Remote Name: 173.58.248.234
Date:        25 Mar 2013
Time:        13:52:32

Comments:

The Movie:  “Bullet to the Head.” I hate to keep

 harping on the hypocritical political gun control

 games going on in Washington, but I just remembered

 Hollywood’s new movie release ”Bullet to the Head”

 really isn’t showing disrespect for the 20 dead 

kids in Connecticut; It seems that it’s Hollywood’s

way of showing their respect for the Congresswoman 

from  Arizona who took a REAL bullet to her head.

And here I was under the naive impression that 

Hollywood’s only out to make money!  What a great

PR idea: Naming a movie after Gabby Giffords:

“Bullet to  the Head!” Meanwhile, her husband Mark

 Kelly,appears not to seem upset at all with a movie 

 with such an insensitive title like that! He wants

 to control  guns, instead!  It sounds a little like

 he’s getting ready to run for President!

Remote Name: 176.31.9.212
Date:        21 Jan 2013
Time:        22:23:08

Comments:

It informational resource, I'll bookmark it and 

visit it again!

Remote Name: 173.60.253.147
Date:        02 Sep 2012
Time:        08:31:11

Comments:

I did not mean to demean the flyovers in any 

way whatsoever. They were a brilliant PR "stunt."

But,the fact remains that there WERE risks. 

Remote Name: 188.143.232.12
Date:        29 Sep 2012
Time:        04:37:40

Comments:

Wow I must confess you make some very 

trenchant pionts.

Remote Name: 173.60.253.147
Date:        26 Sep 2012
Time:        08:20:18

Comments:

Re: "Endeavor Space Shuttle Flyover Featured Media."

The more I think about it, as a commercial pilot

 myself, the more I realize that there were serious

  risks to that flight. I drove 50 miles to 

Palmdale at 5:00 AM and video-recorded the

 takeoff from  Edwards AFB before getting my

 JPL video in Pasadena -- 50 more miles.  Even

 a short 100 mile  drive like this was slightly

 tiring.  After a short flyover over Lancaster

 and Palmdale where the shuttle was built, the

 pilots flew it to Sacramento and San Francisco;

 around the Bay Area, over  the Golden Gate

 Bridge; then down the coast over Monterey

 Bay; then all over the Los Angeles Area -- 

at low altitudes. Undoubtedly they were flying

 manually at these altitudes, and were probably

 tiring from the manual flying that required 

them to be completely focused at all times on 

what they were doing, with very little room 

for error in the event of things like bird 

strikes, small plane traffic, minor engine

 glitches, not to mention flying into

 mountains(!), etc.  At low altitudes, any of

 these occurrences could have been a major 

problem with very little time and altitude to

 react.  What if the pilot had a heart attack

 while he was flying manually and slumped over

 the controls and pushed the nose down?   The

 co-pilot would have had very little time to 

react!  This situation is very different from

 problems at 35,000 feet while on autopilot. 

 You don't  want to be caught flying low and 

slow. 

There's an old saying that there are old pilots 

and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots! 

As for the pilots flying that 747, they probabl

y were the only ones ever to fly a 747 in that

 manner and probably had the most fun of their

 lives! 

I did not mean to demean the flyovers in any 

way whatsoever. They were a brilliant PR "stunt."

But,the fact remains that there WERE risks. 

I used to do the same thing.  I would fly over 

California a few feet off the ground on rising 

terrain  and then have it drop off 1000 feet 

or more.  It was spectacular and great fun,

 but, nonetheless,  there was always a small

 element of risk.  I would always joke with 

my passengers when we were  flying 10 feet

 over the ground that this would be a heck of

 a place for the engine to quit!!  But, it  

was great fun!!  I can only imagine how 

those 747 pilots felt!!