Continuous Closed Traffic Approved

[Greg Esres]

One of our Class D controllers has taken issuing clearances such as

"Seneca 1234X, continuous closed traffic approved, cleared for the
option, no need to report base, I'll let you know of any arriving
traffic."

What he's basically authorizing is operating in the traffic pattern at
will without landing clearances. I suspect that he's engrossed with
his PlayStation that they have in the tower and doesn't want to be
bothered with a sole aircraft doing pattern work.

Anyone else had clearance such as this? (I'm not quite comfortable
with it. Just seems wrong.)

[BTIZ]

I used to get a clearance like this on a regular basis, lazy Sunday
afternoon, Grand Forks North Dakota, only aircraft in the area.

He "tower" is authorizing continuous traffic pattern operations.. with
landing clearance.. "cleared for the option" is a landing clearance, stop
and go, touch and go, or go around..

I would get "cleared for the option, all runways".. then when someone else
approached Tower would ask me to "keep it on the east runway while NWA
lands.. he's coming in from the south", and I would acknowledge and do as
cleared.

Could really work some figure 8 patterns with a double north/south runway
plus one east/west runway. Take off north on the west side, left turn out,
downwind for the east runway, left base, left turn to final landing east,
left turn on take off, left downwind for the south runway on the east side,
left base, left turn to final, take off south bound, right 180 to final to
the north on the west runway.. then mix it up a bit.. take off north.. right
180 to land to the south, left pattern to land to the west on the cross
runway.. right turn out to land to the south on the west side... yada yada
yada..

I doubt there is a play station in the tower cab, but he's got weather
observations to record, plus other administrative papers, plus logging every
landing for his traffic count. His pay is based on traffic count.. every
landing and departure you make counts.. he does not want to miss one.

BT

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> One of our Class D controllers has taken issuing clearances such as
>
> "Seneca 1234X, continuous closed traffic approved, cleared for the
> option, no need to report base, I'll let you know of any arriving
> traffic."
>
> What he's basically authorizing is operating in the traffic pattern at
> will without landing clearances. I suspect that he's engrossed with
> his PlayStation that they have in the tower and doesn't want to be
> bothered with a sole aircraft doing pattern work.
>
> Anyone else had clearance such as this? (I'm not quite comfortable
> with it. Just seems wrong.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[B A R R Y]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> Anyone else had clearance such as this? (I'm not quite comfortable
> with it. Just seems wrong.)

Yup.

I also had a controller tell me that my comms were "unnecessary" one
night and he would call me back if he wanted me to change what I was
doing. Conditions were so calm, I was landing, rolling out, pulling a
"U" turn, and departing in the opposite direction. <G>

Since I was the only one even thinking about being in his airspace, I
didn't see a big deal.

[[email protected]]

I get that here in Jackson Hole while testing my firebreathing
experimental. If nothing is coming the tower clears me for any option I
need. When traffic approaches I get a heads up and I either land or
clear the area. They do have paperwork, record ATIS, and various other
duties ya know.


Ben
www.Haaspowerair.com

[Jay Honeck]

> What he's basically authorizing is operating in the traffic pattern at
> will without landing clearances. I suspect that he's engrossed with
> his PlayStation that they have in the tower and doesn't want to be
> bothered with a sole aircraft doing pattern work.

With GA traffic down so far in many parts of the country, there are a
LOT of controllers with nothing much to do. When flying mid-week
through Waterloo and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, airspace, we are often the
only (or, at most, one of two or three) aircraft they may be working.

Those guys would have to have the internet, or an X-Box, or SOMETHING
to keep their sanity, under those circumstances. Does it really make
sense for them to make the last guy left in their airspace report his
base leg every time he goes 'round the circuit?

it's really sad. I'm afraid we're witnessing the death throes of GA in
many parts of America, ladies and gents.
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper/Webmaster
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

BTIZ wrote:


>
> I doubt there is a play station in the tower cab, but he's got weather
> observations to record,

There's a weather observer for that, they're in the small tower at GFK.


plus other administrative papers,

There's none.


plus logging every
> landing for his traffic count.

When the controller clears you for multiple operations like that he
can't count each one. You could stay up for an hour, that's a two count.


His pay is based on traffic count.. every
> landing and departure you make counts.. he does not want to miss one.

Which is why he should give you separate clearances.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
>
> With GA traffic down so far in many parts of the country, there are a
> LOT of controllers with nothing much to do. When flying mid-week
> through Waterloo and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, airspace, we are often the
> only (or, at most, one of two or three) aircraft they may be working.
>
> Those guys would have to have the internet, or an X-Box, or SOMETHING
> to keep their sanity, under those circumstances. Does it really make
> sense for them to make the last guy left in their airspace report his
> base leg every time he goes 'round the circuit?

Our traffic count is the lowest on weekends. We have internet in the
tower now, all facilities do.

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I get that here in Jackson Hole while testing my firebreathing
> experimental. If nothing is coming the tower clears me for any option I
> need. When traffic approaches I get a heads up and I either land or
> clear the area. They do have paperwork, record ATIS, and various other
> duties ya know.
>
>
> Ben
> www.Haaspowerair.com
>

Cool link, you didn't have any specifics on the HP, climb rate or max cruise
though, I'm curious to see those numbers! Neat idea.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Ron Lee]

>Our traffic count is the lowest on weekends. We have internet in the
>tower now, all facilities do.
>

This is odd. I would expect it to be highest on the weekend.... at
least for GA aircraft. Does anyone have factual or approximate
figures on how much GA traffic has changed in the last few
months/years?

Ron Lee

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:

>>Our traffic count is the lowest on weekends. We have internet in the
>>tower now, all facilities do.
>>
>
>
> This is odd. I would expect it to be highest on the weekend.... at
> least for GA aircraft.


I'm sure there are facilities who are busier on weekends. Most of our
traffic is airlines and cargo which flies a lot less or not at all on
weekends. Our Sunday traffic is about a third of the weekday average.

[BTIZ]

interesting... so the traffic count rules have changed since I was in ATC

every takeoff and landing was one each.. (even a low approach got 1/2 a
count)

multiple pattern operations counted every time around

I left KGFK (KRDR) in 1991... so I did not remember the "weather tower"

BT

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I doubt there is a play station in the tower cab, but he's got weather
>> observations to record,
>
> There's a weather observer for that, they're in the small tower at GFK.
>
>
> plus other administrative papers,
>
> There's none.
>
>
> plus logging every
>> landing for his traffic count.
>
> When the controller clears you for multiple operations like that he can't
> count each one. You could stay up for an hour, that's a two count.
>
>
> His pay is based on traffic count.. every
>> landing and departure you make counts.. he does not want to miss one.
>
> Which is why he should give you separate clearances.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Does anyone have factual or approximate
> figures on how much GA traffic has changed in the last few
> months/years?

I have no factual data, other than my own observations.

1. Mary and I are observing measurably less traffic in the skies and on
the ground when we fly. We usually fly twice per week, and we spread
our flying around to many GA airports throughout (most often) Iowa and
Wisconsin (sometimes Minnesota, Missouri and Illinois, too) -- and we
see/hear far fewer planes.

2. Perhaps more of a solid number: We're seeing far fewer fly-in
guests at our hotel, even though overall business is up. GA pilots
have always been a small percentage (<5%) of our business, but it's way
down from even that level thus far in 2006.

3. Perhaps even more of a solid number. One of the two guys in our
favorite on-field repair shop has sold his share and quit the business.
Part of this was for personal reasons, but mostly it was because there
just isn't enough business to make it profitable. If it weren't for
the remaining guy's interest in building his own airplane, I don't
think he'd still be around, either.

It's all getting scary.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Esres]

<<I doubt there is a play station in the tower cab,>>

Actually, I'm told that there is, though it may be Nintendo. They're
all the same to me. ;-)

Thanks for the info.

[Newps]

BTIZ wrote:

> interesting... so the traffic count rules have changed since I was in ATC
>
> every takeoff and landing was one each.. (even a low approach got 1/2 a
> count)
>
> multiple pattern operations counted every time around
>
> I left KGFK (KRDR) in 1991... so I did not remember the "weather tower"
>
> BT

I was at GFK from March 89 until December 92. The weather tower was the
old ATC tower and was taken over by the weather guys as soon as the
controllers moved into the current tower and that was before I got there
in 89. Were you at GFK, RDR or the RAPCON?

[BTIZ]

> I was at GFK from March 89 until December 92. The weather tower was the
> old ATC tower and was taken over by the weather guys as soon as the
> controllers moved into the current tower and that was before I got there
> in 89. Were you at GFK, RDR or the RAPCON?

I was at RDR, Flying B-1B, I would come over to GFK and rent Cessna's every
once in a while for fun.

BT

[Jeff]

> It's all getting scary.

You know, I had hoped that the Sport Pilot rage would help re-light a fire
in GA for the general public. But in my last trip to OSH, I was looking at
all the "Sport Pilot ready" planes (this was pre-release of the SP
rating/cat). Hoping to see where an average person could buy a plane for
the price of a really nice bass boat, I was definitely disappointed.

The cheapest Sport plane I saw there was still over $60k. Now, I know the
manufacturers have to make a profit (or at least pay the bills) and that
most of them will do good to sell 30 planes a year, but geez. You're note
going to attract a bunch of new interest at that kind of price tag. The
money is out there (look at the Harley Davidson craze of late) for people to
spend, but once you get past the $30-$40k range, you're outpricing the
masses.

We have an expensive hobby/lifestyle. Flying "for fun" is a huge expense
for most of us. I bought a 1967 C172 in September (3 years older than me)
and got a great price (low $30's). But that is for a 40 year old airplane
with issues of it's own.

I don't know what the answer is. Aviation is still an exciting thing for
the public. Airshows still pull in huge crowds. But to get in "the club"
you have to be willing to sink $6000 in training.....and I think most folks
would rather just watch.

IMHO,

jf

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>> It's all getting scary.
>
> You know, I had hoped that the Sport Pilot rage would help re-light a fire
> in GA for the general public. But in my last trip to OSH, I was looking
> at all the "Sport Pilot ready" planes (this was pre-release of the SP
> rating/cat). Hoping to see where an average person could buy a plane for
> the price of a really nice bass boat, I was definitely disappointed.
>
> The cheapest Sport plane I saw there was still over $60k. Now, I know the
> manufacturers have to make a profit (or at least pay the bills) and that
> most of them will do good to sell 30 planes a year, but geez. You're note
> going to attract a bunch of new interest at that kind of price tag. The
> money is out there (look at the Harley Davidson craze of late) for people
> to spend, but once you get past the $30-$40k range, you're outpricing the
> masses.
>

I personally think they are marketing them wrong. The makers of LSAs should
promote small clubs where two to four people share the aircraft. That
includes offering such added services as online scheduling for each club
free along with pre-written membership agreements and, of course, help
match-making.

This would bring the price down on these planes to ~$20,000. Which is well
in the range for American's to spend for entertainment/hobby.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 09:49:52 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>::

>The makers of LSAs should
>promote small clubs where two to four people share the aircraft. That
>includes offering such added services as online scheduling for each club
>free along with pre-written membership agreements and, of course, help
>match-making.


Something like that is happening here:
http://www.letsfly.org/aircraft.asp#lightsport

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 09:49:52 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
> >::
>
>>The makers of LSAs should
>>promote small clubs where two to four people share the aircraft. That
>>includes offering such added services as online scheduling for each club
>>free along with pre-written membership agreements and, of course, help
>>match-making.
>
>
> Something like that is happening here:
> http://www.letsfly.org/aircraft.asp#lightsport

I've seen that. The problems is it's one dealer or broker doing it. The
manufactures need to lead the way.

[Montblack]

("Jeff" wrote)
> The cheapest Sport plane I saw there was still over $60k. Now, I know the
> manufacturers have to make a profit (or at least pay the bills) and that
> most of them will do good to sell 30 planes a year, but geez. You're note
> going to attract a bunch of new interest at that kind of price tag. The
> money is out there (look at the Harley Davidson craze of late) for people
> to spend, but once you get past the $30-$40k range, you're outpricing the
> masses.


Some numbers to play with: See what you come up with?

1978 a brand new Cessna 152 cost: $15-20K.
[1981 a new Cessna 152 cost: $21-24K. @ 15-20+% interest rate!!]

<http://www.cessna.org/benefits/historical_data/model_histories/sample.pdf>

Nice average house in my area cost: $45K - $60K
New average cars were around: $5K-9K Some $4K, some $10K.
New Yamaha 360 motorcycle: $1,200 w/windshield, backrest, roll bar, etc.

[1978]
High school job .................$3-$5/hr
Average "factory" job ......$6-$10/hr
"Good" Union job ....... $11hr-$15/hr

[Roughly]
$5/hr ........10k/year
$7/hr ........14k/year
$10/ hr......20k/ year
$15/hr ......30k/year

Today's L- Sport Pilot plane ................$75-$90K
Medium Home Values (Twin Cities) ..........$240K
"Nice" average home .................................$300K
Average decent job: .........................$40k - $75K
Average HS/College job ........................$7-$11/hr
Average car price: ...........................$15K - $23K

1978 was the beginning of the end for bustling activity at many local
airports, IMHO. After that, interest rates soared, gas prices doubled, "The
Recession" was very real and evil and long, wages did not keep pace with
inflation, housing costs rose faster than inflation, etc.

Then, in the early 80's, the lawsuits started adding real [consumer visible]
dollars to the cost of everything aviation related.


Montblack
High School Class of '78 ...sorry about Disco. Who knew?

[LWG]

I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant degree.
LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and saved a
little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with an LSA.

We don't use the practical aspects of our planes nearly as much as we could,
but GA can be useful and reasonable transportation. LSA/SP might be as much
fun as it looks, but it has very little practicality.

Personally, I am looking for tools, not toys. It's nice to have things the
family can do together. Now if those tools happen to be lots of fun, so
much the better!


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>> It's all getting scary.
>
> You know, I had hoped that the Sport Pilot rage would help re-light a fire
> in GA for the general public. But in my last trip to OSH, I was looking
> at all the "Sport Pilot ready" planes (this was pre-release of the SP
> rating/cat). Hoping to see where an average person could buy a plane for
> the price of a really nice bass boat, I was definitely disappointed.

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant degree.
>LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and saved a
>little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with an LSA.

Okay, I'll bite. Why couldn't you have?

[Al]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jeff" wrote)

good stuff snipped...

> 1978 was the beginning of the end for bustling activity at many local
> airports, IMHO. After that, interest rates soared, gas prices doubled,
> "The Recession" was very real and evil and long, wages did not keep pace
> with inflation, housing costs rose faster than inflation, etc.
>

In 1978 we had an investment tax credit of 10%. Buy an $80,000 airplane and
put it to work, get an $8,000 tax credit.

In 1978 we had GI bill paying 90% of flight training, with lots of GI's.
Flight schools abounded. Airplanes were available through "leaseback"(see
above). Many pilots went through the program, myself included.


> Then, in the early 80's, the lawsuits started adding real [consumer
> visible] dollars to the cost of everything aviation related.
>

In the late '70's we started seeing really large settlements against
manufacturers for crashes in which they played no part. The criteria for
selecting targets of lawsuits became the depth of the pockets, not any
realistic liability(ref Thurman Munson).

Al

[LWG]

I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "LWG" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant
>>degree. LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and
>>saved a little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with
>>an LSA.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Why couldn't you have?
>

[Morgans]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
>I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
>additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
>operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

I still don't see any conflicts.

You can fly from class D. You can travel for business, if the travel is
coincidental to the business.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
>I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
>additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
>operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

As Jim pointed out, there's nothing about the type of operation that
conflicts with the Sport Pilot certificate.

More to the point, however, you wrote "I couldn't have done that with an
LSA". The limitations on the Sport Pilot certificate are on the pilot, not
the airplane. An "LSA" flown by a pilot with a Private Pilot certificate
(for example) can do pretty much anything they would normally be able to do
(a typical exception might be flying IFR, since not all of the "sport"
airplanes are certificated for IFR flight).

The Sport Pilot certificate certainly should expand the potential market for
these light airplanes, but the market has always existed and the airplanes
are quite usable for much of the kind of flying most pilots at that end of
the market are looking to do.

Don't confuse the pilot certification with the airplane certification. They
are two separate things.

Pete

[B A R R Y]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "LWG" > wrote:
>
>> I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant degree.
>> LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and saved a
>> little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with an LSA.
>
> The max level cruise speed permitted for an LSA is 120
> knots. What does your Sundowner cruise at? A quick check
> of the web shows a 75% cruise speed for the Sundowner at 115
> knots. I don't see much limitation there.

As a Sundowner owner, I don't plan on getting _anywhere_ fast. <G>

[Ken Hornstein]

In article >,
LWG > wrote:
>I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
>additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
>operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

You (as a private pilot) could have flown a LSA out of class D airspace
without any additional training, endorsements, or whatever. Not all
LSA's come with radios and transponders (the ones I've seen in the
"cheaper" end do not), but you could have departed NORDO if you were
really trying to economize and didn't want to spring for a handheld
radio.

I don't understand your objection to LSAs. If they are successful,
they will get more people flying ... that means airports get more
utilization, more money gets pumped into the aviation industry, there's
a general overall awareness of flying, and that's only good things for
the industry as a whole. They may not be right for your mission, and
that's okay ... they're not designed for everyone. But the more people
flying, the better the industry is ... the more people that use an
airport, for example, the harder it is to close.

If your issue is with the Sport Pilot rating, well, I guess I see two
purposes to the rating. One is to keep old farts who are in danger of
losing their medicals in the air; these old farts are still allowed to
fly into class D airspace, they just can't flying big planes, or at
night. Seems reasonable. The other is to get new pilots into the air
quicker. The limitations of the rating seem reasonable given the
amount of training you get. I think the hope is that new Sport Pilots
will get bitten by the flying bug, and go on to get the necessary training
(which means that they're spending more money on aviation, which is
always a good thing).

--Ken

[LWG]

I know, that's why I said LSA/SP, meaning the combination of an SP in an
LSA.

I have nothing against the LSA or the SP, I just don't think they have
enough practicality to catch on. I would really like to see more people
flying, I just don't think that this will affect the decline in GA. It
looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
bling.

Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a resurgence in the interest
in GA. I don't see any new investment in anything related to general
aviation, except from government. Private airports are now housing
developments. Businesses depending upon GA are folding up. The only "new"
buildings or improvements I see in my area have been put up by state or
local government. That's better than nothing, but I'd rather see the engine
of private enterprise doing these things.


"Ken Hornstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> LWG > wrote:
>>I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least
>>without
>>additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
>>operating in furtherance of a business (I think).
>
> You (as a private pilot) could have flown a LSA out of class D airspace
> without any additional training, endorsements, or whatever. Not all
> LSA's come with radios and transponders (the ones I've seen in the
> "cheaper" end do not), but you could have departed NORDO if you were
> really trying to economize and didn't want to spring for a handheld
> radio.
>
> I don't understand your objection to LSAs. If they are successful,
> they will get more people flying ... that means airports get more
> utilization, more money gets pumped into the aviation industry, there's
> a general overall awareness of flying, and that's only good things for
> the industry as a whole. They may not be right for your mission, and
> that's okay ... they're not designed for everyone. But the more people
> flying, the better the industry is ... the more people that use an
> airport, for example, the harder it is to close.
>
> If your issue is with the Sport Pilot rating, well, I guess I see two
> purposes to the rating. One is to keep old farts who are in danger of
> losing their medicals in the air; these old farts are still allowed to
> fly into class D airspace, they just can't flying big planes, or at
> night. Seems reasonable. The other is to get new pilots into the air
> quicker. The limitations of the rating seem reasonable given the
> amount of training you get. I think the hope is that new Sport Pilots
> will get bitten by the flying bug, and go on to get the necessary training
> (which means that they're spending more money on aviation, which is
> always a good thing).
>
> --Ken

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-12, LWG > wrote:
> looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
> preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
> see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
> it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
> bling.

But that was true of any time - only a very tiny minority of the
population are obsessed enough about flying to actually do it. I can
give you teenaged counter-examples right now - but it's irrelevant:
flying has always been a minority pursuit and always will be a minority
pursuit. Flying is _not_ a natural habitat for a human being, and
therefore 99.5% of the human race is innately afraid of flying. Most of
the population ranges from mild discomfort and anxiety to full blown
terror at the idea of being even a few feet off the ground in a plane.

It's only a tiny percentage who actually find the experience enjoyable.
It's always been like that and always will be like that.

> Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
> drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

For each airfield like that there are 100 you can just wander up to.

For the remainder of the human population who DO enjoy flying (and there
is enough to keep GA going) with the current costs and timescales it
takes to learn to fly, you are left with:

- those young enough that they don't yet have a family
- those old enough that the family have left home AND finished college

Out of the former, most don't have the money. So you are left with the
latter, most who face spousal pressure not to start flying in the first
place, or who find themselves disappointed at having to fly a ratty old
C152 that's almost as old as they are and costs a fortune.

Then you add to that the current cotton-wool total risk aversion of
society and you take away even more of the already tiny possible pool of
people who may learn to fly.

Some are doing something about it - the British Gliding Association are
running scholarships for youths. Our tiny soaring club (about a dozen
regular members) has two scholarship students currently in the club -
paid up to solo by the BGA. By the time they solo, they can't stop.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Ken Hornstein]

In article >,
LWG > wrote:
>I have nothing against the LSA or the SP, I just don't think they have
>enough practicality to catch on.

Okay ... what exactly is not practical about them? They are by far the
cheapest new airplanes out there, most of them run on mogas (of course,
who knows what's happening with ethanol, but still), they have low
operating costs, it seems like most of them cruise in the 90-110 knot
range. Maybe it doesn't carry as much load as quickly as your
Sundowner ... but they're still airplanes, and people can fly in them.
Most of the ones I've seen have a more useful load than a 152.

>I would really like to see more people
>flying, I just don't think that this will affect the decline in GA. It
>looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
>preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
>see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
>it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
>bling.

I don't think that much has changed, really. When I was growing up,
relatively few of my friends were interested in aviation. The ones that
are interested as adults are turned off by the cost; I know a large number
of people that investigated flying and realized they couldn't afford it;
a smaller but sigificant number that started their license but ran out
of money. I actually got my license, but the costs made it so I don't
fly anymore.

>There is nothing I would like to see more than a resurgence in the interest
>in GA. I don't see any new investment in anything related to general
>aviation, except from government. Private airports are now housing
>developments. Businesses depending upon GA are folding up. The only "new"
>buildings or improvements I see in my area have been put up by state or
>local government. That's better than nothing, but I'd rather see the engine
>of private enterprise doing these things.

The reason I believe that happened was that there is very little money
to be made in aviation; it seems like most people do it as a labor of
love. Maybe more planes will help that out; I guess we'll have to see.

--Ken

[Ken Hornstein]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
>> drive through a manned security gate and present ID.
>
>For each airfield like that there are 100 you can just wander up to.

While I think that ratio might be a bit off (I'd put it at more like
10-20 "free love" airfields versus 1 "armed camp" airfield), it's been
my experience that the airfields you can walk up to are ghost towns
that are grim, depressing places. I'm not saying that vibrant
airfields of yesteryear don't exist (I've encountered a few
counter-examples myself), but they sure do seem to be rare. What's
more common is the broken-down, one horse airport who's runway is only
home to few tumbleweeds. Not exactly the sort of places to encourage
young aviators.

--Ken

[Jeff]

> Not exactly the sort of places to encourage
> young aviators.
>

Our local FBO (and I use that term lightly), seems to do everything it can
to discourage new pilots. My kid's elementary school used to take all the
kindergartners to the airport and let them see a plane, sit it one, talk on
the headsets, etc. Now the FBO has informed them that they can't do that
anymore due to "security issues" involving 9/11. This is a very rural
non-controlled field with about 40 planes based there (but they are the only
show in town).

In the last four years, I've sent 3 people in to talk with them about
learning to fly. All 3 were treated like complete outsiders and all three
had the same conversation. I went in with the last one and sat in the lobby
area while he tried to talk to them about lessons. The conversation went
something like this:

FBO - (Sitting behind counter talking amoungst themselves)

Potential Student - (Walks in, stands at counter for 2 minutes waiting for
someone to help, then finally asks the guys sitting there:) "Excuse
me....I'm interested in learning to fly"

FBO - "Great! We rent our Cherokees for $75 wet and the CFI will cost
another $30 per hour"

PS - (not knowing what a Cherokee wet or a CFI is) "ooook....."

Awkward pause where the FBO needs to take over the conversation.....they
don't...they start chatting with each other again.

PS - "Excuse me, ok...so that's $105 per hour....how many hours do I need?"

FBO - "40" -

PS (still the one driving the conversation) - "Well, what do I need to get
started?"

FBO (seeming to be tiring of all the questions) - "Money" (they all
laugh).....Well you need to buy the student kit, which is $195 for your
ground school, then you'll need a good headset for about $350. Then you'll
need to plan on flying for an hour at least twice a week. If you can't fly
twice a week, your wasting your time"

PS - "Twice a week? I don't have time to do that. And that's also $210/wk.
Or $800/month! I can't afford that"

FBO - (and this is a direct quote) "Then I guess you'll never be a pilot"

PS - Leaves in disgust and to this day hasn't even taken an intro flight.

[Ron Natalie]

Greg Esres wrote:

> Anyone else had clearance such as this? (I'm not quite comfortable
> with it. Just seems wrong.)

When I learned to fly it was quite regular when operating from the
smaller parallel runway to be given a similar clearance if we were
the only ones using it.

[Jim Macklin]

Late night at Tulsa International, take-off on 18R, stop and
go 36R, back to 18R stop and go, you get night current real
quick. Take-off, turn base-final.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
| Greg Esres wrote:
|
| > Anyone else had clearance such as this? (I'm not quite
comfortable
| > with it. Just seems wrong.)
|
| When I learned to fly it was quite regular when operating
from the
| smaller parallel runway to be given a similar clearance if
we were
| the only ones using it.
|

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-13, Jeff > wrote:
> Potential Student - (Walks in, stands at counter for 2 minutes waiting for
> someone to help, then finally asks the guys sitting there:) "Excuse
> me....I'm interested in learning to fly"

<snip>

The trouble is that people who are good at business don't run FBOs
because they realise (being good at spotting worthwhile business
opportunities) that the FBO business is not a good one to be in. So you
tend to get people who love aviation running them - nothing wrong with
that - but who have no clue about how to run a business or what
"customer service" means. Yes, you've got exceptions to that - I've
known people who are the exception - but guess what, they moved on to
something that will actually pay their living costs and have money left
over to go flying sooner or later.

There are some exceptions of course. But most of the people who do
business well and love aviation set up in some other more profitable market
because they realise they'll get a LOT more flying in that way.

Don't get me started on the owners of private airfields - most of them
seem to be hell-bent on driving their customers away with either hostile
attitudes, or they are the sort who promises to do things and never does
them or even worse - a combination of both. Again there are exceptions
but they are rare.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dave Stadt]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Don't get me started on the owners of private airfields - most of them
> seem to be hell-bent on driving their customers away with either hostile
> attitudes, or they are the sort who promises to do things and never does
> them or even worse - a combination of both. Again there are exceptions
> but they are rare.

The exceptions are extremely rare. My guess is those that run FBOs and
private airports wouldn't last a week in any other business. Is this a
legacy problem or do people that have no idea about customer service and
customer satisfaction just somehow end up in the aviation business?

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
> The exceptions are extremely rare. My guess is those that run FBOs and
> private airports wouldn't last a week in any other business. Is this a
> legacy problem or do people that have no idea about customer service and
> customer satisfaction just somehow end up in the aviation business?

As opposed to the 98% of businesses outside the aviation industry that can't
(won't) do customer service?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-16, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> As opposed to the 98% of businesses outside the aviation industry that can't
> (won't) do customer service?

Oh, they do that because they are giant corporations with near
monopolies. The vast majority of small businesses (and most GA
businesses are small businesses) have good customer service because they
will die without it. But many FBOs don't - the owner is an enthusiast,
not someone with business sense or people skills by and large, and it's
staffed mainly by people who are trying to get into the airlines as fast
as they can - not people who have any interest in the continued health
of the business.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-05-16, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> As opposed to the 98% of businesses outside the aviation industry that
>> can't
>> (won't) do customer service?
>
> Oh, they do that because they are giant corporations with near
> monopolies.

Let's see - the one's on my s&%t-list this week is Verizon (some monopoly),
the local auto shop that changed the oil on my wife's car (didn't tighten
the oil filter and it leaked all over creation...denied it, too), a
restaurant (non-chain) in North Platte, NE that we stopped at (waitess was
evidently on drugs, as apparently was the manager), the local phone company
(QWEST) that also provides ISP services (changed out an email server at
8:00AM; was going to do it at 1:00AM but they couldn't get it right. They
said nothing was wrong, but a 35 MB file took an hour to download, called
the region office in Minneapolis and they finally admitted the problem).

In sum, crappy service and idiot excuses are not only the domain of large
companies, it's the American attitude.

> The vast majority of small businesses (and most GA
> businesses are small businesses) have good customer service because they
> will die without it.

Hmmm...an FBO as the sole provider at an airport or one other FBO. That
sounds like...well, a monopoly.

>But many FBOs don't - the owner is an enthusiast,
> not someone with business sense or people skills by and large, and it's
> staffed mainly by people who are trying to get into the airlines as fast
> as they can - not people who have any interest in the continued health
> of the business.

And many corporations are run by executives that are trying to run up their
stock options. Bean counters that are trying to pare a nickel here and a
dime there. Ever notice that in the old days it was nickel and dime, now
it's $5 there and $10, or $20 there? Hardly worth complaining about when it
means going through nine levels of phone menus to correct THEIR mistake on
YOUR time.

In any case, it's very short sighted. Maybe we can outsource our whole
economy. Better still, how about outsourcing Congress to China. Hey, it's
"The American Way"!!