Wow, C150 = Time Saver = Awesome 3 Days.

[NW_PILOT]

Most off of you know that I am from the pacific NW well I took a short job
in Yakima, WA well it's like a 4 hour one way drive from Vancouver, WA I did
it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150. I was able to come home the same day
and not be tired and saved money on gas to boot! was able to get some rest
and did it again total of 3 times this week My performance on the job was a
hell of a lot better!

1 I had the rush of just flying and 2 I was not tired from a 4 hour drive
and 3, was not dreading a 4 hour drive back home. Found the Perfect way to
use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
"Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,


--
Steven Rhine
PP-ASEL-IA
Commercial Student
N7676U 1976 C-150M

[Gene Seibel]

Love it when that happens. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Flyingmonk]

All you people with your own birds make me jealous! Just kidding, that
is so cool to be able to do that huh?

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[S.]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Most off of you know that I am from the pacific NW well I took a short job
> in Yakima, WA well it's like a 4 hour one way drive from Vancouver, WA I
> did
> it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150. I was able to come home the same
> day
> and not be tired and saved money on gas to boot! was able to get some rest
> and did it again total of 3 times this week My performance on the job was
> a
> hell of a lot better!
>
> 1 I had the rush of just flying and 2 I was not tired from a 4 hour drive
> and 3, was not dreading a 4 hour drive back home. Found the Perfect way to
> use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
> "Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,
>

Let's see if I've got this straight :-

- Live in Pacific northwest
- Got a job
- A pilot
- Own kite
- Use it for commuting
- Building hours
- Having a nice old time.

Sheesh. I'm glad it's happening to *somebody*..........kudos, fella ;-o !!!



S.

[Peter R.]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> Found the Perfect way to
> use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
> "Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,

Do any barrel rolls along the way? ;-)

--
Peter

[NW_PILOT]

Almost Got it Right, But Self Employed!


"S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Most off of you know that I am from the pacific NW well I took a short
job
> > in Yakima, WA well it's like a 4 hour one way drive from Vancouver, WA I
> > did
> > it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150. I was able to come home the same
> > day
> > and not be tired and saved money on gas to boot! was able to get some
rest
> > and did it again total of 3 times this week My performance on the job
was
> > a
> > hell of a lot better!
> >
> > 1 I had the rush of just flying and 2 I was not tired from a 4 hour
drive
> > and 3, was not dreading a 4 hour drive back home. Found the Perfect way
to
> > use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
> > "Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,
> >
>
> Let's see if I've got this straight :-
>
> - Live in Pacific northwest
> - Got a job
> - A pilot
> - Own kite
> - Use it for commuting
> - Building hours
> - Having a nice old time.
>
> Sheesh. I'm glad it's happening to *somebody*..........kudos, fella ;-o
!!!
>
>
>
> S.
>
>

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> > Found the Perfect way to
> > use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
> > "Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,
>
> Do any barrel rolls along the way? ;-)
>
> --
> Peter
>

Nope, My airplane is not certificated for doing rolls if business starts
improving I may be able to afford one that is certified to, but I think I
may end up getting a Piper Seneca would be more fun with the second engine
and longer range.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:55:46 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote in >::

>I did it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150.

What is the distance from the airport to your client's site? How do
you commute there and back to the airport? When you add in the pre
flight planning and post flight time, how does it compare with
automobile travel?

Don't get me wrong. I'd far prefer to commute by air than monitor the
white line for four hours, but there tends to be a lot of additional
"overhead" involved in flight that is absent in commuting by
automobile not the least of which is the cost and inconvenience of
securing ground transportation.

[[email protected]]

Hi Steve,

Thats cool.
Just a question or two.
How do you make those times?

My plane has a about the same speed as a C150.
If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
journey by plane if the clock starts ticking the moment I close the
door behind me.
The airport is just 10 min. away, pre-flight the plane etc. 30 min.,
1.5 hrs for the flight, 20 min. after I'm landed and then I'm only at
another airport.
And that is probably not my final destination, so I need a taxi for the
last leg.

How do you manage it?

-Kees.

[Peter R.]

Larry wrote:

> Don't get me wrong. I'd far prefer to commute by air than monitor the
> white line for four hours, but there tends to be a lot of additional
> "overhead" involved in flight that is absent in commuting by
> automobile not the least of which is the cost and inconvenience of
> securing ground transportation.

Since March I have been commuting weekly by airplane from my home in
central NY to a town in western NY. Total distance by car is about 178
statute miles, or about 3 hours highway time. Door to door using the
aircraft takes me about 2 hrs 15 minutes going west and about 2 hours
going east (total flying time is only 45 minutes to 1 hr 10 minutes,
wind depending). I worked out a deal with my customer that I would pay
for the aircraft time f they would pay for a monthly rental car, which
I leave at the small, uncontrolled airport at my destination.

I am saving a small amount of time, the costs to me are greater, but
the experiences and time aloft are worth it.

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On 28 Jun 2005 06:16:08 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
>journey by plane

Right. The additional overhead of flight not withstanding, if one
were to average 60 mph on the road for four hours, s/he'd have to make
160 mph to cover the same distance by air in 1-1/2 hours. Of course,
that analysis doesn't take into account commuter congestion on the
highway that may reduce the 60 mph average speed significantly.

[Chris G.]

From what I am told, the insurance gets a LOT higher with a twin.

Chris

(Not cross-posted to r.a.owning since I don't subscribe to it)

NW_PILOT wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>NW_PILOT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Found the Perfect way to
>>>use my little 150 and My Instrument Rating. Makes that Little word
>>>"Commuter" on the cowling mean somthing hehehehehe,
>>
>>Do any barrel rolls along the way? ;-)
>>
>>--
>>Peter
>>
>
>
> Nope, My airplane is not certificated for doing rolls if business starts
> improving I may be able to afford one that is certified to, but I think I
> may end up getting a Piper Seneca would be more fun with the second engine
> and longer range.
>
>

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>Thats cool.
>Just a question or two.
>How do you make those times?
>
>My plane has a about the same speed as a C150.
>If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
>journey by plane if the clock starts ticking the moment I close the
>door behind me.
>The airport is just 10 min. away, pre-flight the plane etc. 30 min.,
>1.5 hrs for the flight, 20 min. after I'm landed and then I'm only at
>another airport.
>And that is probably not my final destination, so I need a taxi for the
>last leg.


Good point. Many of the planes we fly today were designed, if not built,
back in the '50's and early '60's. At that time few interstate highways
existed, and rural routes and other highways were frequently two-lane
roads with lots of dangerouis intersections. A long road trip would
frequently see 35MPH average speeds, and some unpaved sections were not
uncommon in many parts of the US. So a 200-mile trip would be 5 to 6
hours by car, and under 2 hours in a C-150.

Today, you frequently average close to 60MPH in a car, and you can
almots always make 50 average, so the same trip takes only 3 to 4 hours
in the car, and still close to 2 in a C-150, with a C-172 not that much
better. Factor in the fact that you have you car to tool around once you
get there, and it really puts a damper on utility for that category of
aircraft. Oh, and - I didn't even mention cost - or weather . . .

G Faris
>
>How do you manage it?
>
>-Kees.
>

[Greg Farris]

Sounds like fun!
I was recently (two weeks ago) on an engineering job outside of Paris France
(180nm SW of Paris). My programmer was arriving from Los Angeles on Friday
morning, and we had to get him to the site in time to meet with the
contractors before they all took off for the weekend. I could drive up to get
him, but as you say this would have been 4 hours each way - tiring to the
point of being dangerous, and not exactly optimal use of my time. Train
schedules were not cooperating, despite the excellent trains in Europe, they
are not perfect to all destinations at all times.

Weather was great though, and there was an airport a couple miles away, with
a flying club where I was able to rent a 172. Did a checkride the night
before, then launched in the morning, had a stunning tour of the French
countryside and had my guy on site before lunch! And the total cost of the
operation was not that much more than the train, that would have had him
there at 5PM.

Everyone was thrilled with the "usefullness" of the small plane that saved
the day - but in truth we sort of hit everything "on the numbers". The trip
was just long enough to be useful, but short enough to be practical. Weather
was fine - couldn't have planned this ahead of time under VFR, Other
transportation means were not coming through - and of course my car was
already there, so we weren't stranded upon landing.

The only "imperfect" element was that in Europe you cannot fly into large,
ommercial airports - at any cost. Charles de Gaulle is strictly off limits to
GA, so I had to get the guy to taxi to a small airport, which cost him some
time and money - but he was more than glad for the sightseeing tour. He only
saved 2.5 hours, compared to me driving him, but for me it was three hours of
relaxing flight, compared with eight hours of stressful driving.

G Faris

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:17:29 +0200, Greg Farris >
wrote in >::

>Sounds like fun!
>I was recently (two weeks ago) on an engineering job outside of Paris France
>(180nm SW of Paris). My programmer was arriving from Los Angeles on Friday
>morning, and we had to get him to the site in time to meet with the
>contractors before they all took off for the weekend. I could drive up to get
>him, but as you say this would have been 4 hours each way - tiring to the
>point of being dangerous, and not exactly optimal use of my time. Train
>schedules were not cooperating, despite the excellent trains in Europe, they
>are not perfect to all destinations at all times.
>
>Weather was great though, and there was an airport a couple miles away, with
>a flying club where I was able to rent a 172. Did a checkride the night
>before, then launched in the morning, had a stunning tour of the French
>countryside and had my guy on site before lunch! And the total cost of the
>operation was not that much more than the train, that would have had him
>there at 5PM.
>
>Everyone was thrilled with the "usefullness" of the small plane that saved
>the day - but in truth we sort of hit everything "on the numbers". The trip
>was just long enough to be useful, but short enough to be practical. Weather
>was fine - couldn't have planned this ahead of time under VFR, Other
>transportation means were not coming through - and of course my car was
>already there, so we weren't stranded upon landing.
>
>The only "imperfect" element was that in Europe you cannot fly into large,
>ommercial airports - at any cost. Charles de Gaulle is strictly off limits to
>GA, so I had to get the guy to taxi to a small airport, which cost him some
>time and money - but he was more than glad for the sightseeing tour. He only
>saved 2.5 hours, compared to me driving him, but for me it was three hours of
>relaxing flight, compared with eight hours of stressful driving.
>
>G Faris

What a great story. Thanks for the information.

I thought there was considerably more involved then a typical check
out in renting an aircraft from an French aero club. Are you fluent
in French? What of the differences in ATC operation, charts, etc?

You make it sound so easy.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>What a great story. Thanks for the information.
>
>I thought there was considerably more involved then a typical check
>out in renting an aircraft from an French aero club. Are you fluent
>in French? What of the differences in ATC operation, charts, etc?
>
>You make it sound so easy.
>
>

I am fluent in French, and have lived, worked and flown there quite a bit.
In this particular case though, both airports were towered with English
speaking permitted, so probably anyone could have done this particular trip.
You can easily buy 1/500 charts, somewhat similar to sectionals (four of them
cover all of France) and they have an excellent on-line service for VFR
approach and airport information plates.

Look at :
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/VAC/P/VAC%20A
D%202.LFPT.pdf

to see the Paris airport I flew into - a 20 min taxi ride from Charles de
Gaulle where my programmer's 777 landed.

Airspace considerations require some familiarity - but everything is charted
and you can get clearances in English. I hear quite a few Brits on the
frequency, though I think you get more efficient service if you communicate in
French, and most non-towered airports are French only.

G Faris

[NW_PILOT]

It's called mountain Ranges!!! C150 goes over them Car goes around them look
it up map quest it!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thats cool.
> Just a question or two.
> How do you make those times?
>
> My plane has a about the same speed as a C150.
> If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
> journey by plane if the clock starts ticking the moment I close the
> door behind me.
> The airport is just 10 min. away, pre-flight the plane etc. 30 min.,
> 1.5 hrs for the flight, 20 min. after I'm landed and then I'm only at
> another airport.
> And that is probably not my final destination, so I need a taxi for the
> last leg.
>
> How do you manage it?
>
> -Kees.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
>>journey by plane
>
> Right. The additional overhead of flight not withstanding, if one
> were to average 60 mph on the road for four hours, s/he'd have to make
> 160 mph to cover the same distance by air in 1-1/2 hours. Of course,
> that analysis doesn't take into account commuter congestion on the
> highway that may reduce the 60 mph average speed significantly.

Look at a map. The route he's talking about, there's no way you can even
max out at 60 mph for most of the route, never mind *average* that speed.

This is, in fact, quite common in the western states. There are a handful
of routes served by the interstate highways, but many trips involve crossing
mountain passes, and/or either a relatively direct but winding road, or
going way out of your way to stay on fast highways. Either way, the driving
time winds up significantly higher than flying time.

That said, there's certainly some truth to the post you quoted (as opposed
to your own). The original poster gave the specific numbers, but at 1.5
hours might have left out the elements you describe in a different post:
driving to the airport, preflighting the airplane, flight planning,
transportation at the other end. Even allowing for the different in route
length for driving versus flying, a 1.5 hour flight could easily include
another 1.5 hours for overhead.

Or, it might not. It really depends on the situation. Flight planning is
minimized where the route is frequently flown. It's not outside the realm
of possibility that the original poster not only lives close to his airport
base, but that his client is willing to meet him at the destination airport,
or that that airport is close to his client (or both).

All of that overhead could easily have been included in the original post.
The distance between Vancouver and Yakima is only about 100 miles, a 1 hour
flight in a 150. Since the original post specified a 1.5 hour trip time, if
the other elements were abbreviated, it could well be a reasonably close
estimate of the door-to-door time.

Personally, as I am based at an airport 30 minutes from my home, and as my
preflight usually takes at least 20-30 minutes (from the time I arrive at
the airport, to the time I'm ready to start up the airplane), I have found
that 3 hours is about the break-even point. For locations served by the
same highways that go past my home, this can be roughly estimated using a
60mph average driving time. For the many locations around here that aren't
so convenient, a shorter straight-line distance and flying time can result
in breaking even or better.

All this, of course, ignores the question of whether one would be spending
that time flying anyway. For someone for whom this sort of flying is
additional, not included in one's additional flying budget, that's probably
not an appropriate factor to include (eg one is charging the transportation
costs to a client). For many of us however, there is a ballpark number of
hours we'll fly each year; if some of that time is spent getting from one
place to another, all the better, but in that case the time spent actually
flying, and even getting to and one's home airport, may not be counted
toward the total trip time, since that's recreational time you'd have spent
anyway.

In any case, I think it's silly to take the original post to task for the
details. The poster is well-known for glossing over specific details
anyway, and the basic gist of his post is plenty to the point and accurate:
an airplane can be quite a convenience.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:18:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
>>>journey by plane
>>
>> Right. The additional overhead of flight not withstanding, if one
>> were to average 60 mph on the road for four hours, s/he'd have to make
>> 160 mph to cover the same distance by air in 1-1/2 hours. Of course,
>> that analysis doesn't take into account commuter congestion on the
>> highway that may reduce the 60 mph average speed significantly.
>
>Look at a map.

You're correct; I am not familiar with the route.

>That said, there's certainly some truth to the post you quoted (as opposed
>to your own).

You found _nothing_ truthful in my follow up article?

>In any case, I think it's silly to take the original post to task for the
>details.

What makes you think I took the poster to task? * That seems to more
accurately characterize your demeanor.

>The poster is well-known for glossing over specific details
>anyway, and the basic gist of his post is plenty to the point and accurate:
>an airplane can be quite a convenience.
>
>Pete
>


*

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=take%20to%20task

2 entries found for take to task.
Main Entry: bawl out
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: severely reprimand
Synonyms: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, have words, jump
down one's throat, punish, rake over the coals, reprimand, rip into,
scold, take to task, tell off, upbraid, yell at
Antonyms: praise
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: bring to book
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: call to account
Synonyms: call on the carpet, read the riot act, take to task,
tongue lash
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

[NW_PILOT]

Nice thing is my clients in Tacoma send a car to pick me up at the airport
and then let me use a company car if I need to make an errand. Wish my
clients in Tri City's Would do that they just reimburse me for my rental. My
new clients near Quincy, Wa 5 miles form the job site will be sending one of
them long cars and I will be getting to meet a lot of interesting people
hehehehehe!

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:55:46 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >I did it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150.
>
> What is the distance from the airport to your client's site? How do
> you commute there and back to the airport? When you add in the pre
> flight planning and post flight time, how does it compare with
> automobile travel?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'd far prefer to commute by air than monitor the
> white line for four hours, but there tends to be a lot of additional
> "overhead" involved in flight that is absent in commuting by
> automobile not the least of which is the cost and inconvenience of
> securing ground transportation.
>
>

[NW_PILOT]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:55:46 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >I did it in just about 1.5 hour's in my C150.
>
> What is the distance from the airport to your client's site? How do
> you commute there and back to the airport? When you add in the pre
> flight planning and post flight time, how does it compare with
> automobile travel?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'd far prefer to commute by air than monitor the
> white line for four hours, but there tends to be a lot of additional
> "overhead" involved in flight that is absent in commuting by
> automobile not the least of which is the cost and inconvenience of
> securing ground transportation.
>
>

Oh, on the pre and post flight planning don't take that long GPS direct!!!
its about 200 miles by road + traffic via air its just over 100 miles.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> You found _nothing_ truthful in my follow up article?

Sorry, you're correct. Your article was entirely truthful, as a matter of
fact. It was simply irrelevant, that's all.

The only untruthful element was the implication that your statements in some
way pertained to the flight in question. But I admit...that was only an
inferrred implication, and thus could have been entirely my own mistaken
interpretation of the post.

My apologies to you.

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

Please I I like to fly Instead Of Drive When I Have Business In The Area!!!!
Saves Time & Some Times Money.

My Base In KVUO so all flights Originate From that Airport and its only
about 10 min away from where I live.

The Following Places I Travel To By Ground Require A Ferry $$$$$$$ and Lots
of Time Waiting.

Lopez Island, S31
Friday Harbor, W33
Victoria BC,

By ground very curvy roads or very bad conditions like snow & ice buildup
and mud slides.

Astoria, Kast
Seaside, 56S
Tillamook, S47
Newport, KONP
Yakima, KYKM
Tri Cities, KPSC
Spokane, KSFF
Colville, 63S
Chewelah, 1S9

Anything up the I-5 corridor it is usually cheaper to drive and it usually
takes about the same amount of time! Anything over the mountains to the east
or west of me or to any of the islands in the sound its sometimes cheaper or
quicker & sometimes both to fly.

This little 150 has saved my butt many time's being able to get some place
on my own time schedule instead of having to wait for a boat or in traffic
and around here they close passes in the winter time sometimes for days. Now
that I have my Instrument Rating I will be able to fly on days that I have
been forced to drive.

From June 20th 2004 to June 19th 2005 I have put in Over 180 hours of Logged
Flight Time sometimes I forget to log a flight oops!

[[email protected]]

Ah, that figures.
Me being a true flatlander, I was not immediately aware of the
possibility of those landscape features ;-)

-Kees

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-28, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> you commute there and back to the airport? When you add in the pre
> flight planning and post flight time, how does it compare with
> automobile travel?

Pre-flight planning on a regular (i.e. familiar route) becomes almost
non-existent on a regular route. When I lived in Houston, I regularly
flew from SPX to Weiser - after the first couple of times it was a case
of pre-flight and jump in and go, no need to figure headings, waypoints
and all the usual cross country stuff. Getting a weather briefing is a
trivial amount of time. Even IFR trips on a regular route take very
little preflight planning - for regular routes, a canned flight plan
takes out most of the planning time.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-28, Greg Farris > wrote:
> The only "imperfect" element was that in Europe you cannot fly into large,
> ommercial airports - at any cost

That may be true of France, but remember that Europe is not a country
any more than North America is a country. It is an agglomeration of
(mostly) sovereign nations and what may be true in France is not
necessarily true in Italy or Poland.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>That may be true of France, but remember that Europe is not a country
>any more than North America is a country. It is an agglomeration of
>(mostly) sovereign nations and what may be true in France is not
>necessarily true in Italy or Poland.
>


I cannot help but think that your rejoinder would have been more informative
had you offered at least one example. In fact, unless and until you do so (or
someone does) I will stand by my generalization, which I believe to be a
reasonably accurate one.

We read many reports here of people flying Cessnas into Logan, Reagan even
JFK. Obviously they do not simply "show up" there at 5:00PM on 45° for
downwind 04R! It involves off-peak planning etc, but it is possible. They last
one to try that in Paris spent some time on the stinky side of an iron cage,
and may never see the left seat again!

I know that EDDM (Munich) has gone further than many recent constructions in
offering services to General Aviation - but they do specify that you have to
be IFR and over 2T/MTOW to land there, which rules out everything up to and
including a C-182.

You make an interesting point about the "new" extended Europe. My guess would
be that the former east-bloc nations would be even more rule and restriction
bound than the traditional Europe, but I admit I've never flown there, and I
don't know. Do you?

G Faris

[Stubby]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>That may be true of France, but remember that Europe is not a country
>>any more than North America is a country. It is an agglomeration of
>>(mostly) sovereign nations and what may be true in France is not
>>necessarily true in Italy or Poland.
>>
>
>
>
> I cannot help but think that your rejoinder would have been more informative
> had you offered at least one example. In fact, unless and until you do so (or
> someone does) I will stand by my generalization, which I believe to be a
> reasonably accurate one.
>
> We read many reports here of people flying Cessnas into Logan, Reagan even
> JFK. Obviously they do not simply "show up" there at 5:00PM on 45° for
> downwind 04R! It involves off-peak planning etc, but it is possible. They last
> one to try that in Paris spent some time on the stinky side of an iron cage,
> and may never see the left seat again!
>
> I know that EDDM (Munich) has gone further than many recent constructions in
> offering services to General Aviation - but they do specify that you have to
> be IFR and over 2T/MTOW to land there, which rules out everything up to and
> including a C-182.
>
> You make an interesting point about the "new" extended Europe. My guess would
> be that the former east-bloc nations would be even more rule and restriction
> bound than the traditional Europe, but I admit I've never flown there, and I
> don't know. Do you?
>
> G Faris
>
The European Union should fix all the difference. Right?

[[email protected]]

Wrong.

The EU has its legislation but every member state can have its own,
including aviation.
So when it comes to aviation you first have ICAO, then EU, then state
regulations.
The last ones give you the real headaches when flying from country to
country.

And every airport can decide what traffic they welcome or not.
The discussion was that large airports do not welcome GA, but on a
smaller scale some airfields are off limits to UL and things like that.

-Kees

[[email protected]]

Yep, that's true.
For my calculations for 200 to 500 mile trips I use 50mph for highways
and 30 mph for backroads.
Those figures are rather accurate and include traffic jams, fuel stops
etc.

On most occasions I'm on time +/- 15 min. even after a 500 mile drive.
Shorter distances have to much variables to calculate a accurate
average.

-Kees

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-29, Greg Farris > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>That may be true of France, but remember that Europe is not a country
>>any more than North America is a country. It is an agglomeration of
>>(mostly) sovereign nations and what may be true in France is not
>>necessarily true in Italy or Poland.
>
> I cannot help but think that your rejoinder would have been more informative
> had you offered at least one example. In fact, unless and until you do so (or
> someone does) I will stand by my generalization, which I believe to be a
> reasonably accurate one.

Your assertion was:
On 2005-06-28, Greg Farris > wrote:
> The only "imperfect" element was that in Europe you cannot fly into
> large, ommercial airports - at any cost

Birmingham airport (EGBB) serves the UK's second largest city. It
certainly fits the bill as a 'large commercial airport' most of the
traffic consisting of domestic and international airline flights.

I have flown a Grumman Cheetah into EGBB.

Liverpool Airport has a GA flying club. It is also a large commercial
airport.

Manchester Airport is a major international airport, with airline
flights to and from the United States. I have seen GA aircraft,
including little ones like Piper Tomahawks, parked at Manchester.

The UK is part of the European Union. Most of the thrust of my post was
in any case to point out that Europe is NOT a country any more than
North America, so something that is true in France is not necessarily
true in Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, Malta or Ireland.

For another example, in Britain you can fly a G registered plane using
your FAA pilot certificate with no paperwork at all. I believe Ireland
has the same allowance for IE registered aircraft. However, in France
you need to obtain a JAR license prior to flying an F registered
aircraft.

> You make an interesting point about the "new" extended Europe. My guess would
> be that the former east-bloc nations would be even more rule and restriction
> bound than the traditional Europe, but I admit I've never flown there, and I
> don't know. Do you?

No, but as my first post said which you objected to - they won't be the
same as France because Europe is not a country. I was merely trying to
enlighten people in the US who may (from your posting) assume European
states are a bit like states in the US - a Federal system of
non-sovereign states and a Federal aviation system - where it is not.
Europe is not a country consisting of a number of federated states with
a single aviation system - it is an agglomeration of sovereign nations
and what holds true for France does not necessarily hold true for Italy
or the UK.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[M]

For bug smasher planes cruising between 100-125kt, the sweet spot of
straight line travel distance is about 200 - 300nm. Assuming you have
someone picking you up at the destination, you can make a round trip in
a day while still have plenty of time spent at the destination, or make
the trip in two days and have a ton of time at the destination.

Most of the time the freeway distance is about 20% longer due to not
being a straight line. A 200-300nm distance will take a car 4-6 hours
of driving time, that makes a very tiring one day round trip. Even a
two day driving trip to a place 200-300nm away feels like driving a lot
on both days.