The Bay Area has more small plane traffic this week.
I notice more out of state "N" numbers on those planes
flying, creating more NOISE.
It must be the all the bad weather back east causing
all the small planes to fly above me.

"daffy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The Bay Area has more small plane traffic this week.
> I notice more out of state "N" numbers on those planes
> flying, creating more NOISE.

Noise is not "created", it's "produced".

Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Sound is a form of energy,
simply converted from another form of energy.

I don't remember the exact definition of noise, vs sound, but the sound made
by small aircraft is more like music than noise to me.

daffy writes:

> The Bay Area has more small plane traffic this week.
> I notice more out of state "N" numbers on those planes
> flying, creating more NOISE.
> It must be the all the bad weather back east causing
> all the small planes to fly above me.

AVWeb says this is going to be a record year for general aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley writes:

> Noise is not "created", it's "produced".

The two terms are synonymous.

> Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Sound is a form of energy,
> simply converted from another form of energy.

No. Sound is a pressure gradient that moves over time.

> I don't remember the exact definition of noise, vs sound, but the sound made
> by small aircraft is more like music than noise to me.

All audible noise is sound, but not all sound is noise.

Small aircraft are unusually noisy, compared to their larger cousins. I
believe it comes mostly from propellers, especially when their blade tips
approach transonic speeds, and from engines, which don't seem to have much in
the way of noise-muffling equipment.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> The Bay Area has more small plane traffic this week.
> I notice more out of state "N" numbers on those planes
> flying, creating more NOISE.
> It must be the all the bad weather back east causing
> all the small planes to fly above me.
>
Ok daffy,

It really wasn't a great joke, but it would have been moderately funny if
you had not "gilded the lilly" with that NOISE crap.

Peter

an out od state n number? how can you tell.. are you looking each one up on
the FAA Web?

"daffy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The Bay Area has more small plane traffic this week.
> I notice more out of state "N" numbers on those planes
> flying, creating more NOISE.
> It must be the all the bad weather back east causing
> all the small planes to fly above me.
>

> AVWeb says this is going to be a record year for general aviation.

That's measuring the dollar value of new aircraft sales.

Look at the numbers, and you'll see that sales are a tiny fraction of
what they were in the 1970s.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

> > AVWeb says this is going to be a record year for general aviation.
>
> That's measuring the dollar value of new aircraft sales.
>
> Look at the numbers, and you'll see that sales are a tiny fraction of
> what they were in the 1970s.

Maybe if the prices were lower, more aircraft would be sold.

But I suppose airplane manufacterers care about total income, not the number
of aircraft sold.

I guess you just have to be even more rich now to fly than in the past.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
> > > AVWeb says this is going to be a record year for general aviation.
> >
> > That's measuring the dollar value of new aircraft sales.
> >
> > Look at the numbers, and you'll see that sales are a tiny fraction of
> > what they were in the 1970s.
>
> Maybe if the prices were lower, more aircraft would be sold.
>
> But I suppose airplane manufacterers care about total income, not the number
> of aircraft sold.
>
> I guess you just have to be even more rich now to fly than in the past.

Gee, why didn't they think of that? Just make the planes cheaper to make and
they'll sell more!

Owen writes:

> Gee, why didn't they think of that? Just make the planes cheaper to make and
> they'll sell more!

Do you really think they are selling them at cost now?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> I guess you just have to be even more rich now to fly than in the past.

I think it's more a matter of priorities and the choices we all make. Just
look at the "necessities" people spend their money on these days.

I got my private back when my wife and I were just starting out and with
almost nothing to our names. We didn't have cell phones, cable TV,
Nintendo, X-Box, Playstation, PCs, high speed internet access, or cars that
ran well. I spent my weekends fixing the things on the cars that broke
during the week, and the things that broke in the house. It really is a
hoot lying under a car in your driveway in the middle of a Wisconsin winter.

I know, it sounds like a cliche and I'm sure a few folks won't be able to
resist poking fun at this, but the fact is that almost anyone who wants it
bad enough can afford to get their pilot license. All it takes is a hard
look at what you think you "need", and a willingness to get a job or two -
my wife had one and I had two at the time.

Whining about not having enough money to do it won't make it happen. You
have to get off your derrier and actually do something to make it happen.

BDS

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Owen writes:
>
> > Gee, why didn't they think of that? Just make the planes cheaper to make and
> > they'll sell more!
>
> Do you really think they are selling them at cost now?

Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.

Owen writes:

> Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.

What was your point, then?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

BDS writes:

> I think it's more a matter of priorities and the choices we all make.

Certainly one can see if from that viewpoint, but the more expensive a hobby
becomes, the more skewed one's priorities must be in order to justify pursuing
it--_or_ the more rich one must be to pursue it without making terrific
sacrifices in other domains.

> I know, it sounds like a cliche and I'm sure a few folks won't be able to
> resist poking fun at this, but the fact is that almost anyone who wants it
> bad enough can afford to get their pilot license.

No doubt, but as I said above, the more expensive it becomes, the more badly
and desperately one must want it (unless one is rich).

The fact is, the more expensive it becomes, the less likely general aviation
is to survive over the long term, as it gradually prices itself out of
existence. While a handful of wealthy people can extend the life of something
for a certain time, eventually they become too small in number to support some
of the fixed costs of infrastructure, and everything collapses.

> All it takes is a hard
> look at what you think you "need", and a willingness to get a job or two -
> my wife had one and I had two at the time.

The problem is that you cannot promote or hope to preserve a hobby by limiting
it to people who are willing to sell a kidney just to practice it. The
availability of a few die-hards who will sell their own moms to get that
license isn't going to preserve general aviation as a whole. It has to be
reasonably accessible, or it will dry up and blow away.

> Whining about not having enough money to do it won't make it happen.
> You have to get off your derrier and actually do something to make it happen.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. To keep a hobby alive, you have to make
it accessible to a critical mass of the population. Telling people that if
they can't afford it, they're not dedicated enough is just shooting yourself
in the foot. They aren't going to become more dedicated; they're just going
to give up on the idea. And if there are too few people with the extreme
"dedication" required to pursue the hobby, there won't be enough to support
the infrastructure that it requires, and there will be none to speak out in
its favor when others wish to eliminate it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Owen writes:
>
> > Why would they and why should they? That has nothing to do with my point.
>
> What was your point, then?

Companies exist to make money. If they could decrease prices and make more
money they would. There is a reason why it costs so much to build a certified
airplane and there is a reason why costs, including liability, are so
ridiculously high for airplane manufacturers. Remember what happened to the
industry over the past 2+ decades? There is also a reason why so many light
plane producers either went bankrupt, disappeared completely, or are barely
hanging on.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> No doubt, but as I said above, the more expensive it becomes, the more
badly
> and desperately one must want it (unless one is rich).

I'm not so sure about that. Were one to do a analysis of what it costs
today versus where income levels are, compared to what it cost in the 80s
versus where income levels were, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
cheaper now than it was back then.

> The fact is, the more expensive it becomes, the less likely general
aviation
> is to survive over the long term, as it gradually prices itself out of
> existence.

I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

BDS

BDS writes:

> I'm not so sure about that. Were one to do a analysis of what it costs
> today versus where income levels are, compared to what it cost in the 80s
> versus where income levels were, I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
> cheaper now than it was back then.

I would be interested in seeing such an analysis. I don't really know if it
is cheaper or not, but I rather suspect it is more expensive (possibly much
more expensive).

> I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
> participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
> has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
> are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
> a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

What are the other factors, and what can be done to compensate for them?

Apart from cost, the things that come to my mind are the substantial amount of
time required to even begin to fly (hours of flying pale in comparison to
hours of instruction and training and exams, at least in the beginning), and
the many regulatory hurdles to flying, such as the need for a license, various
ratings, a strict medical exam, insurance, and so on.

Overall, flying is a lot more difficult than it should be. While this will
not discourage the most fanatic flyers, it considerably narrows the field of
potential pilots, and even the fanatically devoted pilots have a vested
interest in encouraging other people to fly, as it helps pay for and justify
the massive infrastructure upon which all pilots depend.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

>
> I don't think cost is the main problem. While there is no doubt that
> participation in just about any type of flying activity is shrinking (and
> has been for quite a long time, at least in the USA), I believe that there
> are other factors at work that are responsible for this. Cost is certainly
> a factor, but I don't think that it is the primary one.

One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

> wrote

> One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
> does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
> license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
> my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
> the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
> fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
> flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
> skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
> just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
> transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

Well, you will never be able to match the airlines' ability to maintain a
schedule if that's what you're looking for. But, if you can be even just a
little flexible with your schedule then you certainly can do quite alot with
a PPL, and even if you fly strictly VFR. Add an instrument rating and
maintain your currency and you greatly extend the utility of your PPL.

BDS

To support your point about GA utility, I'm IR, fly a Mooney, and used
it quite a lot on business. It was based in Massachusetts, so there
were lots of pretty bad flying weather days. My own IFR minima are
close to those published, but I don't fly whel pilots are reporting
icing or embedded thunderstorms, things like that. Given I'd make most
business apointments a wek or more in advance (so projected WX was not
a factor, I'd make about 95% of the trips I planned.

If I was restricted to VFR I doubt it would have been as many as 60%.


affecting the schedule was On Feb 19, 8:45 am, "BDS"
> wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
> > does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
> > license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
> > my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
> > the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
> > fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing! I think that the PPL kind of
> > flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
> > skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
> > just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
> > transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.
>
> Well, you will never be able to match the airlines' ability to maintain a
> schedule if that's what you're looking for. But, if you can be even just a
> little flexible with your schedule then you certainly can do quite alot with
> a PPL, and even if you fly strictly VFR. Add an instrument rating and
> maintain your currency and you greatly extend the utility of your PPL.
>
> BDS

> Apart from cost, the things that come to my mind are the substantial amount of
> time required to even begin to fly (hours of flying pale in comparison to
> hours of instruction and training and exams, at least in the beginning), and
> the many regulatory hurdles to flying, such as the need for a license, various
> ratings, a strict medical exam, insurance, and so on.

It is a little expensive to learn, I grant you that, but your other
concerns are not as serious as you make them out to be. I got my
ticket from a standing start in 3 months, by squeezing flying in on
weekends and the odd afternoon. Yes, I was fairly committed during
that time (although I still had plenty of time for other things), but
not obsessive. These regulatory hurdles you speak of are nothing - the
medical exam is not strict, the license comes in the mail
automatically after you pass the checkride, insurance is easy to
organize and many clubs offer it as part of their rates. These days I
find it easy to keep up my currency despite the north-eastern weather
(and cheap, too, since I can share the costs of flying with my friends
who come up for a ride).

>
> Overall, flying is a lot more difficult than it should be. While this will
> not discourage the most fanatic flyers, it considerably narrows the field of
> potential pilots, and even the fanatically devoted pilots have a vested
> interest in encouraging other people to fly, as it helps pay for and justify
> the massive infrastructure upon which all pilots depend.
>

You say flying is more difficult than it should be. What would you
suggest? If you could magically swoop in and change things, what would
you change?

Tom

> You say flying is more difficult than it should be. What would you
> suggest? If you could magically swoop in and change things, what would
> you change?

I would change the "sharing costs" rule, and go back to the original.
"A private pilot may share the expenses of a flight with his or her
passengers in any mutually agreeable manner." It is important that the
flight not be represented (overtly or otherwise) as a commercial or
charter flight. So, in the same style as expermental aircraft having to
be so labeled, and pilots having to inform passengers on how to buckle
and unbuckle the safety belt, pilots should clearly state to the
passengers that the flight is not a commercial or charter flight, and is
not subject to the safety rules and regulations that govern such flights.

I would also reverse the "holding out" ruling. I see nothing wrong with
(say) posting on a college ride board that John is willing to fly up to
three people to Albion for spring break, in line with other similar
postings for car ride sharing.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

writes:

> It is a little expensive to learn, I grant you that, but your other
> concerns are not as serious as you make them out to be. I got my
> ticket from a standing start in 3 months, by squeezing flying in on
> weekends and the odd afternoon. Yes, I was fairly committed during
> that time (although I still had plenty of time for other things), but
> not obsessive. These regulatory hurdles you speak of are nothing - the
> medical exam is not strict, the license comes in the mail
> automatically after you pass the checkride, insurance is easy to
> organize and many clubs offer it as part of their rates. These days I
> find it easy to keep up my currency despite the north-eastern weather
> (and cheap, too, since I can share the costs of flying with my friends
> who come up for a ride).

I'm glad it worked out well for you. It's better to be rich and healthy than
poor and sick, that's for sure. And having lots of free time helps.

> You say flying is more difficult than it should be. What would you
> suggest? If you could magically swoop in and change things, what would
> you change?

Well, costs would have to be reduced drastically, so that the average pilot
could actually own his own aircraft without selling a kidney, and could afford
to operate one without selling the other one. Granted, this could be
challenging in the face of safety requirements and some of the practical
aspects of aviation (you need a place to park a plane, but most homes these
days are already provided with a place to park a car), but requiring
certification for every nut and bolt is probably excessive. Regulations could
probably be lightened up for pilots who don't intend to carry paying
passengers, i.e., you can use uncertified light bulbs in your plane if you're
just flying for yourself. Just carrying passengers should not change this, as
long as they aren't customers. Yes, passengers would be taking a risk if they
flew with a less-than-competent pilot or in a less-than-perfectly-maintained
aircraft, but they do exactly the same thing every day with automobiles.

Also, the medicals should be pretty much eliminated. Pilots are not
astronauts, and anyone who can drive a car is in good enough health to fly an
airplane (of his own--commercial air transport would still need to be more
strict, although not as strict as it is now). There are very few auto
accidents due to someone having a heart attack at the wheel, so there's no
point in worrying about that in an aircraft.

Some of the obstacles seem to be of the nature of flying. I can't see how you
could avoid the commute to and from the airport, or the need for a car to get
to and from the airport at both the departure and destination locations.
These incur a lot of additional costs and consume a lot of time.

Charging for everything by the hour raises costs. A daily rate would be nice,
for those who must rent aircraft; making personal ownership more accessible
would be even better.

Heavy use of full-motion simulators for training could greatly reduce costs
and improve convenience. By using computer-generated and managed scenarios
and recording all flights, the need for an instructor during simulator flight
in order to log it would also be eliminated most of the time.

The whole culture of general aviation for private pilots has been built up
around extremely high costs and red tape, and it would be hard to grind that
all back down to something accessible and affordable. I'm certain, however,
that if all these obstacles didn't exist, aviation would be vastly more
popular than it is now (maybe even _too_ popular).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

> I would change the "sharing costs" rule, and go back to the original.
> "A private pilot may share the expenses of a flight with his or her
> passengers in any mutually agreeable manner." It is important that the
> flight not be represented (overtly or otherwise) as a commercial or
> charter flight. So, in the same style as expermental aircraft having to
> be so labeled, and pilots having to inform passengers on how to buckle
> and unbuckle the safety belt, pilots should clearly state to the
> passengers that the flight is not a commercial or charter flight, and is
> not subject to the safety rules and regulations that govern such flights.
>
> I would also reverse the "holding out" ruling. I see nothing wrong with
> (say) posting on a college ride board that John is willing to fly up to
> three people to Albion for spring break, in line with other similar
> postings for car ride sharing.

I think all of these regulations are incredibly anal, and I'm surprised the
FAA is even allowed to get away with them. Arguing about angels on the head
of a pin helps no one, and it's really not the FAA's business.

I don't think anyone would confuse sharing the cost of fuel with a pilot
friend with boarding a United Airlines flight for Chicago, just as nobody
pithcing in for gas with a friend to drive to the coast would confuse it with
a Greyhound bus.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> One factor that makes flying a bit unattractive is that a simple PPL
> does not have a lot of utility and is not the equivalent of a driving
> license in the sky. Sometimes it is sold that way though. When I took
> my first intro flight in Northern CA, the instructor tried to sell me
> the idea that once I get my PPL, I would be free as a bird and could
> fly to on a whim to Tahoe for skiing!

What prevents it?

> I think that the PPL kind of
> flying is more of a sport than anything else like mountaineering or
> skydiving or even gliding and maybe needs to be marketed as such. It
> just so happens that on some nice days it can be used as a means of
> transport but this cannot be the main reason for getting a PPL.

Ah, I see what you mean. Certainly a PPL is not at all useful for
transportation except under extremely specific conditions. Anyone presenting
it otherwise is pretty much lying.

It's also arguable that there are way too many separate ratings and
restrictions. A license to drive a Volkswagen also entitles you to drive a
van or a Porsche; why can't a license to fly one small plane allow you to fly
any small plane? If you're too unskilled to drive a Porsche, that's your
problem--why shouldn't it be the same for aircraft?

Here again, you could make a distinction for commercial pilots, just as
drivers of large commercial vehicles often need a special driver's license.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

BDS writes:

> But, if you can be even just a
> little flexible with your schedule then you certainly can do quite alot with
> a PPL, and even if you fly strictly VFR. Add an instrument rating and
> maintain your currency and you greatly extend the utility of your PPL.

Still, you can apply a simple test: Which predominates when you fly, the
flying itself or the destination? The answer, in the great majority of cases,
is the flying itself. Therefore it is not transportation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.