Airplane prices are ridiculous, Pt.2

[Mark]

Within any given economy you will find
these two: 1) Price takers and 2) Price
makers.

Price takers are the sellers who must charge
within a specific range due to supply and
demand. Their prices will be set to be
compatible with the other sellers or else the
buyers will simply go to a competetor. The
prices are market driven.

On the other hand we have price makers.
These sellers operate within an environment
of limited supply or accessablility with very
high demand or necessity, such as...
electricity and water. Their prices may be
set by constraints for the public good. You
may also find price makers in any market
where there is a captive audience. For this
reason monopolies are illegal.

Similar to monopolies, oligarchies are are a
small group in which power rests effectively
within a small segment of society and these
are in effect today throughout many economic
sectors. These groups will conspire to set
prices among certain markets, yet remain
independent entities. Supply and demand is
usurped.

Then you have airplanes. This market seems
to me to fall within the price maker category.
Aviation has fallen into the rich man's
category whereby the manufacturers don't
care to mass produce and as long as there are
enough wealthy clients to satisfy them the prices
will remain high, irrespective of demand for
affordability.

Thus, the popular home-build market, kit
planes will thrive to satisfy the niche of the
market for middle-class enthusiasts, or anyone
who just doesn't want to throw 130K of their
savings into this hobby.

Problem is, a lot of people either can't, or don't
want to spend their time building. For them the
alternative is very slim. You either fly an antique,
an ugly sky slug, or you sit and watch.

One can only hope the LSA market as well as
all single engine manufacturers will one day
open their doors to affordability for the general public
and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
see a turn around.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> Within any given economy you will find
> these two: 1) Price takers and 2) Price
> makers.
>
> Price takers are the sellers who must charge
> within a specific range due to supply and
> demand. Their prices will be set to be
> compatible with the other sellers or else the
> buyers will simply go to a competetor. The
> prices are market driven.
>
> On the other hand we have price makers.
> These sellers operate within an environment
> of limited supply or accessablility with very
> high demand or necessity, such as...
> electricity and water. Their prices may be
> set by constraints for the public good. You
> may also find price makers in any market
> where there is a captive audience. For this
> reason monopolies are illegal.
>
> Similar to monopolies, oligarchies are are a
> small group in which power rests effectively
> within a small segment of society and these
> are in effect today throughout many economic
> sectors. These groups will conspire to set
> prices among certain markets, yet remain
> independent entities. Supply and demand is
> usurped.
>
> Then you have airplanes. This market seems
> to me to fall within the price maker category.
> Aviation has fallen into the rich man's
> category whereby the manufacturers don't
> care to mass produce and as long as there are
> enough wealthy clients to satisfy them the prices
> will remain high, irrespective of demand for
> affordability.

Nope.

If Piper had a way to massively undercut Cessna, Cirrus, et al on price,
they would do it in an instant.

None of the makers are producing at anywhere near their historic levels.

All of them are hurting.

And it isn't because the makers are artificially inflating prices.

> Thus, the popular home-build market, kit
> planes will thrive to satisfy the niche of the
> market for middle-class enthusiasts, or anyone
> who just doesn't want to throw 130K of their
> savings into this hobby.

A decent kit will still cost you $130k by the time you are done.

> Problem is, a lot of people either can't, or don't
> want to spend their time building. For them the
> alternative is very slim. You either fly an antique,
> an ugly sky slug, or you sit and watch.

Being older doesn't make an airplane an ugly sky slug.

The Ercoupe from the 40's and 50's looks like a modern airplane.

> One can only hope the LSA market as well as
> all single engine manufacturers will one day
> open their doors to affordability for the general public
> and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
> see a turn around.

It is already fiercly competitive.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> One can only hope the LSA market as well as
> all single engine manufacturers will one day
> open their doors to affordability for the general public
> and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
> see a turn around.

There are too many restrictions on LSA to make it practical for anyone. It's
only interesting for people who can't pass a medical and are willing to
pretend they can.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>> One can only hope the LSA market as well as
>> all single engine manufacturers will one day
>> open their doors to affordability for the general public
>> and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
>> see a turn around.
>
> There are too many restrictions on LSA to make it practical for anyone. It's
> only interesting for people who can't pass a medical and are willing to
> pretend they can.

Nope, it is also of interest to people who would like to fly on the cheap.

3 gal/hour is a lot cheaper than 12 gal/hour.

There are no restrictions on LSA that would make the slightest difference
to me or anyone else that flys day VFR, which is most of GA.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There are no restrictions on LSA that would make the slightest difference
> to me or anyone else that flys day VFR, which is most of GA.

So are you flying LSA, given that it's cheaper and involves no restriction
that would make any difference to you?

[Mark]

On Sep 11, 12:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There are too many restrictions on LSA to make it practical for anyone. It's
> only interesting for people who can't pass a medical and are willing to
> pretend they can.

Not really Mxsmanic. For instance, in the
trainers I've flown (Cessna 172's, 152's, Piper J-3's)
not once do I remember exceeding 115 mph, but
in the right LSA you could be clipping along at
near 140mph.

That's practical time-saving transportation.

---
Mark

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> Not really Mxsmanic. For instance, in the
> trainers I've flown (Cessna 172's, 152's, Piper J-3's)
> not once do I remember exceeding 115 mph, but
> in the right LSA you could be clipping along at
> near 140mph.
>
> That's practical time-saving transportation.

To be practical for actual transportation, you generally need an instrument
rating (unless you live out in the desert somewhere where weather is never a
factor). Sport pilots can't get that.

I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot pass
a medical.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 11, 1:14*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Mark writes:
>
> >> One can only hope the LSA market as well as
> >> all single engine manufacturers will one day
> >> open their doors to affordability for the general public
> >> and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
> >> see a turn around.
>
> > There are too many restrictions on LSA to make it practical for anyone. It's
> > only interesting for people who can't pass a medical and are willing to
> > pretend they can.
>
> Nope, it is also of interest to people who would like to fly on the cheap..
>
> 3 *gal/hour is a lot cheaper than 12 gal/hour.
>
> There are no restrictions on LSA that would make the slightest difference
> to me or anyone else that flys day VFR, which is most of GA.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

About half of us who hold private licenses are instrument rated, which
suggests at least to me that we tend to use our general aviation
privileges in somewhat less restrictive environments than only daytime
VFR. I would NOT bet against your assertion, though, that most SEL GA
hours are under non-instrument meteorological conditions in the day
time. Mine surely are, but if that was the limitation I would not be
able to fly most of the trips I intended to.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> There are no restrictions on LSA that would make the slightest difference
>> to me or anyone else that flys day VFR, which is most of GA.
>
> So are you flying LSA, given that it's cheaper and involves no restriction
> that would make any difference to you?

As a matter of fact, I'm concidering selling my Tiger within the next year
or so and buying a LSA for those reasons.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:14Â*am, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > Mark writes:
>>
>> >> One can only hope the LSA market as well as
>> >> all single engine manufacturers will one day
>> >> open their doors to affordability for the general public
>> >> and maybe then General Aviation will begin to
>> >> see a turn around.
>>
>> > There are too many restrictions on LSA to make it practical for anyone. It's
>> > only interesting for people who can't pass a medical and are willing to
>> > pretend they can.
>>
>> Nope, it is also of interest to people who would like to fly on the cheap.
>>
>> 3 Â*gal/hour is a lot cheaper than 12 gal/hour.
>>
>> There are no restrictions on LSA that would make the slightest difference
>> to me or anyone else that flys day VFR, which is most of GA.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> About half of us who hold private licenses are instrument rated, which
> suggests at least to me that we tend to use our general aviation
> privileges in somewhat less restrictive environments than only daytime
> VFR. I would NOT bet against your assertion, though, that most SEL GA
> hours are under non-instrument meteorological conditions in the day
> time. Mine surely are, but if that was the limitation I would not be
> able to fly most of the trips I intended to.

Like all of life, your mileage may vary.

I doubt that more than a small fraction of IFR rated private pilots are
current or ever use the rating in actual IMC.

I would wager that most of them got the rating because of the insurance
break you get and the value of the training.

Personnaly, I don't even like to drive in bad weather.

And since I live in SoCal, it is a rather moot point for me as other than
some early morning crud I might have to wait for a while to burn off, there
is seldom any IMC to fly in.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>> Not really Mxsmanic. For instance, in the
>> trainers I've flown (Cessna 172's, 152's, Piper J-3's)
>> not once do I remember exceeding 115 mph, but
>> in the right LSA you could be clipping along at
>> near 140mph.
>>
>> That's practical time-saving transportation.
>
> To be practical for actual transportation, you generally need an instrument
> rating (unless you live out in the desert somewhere where weather is never a
> factor). Sport pilots can't get that.
>
> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot pass
> a medical.

A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

lucky lindy > wrote:
>
> > wrote
>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot
>> pass
>> a medical.
>
>
> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't that
> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would someone with
> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when almost
> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for rental
> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many. But
> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>

How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?

Most LSA's have lights, which means you can fly them at night.

Some LSA's are IFR equipped, which means you can fly them IFR.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot
>>> pass
>>> a medical.
>>
>>
>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't that
>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would someone
>> with
>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when almost
>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>> rental
>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many. But
>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>
> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>

> Jim Pennino

A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.

[[email protected]]

sambodidley > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote
>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot
>>>> pass
>>>> a medical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't that
>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would someone
>>> with
>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when almost
>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>>> rental
>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many. But
>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>
>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>
>
>> Jim Pennino
>
> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.

And those limits would be?

Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport Pilot
optional training.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 11, 1:30*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Mark writes:
>
> >> Not really Mxsmanic. *For instance, in the
> >> trainers I've flown (Cessna 172's, 152's, Piper J-3's)
> >> not once do I remember exceeding 115 mph, but
> >> in the right LSA you could be clipping along at
> >> near 140mph.
>
> >> That's practical time-saving transportation.
>
> > To be practical for actual transportation, you generally need an instrument
> > rating (unless you live out in the desert somewhere where weather is never a
> > factor). Sport pilots can't get that.
>
> > I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot pass
> > a medical.
>
> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Pennino wrote
> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.

Oh really? I guess my peer private pilots are a self selected group,
we fly our complex singles mostly for business purposes and have the
costs covered by expense accounts.

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.

And a private pilot also needs a medical to get his license, so that makes it
moot as well. If he loses his medical, he's not eligible for a Sport Pilot
certificate.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.

He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> sambodidley writes:
>
>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>
> And a private pilot also needs a medical to get his license, so that makes it
> moot as well. If he loses his medical, he's not eligible for a Sport Pilot
> certificate.

If your medical has been denied, you can't fly airplanes period.

If you have ever had a private and it hasn't been revoked, you can fly as
a sport pilot.

There is no way to downgrade a private certificate to a sport pilot
certificate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[sambodidley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> sambodidley writes:
>
>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>
> And a private pilot also needs a medical to get his license, so that makes
> it
> moot as well. If he loses his medical, he's not eligible for a Sport Pilot
> certificate.

He hasn't lost his medical. He just doesn't have a current one and hasn't
failed one nor had one recalled. He can still fly a LSA under his PPL with
a drivers license but only under a Sport Pilot's limits. But still. the
major limiting factor in his case is the cost. Affordable rentals are no
longer available and haven't been in decades.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:30Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > Mark writes:
>>
>> >> Not really Mxsmanic. Â*For instance, in the
>> >> trainers I've flown (Cessna 172's, 152's, Piper J-3's)
>> >> not once do I remember exceeding 115 mph, but
>> >> in the right LSA you could be clipping along at
>> >> near 140mph.
>>
>> >> That's practical time-saving transportation.
>>
>> > To be practical for actual transportation, you generally need an instrument
>> > rating (unless you live out in the desert somewhere where weather is never a
>> > factor). Sport pilots can't get that.
>>
>> > I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they cannot pass
>> > a medical.
>>
>> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Jim Pennino wrote
>> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> Oh really? I guess my peer private pilots are a self selected group,
> we fly our complex singles mostly for business purposes and have the
> costs covered by expense accounts.

I wouldn't advertise that too widely.

The FAA and IRS have some terribly convoluted and arcane rules that can
bite you in the ass big time.

Yeah, I know, your official response is you fly for business instead of
driving because flying is fun.

Right?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
> business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
> not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.

Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.

And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
are.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> sambodidley > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote
>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> pass
>>>>> a medical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't
>>>> that
>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would someone
>>>> with
>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>> almost
>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>>>> rental
>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>> But
>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>
>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>
>>
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>
> And those limits would be?
>
> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport Pilot
> optional training.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Jim,
See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a private
pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by the
ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine Land) If
you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers license
then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while flying a
LSA.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 11, 9:45*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> > He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
> > business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
> > not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.
>
> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.
>
> And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
> are.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use of
a car for business purposes. If your point is, I may not use the
airplane as a for pay taxi, you're quite right. I can't use my car for
that purpose either, I don't have a commercial driving license, nor a
commercial pilot's license, but use both my airplane and my car to
advance my interests. I don't consider those to be 'narrow'
limitations. I suspect most complex singles you see at tower
controlled airports with decent instrument approaches are used as I
use mine. Airplanes based at other airports may conform to your idea
of recreational flying, they bore holes in the sky in in non-
instrument meteorological conditions and don't need the ability to go
somewhere when conditions fall below VFR criteria but are above our
own minimums for IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.

If he's just flying to, say, go to meetings or visit clients, that shouldn't
be a problem. It's like driving a car, only somewhat faster and dramatically
more costly and awkward.

It is true, though, that the FAA has a really broad definition of commercial
flying. And I shudder to think what the IRS rules say.

> And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
> are.

Mmm, yes. I like to fly in SoCal and Arizona, where the weather is usually
good--although just moments ago I almost ended a VFR flight in tragedy when
the weather at LAX turned out to be terrible. (This was in my sim, of course,
which I'm sure you'll dismiss without any thought.) I have a (virtual)
instrument rating and my (virtual) Baron is well equipped for IFR, but I
couldn't land under those conditions. After fumbling around a bit while ATC
patiently waited for me to get a grip, I diverted to Van Nuys, where the
weather was fine. When the weather improves I'll reposition that Baron to LAX.

[[email protected]]

sambodidley > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> pass
>>>>>> a medical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't
>>>>> that
>>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would someone
>>>>> with
>>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>>> almost
>>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>>>>> rental
>>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>>> But
>>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>>
>>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another one
>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is all
>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>
>> And those limits would be?
>>
>> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport Pilot
>> optional training.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Jim,
> See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
> concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a private
> pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
> restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by the
> ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine Land) If
> you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers license
> then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while flying a
> LSA.

Almost correct; you are restricted to the same limits as a sport pilot who
has all the additional optional training.

The net result if you do not have a current medical:

You can not fly at night, above 10,000 feet, tow, fly IFR, or fly outside of
the USA.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 9:45Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>>
>> > He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
>> > business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
>> > not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.
>>
>> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.
>>
>> And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
>> are.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
> aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use of
> a car for business purposes.

Nope.

I used to think that.

There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web site by
the resident AOPA lawyer.

I would suggest you read them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

"sambodidley" > wrote:
> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
> decades.

What is your definition of affordable rental?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.
>
> If he's just flying to, say, go to meetings or visit clients, that shouldn't
> be a problem. It's like driving a car, only somewhat faster and dramatically
> more costly and awkward.

Nope, not with a private cerificate.

One would think it would be like driving a car, but it is not.

>
> It is true, though, that the FAA has a really broad definition of commercial
> flying. And I shudder to think what the IRS rules say.

And therein lies the rub.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[sambodidley]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>> decades.
>
> What is your definition of affordable rental?

Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> sambodidley > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>> a medical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>>>>>> rental
>>>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>
>>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>>> one
>>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>>> all
>>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>>
>>> And those limits would be?
>>>
>>> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport Pilot
>>> optional training.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Jim,
>> See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
>> concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a private
>> pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
>> restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by the
>> ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine Land)
>> If
>> you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers
>> license
>> then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while flying
>> a
>> LSA.
>
> Almost correct; you are restricted to the same limits as a sport pilot who
> has all the additional optional training.
>
> The net result if you do not have a current medical:
>
> You can not fly at night, above 10,000 feet, tow, fly IFR, or fly outside
> of
> the USA.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Granted. But all of that is of little use if I still can't afford to use
those privileges. At one time I could, but that is no longer practical.
To begin with, I live in a rural area and the nearest airport with any kind
of rentals is over 100 mile away. Even those have few or no LSA rentals.
Man, I came from the era back when every podunk town with a little grass
strip airport had a few tandem tail draggers for rent. That scene has
vanished from the earth. Recreation flying as I knew it doesn't exist any
longer. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It's just different now and it
left me behind when it changed.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> sambodidley writes:
>>
>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>> one
>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>> all
>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>
>> And a private pilot also needs a medical to get his license, so that
>> makes it
>> moot as well. If he loses his medical, he's not eligible for a Sport
>> Pilot
>> certificate.
>
> If your medical has been denied, you can't fly airplanes period.
>
> If you have ever had a private and it hasn't been revoked, you can fly as
> a sport pilot.
>
> There is no way to downgrade a private certificate to a sport pilot
> certificate.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
Litterally true as specifically stated, but a practical solution for an
individual in a particular individual could still include gliders or
ultralight vehicles.

BTW, that nomenclature drives my nuts!

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 12, 12:12*am, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 9:45*pm, wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> >> > He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
> >> > business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
> >> > not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.
>
> >> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.
>
> >> And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
> >> are.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
> > aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use of
> > a car for business purposes.
>
> Nope.
>
> I used to think that.
>
> There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web site by
> the resident AOPA lawyer.
>
> I would suggest you read them.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim, my financial guys and I stay pretty much on top of the way we use
my g a aircraft and cover its costs. Much depends on keeping accurate
records, and we do that. There is no attempt to bundle personal
pleasure flying with that done to advance business interests. Nothing,
on the other hand, prevents me from enjoying that piloting that's
associated with business, just as nothing prevents me from enjoying
the business I am in. This parade, with the current rules, is not
getting rained on.

[Peter Dohm]

"sambodidley" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>>> a medical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> rental
>>>>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>>
>>>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>>>> one
>>>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>>>> all
>>>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>>>
>>>> And those limits would be?
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport
>>>> Pilot
>>>> optional training.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Jim,
>>> See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
>>> concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a private
>>> pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
>>> restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by
>>> the
>>> ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine Land)
>>> If
>>> you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers
>>> license
>>> then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while flying
>>> a
>>> LSA.
>>
>> Almost correct; you are restricted to the same limits as a sport pilot
>> who
>> has all the additional optional training.
>>
>> The net result if you do not have a current medical:
>>
>> You can not fly at night, above 10,000 feet, tow, fly IFR, or fly outside
>> of
>> the USA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Granted. But all of that is of little use if I still can't afford to use
> those privileges. At one time I could, but that is no longer practical.
> To begin with, I live in a rural area and the nearest airport with any
> kind of rentals is over 100 mile away. Even those have few or no LSA
> rentals. Man, I came from the era back when every podunk town with a
> little grass strip airport had a few tandem tail draggers for rent.
> That scene has vanished from the earth. Recreation flying as I knew it
> doesn't exist any longer. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It's just
> different now and it left me behind when it changed.
>
There is very clearly a long term economic problem in the US as well as in
the other so called "advanced" economies, and a lot of that appears due to a
conbination of excessive imports, excessive immigration, and lots of
government rules that decrease real overall productivity per worker as it is
seen in a usefull way by real families--all of which does absolutely nothing
to solve your problem.

The only obvious individual, or local, solution is really an old fashioned
one: find several future and/or former pilots of like mind and similar
circumstance and form a partnership to purchase and/or build one or more
aircraft fitting your mission. A partnership or flying club could make a
used aircraft practical and many of the old plans for homebuild aircraft are
still on the market--the EAA has some available, Aircraft Spruce has others
available, and Kitplanes probably still publishes an annual compilation of
many of the plans and kits available from a wide variety of surces.

Peter

[[email protected]]

sambodidley > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>>> a medical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it. Isn't
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around for
>>>>>>> rental
>>>>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>>
>>>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>>>> one
>>>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>>>> all
>>>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>>>
>>>> And those limits would be?
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport Pilot
>>>> optional training.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Jim,
>>> See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
>>> concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a private
>>> pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
>>> restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by the
>>> ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine Land)
>>> If
>>> you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers
>>> license
>>> then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while flying
>>> a
>>> LSA.
>>
>> Almost correct; you are restricted to the same limits as a sport pilot who
>> has all the additional optional training.
>>
>> The net result if you do not have a current medical:
>>
>> You can not fly at night, above 10,000 feet, tow, fly IFR, or fly outside
>> of
>> the USA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Granted. But all of that is of little use if I still can't afford to use
> those privileges. At one time I could, but that is no longer practical.
> To begin with, I live in a rural area and the nearest airport with any kind
> of rentals is over 100 mile away. Even those have few or no LSA rentals.
> Man, I came from the era back when every podunk town with a little grass
> strip airport had a few tandem tail draggers for rent. That scene has
> vanished from the earth. Recreation flying as I knew it doesn't exist any
> longer. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It's just different now and it
> left me behind when it changed.

Well, if you snooze, you lose.

The LSA concept is new while all those old tail draggers are now mostly
scrap.

FBO's are slowly accepting LSA's into their fleets as the modern replacement
for those old tail draggers and C150's you can't get anymore.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> sambodidley writes:
>>>
>>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>>> one
>>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>>> all
>>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>>
>>> And a private pilot also needs a medical to get his license, so that
>>> makes it
>>> moot as well. If he loses his medical, he's not eligible for a Sport
>>> Pilot
>>> certificate.
>>
>> If your medical has been denied, you can't fly airplanes period.
>>
>> If you have ever had a private and it hasn't been revoked, you can fly as
>> a sport pilot.
>>
>> There is no way to downgrade a private certificate to a sport pilot
>> certificate.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
> Litterally true as specifically stated, but a practical solution for an
> individual in a particular individual could still include gliders or
> ultralight vehicles.

Yeah, depends on what it is you are really after.

If it is just to fly, ultralights are dirt cheap.

If it is to fly somewhere, i.e. a weekend in Vegas, LSA is the bottom entry
point.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 12, 1:00*pm, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 12:12*am, wrote:
> >> a > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 11, 9:45*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> >> A private pilot by definition is flying for fun.
>
> >> >> > He can fly for business purposes, within narrow limits. But if he flies for
> >> >> > business, he'll need an instrument rating, or he'll have to accept that he may
> >> >> > not be able to profit from the airplane as often as he'd like.
>
> >> >> Very narrow limits or he needs a commercial certificate.
>
> >> >> And as far as an instrument rating goes, it depends heavily on where you
> >> >> are.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
> >> > aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use of
> >> > a car for business purposes.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> I used to think that.
>
> >> There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web site by
> >> the resident AOPA lawyer.
>
> >> I would suggest you read them.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > Jim, my financial guys and I stay pretty much on top of the way we use
> > my g a aircraft and cover its costs. Much depends on keeping accurate
> > records, and we do that. There is no attempt to bundle personal
> > pleasure flying with that done to advance business interests. Nothing,
> > on the other hand, prevents me from enjoying that piloting that's
> > associated with business, just as nothing prevents me from enjoying
> > the business I am in. This parade, with the current rules, is not
> > getting rained on.
>
> I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but for your sake I hope your
> "financial guys" includes an aviation attorney.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thanks for your concerns but we think we are not pushing any edges. We
use one of the four major accounting firms, and the partner who
supervises the annual audits of our account is well aware of where
the alligators are in that particular swamp.

[Jim Logajan]

"sambodidley" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>>> decades.
>>
>> What is your definition of affordable rental?
>
> Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV

What is the largest dollar amount you would consider still affordable?

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> sambodidley > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> lucky lindy > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>>>>> I guess it's okay for people flying for fun, particularly if they
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>>>> a medical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly! That's what I'd be doing too, if I could afford it.
>>>>>>>> Isn't
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the whole idea of the Sport Pilot certificate. Why else would
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> a PPL want to restrict himself with a LSA? The good old days when
>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>> any airport had a couple of stick-and-rudder tail draggers around
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> rental
>>>>>>>> are long gone. Recreation flying has become out of reach for many.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> what the hell, I can't afford a Beemer, either. <grin>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would a private pilot be restricted by flying a LSA?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A private pilot without a medical or the hopes of ever having another
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> would be restricted to the Sport Pilot limits in a LSA. But that is
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> moot anyhow if he can't afford the LSA.
>>>>>
>>>>> And those limits would be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind if you have a private, you already have all the Sport
>>>>> Pilot
>>>>> optional training.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Pennino
>>>>
>>>> Jim,
>>>> See my reply to Mxsmanic. The limits are explained in Part 61
>>>> concerning using a drivers license for a medical. If you have a
>>>> private
>>>> pilot certificate AND a current medical certificate then there are no
>>>> restrictions on you for flying a LSA with the same ratings covered by
>>>> the
>>>> ratings on your private pilot certificate. (Mine are Single Engine
>>>> Land)
>>>> If
>>>> you have no current medical certificate and are using your drivers
>>>> license
>>>> then you are restricted to the same limits as a Sport Pilot while
>>>> flying
>>>> a
>>>> LSA.
>>>
>>> Almost correct; you are restricted to the same limits as a sport pilot
>>> who
>>> has all the additional optional training.
>>>
>>> The net result if you do not have a current medical:
>>>
>>> You can not fly at night, above 10,000 feet, tow, fly IFR, or fly
>>> outside
>>> of
>>> the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Granted. But all of that is of little use if I still can't afford to use
>> those privileges. At one time I could, but that is no longer practical.
>> To begin with, I live in a rural area and the nearest airport with any
>> kind
>> of rentals is over 100 mile away. Even those have few or no LSA rentals.
>> Man, I came from the era back when every podunk town with a little grass
>> strip airport had a few tandem tail draggers for rent. That scene has
>> vanished from the earth. Recreation flying as I knew it doesn't exist
>> any
>> longer. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It's just different now and
>> it
>> left me behind when it changed.
>
> Well, if you snooze, you lose.
>
> The LSA concept is new while all those old tail draggers are now mostly
> scrap.
>
> FBO's are slowly accepting LSA's into their fleets as the modern
> replacement
> for those old tail draggers and C150's you can't get anymore.
\> Jim Pennino

Snoozing has nothing to do with it. Change happens, sleeping or awake.
Most all of the smaller airports with rentals no longer exist. They are,
like myself, relics of a past era. The opportunities for recreation
flying for almost anyone are just not there like they were in the past.
Yes, I know, there are many logical reasons for this but it is still a fact
no less. Most of those old grass strip airports are subdivisions with
homes on them today. Unless you live near one of the major cities there is
no place to rent any kind of plane at any price. In the rural area where I
live even some of the county airports are unattended. Some have
self-service fuel with a credit card but little else. I'm not complaining
about all this change but merely explaining why I can no longer afford to
use my pilot certificate. But I can still reflect on all the fun I
experienced when I could.

[sambodidley]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>>>> decades.
>>>
>>> What is your definition of affordable rental?
>>
>> Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV
>
> What is the largest dollar amount you would consider still affordable?

Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would be
over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would probably
find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my current
thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy my
own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.

[Mark]

On Sep 12, 3:28*pm, "sambodidley" > wrote:

>*I'm not complaining about all this change...

Well someone needs to.

---
Mark

[sambodidley]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 3:28 pm, "sambodidley" > wrote:

> I'm not complaining about all this change...

Well someone needs to.

---
Mark


Sorry. I don't tilt at windmills<g>

[Mxsmanic]

sambodidley writes:

> Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
> transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would be
> over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
> affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
> planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would probably
> find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my current
> thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
> LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy my
> own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.

If real airplanes are not available, there's always flight simulation.

[[email protected]]

sambodidley > wrote:
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>>> What is your definition of affordable rental?
>>>
>>> Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV
>>
>> What is the largest dollar amount you would consider still affordable?
>
> Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
> transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would be
> over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
> affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
> planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would probably
> find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my current
> thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
> LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy my
> own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.

You are sounding to me like the guy who moved to Kansas then complained there
was no local surf.

Just where do you live?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You are sounding to me like the guy who moved to Kansas then complained there
> was no local surf.

Aviation would have to have extremely high priority in one's life to dictate
one's choice of domicile. There are a lot of people who are interested in
flying, but not to the extent that they will select a house based on its
proximity to a suitable airport.

The extreme is a village that is also an airport, usually with a name like
"sky park" or something along those lines. You'd really have to love flying to
move into such a place (especially since they are often quite a distance from
the city), but if that's what you want, it's available. I think it would be
very cool to have an airplane parked right outside the door, but I don't think
it cool enough to justify moving into such a place.

John Travolta's house is also a great example of that extreme. I've never
heard him talk about flying, but he must really love it to go to such lengths
to be near airplanes. It's not just a question of money, either, as having
airplanes in the backyard imposes constraints on other aspects of life.

It bothers me that, even if I were in a position to become a pilot, I'd have
to go way out into the boonies to find an airport to accommodate me. In
Europe, private pilots are not welcome at major airports, and renting
airplanes as an individual is problematic and expensive. So you have to go out
to some dinky airport in the middle of nowhere to fly. In my case, that would
mean buying a car just to get out there, and spending 1-3 hours in traffic
each way. There are limits.

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> sambodidley > wrote:
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>>>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your definition of affordable rental?
>>>>
>>>> Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV
>>>
>>> What is the largest dollar amount you would consider still affordable?
>>
>> Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
>> transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would
>> be
>> over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
>> affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
>> planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would
>> probably
>> find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my
>> current
>> thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
>> LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy
>> my
>> own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.
>
> You are sounding to me like the guy who moved to Kansas then complained
> there
> was no local surf.
>
> Just where do you live?
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

No, it's more like the surf moved and left me. All those local airports
and rentals did exist at one time right here where I live in Texas. I got
my pilot certificate flying out of one, probably before many in this group
were born . That airport has been gone for decades now along with many
others. I thought I made it very clear that I was not complaining but
merely explaining. It may be hard for those living in urban areas, where
almost anything is readily available, to believe that it's not like that
everywhere. Here in rural East Texas, aviation has pretty much withered
away as for as recreational flying is concerned. Many things have changed
since I started flying and I'm not lamenting any of them. If it happened it
happened and I can live with that.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> sambodidley writes:
>
> > Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
> > transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would be
> > over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
> > affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
> > planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would
> > probably
> > find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my current
> > thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
> > LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy
> > my
> > own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.
>
> If real airplanes are not available, there's always flight simulation.

That's like saying that, if real women aren't available, there are
always blow-up dolls!

[sambodidley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> sambodidley writes:
>
>> Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
>> transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would
>> be
>> over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
>> affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
>> planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would
>> probably
>> find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my
>> current
>> thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
>> LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy
>> my
>> own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.
>
> If real airplanes are not available, there's always flight simulation.

Been there, done that, too. My old dual core computer is just marginal
for FSX with Win7 32 bit. I'm planning to buy a new i7 quad core with win7
64 bit soon so I can run with all the sliders at max. Got any
suggestions?<g>

[sambodidley]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> sambodidley writes:
>>
>> > Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
>> > transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That
>> > would be
>> > over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
>> > affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
>> > planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would
>> > probably
>> > find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my
>> > current
>> > thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban
>> > area,
>> > LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to
>> > buy
>> > my
>> > own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.
>>
>> If real airplanes are not available, there's always flight simulation.
>
> That's like saying that, if real women aren't available, there are
> always blow-up dolls!

Do those blow-up dolls come with surround sound stereo? If so, where can I
get one?<g>

[[email protected]]

sambodidley > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> sambodidley > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> "sambodidley" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Affordable rentals are no longer available and haven't been in
>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your definition of affordable rental?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple. What *I* can afford. YMMV
>>>>
>>>> What is the largest dollar amount you would consider still affordable?
>>>
>>> Well, in my case, that dollar amount would have to include the cost of
>>> transportation to and from the nearest airport with rentals. That would
>>> be
>>> over a 200 mile round trip for me. Keep in mind, that when I say
>>> affordable I am speaking only as it applies to myself. If LSA rental
>>> planes were available at some of the small airports near me I would
>>> probably
>>> find a way to squeeze enough dollars from my budget to satisfy my
>>> current
>>> thirst for recreational flying. Unless you live near a major urban area,
>>> LSA rentals are just not available at any price and I can't afford to buy
>>> my
>>> own LSA. That's what I mean by affordable.
>>
>> You are sounding to me like the guy who moved to Kansas then complained
>> there
>> was no local surf.
>>
>> Just where do you live?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> No, it's more like the surf moved and left me. All those local airports
> and rentals did exist at one time right here where I live in Texas. I got
> my pilot certificate flying out of one, probably before many in this group
> were born . That airport has been gone for decades now along with many
> others. I thought I made it very clear that I was not complaining but
> merely explaining. It may be hard for those living in urban areas, where
> almost anything is readily available, to believe that it's not like that
> everywhere. Here in rural East Texas, aviation has pretty much withered
> away as for as recreational flying is concerned. Many things have changed
> since I started flying and I'm not lamenting any of them. If it happened it
> happened and I can live with that.

So buy an ultralight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> a > wrote:
>> Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
>> aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use
>> of a car for business purposes.
>
> Nope.
>
> I used to think that.
>
> There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web site
> by the resident AOPA lawyer.
>
> I would suggest you read them.

This is "big" news to me. I tried searching the AOPA web site for said
articles but came up with nothing that appeared relevant. So if you have
the URLs handy it would be appreciated.

I thought private pilot were restricted only from flying for compensation
or hire. Pretty much every reference I can find indicates that if the
business travel is "incidental" (i.e. one could have taken other
transportation) then a private pilot can indeed fly himself to, say, a
business meeting and do so legally.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> a > wrote:
>>> Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
>>> aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use
>>> of a car for business purposes.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I used to think that.
>>
>> There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web
>> site by the resident AOPA lawyer.
>>
>> I would suggest you read them.
>
> This is "big" news to me. I tried searching the AOPA web site for said
> articles but came up with nothing that appeared relevant. So if you
> have the URLs handy it would be appreciated.

On further searching, I did find the following, but it is an Avweb article:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html

While it has some interesting gotchas, most of the "traps" match my
previous understanding.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 13, 1:20*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> a > wrote:
> >>> Do tell me about your perception of narrow limits. Use of a general
> >>> aviation airplane for business purposes is pretty much like the use
> >>> of a car for business purposes.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> I used to think that.
>
> >> There is a long series of articles on the subject on the AOPA web
> >> site by the resident AOPA lawyer.
>
> >> I would suggest you read them.
>
> > This is "big" news to me. I tried searching the AOPA web site for said
> > articles but came up with nothing that appeared relevant. So if you
> > have the URLs handy it would be appreciated.
>
> On further searching, I did find the following, but it is an Avweb article:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html
>
> While it has some interesting gotchas, most of the "traps" match my
> previous understanding.

Your understanding is consistent with my understanding of the matter.
Even more importantly, it's consistent with our auditors, and the last
time the IRS did an audit of our personal returns (prepared by the way
by the same auditors we use for the company) that came up clean as
well (expense report reimbursements were looked at carefully, that is
a common way for business owners to try to avoid reporting what could
be taxable income).

It's fine for folks on the forum to point out areas where there
experience suggests there may be problems, I appreciate that -- my
check lists, for example, have a number of lines now inspired by ideas
that have originated here. In this case I feel certain what we do and
the way we do it is a valid reimbursable business expense.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

I have not read all the posts. What do you want?

You can buy an RV-6A for circa $60,000.

Ron Lee

[Mark]

On Sep 13, 11:08*pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:
> I have not read all the posts. *What do you want?
>
> You can buy an RV-6A for circa $60,000.
>
> Ron Lee

Yes and they're beautiful. Myself, I'm flying in the
light sport category and would like something that
could be considered interstate transportation. As
this isn't justified for anything but pleasure, and
because I just bought a new Kubota front-end loader,
I'll have to wait a year or longer to meet the prices
they're asking for low-wing cross country makes.

I might feel different about the Sonex if I had one to
view and try out. They're less to purchase
but I suspect high on insurance. And they look
funny. And I'm 6'3".

---
Mark

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> I'll have to wait a year or longer to meet the prices
> they're asking for low-wing cross country makes.

Since when is "low wing" a mission criteria? That doesn't make sense to me.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
>> I'll have to wait a year or longer to meet the prices
>> they're asking for low-wing cross country makes.
>
> Since when is "low wing" a mission criteria? That doesn't make sense to me.

Lord knows, but if he is as precise in his flying as he is in his writting,
he is going to wind up floating off the end of the runway in a low wing.

Least anyone get the impression I'm anti low wing, I own a Tiger.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 14, 8:35*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > I'll have to wait a year or longer to meet the prices
> > they're asking for low-wing cross country makes.
>
> Since when is "low wing" a mission criteria? That doesn't make sense to me.

That's just personal preference Jim.

---
Mark

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On Sep 14, 6:11*pm, wrote:

> Lord knows, but if he is as precise in his flying as he is in his writting,

*snicker* Writing. ;)

> Least anyone get the impression I'm anti low wing, I own a Tiger.

Fantastic airplane! ...as long as you don't live someplace like
Oregon, or, you have a hangar. I enjoyed flying an AA5B as much as I
enjoyed flying a brand new SR-20, and you could probably buy five
Tigers for the cost of a Cirrus.

Fly safe!

-Chris
CFI

[[email protected]]

Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 6:11Â*pm, wrote:
>

>> Least anyone get the impression I'm anti low wing, I own a Tiger.
>
> Fantastic airplane! ...as long as you don't live someplace like
> Oregon, or, you have a hangar. I enjoyed flying an AA5B as much as I
> enjoyed flying a brand new SR-20, and you could probably buy five
> Tigers for the cost of a Cirrus.
>
> Fly safe!

Well, I don't fly in the rain and replacing the bow seal on the canopy
when it gets hard eliminates leaks when it is parked.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.