OK, OK, it wasn’t my title, but Forbes Magazine’s. This link is to an article in today’s Forbes which quotes, among others, Alan Klapmeier. It was written by Rick Karlgaard, who is a pilot and, I believe, a member.
In reply to:
OK, OK, it wasn’t my title, but Forbes Magazine’s. This link is to an article in today’s Forbes which quotes, among others, Alan Klapmeier. It was written by Rick Kaarlgaard, who is a pilot and, I believe, a member.
Yes, Rich Karlgaard (three a’s, not four! [;)]) is indeed a COPA member - T182T, as I recall. Good article - I hope that Mac Mclellan is wrong, though.
- Mike.
I feel that the future will improve if the general aviation community accepts newer technologies and helps advance on them. Cirrus Design is being very proactive in using new technologies and I hope many others will follow. I know that NASA is looking into the Small Aircraft Transportaion Sytem to hopefully advance the notion of air taxis and point-to-point flights. Maybe if we support these changes the future will be better.
Great article my views exactly:
Norm
OOPs! Thaanks Mike. Thaat pesky “aa” sticks. It is fixed now. (Sorry Rick)
“I hope tha Mac Mclellan is wrong, though”
He is right about NASA talking about advanced air highways and air taxi for 40 years; the problem is that he does not recognize that things are changing, advancing, getting better; and that he has to get beyond his core readership. As with any visionary person or group, it’s not a question of if, but when.
I have to hope that Vern Raburn is right, with respect to his thesis of point to point air taxi; the company that I run developed and operate the ‘sabre’ system for air charter; and have been evangelizing this very point for a number of years; I just hope, like NASA, that it is a question of when, but not if.
What, I do believe is crystal clear, is that the pace of development and dreaming is just beginning.
Jim Betlyon
(during the day, Air Charter Guide, CharterX Network), otherwise, drives SR22 #54.
In reply to:
I hope that Mac Mclellan is wrong, though.
Mac and his cohort, Richard Collins, have been referred to as “Cranky old men, flying creaky old airplanes.”
You always hear of the old guard trying to preserve the status quo, resisting any significant change. They are all that, personified.
They think General Aviation, that exclusive club where they are obviously leading lights, is just fine, and should remain as it is. Anyone trying to shake things up risks incurring their scorn, unless of course you happen to be a major advertiser in their magazine.
They recently characterized NASA programs like SATS and AGATE as a waste of money. They’d deny it, but they have once again showed their anti-innovation stripes.
They have also been critical of Cirrus planes, citing misleading accident statistics to support their point of view. In fact, their editorials were part of the impetus for my recent “Deathtrap” post. If you want to find out the truth about journalistic integrity, just ask Alan K. about his conversations with them.
Of course, their comments about Cirrus are mild compared to the hatchet job they’ve done on Eclipse Aviation. They as much as said that the jet wouldn’t fly and that Eclipse would never make it. Time will tell, but so far Eclipse is on track to prove them wrong on both points.
So, if you’re going to read aviation magazines, choose your pundits wisely. And before you take their statements at face value, put them into context by looking to see which manufacturer bought the most advertising in that issue.
-Mike
Mike, well said.
As I consumer I cast my vote on this question by re-upping for IFR magazine, AOPA Pilot, etc, but not Flying.
Jim -
I receive Flying free as a National Association of Flight Instructors membership benefit. I have thought about asking them not to send it, but it occurs to me that the price is right.