17,000 and counting

bflynn said:
They gave the FAA as the source of the quote, so maybe someone at the FAA messed it up.
Click to expand...
His actual quote was for N-Numbered airplanes relicensed to Ex-Ex, while the majority on my list appears to be foreign-manufactured aircraft or ex-warbirds. I believe Ex-Ex licensed airplanes formerly had to be renewed every year; I wonder if the FAA person has a lot of duplicates.

For S&Gs, I'll try look up how many have switched since 1998.

Ron
 
Deelee said:
So. Much. Content. Out. There. I need to figure out how to youtube.... ya'll stay tuned for my channel....
Click to expand...
A great YouTube channel would be just a live stream from a camera pointed up at a windsock. I might tune into that from time to time (like the old fireplace channel on cable TV).
 
wanttaja said:
His actual quote was for N-Numbered airplanes relicensed to Ex-Ex, while the majority on my list appears to be foreign-manufactured aircraft or ex-warbirds. I believe Ex-Ex licensed airplanes formerly had to be renewed every year; I wonder if the FAA person has a lot of duplicates.

For S&Gs, I'll try look up how many have switched since 1998.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I took the mid-1997 aircraft registry, and extracted all the aircraft that had Standard category registration. I then compared it to the January 2021 registry, and matched aircraft with the same model number and same serial number. The "Make" is often changed, in these sorts of conversions, and often the N-Number as well, so I didn't limit it to matching N-numbers or aircraft make.

Got 94 hits, including the one in the video.

I suggest the FAA guy did the analysis wrong.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Gone Flyin said:
Funny, that's exactly who posted this video. Juan Brown.

BTW: The title tells you exactly what the video is all about.

In the time many of you spent posting why you will not watch, you could have watched it and maybe, just maybe, learned something.
Click to expand...
I don't have an aversion to a new video, but I have the same reaction (aversion) when somebody posts a generic link to something without any primer..

I think it's common courtesy to write a sentence or two summarizing what the link is actually about whether it's a news article or a website or a YouTube video
 
I read somewhere that "YouTube influencer" was the #1 career goal among a group of teenage kids interviewed.

That's so naive. In the 1970s, my friends and I had the much-more realistic career goal of "rock star".
 
Timbeck2 said:
I don't think I can learn anything from someone who hasn't mastered cap wear. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe he's a welder. They spin the hat around so the helmet goes down in front, and then the bill maybe keeps the bb's from going down the back of your jacket. Maybe.
Or a sniper? The bill gets in the way of the scope if it's in the front.

I don't watch many yt airplane videos, either. It's as boring as watching someone else golf, and I don't golf. I'll watch JB's accident reports once in a while, and historical stuff from Scott Perdue (sp?), but that's about it.

I don't understand the concept of yt influencer. Why would anybody care about the opinion of someone they don't know, who hasn't really done anything? To me that's like the fat guy from the local news interviewing random strangers on the street as they walk by. They only catch the slow ones, who can't dodge the camera, and it shows.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't understand the concept of yt influencer. Why would anybody care about the opinion of someone they don't know, who hasn't really done anything? To me that's like the fat guy from the local news interviewing random strangers on the street as they walk by. They only catch the slow ones, who can't dodge the camera, and it shows.
Click to expand...
It’s kinda like expressing opinions on POA, but with video.

Ah…I see your point. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top