Home

About

Photos

FAQ

Blog

They let YOU fly an airplane?!?

Yes, as a matter of fact My CFI (Certified Flight Instructor) did this morning. After a mere 27 hours in the cockpit and over 120 landings, it came the time. “Do you want to try it solo?” “Yes, why yes I do!”


1975 Cessna 150

3 Take off and Landings (Bumps and Circuits for everyone across the pond) with a full stop on each landing. Wow, I did it! Granted, I used too much flaps on my 1st and 3rd landings, but hey, I knew how to compensate, and that’s what it’s all about. The conditions on Friday were probably the calmest I’ve seen them at KBCB, and the air was incredibly stable. A great day for a first solo.


The Congratulatory Handshake After the Solo Flight

5 Responses Subscribe to comments


  1. KrissyMiss

    Boy! You’re talker than the plane!

    Apr 21, 2008 @ 3:24 am


  2. Berfin

    is completely undoenfud. I can imagine that your just sharing your thoughts about Obama, and that’s fine. But, most of what you said is pure propaganda. Jesus isn’t Republican. Matter of fact, he isn’t American. Sometimes I even wonder if he would fly an American flag in his front yard. You see, he was too busy promoting the Kingdom of God a kingdom that looks nothing like our country or any country that has ever existed. The Kingdom of God isn’t built and maintained by military force nor does it pride itself on comfort. The Kingdom of God is one of peace, humility, love, and self-sacrifice. Jesus went around healing people, feeding people, and offering them salvation. From what I can tell, he had a thing for those people who couldn’t help themselves. I’m not saying that he was a Marxist, but he might have at least been friends with Jim Wallis.Ultimately, however, none of us can help ourselves, right. If nothing else, we are spiritually poor. Thank God. Literally, thank God that Jesus couldn’t stand poverty of any kind. He was out to help the physically poor, the emotionally poor, the relationally poor, and of course, the spiritually poor. I often have to remind myself that the gospel is comprehensive. It’s bigger than politics. We can’t get caught up in party politics that separate us and them. Quite frankly, we don’t have time to waste making political spaces sacred and sacred spaces political. Through Christ, God’s kingdom is breaking in. When we accept Jesus as our Savior, we aren’t converting to a political ideology or party; we are giving our lives to a whole new way of being in the world. We are empowered to embody the fruits of the Spirit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. This is a far cry from any political party.The truth is this: you and Obama were raised in the same world. It’s true that you’ve been shaped by different people and different circumstances, but ironically, you both profess Jesus as your Savior. So, who has the Christian worldview? I can’t know for sure, but from what I can tell, Jesus did care deeply about social justice. First of all, social justice isn’t Marxism. Social justice is an active response to injustice, and injustice is all around us. This world isn’t as it ought to be. As a result of sin, there is war, poverty, sickness, depression, and every kind of evil. And, I can’t help but believe that God cries when he sees the condition of our world and the pain that plagues humanity on a daily basis. To pursue social justice is to participate with God in the restoration of the world. We can’t reduce the Good News to life after death because it is much bigger than that. Jesus offers us life now, and by us, I mean everyone. The poor don’t deserve a living hell, especially if we can do something about their situation. If we can help someone then we must do so because we possess a gospel of hope, love, and deliverance, and we are called to share it with the world, through both word and deed. Social justice isn’t political it’s God’s work. You have a right to be angry at Obama for taking money out of your pocket, but if you follow Jesus, it should hardly frustrate you. After all, everything we have is a gift from God, and God has called us to use our blessing to bless others. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time that we Christians start living like Jesus and quit arguing for a Jesus that looks like us. I’m pretty sure that Jesus is less concerned with politics and more concerned with us being loving. Much to my chagrin, loving others requires sacrifice, and in some cases, I might have to give away a few bucks. It’s not fair, but I’m tired of arguing. The world is right when they say that Christians are confrontational, greedy, and hypocritical. It’s unfortunate because Christ followers should be the most loving and caring people in the world, even towards are enemies. By the way, I’m not an Obama fan, but I have to admit that he may be acting more like Christ than anyone from the Religious Right. Of course, he could just be playing politics. Either way, I don’t have the time to search his conscience. I know what God has called me to do, called us to do. We are called to give our entire lives to Jesus. It’s tough, but Jesus asks us to give everything we have and everything we are to him time, money, relationships, identity, doubts, fears, anger, anxiety absolutely everything. Then, he tells us that when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and visit the imprisoned, we are doing those things to him. Clearly, our demonstration of the gospel should be as compelling as our proclamation. By consequence, I have a responsibility to my neighbor and their welfare. To do so is not Marxism, it’s Christianity. Jesus gave everything he had to others, even his life. What a Marxist!

    Aug 02, 2014 @ 1:49 pm


  3. Rafael

    Sylvie, glad you resonated with this post. Practical and draems do not go into the same sentence love. And make sure to not tell people who may not support you your draems protect them as the most sacred gift. Choose one at a time and take passionate action. Just never give up and see it to the end love. Great comments love.

    Feb 19, 2015 @ 12:16 pm


  4. Sammi

    handstands are pretty cool. i can only do them asniagt the wall currently. they’re also the reason i quit gymnastics after 1 year haha. while it’s easy to see why we are obsessed with running and logging miles, i agree that it’s important to balance things out with other exercises like this. hard to squeeze it in since exercise isn’t our job, but important!

    Mar 24, 2015 @ 12:27 am


  5. Simona

    usage. But there, the sense in which particular thigns, like a flower, come to be beautiful, remains, despite the fantastic notion of “participation,” a mystery. That mystery is taken up in the Parmenides; and in fact, the first part of the dialogue can be seen as a series of trenchant criticisms of Plato’s earlier account of such thigns as “the beautiful itself.” Plato kept the account in the Republic, but did not mention it at all in the Theaetetus, an absence which, given the dialogue’s aim of investigating what knowledge is, seems to lend strong support to the view that Plato indeed abandoned the “theory of form” in his late years. One difficulty with the “theory of form,” which is prominently dealt with in the Parmenides, pertains, not surprisingly, to the ontological status of forms. It is not clear what Plato remained committed to after hearing, and failing to answer, the series of criticisms; tellingly, Plato conceded that a form might, after all, but be a pattern of thought. Your description that Plato “相信idea不但實際 客觀地存在 且比感官世界更真實和恆常” is to a certain degree correct; after all, the search for invariance is rightly to be seen to be the first motivation for singling out “the beautiful itself.” But if this is the impression one gets from the Phaedo and the Republic, that impression must be qualified by what is to be found in the Parmenides (and relevant absences in the Theatetus). If one accepts the criticisms put forth in the Parmenides–and the view that Plato really did not succeed to answer them there nor in subsequent writings–then one is forced to tell a slightly different story about the so-called Platonic Theory of Fomr. It would be a story less of bold contrivance than of miserable retreat–if not indeed of ultimate surrender. But, of course, the Parmenides was also written by Plato himself. Shall we not say, then, that Plato was after all not only a proposer of form, as he was in his early years, but also a critic of that notion, as he having given much thought to it clearly was? What Plato thought and wrote is, admittedly, not the same as what others take him to have thought and wrote. Yet is it no trivial question to ask, in what way the account of forms is, or is not, central to various branches of Plato’s philosophy. In the Theaetetus Plato tried to show the danger of conceiving the world as but a Heraclitean flux; for discourse to be possible, we need something like general terms. Or in other words, there must be something more than the mere perception of each individual in each (and mutually disconnected) moment. This “must” is not the Kantian “must”–in the sense of a transcendental precondition for cognition–but a “must” that is thoroughly practical: without general terms, we cannot even talk to each other. I think this central lesson in the Theaetetus echoes deeply, and in fact in some sense answers, the Socratic search for that which justifies the use of general terms. Perhaps it is unnecessary to believe in a thoroughly objective and unchanging reality (even if one would love to, Plato did not tell us what it really was); but it remains imperative to presume that we are able to make use of something more enduring than a fleeing moment. The need, the desire, and the urge to reach this thing, to grasp it, to ensure ourselves that dialogic interaction between human beings is possible, already points to something like the forms. It is my conviction that this mirrors in a profound way the human search for “the ultimate,” or what your call “太初”

    Apr 26, 2015 @ 10:24 pm