts to dispute his own reporting, but CHOSE to omit them. Instead, USA Today's scribe wrote this:

"In the first full accounting of the 28-year-old Airport Improvement Program, USA TODAY found that Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports, which typically are tucked on country roads and industrial byways."

Wow, $15 billion is being squandered so that fatcat CEOs can land at ghost town little airports "tucked on country roads" far from metro areas. A decade ago, we might have been set back on our heels by a number like $15 billion, but in today's world, that is chump change you can find under the sofa cushion. Had the USA Today reporter been reading the Miami Herald, he would have found a far more egregious example of government waste to report:

"The [government agencies] have expanded criminal ''strike forces'' that existed under the Bush administration, most recently to Detroit, but also have committed about half a billion dollars to fraud prevention efforts this year. They are working on sharing suspicious billing information with Medicare -- an agency notorious for paying claims fast without verifying them -- to help stop fraud and waste. Experts estimate the huge entitlement program loses at least $60 billion to fraud every year, with Miami-Dade County at the center of the national crisis."

When we delve into the numbers quoted in the USA Today piece, it becomes to make the case that this story was designed solely to further an agenda:

The USA Today article said payments for improvements at GA airports are "the result of an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States. The taxes can add up to 15% to the cost of a flight — or about $29 to a $200 round-trip ticket." But what was left out was that according to AOPA, the Airport Improvement Program or AIP is also funded by fuel taxes that we GA users pay. And in 2007, AOPA said FAA distributed $3.34 billion in airport improvement program funds to 2,610 airports. Of that amount, 389 airline airports divvied up $2,199,335,046 while 1,121 GA airports shared $831,717,227.

So how does USA Today's reporter get from $3.34 billion in 2007 to "Congress has directed $15 billion to general-aviation airports..."? You get there by omitting the fact that the $15 billion number quoted in the story was cumulative over several years - maybe as many as 28 - a key point carelessly not mentioned. How handy was that?

As soon as this story was published, USA Today completely alienated every reader they had in a sector that includes GA and related businesses, reported by AOPA to be at least 1.3 million workers. If they did have any advertisers that were GA related, by running this regrettable piece, they have assured this revenue to be gone forever. Poof. And, of the 600,000+ licensed aviators in the USA, it's guaranteed that I'm not the only one who will never pick up a copy of this rag ever again.

Finally, what is troubling to me as a big fan of the newspaper industry is this blatant disregard for editorial accuracy. Today, USA Today lost the aviation people, as if we were trash being kicked to the curb. Tomorrow, what sector of their readership will they lose because of yet another biased piece?

This all begs the big question: If this kind of fabrication orgy is the new standard in journalistic excellence at USA Today, how long will it take before they have alienated enough readers and advertisers to send their bean counters over the edge? Like the aviation industry they have now lost forever, when enough business sectors have had enough, a once mighty national news experiment will be reduced to...

www.usatoday.com.

Girls With Wings:General Aviation's Secret to Growth

With only six percent of America's pilots being female, it is clear we in the GA community need to exert more effort to bring girls and young women into our world. With such disparity in pilot numbers between the genders, this under-representation of females on GA's flight decks is the one area that might well hold the key to the survival of GA as we know it.

When you consider that by doubling the number of female pilots, we could bring approximately 36,000 new GA customers to airframe makers, avionics sellers, and Fixed Base Operators. But to do this we first need to get these women into our flight schools and signed up to learn to fly. And to make that happen, we need an ambassador, someone to lead the movement that interests females to become intrigued with flight. And for those who follow the national "get girls to fly" effort, there clearly is no better ambassador than Lynda Meeks, known in the Twittosphere as @GirlsWithWings:

Meeks is a professional pilot that began her career in 1993 when she began flying Huey helicopters as a 2LT in the United States Army. She moved into the civilian ranks flying BE1900s for a US Airways Express carrier owned by Mesa Airlines. She's flown Citation IIs, Vs and the Beechjet for Flight Options before moving to her currently employer, NetJets, where she flies the Citation X. Meeks is living proof that females can excel in the modern aviation world.

Recently, Meeks was gracious enough to find a few minutes between charter flights to answer a few questions for this blog. This is part one of the interview, where she talks about how the idea of Girls With Wings came about, and what it takes to keep it going. In part two to follow soon, Meeks will talk in depth about aviation's gender issue, and offers some great advice for girls who would like to get their wings.

World of Flying: How did the idea of Girls With Wings come about?

Lynda Meeks: I didn’t grow up wanting to be a pilot, but I do have a sense of adventure. So it’s additionally odd that I wouldn’t have considered being a pilot while being encouraged in Army ROTC until it was presented as a challenge. I think that’s a result of the overly pervasive impression that has caused the world of aviation into becoming so male dominated. I completed my pilot training in 1993, so after about 10 years of me trying to find airplane stuff for my nieces that wasn’t as boyish as what I bought for my nephews, I started getting a bit frustrated. But then, my friend Cindy Jacobs, who I had flown with at the regional airline, became pregnant with her first child, a girl. I spent HOURS on the internet looking for something, ANYTHING, with an aviation theme as a gift for a baby girl. And there was nothing.

There’s a saying about if you find a deficiency, you can choose to fill it or choose to live with it. I decided to go out and buy an embroidery machine, with which I started creating t-shirts with airplane and helicopter appliqués. This was not a very successful business model because I ruined more t-shirts than I sold. But with every sale, I would get a story from someone who was either buying an item to encourage a future woman pilot, or was a woman who wanted to be a pilot but her dad, neighbor, teacher, etc., told her only men were pilots, or was a woman pilot anyway. Too many women pilots have and felt that there was too little support for women to undertake flight training;too many feel like they had been the first woman to get her license when really there are quite a few of us around and would have appreciated the encouragement of others. With the encouragement of Cindy Jacobs, and many others, the idea of Girls With Wings grew, to include not only pilots, but other women in aviation with the mission of encouraging more young girls to have an interest in aviation.

World of Flying: Why is it important that the entire GA community work to entice girls and women to learn to fly?

Lynda Meeks: The percentage of women pilots has not changed in nearly 100 years, but the percentage of student pilots that were women has been increasing. But that’s still only 12%, when women are 50% of the population. Aviation is still regarded as a male dominated occupation, when there is absolutely no reason that women can’t and shouldn’t be pilots. Additionally, I am in airports all the time and see very young girls get SO excited about flying and airplanes. But there’s a certain age where they may start to assume that airplanes are for boys if all they see are blue or red ones or military aircraft with olive green camouflage. Instead of trying to lure them back into a love for flying when they are older and considering an occupation, why don’t we maintain their interest as they grow? So yes, the Girls With Wings website is very pink (and purple) and girly. It took me several years in the military before I discovered I could be a soldier and still be a woman and now we let girls know they can be feminine flyers (or Air Traffic Controllers, or Airframe and Powerplant technicians, etc.).

World of Flying: Tell my readers briefly about some of the GWW programs.

Lynda Meeks: I’ve spoken of the website where there is a page of role models in different fields of aviation. You can click on each woman’s picture and read what they do and why they love it and even send an email to get more information. There are some games and coloring pages for the younger ones. There is a message board to help build community (which is slowly gaining in popularity!). I do the blog and extensive social networking as you know. The store is a way to promote the positive message of GWW which is that “Yes, Girls Can Fly!™” and that “It’s not how tall you are, it’s how high you fly.™” It’s also our fundraiser to provide for all of the stuff that we do. We do presentations at schools (referred to above) and I am forming clubs (slowly) around the country to train others to do the GWW branded presentation, and also to network in their community to promote flying and encourage other girls (or women) to get involved.

The scholarship, currently just at one $1000 scholarship per year, is to provide funds toward flight training to progress in her private pilot’s license. Applications are to be an essay, with photo, stating why the applicant believes she is a role model for Girl With Wings to include her motivation, inspirations and future plans. The Penelope Pilot Project features our character Penelope Pilot encouraging more young girls to have an interest in aviation by promoting their participation in various aviation events. There is an interactive calendar where people can post and seek out events to attend with their downloaded and colored image of Penelope. Then they can post pictures of themselves on the website, www.PenelopePilotProject.org and receive an email back that they can forward to friends and family showing them what they can do! It’s a great way to show girls that other girls are interested in aviation stuff too.

World of Flying: The work that goes into Girls With Wings must be enormous. How many people put in how many hours per day/week/month, and how has this work affected your personal and professional life?

Lynda Meeks: It nearly consumes me because ideas bounce around in my brain nearly 24/7. I’m working on giving up more control of the operation to others who have volunteered to help since the concept of GWW is being so well received I’m having trouble keeping up with it all! Volunteers are the backbone for the success of Girls With Wings, whether in personal, financial or administrative terms . Most of the assistance I receive now is on an ad hoc basis such as volunteers for airshows or presentations. Cindy Jacobs, referred to above, is working solely on getting our first book, about Penelope Pilot, illustrated and printed. The club members will definitely contribute more once they are organized. And, via the social networking, I have gotten connected to many men who support the GWW mission. They have offered much computer and technical assistance, I equate the time I spend on GWW to what I would spend if I had a family. It’s very rewarding and it keeps me away from the TV.

Sent to USA Today by NBAA

Here is the verbatim letter sent to the Editor of USA Today just minutes ago:

Editor - USA Today

7950 Jones Branch Drive

McLean, VA 22108-0605

letters@usatoday.com

To the Editor:

Your recent, one-sided story about small community airports ("Feds Keep Little Used Airports in Business," Sept. 17) lacks any sense of balance, and presents a gross misperception of the value of general aviation, public-use airports, federal funding of the air transportation system, and the needs of millions of Americans in communities nationwide.

These community airports serve a vital role for towns with little or no airline service by providing transportation lifelines for small to mid-size businesses, schools, universities and other organizations, and serving as regional development engines that generate jobs and economic activity. This "general aviation" activity - which refers to flights other than the airlines or the military - also helps fund the airports' operation.

Equally important, these facilities are essential for providing air transportation access for postal service, firefighting and disaster relief, medical evacuations, law enforcement, homeland security and military operations, patient and organ transport to emergency centers and other services.

In fact, Congress has long recognized that the upkeep of a national system of airports is an established national priority. It's unfortunate that your story ignored these key facts, and failed to explain the many good reasons why investments in community airports provide a tremendous return.

Ed Bolen

President and CEO

National Business Aviation Association

Tang, Check.Space Suit, Check.Waiver, Check.

We all know "space tourism" as it is often called is just around the corner. Spaceports are already being built, and private reusable spacecraft are well past the drawing board stage. It is now only matter of a short time before commercial space travel is an everyday occurrence.

But before you think about obtaining a license to blast paying humans spaceward for a quick orbit around the Sun, you must first apply with the FAA for such a license. So in the name of easing the burden for so many up and coming applicants all itching to launch Grandma through the stratosphere, anyone who wants to apply for a permit to do so must first fill out The FAA Commercial Space Transportation Human Space Flight Checklist.

The checklist, publicly obtained from the FAA here (pdf), pulls back the curtains on quite a few aspects of what we can expect the world of commercial space travel to be like. A scan of that document today revealed the following:

– The pilot or "remote operator" of the private space vehicle must "possess and carry an FAA pilot certification with an instrument rating", and "must train in procedures that direct the vehicle away from the public in the event the flight crew abandons the vehicle during the flight." There is, however no mention of what happens to the paying souls in back when the crew bails out. And just what is this "remote operator" anyway? Me, I want the pilot and his/her soul on board, there will be no kid with a joystick back on Earth playing a video game with my life.

– Each crew member with a "safety critical" role must "possess and carry an FAA second-class airmen medical certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR part 67." And, each member of the crew must show their ability to "withstand the stresses of space flight, including acceleration or deceleration, microgravity and vibration."

– The space flight operator (not the crew) must "implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the crew or the public. A space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives or other weapons." There's no mention of whether you need to remove your shoes, empty your pockets and remove your laptop from its case. I'm sure the TSA is all over this one.

O.K., those all sound like pretty normal requirements that the FAA might throw at these new commercial space flight applicants. But once the lawyers got involved, it opened up the floodgates of legalese and gibberish to cover everyone's butts. A few lowlights, verbatim:

"Operator must inform in writing any individual serving as crew that the U.S. Government has not certified the launch vehicle and any reentry vehicle as safe for carrying flight crew of space flight participants. Before receiving compensation of making an agreement to fly a space flight participant, an operator must inform each space flight participant in writing about the risks of the launch and reentry including the safety record of the launch and reentry vehicle. This written disclosure must include, for each mission, each known hazard and risk that could result in a serious injury, death, disability, or total or partial loss of physical or mental function, and that there are hazards not yet known."

Whew. If that doesn't scare Granny and her money away, the requirements of section 460.45(c) sure will:

Operator must inform space flight participants of the safety record of all launch and reentry vehicles that have carried one or more persons on board, including both U.S. Government and private sector vehicles. This information must include the total number of people who have been on a suborbital space flight, and the total number of people of have died or been seriously injured on these flights, and total number of launches and re-entries conducted with people on board and number of catastrophic failures of these launches and re-entries."

When they get right down to those last few requirements, it ought to look on paper that the odds of burning up in a fireball during your space fun flight are pretty low. With the exception of a few horrible disasters that come readily to mind, according to Wikipedia, the exploration of space can be considered relatively safe:

As of 2007, in-flight accidents had killed 18 astronauts, training accidents had claimed 11 astronauts, and launchpad accidents had killed at least 70 ground personnel. About five percent of the people that have been launched have died doing so (because astronauts often launch more than once). As of November 2004, 439 individuals had flown on spaceflights: Russia/Soviet Union (96), USA (277), others (66). Twenty-two have died while in a spacecraft: three on Apollo 1, one on Soyuz 1, one on X-15-3, three on Soyuz 11, seven on Challenger, and seven on Columbia. By space program, 18 NASA astronauts (4.1%) and four Russian cosmonauts (0.9% of all the people launched) died while in a spacecraft.

Given all this, would I buy a ticket on a commercial space flight, if money were no consideration? No, not right away. But give the operators some time to build a good safety record, and then absolutely, I must certainly would haul ass to space soon after hitting a phat Powerball jackpot. Maybe I'll get to sit between Julia Roberts and Bill Gates as they try out the latest new thing in chic, trendy air travel.

Right Seat Proficient: A Very Good Idea

It was evident to my wife Julie way back when we first met that I liked airplanes. Maybe I wasn't as crazy about them as I am now, but even in 1987, I'm sure she could tell she was marrying a future pilot.

When it comes to wives, I often say I won the wife lottery with Julie Celeste. She is my friend, business partner, spiritual advisor, "go-to" person when my life gets off balance, the maker of the world's bestest lasagna, and of course, my flying partner. She was supportive of my quest to earn my private license in 1996, and throughout some years when extra money wasn't exactly plentiful, she always found a way to support my flying habit when I just HAD to go out and fly a rented Tomahawk for a few touch-and-goes.

She has faithfully sat in the right seat of two airplanes we have owned, the first being Peggy, the Skyhawk at Fresno Chandler Airport we acquired in a two-way partnership, and of course, Katy, our current Cherokee 235, the flagship of Dano Airlines.

Throughout many of my 350+ hours, Julie has never fussed about much of anything from her front row seat on our flight deck. She has gained the skill of listening to the radio well enough to pick our call sign out of the endless radio calls being barked by L.A. Center, and can read a chart well enough to let me know when I am mistakenly lined up with Marina Airport in California instead of my intended landing field, Monterey Peninsula Airport, just a few NM south.

But one thing has always nagged at her, and it was a very valid concern:

She has always asked me what we'd do here and there if the engine quit, or where my emergency landing strips were for some random portion of a flight. But the question always remained that if I should suddenly go off to fly with Lindbergh and Papa Louie in flight, how would she get the plane back on Earth and remain alive. As I am not a CFI, I could not ever get her to take step one towards learning how to control an airplane to a safe emergency landing...but I knew that lesson must be taught some day.

Well, that day finally came over this past weekend. Julie and I met my CFI, Jim Hunt, at EUG and we accomplished Julie's first "official" flight lesson. The results could not have been better:

After an hour sitting in Katy on the ground working with radios and developing a plan for harnessing my dead weight (pardon the pun) to the seat keeping me off the yoke, Jim grabbed the left seat and Julie took her co-pilot's position in the right. After the instructor flew us out to the practice area, Jim had Julie begin flying some graceful turns. Maybe it was her 45+ years as a ballet dancer, but when I say "graceful turns", I am not kidding. After some initial adjustments to Katy's interesting way of sometimes making the yokes appear in a left bank while in level flight or even a right bank (usually a fuel/weight offset or crosswind situation), Julie quickly figured things out and was soon driving 27W around the sky like a student pilot with five or more hours in the book. But she had only about 10 minutes...quite impressive from my vantage point in Katy's back seat, which was far more comfortable than I expected.

This was not an easy lesson Julie was given. Instead, I believe Jim had already determined as most people do that she is quite intelligent and not much gets past her. So he pushed her maybe a little harder than I think he pushes most primary students on their very first lesson. And her response was perfect:

After flying us towards Corvallis, OR with precision and with Jim acting as "ATC", Julie was able to spot the airport at a good distance away, and flew us right over the ramp at CVO. As we headed back to Eugene for landing, things got a little more interesting. Jim was squeezing into this first lesson everything but an ILS approach to minimums, and even had Julie pulling and adding power (using the digital tach as a guide) to maintain a sweet rate of descent. But without explaining that as a CFI he would have complete control of the plane on landing, there was a bit of misunderstanding as we headed towards runway 16R at EUG. The instructor had the plane fully in control, but the student didn't know he did, so she wasn't sure exactly what she was required to do. Flare? Stomp on the rudders? Power off, or power on? Even on rollout, Jim had the plane, but Julie found herself in a situation where she thought she was supposed to somehow determine how to slow us down as we blasted swiftly down the runway after a no-flaps, high speed arrival. This was the moment when panic could have set in for this first-time student pilot, but, it did not.

That's not to say her anxiety levels didn't rise dramatically. But in a situation when many student pilots would have been grabbing for the door handle, Julie stayed with it, didn't freak out [much], and never seriously lost her composure.

After everyone's heart rates came back down into the green, Jim had her taxi all the way around EUG's commercial ramp on a taxiway route that has even been confusing to me on occasion. With the prop stopped, I felt compelled to congratulate her on a first flight that was nothing less than fantastic. She is looking forward to a few more lessons so she can become comfortable with basic emergency procedures and feel good about her chance of survival should I become unable to safely complete a flight.

And I'm looking forward to having a more knowledgeable pax in the right seat who I believe will soon be working the GPS and radios like a First Officer. And that will make my flying that much more enjoyable, because as soulmates, we do everything together, and now we can add flying to that list.

10 for 10: With Unlimited Fundage,it's Bizjets for Everyone!

For most of this year, GA and business aviation has been fighting to defend the incorrect perception that people flying on board private aircraft are overpaid, filthy rich, greedy CEO types. If you listen too long to the cable news channels or anyone in an Anchor's chair, you might come away with the notion that private aviators have a blatant disregard for the environment, our economy or Average Joe and Jane standing at the corner of "Walk" and "Don't Walk" in Mainstreet, USA.

Of course, we in the GA community know this is all bunk. But in our daily battle with the traditional media over this issue, we often assume that the person on the street might actually be starting to swallow this garbage. To find out just where we stand in this catfight to save GA's reputation, I hit the streets, so to speak:

I've been secretly carrying on an informal survey, asking random people I meet this question: "If you had Bill Gate's money, would you still fly coach or even first class via the scheduled commercial airlines, or would you fly in your own private business jet?"

I did not plan how I was to conduct this survey, and just carried it around in my head for the last few weeks. I tried not to hint that I was a pilot, but about 60 percent of the people who answered already knew this, which may or may not have tainted their answers.

As I present these findings, remember that this is about as unscientific as it can be. I didn't even get some of the names, as some of the "respondents" were basically complete strangers. So here is what I found:

There was the working stiff/blue collar guy working at the gas station in Syracuse, NY that simply said "hell yes" when asked if he would choose the bizjet. At a wedding I attended recently, three other people - all upward professionals from Detroit or the NYC area - all told me that without question they would dump the airlines in favor of private air transportation if they had unlimited cash.

Back home in environmentally-sensitive Eugene, I expected a different result, but did not get it. I polled four people at one of my weekly meetings or via email, and all would have chosen the bizjet, however one did say she'd buy carbon offsets with her pile of unlimited dough. [Of note is the fact that she could not with any degree of certainty tell me how much bizjets pollute, or if they were more or less fuel efficient than an airliner full of Grandmas.] And to close out this 10-person informal survey, I found two others here in Eugene, one who called travel by bizjets "extravagant" but added she'd relent and fly her jet if she had the choice. The last person I asked here initially said no, he would fly commercial to save fuel. But when asked if he would choose the Friendly Skies if his bizjet was powered by veggie fuel ginned from sorghum or algae, he instantly changed his tune and said he would happily choose the biofuel business jet.

There it is, 10 out of 10. I sure hope the traditional media types who keep floundering around with their "Automakers flew to WDC in their private jets to beg for a bailout" stories see this post and second-guess their decision to try and gain traction with such lame arguments. Uh. Huh. Like I really have that much sway.

Because [caution - cliché alert] at the end of the day, when given the chance, I believe the majority of Americans would choose private air travel if money was not an issue. But it is - more so than ever these days - so Mom and Pop will still have to gamble on the the hub-and-spoke system and hope they get where they wanted to go.

For the rest of us who have acquired a pilot's license and bought our own flying machines, we get to occasionally do it ourselves, beating the airlines at their own game. Not on all flights, and not in all weather, but on short hops in anything but the most severe convective wx, GA is the answer.

Look for the Veggie Van Coming Your Way Soon

As aviators, we burn one of two fuels, Jet A or 100LL AvGas. There is gobs of Jet A out there, but every so often we here the murmurs that the petroleum distillers would love to stop wasting their time ginning up a few tiny batches (by comparison) of 100LL for us GA piston drivers.

And each time I hear this, I wish to God we could get someone to make affordable, powerful turbodiesel aircraft engines that could run Jet A. There are a few out there such as the Deltahawk line of non-certified engines (with certified models in the works), and recently, Diamond Aircraft received an FAA Type Certificate for their proprietary Austro Engine AE300, which runs on jet fuel.

If the day ever comes when we can buy new GA airframes with turbodiesels or retrofit Cherokees and Skyhawks with same, then I believe those engines should also be certified to run on biodiesel fuel. I have always been a fan of biofuels, but after watching The Fuel Film – an excellent documentary that won the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival – I am more convinced than ever that our country can ween itself off foreign oil if we just push forward with alternative fuels and sustainable energy sources.

I was turned on to the film by my step-son Scott Connolly, who is a talented film editor and videopgrapher working in the L.A. market. Scott is on the Fuel Film team, and is about to embark this week on a national press tour [the full press kit is here] with the films creator, Josh Tickell. Look for the Veggie Van and the Fuel Bus to stop in these cities leading up to the release of the movie FUEL:

9/8/09 – San Francisco, CA

9/9/09 – Sacramento, CA

9/10/09 – Cheyenne, WY

9/12/09 – Lincoln, NE

9/13/09 – Chicago, IL

9/14/09 – Detroit, MI

9/15/09 – Cleveland, OH

9/15/09 – Erie, PA

9/17/09 – Washington, D.C.

If you're like me and and am intrigued by the biofuel movement, go here and discover one of the best documentaries you will ever see. The film will be in wide release soon, and you owe it to yourself to seek it out and see it. From the Veggie Van to the Fuel bus to the history of this movement and film, it is a fantastic story.

And, after you read about The Fuel Film and want to help me, Scott and Team Fuel spread the word about this movie and this movement, go here and download the VVO (Veggie Van Organization) GREEN FLAG and use it as your Twitter and Facebook profile pic as I have. Add #greenflag to your posts about the environment, and when people ask you what the Green Flag is all about, send them here and get them on this bandwagon.

Your planet is already thanking you.

Not Enough Hours in the Day

This is just a quick note to my loyal readership to say that because of an accumulation of day job work, my blogging has taken a bit of a back seat. If you have come to World of Flying and are wondering why I'm not posting as much of my crapola du jour, please just bookmark the site and check back in a week or so. I'll be scaling back on more frequent posting until these two web sites I am building out are finished.

Until then, I suggest these two blogs as replacements. Max Trescott's blog is always worth a read, and Sara Keagle's The Flying Pinto blog is a very well-constructed web space written by a busy flight attendant/mother/blogger.

Many Pilots Supporting One Voice for GA

I am at this moment cruising at FL 360 over Michigan in one of GoJet's sparkling brand new CRJ-700 ships serving as United Express 7405 from Syracuse into ORD. As we slip through the sky free of any of those nasty surly bonds, I marvel as I look down to see that each little 'berg along our route has a long sliver of tarmac or concrete at the edge of town with tiny specks of white dotting a large ramp area. The "tiny specks" are someone's Cessna, or Piper, or Cirrus, and they are parked in front of possibly a small shack serving as the bathroom/flight school/airplane gas stations we commonly refer to as FBOs.

As we plow westbound pushing air molecules out of the way, the crew up on the RJ's flight deck shares a common bond with the pilots, CFIs and flight students that inhabit those many little fields exactly 6.8 miles below seat 10D. They are part of the tight-knit community of GA souls that have earned or are earning the privilege to be able to legally fly in this country.

If we were able to touch this Bombardier down at any of the little airports slipping behind my RJ's wing, we'd be able to hear a harrowing tale of many threats that stand in the way of GA's continued free and happy existence. User fees, fuel restrictions, rising costs of training and aircraft acquisition, an economy left as rubble by eight years of cowboy politics – the list of threats to GA is long, and there are many resources on the 'Net to learn more. Among them are GA Serves America, an AOPA site that is a must read.

As aviators, it is critical that we all stand together to inform the public about the benefits of GA, while also helping the media to dispense accurate information that GA does not pose a security risk to America. We need to find one voice to make Average Joe and Jane understand that "business aviation" comes in many shapes and sizes, from the Super Cub hauling mail into the Idaho back country, to people like me flying Cherokees to visit clients, to firefighting aircraft trying to save Los Angeles from its firestorm du jour. And yes, GA is also the rich and famous flying G-Vs and Falcons to lunch on Bora Bora, but can you blame them, really? If you had their money, you KNOW you'd fly in that sort of private luxury.

When it comes to informing the public about GA, many of us talk the talk, but we never DO anything. There is, however, a pair of GA pilots out there who are organizing a huge flight across America in a STOL Cessna 150, to raise awareness about GA issues in a whole bunch of places along their route. On 6.10.10, Jason Schappert, a 1,500 hour Certified Flight Instructor from Florida and Vincent Lambercy, a Swiss private pilot now living near Frankfurt (Germany), will depart Daytona Beach, FL and head out on a massive and expensive 4,000 NM mission, one that every pilot in this country should try and support.

Schappert and Lambercy chose the Cessna 150 because they believe the Cessna 150 embodies general aviation. As they roll up to the TV cameras in these little and big towns in the 150, they will be trying to show the media and public that GA is not for just "the elite crowd", that it is something anyone can do regardless of income and that it's a wonderful family activity.

The idea for the flight blossomed on Twitter, and has gained national support on the flight's web site, flyingacrossamerica.com. Along the way, the two pilots will be looking to each local GA community to help coordinate media meet and greets, bring out local politicians to see GA up close, sponsor fuel purchases at the local FBO, and even provide a warm bed for the occasional RON (remain overnight). If you love the way this sounds, and want to get involved at your local level, your financial and personal support will help make a stop like this come to life:

After a couple of weeks of pilots making personal visits to TV newsrooms and the local paper inviting the media to the patch out at the edge of town, the camera crews and news reporters gather just before arrival time. The local TV anchor and anchorette have teased the event for a few days, and a couple of hundred people gather as well, joined by the Mayor and if they are lucky, maybe even a Congressman. The "Flying Across America" Cessna 150 lands and taxis up to the crowd and after shut down, two tired but happy GA pilots emerge from the cramped craft, smiling ear to ear. They spend the next hour "on camera" talking up how cool it is to be a licensed pilot, and how much GA benefits the entire country at many levels. They tell the media that the LifeFlight chopper that saved someone's bacon after that nasty head-on over by the Dairy Queen, yup...that was GA. The FedEx Caravan that brought your overnight package...you guessed it, GA again. They tell them everything we need them to hear, and after the TV guys get some footage of a young child sitting in the 150 wearing Lambercy's headset and grinning wide, the media can go back and report that GA is alive and kicking in this city and across America too. After a fuel stop and maybe a $100 burger, the Cessna departs again for the next little town circled on the chart, to land again, shake a few paws and talk up GA to anyone who will listen. They will do this again and again, all across these United States, until they reach Catalina Island off California's coast. At that time, they will have told our story to thousands of people at the airport and many thousands more at home watching the evening news or reading the local fishwrap. These are the EXACT people who need to know how wonderful and vital GA is to America.

If this sounds like a worthwhile effort, please help me and the blogging community to support Flying Across America any way you can. You can go to their web site and sponsor a few air miles, or contact the pilots to help coordinate a media event in your town if it's generally along their route of flight. But the REALLY cool thing one of you can do is bring to this effort serious corporate support, the kind of support that will allow these motivated pilots to take this mission to a much higher level. If you are a decision maker at any one of a large number of airframe makers, avionics suppliers or any other aviation-related corporation, I urge you to contact Jason or Vincent by clicking here today to offer as much financial support to Flying Across America as you can afford. Even if you are just a Hollywood star that uses GA to sneak into Aspen for a weekend of skiing, cut a check to this cause to say thanks for spreading the word.

I will be watching this flight closely and reporting as much as possible via this digital soapbox I call World of Flying. The planned route is Ocala - Daytona Beach - Destin - Baton-Rouge - Houston - Sweetwater - El Paso - Prescott - Santa Catalina. On the way home they'll fly Santa Maria - Las Vegas - Sedona - Roswell - Austin - Lafayette - Pensacola - Daytona Beach - Ocala. And it is truly too bad they are not coming anywhere near Eugene, Oregon, because I'd love to round up the local media here in Duck Country, USA and let them find out why my life revolves 24/7/365 around this fantastic thing we call General Aviation.