AVweb

« Back to Full Story

Do Stunts Help or Hurt?

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

When does a good promotional idea for aviation cross the line into a stupid stunt that makes us all look like a bunch of morons? My friend Jeff Owen of Premier Aircraft e-mailed me this week posing this very question. He was referring to the story we ran earlier this week describing Chet and Matt Pipkin's plan to set a record by remaining airborne in a Cessna 172 for 65 days, beating the old record by a day.

"I really don't like things that have the potential to impact our industry, which has been slaughtered already by sensationalist main stream media. We shouldn't be doing anything to help them think that we agree with, endorse or condone anything like this," says Owen.

"I have made my living for 30 years involved in aviation in one way or another and I have never been able to determine that stupid human tricks ever did anything positive for me or our industry except highlight that some of us are really stupid. Just because it is sensational does not mean that it deserves to be mentioned, let alone published--especially by an aviation media outlet as respected as AVweb."

I have to concede that he makes a good point. Do stunts like these really draw would-be pilots into the industry? Do they really cause people to pause and say, "Hey, isn't that cool; I wanna do that"? When Burt and Dick Rutan figured out how to fly around the world unrefueled, what did they really prove that was of lasting importance? Not much, actually, other than to get a remarkable airplane hung from the ceiling in the Air and Space Museum.

And speaking of ceilings, the 172 that holds the current record hangs in Las Vegas's McCarran Airport. I saw it last week and stopped to read the display notes because like everyone else, I love a spectacle and watching the world in its extremes has an irresistible allure. Non-pilots will be amazed at the mere feat while those of us who fly will be engaged by the technical challenge of doing thisóthe fueling, the ongoing maintenance, the human factors.

So there's no question we have to and will cover it. My personal view is this: if you talk the talk, you better walk the walk. An attempt like this needs to be carefully organized and well executed for if it fails in some spectacularly stupid way, it'll be just another sign post leading the way to the Mount of Idiots.

Otherwise, I'm okay with it. But I'm not bracing myself for the influx of pilot wannabes.

Comments (53)

I think it can be a small positive for aviation as long as they don't crash, probably no positive or negative if they abort but no one's hurt, and a big negative if they are hurt or killed by the stunt. I agree that Avweb should cover it. As a stunt, I don't think it's cool enough to justify the risk. Now the Redbull skydiving attempt from space - that's cool!

Posted by: Josh Johnson | February 2, 2010 7:08 AM    Report this comment

Although it doesn't always seem like it, there is an extraodinary amount of freedom afforded to us as pilots in this country. Combine that with the passion we all feel about flying, and its inevitable that people will challenge themselves to achieve notable accomplishments...and equally inevitable that there will be (as one publication puts it) stupid pilot tricks. As dumb as this stunt sounds to me, it stands a pretty good chance of not harming anyone, if executed with reasonable care. The "line", to me, is when innocents are placed in harm's way in the pursuit of celebrity (remember Jessica Dubroff?). The tragedies which result are very hard to excuse, and hurt this profession deeply.

Posted by: Anthony Nasr | February 2, 2010 10:21 AM    Report this comment

Pipkinís podcast interview came across as haphazard. It would be nice to hear from his father the 737 pilot. Without validating the back story on all of the planning that is potentially coming together I felt it was pre-mature to report on this stunt. It does however make a great story once the plans come together a little more.

Posted by: Dave Cobb | February 2, 2010 12:43 PM    Report this comment

I'm all for record breaking attempts just a pity so many fail and with disastrous results usually due to poor planning.

Properly planned and executed attempts where failure procedures are to be strictly followed and the right people are in place to ensure a high level of success has my blessings.

And yes Avweb has a duty to follow and report on this attempt hopefully giving all the background information that it will have at their disposal

Posted by: Bruce Savage | February 3, 2010 2:41 AM    Report this comment

I remember as a child, watching Santa Claus land in a Sears and Roebuck parking lot in one of those new helicopters (1949). A large crowd gathered to see this wonderous machine. I am now a retired Army aviator that flew helicopters for 30 years, who is employed as an engineer for one of the large helicopter companies. Yes, that Stunt had a positive affect on me.

Posted by: E.F. Covill | February 3, 2010 6:29 AM    Report this comment

There are stunts and there are STUNTS. Flying under a bridge to impress a girl is a STUNT. Frankly, this one didn't bother me, though Josh makes a good point that any aviation activity that ends in a crash or even makes the news in a bad way is harmful. Like, Anthony, I was reminded of 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff's death. I don't know a pilot who wasn't outraged at that STUNT. My main reaction to this endurance record attempt is the same as when I say the original 172 hanging in the Las Vegas Airport: What kind of nut (let alone two) would want to spend 65 days in a 172 for any reason? I wouldn't want to be in the Sultan of Brunei's 747 for that long

Posted by: Jim Gorman | February 3, 2010 7:10 AM    Report this comment

There is an old saying that records are made to be broken. Man has always wanted to higher, farther, faster, deeper, than the ones before him. The Red Bull guys can say all they want about the "scientific growth" of skydiving from space but I bet, in their hearts, it's just because they want to. I have enough trouble staying in a 172 for five hours let alone 65 days. So, plan well people, be as safe as you can, and go for it ! ! !

Posted by: Bob Rogers | February 3, 2010 7:55 AM    Report this comment

What an utter waste of time and thousands of gallons of 100LL!!! It just adds to the general public impression of GA as a bunch of folks with too much time & money to burn...this is a stupid idea that hopefully won't get much media coverage beyond the usual GA publications.

Posted by: Roger Hamilton | February 3, 2010 10:43 AM    Report this comment

I suffer from some vague private aviation guilt, but take pride in the efficiency of the Mooney 201 that I fly. The planned anti-gravity 172 stunt, however, has no redeeming virtue that I can think of.

Posted by: Richard Van Pelt | February 3, 2010 11:36 AM    Report this comment

After a trip to Florida via 172, 10 hours later and 6.5 hours of actual IMC without an autopilot, I didn't care if I ever saw an airplane again! I can't imagine spending 2 months in one! Which raises an interesting question, what are the pilots going to do if the weather goes IMC - are they going to get a clearance to an intersection and orbit there under IFR, or just hope they've got VMC for 2 months - not extremely probable even in the beautiful southwest.

Posted by: Josh Johnson | February 3, 2010 12:13 PM    Report this comment

When many years ago I witnessed either Charlie Kulp or one of his compadres hang a Piper Cub on a string at what seemed like 3 mph in front of us dragging a wing, with one foot hanging out, talking to the crowd, and his dog jumping in and out of the plane, one of us young boys immediately got a dog just like his, another became a farmer, and I was determined to learn to fly - now that was a stunt! I think even if he bent the plane a little no one would have thought any less of the act or aviation.

It was for inspiration, daring, skill- but mainly for the kids. A stunt motivated by all the right reasons. How long I can hold my breath, or not blink, cram friends in a phonebooth, or eat, sleep and c**p in a plane without at least some tech or science benefit is entirely meaningless to me. It's the intent of the stunt, isn't it?

Posted by: Dave Miller | February 3, 2010 12:20 PM    Report this comment

I think this has merit - if it is done correctly. For owner/operators, understanding how to run a piston engine to TBO without ever stopping it is certainly interesting. There are similar issues with the airframe and systems. For the wider public a bit of an "eco" story can be made out of the tuning and trimming for best endurance. Finally both the military and disaster relief applications could be interested in the issues around keeping station for 65 days, something just as tricky in a C172 as in Rutans Proteus aircraft.

Posted by: Andy Davis | February 3, 2010 12:42 PM    Report this comment

I would not be that hard on such a stunt. Actually something could be learned from it. Aireal refueling, engine wear and prolonged engine use. Just because I would not do such a thing who am I to criticize some else who does?

Posted by: Frank Singer | February 3, 2010 12:59 PM    Report this comment

Maybe the reason is the pilot needs another 1,500 logged flying hours to get a reduced insurance rate or that coveted airline pilot job. Whatever the reason, I will not be standing downwind from them when they finally get out of the plane!

Posted by: Bruce McJunkin | February 3, 2010 1:29 PM    Report this comment

Funny as heck. I say go for it if they have the time and gumption. As with any stunt, even a crash is worth watching.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | February 3, 2010 3:18 PM    Report this comment

Another thought - I assume they will have to move the entire aircraft into the experimental category for this flight due to repetitive AD's if nothing else. Technically, someone would have to sign off the seat track AD every 100 hours. I guess if one of the pilots had an A&P certificate, they could sign it off in flight. Lots of considerations. I think I'd do the flight on Autogas instead of 100LL, or if running avgas I'd want it dosed liberally with TCP - I've got serious doubts the plugs will make 1500 hours on 100LL (Heck. sometimes they're plugged full of lead at 100 hours!)

Posted by: Josh Johnson | February 3, 2010 6:02 PM    Report this comment

Their record attempt would have no more or no less value than Steve Fosset's various adventures. Just think, they could sit around the fireplace on a rainy day at the local FBO and brag about it and when they get to the pearly gates, I can hear St Peter; "you spent 2 months doing WHAT???"

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 4, 2010 5:28 AM    Report this comment

"So there's no question we have to and will cover it."

Watch out! This is the same AVWeb, trying to convince us that it is now taking its responsibility for aviation journalism seriously now, when just a few weeks ago they labeled a forced landing a "crash", supposedly to get more search engine hits, according to an explanation posted after the fact. Funny though - I remember reading it, however I can't find it on their site now. Gee, I wonder where it went?

Posted by: John Leonard | February 4, 2010 6:23 AM    Report this comment

Dum, de dum dum. Whats it gonna prove, that two dumb asses need to get a life? Good potential to make disaster headlines, maybe kill innocents on the ground, and more super bad press for GA. Major waste of valuable 100ll.

Posted by: charles heathco | February 4, 2010 7:03 AM    Report this comment

Jim Thiessen brought up a good point. Why was it OK for Steve Fosset to break records but not these guys? Rich? Famous? Viewed as an adventurer? What about the Voyager around the world non-stop, non-refuled? I'm sure many of us here contributed to that effort. I know I did. Then there's Bruce Bohannan and Hoot Gibson breaking altitude records. As far as I can see none of these records really affect me or the general public any more than new land speed records, Reno air racing, or your local SCCA club racing. So, let the guys do this because they want to try. Isn't that what we are all doing, trying to get through life the best way we can and have some fun along the way?

Posted by: Bob Rogers | February 4, 2010 7:35 AM    Report this comment

The FAI long ago stopped recording sailplane endurance records because all they proved was that someone could stay awake day after day and nothing more.

If they succeed in this stunt it will be forgotten in a week. If they have a spectacular accident it will result in more rules to prevent a recurrence.

With pilot fatigue often in the news lately as an airline accident cause factor, is having two pilots work a 65 day shift the right way to address the issue?

It is also pretty obvious that burning all this leaded fuel, while flying in aimless circles for 65 days, is going to provide ample fodder for environmental critics to point aviation out as a frivolous environmental harm.

Posted by: Adam Hunt | February 4, 2010 8:17 AM    Report this comment

What about Geraldine "Jerrie" Mock who was the first female to fly around the world. Did it solo in a Cessna 180 from March 19, 1964 to April 18, 1964. Made 21 stops though. 180 is in the Smithsonian/NASM. Would any of us do this in a Cessna 180 in 2010 ? She opened a few minds around the world with this flight. Read her book Three-Eight Charlie.

Posted by: Michael Weidhaas | February 4, 2010 8:38 AM    Report this comment

I don't agree with the comparison of the Voyager feat and this attempt. Voyager showed that it was possible to fly around the world without refuelling. Were there no advancements in technology due to this project? I dare say there were a couple. Then again, the airlines might be interested in mid-air oil changes...

Posted by: Harold Schorr | February 4, 2010 9:26 AM    Report this comment

BWAAAHAHA !!!!! This whole thread is funny! These guys just want an adventure. Win, lose, or draw, they will have a (fun?) time so who cares how much gas they burn? Certainly, it will be less than the amount our illustrious politicians waste on a daily basis commuting home from Washington. Bob Rogers is right, record attempts should not be limited to rich guys. America is still a free country (for now anyway) and these guys don't need to advance technology, prove anything, or secure our approval before doing this---if we don't like it---too bad.

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 4, 2010 10:11 AM    Report this comment

I don't think anyone is advocating restricting their freedom to do what they want, but when I re-read the first line of Paul's blog and consider the real day-to-day life now concerning the economy, jobs, pilot decline, Haiti and plenty else, it's not hard for me to insert where this stunt fits in concerning aviation and our stewardship of it.

On another point, does having 1500 flight hours and...one....landing change anything in the job interview? Just wondering!

Posted by: Dave Miller | February 4, 2010 11:09 AM    Report this comment

Are there others out there (besides me) who have a majority of their time in a 172? 40+ years of flying without an autopilot, glass panel, any of thst stuff? Maybe not, but most everyone has sat in the left seat of a Skyhawk sometime in their career. SO...this is a record attempt each of us can identify with, see the difficulties, and follow along saying "I might be able to do that - but never will." So, like jim t. wrote, I think we need to stop getting exercise by jumping to conclusions as to all the negative outcomes people will see. Take it for what it is - an adventure that the everyday pilot can identify with. I wish them the best and will be following with great interest - hopefully on avweb.

Posted by: Ronald Horton | February 4, 2010 12:40 PM    Report this comment

I have no problem with stunts which don't hurt others. To that end, any proposed stunt needs to be thought out carefully and executed carefully. As soon as I saw the opening statement, I was reminded of the Jessica Dubroff tragedy, which in my view could have been planned and executed well, but wasn't, and an innocent child died (along with her father and her instructor).

I'm not sure that a lot of stunts, including those attempted by other world record seekers like Rutan, Bohannon, and Fossett, advance aviation particularly, but again, as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process, it's OK with me. And who knows? If someone wants to fly in a 172 for 65 days, they may provide some benefit to me, so that I can learn how to increase my own airplane's longevity, or my own ability to fly a longer day than the 11.5 hour day which is so far my limit.

Cary

Posted by: Cary Alburn | February 4, 2010 12:42 PM    Report this comment

In last week's Question of the Week, AVweb readers were asked what the various GA groups should make their top priority in 2010. Fully 30% answered "Correcting the public misconceptions about the value of GA."

Tell me, how is this endurance flight going to accomplish that goal? The non-flying public already thinks "little airplanes" are a dangerous, rich-man's hobby. They already think we waste fuel and pollute the environment. They already think we terrorize neighborhoods everywhere with noise at best, and fireballs falling from the sky at worst.

I too was immediately reminded of Jessica Dubroff, whose father's ambitions posthumously provided me with hours of ground school material, not to mention public hysteria over "allowing a 7-year-old to be a pilot." If Dubroff's airplane had not crashed, she and her ambitious father and fatigued pilot would have been forgotten a week later. But they did crash, and the damage to GA's image was immeasurable and enduring.

I am not saying the Pipkins shouldn't make their record attempt. On the contrary: They should go for it. I am saying that it shouldn't be publicized outside of the aviation community, if at all. At the very least, the non-flying public is already hyper-sensitive to issues of extravagance, pollution, and pilot-fatigue. Why risk giving them yet another reason to doubt the value of GA?

Posted by: Jane Carpenter | February 4, 2010 5:27 PM    Report this comment

I can't help but wonder what would happen if Lindbergh's flight were to take place today. would it meet with the same doubts and negatives that this proposed flight has seen? Let us look at the definition of stunt: 1. dangerous feat: something dangerous that is done as a challenge or to entertain people

2. something underhanded done for attention: something underhanded, silly, or unusual that is done to gain unfair advantage or to attract attention a publicity stunt

Yes, this could be construed as a stunt, but so could the breaking of the sound barrier, Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, or putting boots on the moon. We have always been a nation of pushing the boundaries. Why stop now? Every endeavor has an element of risk, and there are people killed every day with less of a purpose. Just my two cents.

Posted by: paul schafer | February 4, 2010 9:24 PM    Report this comment

I struggled with what to say all day today, and now I read that Paul Schafer has eloquently expressed exactly how I feel about this record-breaking attempt. Thanks Paul!

OTOH, I'm some dismayed by the tone of many posters here, not to mention that of Jeff Owen, whose remarks might fail to conform to all the Commenting Rules. Why such sanctimony and vitriol?

The Jessica Dubrof spectacle having been brought up, can't a new venture be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Or have we come to the point where even a majority of pilots are now against anyone pushing the envelope?

Posted by: Bruce Liddel | February 4, 2010 11:28 PM    Report this comment

A famous motorcycle racer, discussing his involvement in a 24-hour speed-record attempt, remarked: "It's about the most boring thing you can do and still be doing something dangerous."

This seems even more boring.

Posted by: Art Friedman | February 6, 2010 12:51 PM    Report this comment

"What kind of man would live a life without daring? Is life so sweet that we should criticize men that seek adventure? Is there a better way to die?" -- Charles Lindberg, August 26th, 1938

Posted by: Bradley Spatz | February 9, 2010 9:23 PM    Report this comment

I am sure they will learn something. They'll learn about ergonomics.

The hard way.

Posted by: James Bland | February 12, 2010 7:45 AM    Report this comment

This idiotic record attempt can far too easily be construed as an abhorrent and completely pointless waste of fuel, as well as an airframe/engine. The two men concerned would do far better donating an equivalent value in funds directly to a charity instead of claiming that they are going to raise money for charity.

Ultimately the exercise is blatantly attention seeking and is really only a wearisome and trivial endeavour that entirely lacks verve and originality. "And thats if they don't have an accident" ...Can only harm aviation!

Posted by: peter hirst | February 14, 2010 12:39 AM    Report this comment

Two things why the flight must take place Peter; 1) the flight will (most definitely) raise more money for charity than itís cost. This is no matter the outcome. 2) They have had this idea and to progress in life they have to complete their quest even if it kills them. Many have ideas for their lifeís quest and most fail to even attempt them only to find in years to come that their lives are incomplete. Those that took the bull by the horn and did their required quest usually have a fruitful and wonderful life even if they failed.

A great percentage of people in the world are disgruntled with their life. They do not understand what they are here for and canít see any reason why others should have any glory (fun). We see this every day when people complain about the eyesore of a building or airfield near where they live.

The results of this flight will not change the world in any way and very few (I would suggest only a small portion of the aviation world) would be interested. Today how many watch F1 racing, now that it has become a safer sport and no one gets hurt? There was a great following of the sport when drivers were on the edge and lost their lives if something went wrong.

Iím at the age now where I can look back and see all my mistakes and stunts that I did and realised that I should have done more

Posted by: Bruce Savage | February 14, 2010 1:22 PM    Report this comment

Well said Bruce. If I were to have any regrets when I get old, better it should be for the things I did, and wish I hadn't, than for the things I wish I had done, and didn't. I think someone famous may have said that, but I don't know who. If not, I said it.

Posted by: paul schafer | February 14, 2010 8:09 PM    Report this comment

Well said Bruce. If I were to have any regrets when I get old, better it should be for the things I did, and wish I hadn't, than for the things I wish I had done, and didn't. I think someone famous may have said that, but I don't know who. If not, I said it.

Posted by: paul schafer | February 14, 2010 8:10 PM    Report this comment

Bruce yours is a poetic and idealistic point of view that might have been appreciated in the pioneering days of aviation, but in our more enlightened day and age we also need to give consideration to numerous other factors. ...For instance millions of people allover the World are now aware that aviation is contributing to the overheating of our atmosphere, as well as many other negative side-effects to our environment. In that light alone for these two fellows to be seen chucking something in the order of 6,500 gallons of 100ll down the drain on a World stage and for a record that can most easily be determined as truly inane seems quite arrogant and thoughtless to me. ...Really the standing record is inane, trying to beat it defies all common sense.

Posted by: peter hirst | February 14, 2010 11:42 PM    Report this comment

Oh to be young again and believe in those things that don't really matter. I've lived through eminent Ice Age due to Man's inconsideration of the environment. A potential nuclear war as USA and Russia sized up each other ready to blast us all to kingdom come. A potentially horrendous death by overheating due to man's use of chemicals that was destroying the Ozone Layer. Death by starvation because Man is overpopulating the planet and there won't be enough food for everyone. Etc the list goes on and the latest is the climate change which in reality has, never in the billions of years the Earth's existence, been constant. Are we humans so arrogant that we believe we can stabilize the climate?

It is not an ideal about old age but a fact. All you have when you are old is your memories and if those are filled with the bad experiences that is what you live with so the choice is your as to what you want to live with.

Having said that there is a dark side to this lot I will agree and that is the use of a potentially scarce commodity. Petroleum is running out and it is running out quicker than we realise. I do agree I would be a lot happier if this flight was to test a brand new form of power source but as it is not and I will accept that someone is completing their destiny.

Why did Scott go to the South Pole with a 15% chance of success. If he didn't we would not have the infrastructure that is there today.

Posted by: Bruce Savage | February 15, 2010 2:50 AM    Report this comment

Bruce, you are an eloquent writer, and I heartily agree that no one should forbid or even discourage the Pipkins from following their folly. Life is short, play hard! But to compare their proposed endurance boondoggle to Robert Scott's arctic endeavor is ridiculous. Likewise, it is ridiculous to compare it to Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing, or "the breaking of the sound barrier, Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, or putting boots on the moon" as Paul wrote with equal eloquence and hyperbole.

The Pipkins' goal is not even original. It's not even a re-creation of anything particularly original. It's two guys in a C172 trying to stick it out for one day longer than the previous crew. While logistically challenging, it is not inherently glamorous or exciting, and I don't think anyone could reasonably expect it to increase enrollment at flight schools across the country, or improve anything about the non-flying public's misconceptions. The question is not whether the Pipkins should attempt their endurance flight, but whether that attempt should be sponsored, endorsed or publicized by reputable aviation organizations. At best it is a personal romantic folly with dubious benefit to GA, and at worst it's a likely black eye to GA at a time when we can least afford it.

Posted by: Jane Carpenter | February 15, 2010 4:08 AM    Report this comment

OH FOR GOD'S SAKE !! Eloquence and hyperbole has nothing to do do with anything here---can you people just look up "adventure" in the dictionary---these people just want to have fun doing something weird, if it is costing you you nothing than you should keep your opinions to yourselves----what drivel !!!!

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 15, 2010 4:58 AM    Report this comment

Once again Jim Thiessen has beat me to it. Aren't you all tired of the "if I don't like it it's wrong" attitude. I know I am. Seems to me that attitude and the allowing of it is what has caused many of the problems in this country today. You don't like it, don't do it or support it. Otherwise, spend your energy on somehting of more value to you, like your family for instance.

Posted by: Bob Rogers | February 15, 2010 11:09 AM    Report this comment

Yes Jane I do put those two in the same category as Scott and all the adventurers before them. It's not the action that I am comparing them to but the shear determination that they all had to have in the face of mountainous opposition. Anyone who decides on some adventure (and this includes starting a business) will find just about everyone is against them doing it.

Thank you Bob and Jim you said it the way it should be said and good luck to them

Posted by: Bruce Savage | February 15, 2010 1:24 PM    Report this comment

This is not an adventure that has any merit. It will irritate a great many people and only a small proportion of aviators and the general public are likely to consider it interesting. Meanwhile it will cause a continuous air traffic hazard for 65days and during which time two extremely fatigued pilots will very much constitute an accident waiting to happen. The father needs to dig deep and remember where he left his common sense and offer more appropriate guidance to his son. ...It's a senseless record and a senseless way to die if they have an accident. Ultimately I am not against adventures, but I am against this stupidity. Actually I enjoyed watching Fossett's trek around the World in an exciting and inspirational aircraft, but it's worth remembering that Fossett has also demonstrated just how very easy it is to kill yourself in a light plane.

Posted by: peter hirst | February 15, 2010 3:37 PM    Report this comment

I talked with Steve Fossett while he was at Ely Nevada in 2005 and he admitted his quest for records was just an adventure. So why can't anyone else have an adventure? Since I wasn't awash in money, my early adventures consisted of flying cancelled checks in clapped out old Aztecs--hardly the stuff of legends but scary enough for my lifetime. Let's quit looking for some redeeming value in what these guys are doing and accept it for what it is----FUN---- I'm sure that Orville Wright grinned at least once and thought "what fun!" SHEESH---lighten up willya??!!

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 15, 2010 4:03 PM    Report this comment

There's adventuring and then there's making a "dangerous nuisance of yourself for sixty five days" in a blatant attempt to secure the attention of the media for fame and fortune.

And as for Aztecs Jim, well I made two of my sixty solo crossings of the North Atlantic in those machines. ...My experience has been that it is actually no fun at all to spend much more than 10 hours in an aircraft cockpit.

Posted by: peter hirst | February 15, 2010 4:55 PM    Report this comment

If they wanted to be prohited from embarking on their adventure, be it pointless or profitable, then they should undertake it in a country less tolerant of personal liberties. If you want to advocate that this adventure should not be allowed, then I might suggest that you advocate from a country less tolerant of personal liberties, except that those coutries might also be less tolerant of personal expression.

Posted by: Bruce McJunkin | February 15, 2010 5:01 PM    Report this comment

I suspect I live in the more tolerant society, but I don't know of any aviation authorities that like to deliberately condone idiocy.

Posted by: peter hirst | February 15, 2010 5:35 PM    Report this comment

PETER, I agree with you on the butt numbing aspect of that many hours in any airplane but WHO are these guys going to be endangering or being a nuisance? 60 crossings!!! WOW, I'll bet you've had time to read some good books. Couple of old coots like us should be friends...................

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 15, 2010 5:41 PM    Report this comment

You know what? It's really very simple. If you don't like the idea, you'll never change your opinion. If you think it's a good thing, you'll never change your opinion. So, why don't we just all hush up and see what happens. If there is a smoking hole in the ground when it's over, the naysayers can say "I told you so". If not, be glad about it. No matter how it ends up, the adventuring spirit of the human being will continue.

Posted by: Bob Rogers | February 15, 2010 5:45 PM    Report this comment

HAHAHAAAA "CONDONE IDIOCY" Now THAT'S funny----A lot of my friends and family always figured I was a lunatic for pursuing aviation as a career anyway so what's new. Peter, you gotta stop by for a beer!

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 15, 2010 5:48 PM    Report this comment

I concur with Bob Rogers---(you gotta stop by for a beer too!) This has been fun---and some folks are serious---which REALLY cracks me up!

Posted by: jim thiessen | February 15, 2010 5:55 PM    Report this comment

Ja well no fine I've been given several wooden spoons in my life I like to take the same corner of the underdog no matter what the subject. I don't believe in suppressing anyone in what they wish to do except when it comes to murder, stealing, drug trafficking and a few other criminal issues that I leave to the police.

As Spock would say have a long and prosperous life. Oh and enjoy it while you can.

I don't even know the names of those two who are flying the C172.

Posted by: Bruce Savage | February 16, 2010 2:23 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

« Back to Full Story