Harrison Ford Defends His Airplanes

If he has the money for an each-day-a-week flock, good for him. The only thing I give the eco-activists is that most of our aircraft are woefully inefficient (one of the glider pilots will chime in here and talk about how they don't use any gas) but that has more to do with the FAA than any of us. There just aren't enough of us to even begin to make it noticeable, no less a concern. And at the rate we're going there will be fewer and fewer.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, that isn't ENTIRELY true. They have to get into the air somehow.
Click to expand...


1099833_merch126.jpg
 
steingar said:
... The only thing I give the eco-activists is that most of our aircraft are woefully inefficient...
Click to expand...
I suspect their notion of inefficient is more along the lines of "releasing 400 lbs of CO2 in order to go somewhere to eat pancakes".
There just aren't enough of us to even begin to make it noticeable, no less a concern...
Click to expand...
You can always take a population and subdivide it into categories, each too small to have a noticeable effect.
-harry
 
EdFred said:
Giant rubber bands.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is one of the methods, although not so common nowadays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oZ_MO8g7jo

As for Ford: he's just paying the price any famous actor pays when he speaks in public about anything... and of course, if you're "green" but moderate, you will eventually have the radicals in your face, along with their usual hyposcrisy, double-standards, and general histrionics. :rolleyes:

He would do better, though, to mention how airplanes of every type probably have a lower environmental impact, per passenger- mile, than any other mode of transport. How much asphalt does an airplane need to travel 1000 miles, after all?

And even if one is convinced that carbon dioxide is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, it's worth noting that all aviation, collectively, contributes an amount that is negligible compared to ground transport vehicles and industry (including farming).

Aviation really ought to be way at the bottom of the list of "Things We Need to do Something About to Save the Planet", if you ask me. Sure, it could all be greener, but I don't see any glaring contradiction when a pilot who owns several fossil-fuel-burning aircraft admits he's concerned about good stewardship of the earth, does what he can, and encourages others to do what they can.

I think these attacks on him have more to do with political forces within the "green movement" than anything factual.
 
Last edited:
Airplanes will never pass the enviro standard of the day err hour. The only acceptable argument for airplanes is because it is a free country.
 
A lot of piston airplanes aren't that bad when considering MPG, especially when compared to the many SUVs on the market.

For example, I have a V8 Dodge Durango that averages about 14mpg, maybe 17mpg highway. Meanwhile the Cherokee 180 gets 14-15mpg.

Plus, planes travel 'as the crow flies' vs the highway system, and that can be a significant mileage saver. One of my often flown trips is 127 statute miles by air, and 173miles by car.

OTOH, there are some twins out there that have miserable mpg numbers.







steingar said:
<snip>The only thing I give the eco-activists is that most of our aircraft are woefully inefficient (one of the glider pilots will chime in here and talk about how they don't use any gas) but that has more to do with the FAA than any of us.
Click to expand...
 
Last I checked, "The pursuit of happiness" was the good desired by the founders -- not "the elimination of carbon emissions."

This nonsense is outta control. :mad3:
 
dmccormack said:
Last I checked, "The pursuit of happiness" was the good desired by the founders -- not "the elimination of carbon emissions."...
Click to expand...
There's probably a good reason why the founders didn't have much to say on the topic of carbon emissions.
-harry
 
nyoung said:
A lot of piston airplanes aren't that bad when considering MPG, especially when compared to the many SUVs on the market.

For example, I have a V8 Dodge Durango that averages about 14mpg, maybe 17mpg highway. Meanwhile the Cherokee 180 gets 14-15mpg.

Plus, planes travel 'as the crow flies' vs the highway system, and that can be a significant mileage saver. One of my often flown trips is 127 statute miles by air, and 173miles by car.

OTOH, there are some twins out there that have miserable mpg numbers.
Click to expand...

279 by air, around 500 by car. Less fuel burned in the plane, too.
 
But that doesn't matter, your plane is evil and must be destroyed for killing the environment. ;)
 
steingar said:
If he has the money for an each-day-a-week flock, good for him.
Click to expand...
If it's Tuesday it must be...

Anyone want to name the 7 airplanes? I think he has a Beaver and a Sovereign and, I think, a helicopter... oh wait that's not an airplane.
 
EdFred said:
279 by air, around 500 by car. Less fuel burned in the plane, too.
Click to expand...
I figure I've deposited about 160,000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere via various single-engine Cessnas, and about 500,000 lbs of CO2 via cars and motorcycles.

One difference, for me at least, is that virtually all of that flying was completely frivolous, whereas the bulk of that driving was utilitarian (e.g. commuting to work).

Of course the other difference is that the amount of flying I've done is small relative to the amount of driving I've done, and so a hobby of recreational flight hasn't significantly increased my overall "contribution".
-harry
 
I've never understood the logic of blaming consumers, who are individually relatively powerless, for the fact that industry and government have failed to provide an economically feasible and environmentally friendly alternative to avgas.
 
nyoung said:
OTOH, there are some twins out there that have miserable mpg numbers.
Click to expand...

Actually, my Ford Excursion seems to average about 12-13 mpg while my Aztec averages 9 mpg. While I could get better mileage with a Cherokee, that benefit would all go away with a headwind and it would be very difficult to stuff 25 dogs in it at once.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've never understood the logic of blaming consumers, who are individually relatively powerless, for the fact that industry and government have failed to provide an economically feasible and environmentally friendly alternative to avgas.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the logic of blaming industry for not comming up with a enviromentally freindly product that is so expensive that no consumer will buy it.
 
Last edited:
Stupid 'insdustries' and stupid 'condumers'!!!
 
Now remember, manufacturers have unlimited funds so they should be able to make whatever we want them to at exactly the price we want to pay.

I have to explain economics to my mom every time I buy her a plane ticket to Europe. "Why is it so expensive?!" "Well, mom, if you want I can fly you to Europe and then you can complain about how much more expensive THAT is, and how much slower. Plus the lack of bathrooms."
 
GA was in the crosshairs back in the '70s during the gas shortage arm-waving. Same "GA is wasteful", "No it isn't", arguments then as now. Probably the same people complaining now, as were then.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have to explain economics to my mom every time I buy her a plane ticket to Europe. "Why is it so expensive?!" "Well, mom, if you want I can fly you to Europe and then you can complain about how much more expensive THAT is, and how much slower. Plus the lack of bathrooms."
Click to expand...

I tend to ask why are airfares so cheap. I don't want the airline
skimping on the aircraft maintenance and personel training.
 
Missa said:
I've never understood the logic of blaming industry for not comming up with a enviromentally freindly product that is so expensive that no consumer will buy it.
Click to expand...

Because some people think business and industry are inherently bad in whatever they do, and would be just as happy to make some things go away regardless of the consequences.

I'll stop there rather than spin this over to the zone.
 
wsuffa said:
Because some people think business and industry are inherently bad in whatever they do, and would be just as happy to make some things go away regardless of the consequences.
Click to expand...

...and, because it is always easier to complain about someone else, than it is to do something good yourself.

I had a boss early in my career who, when I came to him with a perceived problem, asked me, "Well, Spike, what would you propose we do about it?"

When I had no immediate answer, he said, "Maybe you might consider that, if you haven't got a proposed solution, maybe you're just whining."

Ticked me off at the time, but he was right.
 
SCCutler said:
...and, because it is always easier to complain about someone else, than it is to do something good yourself.

I had a boss early in my career who, when I came to him with a perceived problem, asked me, "Well, Spike, what would you propose we do about it?"

When I had no immediate answer, he said, "Maybe you might consider that, if you haven't got a proposed solution, maybe you're just whining."

Ticked me off at the time, but he was right.
Click to expand...

He was right only if it was your responsibility to propose a solution
to the problem, or within your area of expertise.
 
bigred177 said:
But that doesn't matter, your plane is evil and must be destroyed for killing the environment. ;)
Click to expand...

Airplanes killing the environment? Ha!
In the meantime, the melt your airplane into beer can fanatics are jumping in their SUV twice a day 5 times a week for about 260+ days a year to go 10-30 miles each way to work taking an hour or more to do the round trip....except on the weekends when they're running their lawnmowers, edgers and leaf blowers. Then for fun, they tow their boat 50 miles to the lake and run the engine for 4-6 hours.
But tell them they have to move closer to work then ride a moped, bicycle or walk in order to cut their totally wasted fuel emissions then live in a 300sq ft dwelling to reduce heating/cooling costs and you'll have a full out revolt on your hands.

Seriously, cut the mindless daily commute to/from work out and, just guessing here, but I'd say there would be about an 85% reduction in fuel consumption across the board.
 
SCCutler said:
...and, because it is always easier to complain about someone else, than it is to do something good yourself.

I had a boss early in my career who, when I came to him with a perceived problem, asked me, "Well, Spike, what would you propose we do about it?"

When I had no immediate answer, he said, "Maybe you might consider that, if you haven't got a proposed solution, maybe you're just whining."

Ticked me off at the time, but he was right.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting SZ be renamed the Whine Zone? :D
 
You sound like them. Folks shouldn't live in suburbs or drive large cars, boats, and lawn machinery so there is room for polluting airplanes.
fgcason said:
Airplanes killing the environment? Ha!
In the meantime, the melt your airplane into beer can fanatics are jumping in their SUV twice a day 5 times a week for about 260+ days a year to go 10-30 miles each way to work taking an hour or more to do the round trip....except on the weekends when they're running their lawnmowers, edgers and leaf blowers. Then for fun, they tow their boat 50 miles to the lake and run the engine for 4-6 hours.
But tell them they have to move closer to work then ride a moped, bicycle or walk in order to cut their totally wasted fuel emissions then live in a 300sq ft dwelling to reduce heating/cooling costs and you'll have a full out revolt on your hands.

Seriously, cut the mindless daily commute to/from work out and, just guessing here, but I'd say there would be about an 85% reduction in fuel consumption across the board.
Click to expand...
 
fgcason said:
Seriously, cut the mindless daily commute to/from work out and, just guessing here, but I'd say there would be about an 85% reduction in fuel consumption across the board.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea where it is possible.

Over the years I've had commutes of various distances, from about 35 miles each way to 5 miles each way.

My current situation is ideal. I roll out of bed, get showered and fed, and walk 50 feet to the office next door.

I have to make a point to drive my cars a little each week just to keep the oil circulated. My main machine gets around 5000 miles a year put on it now, whereas I used to drive more than 20k miles.
 
I started quite a row with one of my comments, and would like to explain a bit. Our cars get in the mid 30s in terms of mileage, and the bikes do a tad better. Our airplane is considerably worse. That said, someone put it right on the button. Get rid of people traveling an hour to work and back in their low mileage SUVs and you'd save orders of magnitude more fuel than to eliminate GA altogether. One refinery can made a year's worth of fuel for us in a day. We just don't go through that much.

Problem is folks like a suburban or rural life style but work in cities. So long as that persists many people will travel to and from work in the least efficient vehicle they can afford. Worrying about GA in comparison is just plain stupid.
 
steingar said:
I started quite a row with one of my comments, and would like to explain a bit. Our cars get in the mid 30s in terms of mileage, and the bikes do a tad better. Our airplane is considerably worse. That said, someone put it right on the button. Get rid of people traveling an hour to work and back in their low mileage SUVs and you'd save orders of magnitude more fuel than to eliminate GA altogether. One refinery can made a year's worth of fuel for us in a day. We just don't go through that much.

Problem is folks like a suburban or rural life style but work in cities. So long as that persists many people will travel to and from work in the least efficient vehicle they can afford. Worrying about GA in comparison is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...


Remote work via telecommute was supposed to fix that.

Yeah, right -- the percentages are abysmal.

Anyway, GA makes no sense using strict Cost/Benefit analysis. Niether does marriage, children, sunsets, vacations, and a billion other things that make life tolerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top