Oh my ph34r! This photo was taken by me this morning...and yes, it is stopped.

This is why people like to drive.

Was this an Auto Rotate test? I know Helicopter piolets need to learn how to auto rotate. Just wondering.

Nope. Since I'm working on getting my multi-engine rating, we were doing engine-out work. Generally this is simulated by keeping one throttle at idle and the other at full power. Once in a while though, we'll actually feather (stop) a prop to make things a tad more realistic.

Drake, you said something that I wanna comment on. You and a lot of the educated populace say that flying is safer than driving. You guy point out statistics about how there's more deaths and accidents involved in car wrecks than in plane wrecks.

However, what I say to that is, there's a heck of a lot more people driving around than flying around. So naturally there'll be more car wrecks than plane wrecks. However, that doesn't mean the RATIO is greater with cars. Cars may be considered safer cause the ratio between number of cars, and number or wrecks would be fewer, then the ratio between number of plane flights and number of plane wrecks.

In case I was confusing, here's an example:

Number of cars = 1000
Number of wrecks = 100

Number of planes = 100
Number of wrecks = 20

Now see, there's 100 car wrecks and 20 plane wrecks a year. planes are safer? no, cause you've got a 10% chance of getting in a car wreck, and 20% chance of getting in a plane wreck.

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that flying is inherently dangerous. This is why pilots must go through very rigorous training in order to be licensed by the FAA.

you go throught too much work to crash into my house .

but also one of the reasons people like to drive as opposed to fly is because they like to be in control of the vehicle so if they had the opportunity to own their own aricraft they might go for it, but as far as people being afraid to fly if a car crashes in some cases you have a chance to survive but when you fall from 20,000 feet..

yeah, that brought up another point I had in retort to people saying it's safer to fly than drive. Fatality in plane wrecks are greater than fatality in car crashes. Ratio-wise anyway.

I blame the media for this. If you look at the NTSB reports, the overwhelming majority of aircraft accidents are not fatal. The ones that you hear about, however, are the awful airline accidents.

I'm not talking about aircraft accidents. Bad landings, lost a wheel in landing etcetera. Just like I'm not talking about fender benders in cars that wouldn't have a chance at hurting anybody.

But if a passenger jet plummets to the ground, I mean comon... Sure it's rare - even ratio-wise - but the fatality in those babies...

bah, I'm not 100% convinced of my argument on this point. I shouldn't have said anything. I'll stick to the accidents ratio and leave fatality out unless I have more facts.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

This is a chart summarizing the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents that have occured in aviation during the year 2001. Taking a look at the chart at major airline statistics (noted as 14 CFR 121), the numbers come out to show that there were 0.013 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Now take into account the fact that there were 15,998,000 hours flown in that year. Chances are higher that you'd be hit by lightning while getting out of your car at the airport than dying on an airliner.

"Chances are higher that you'd be hit by lightning while getting out of your car at the airport than dying on an airliner"

for some reason I don't agree with that. How many people have died getting out of their car and being struck by lightning while at an airport during the year 2001.

screw 2001. I don't think anybody ever has.

While there has been plenty of people killed on airliners.

If ya argue, at least argue convincingly. And as far as ratio. I bet there's a heck of a lot more driving hours than flight hours in the year of 2001. So the number of car wrecks/fatalities - etcetera would of course be greater. It is still debateable as to which side would have the greater ratio of wrecks/fatalities.

Without statistics for driving hours, I don't think I can argue this convincingly, nor can you. My point was that airline travel is very safe. You did, however, catch my hyperbole with lightning strikes. I really don't know the statistics on that; I was merely exaggerating. I thought you of all people would catch on.

Another consideration that you must take into account is that pilots are much more highly skilled in their field compared to the average driver on a highway. Personally, I spent a solid 6 months of very hard work earning my pilot's license, and that was to merely fly small aircraft. Also, maintenance of aircraft is strictly regulated. For most operations (including airline), each aircraft must be thoroughly inspected every 100 hours of flight time, and pass a very strict annual inspection. Also, any time a pilot notices a discrepency, the aircraft is taken off of the line and fixed.

As a pilot, I know from first-hand experience how safe flying is. I'm comfortable up there...it's a mad house down here.

well couldnt all that hard work and training also be used against flying cars, now flying may be safe, but it takes a skilled pilot and well checked maintance...and just like you said the average highway driver isnt as skilled at what they are doing, so wouldnt an aircraft for everyone just be plain dangerous?

(kinda trying to get back on the topic of flying cars here)

When cars first came about, it was belived that if you went over 30 mph the skin on your face would rip off.

When 30 mph was broken many belived women lacked the attention span to drive.

Many people never belived humans would fly

It's like this people, people will adapt. people can learn. There would have to be a whole new set of guidelines and licensing procedure, but if flying cars came out (scary as it may be) people would buy them and learn to fly them.

Look at how advance scociety has become in the last century. We went from just starting to use electricity, and motors to the fast paced scociety we have today. Now the reason this is impresive is look at technology evolution in the centuries before that.

This will speed up, people will adapt, we will see some awsome things in our life time.

1802 till 2002, think about it. When looking at that, do you realy find it so hard to belive? Look at what the average person did in 1802. the average home didn't even have power or running water. Many still went to the well and out house. Car... ha ha ha ha.

Now look at us. Look at what your parents had and did when they were kids, then look at yourself. As technology advances, it will do so quicker than before, and people will step up and meet the challenge. I would not be surprised to see flying cars replace cars of today.

As far as fule,

The U.S. army uses a speacial brand of desile for their aircraft called JP8. There is much that could be done to use the same fule we use now, hell 100 octane is pretty powerful.