Pilots Bailing Out

[[email protected]]

I have received a lot of emails from my customer base since I announced
the shutdown of my flight planning software business. In addition to a
lot of nice supportive emails, I have seen a significant number from
pilots who have informed me that they stopped renewing their update
subscription because they stopped flying, and/or sold their airplane.

The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability
risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11. Losing a medical
certificate was a much smaller number than those that simply quit due
to costs/hassle factor.

How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the
total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
population is growing.

If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going
to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
airlines...

Dean Wilkinson
Razor's Edge Software

[Don Tuite]

On 29 Sep 2006 13:07:24 -0700, wrote:


>How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
>of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the
>total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
>total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
>population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
>population is growing.
>
>If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
>engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
>respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going
>to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
>airlines...

LSA to the rescue?

Don

[[email protected]]

>
> LSA to the rescue?
>
> Don

LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...

Dean

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
> LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
> witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
>
> Dean
>

That is a good question. I believe it will encourage some more pilots,
and a percentage will continue beyond LSA once they realize that you can't
really go places. The better equipped (full IFR?) LSA planes are not
gonna be much cheaper than a decent used Mooney or Cherokee. Wy would
someone spend so much money on a plane that goes 100 Kts with a 500lb payload?

[Robert M. Gary]

What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference, at least I have
not. If anything post-9/11 makes private air travel more benefitial vs.
airlines. I don't think the VLJ market would be what it pre-9/11 when
execs would easily travel by airline.

-Robert


wrote:
> I have received a lot of emails from my customer base since I announced
> the shutdown of my flight planning software business. In addition to a
> lot of nice supportive emails, I have seen a significant number from
> pilots who have informed me that they stopped renewing their update
> subscription because they stopped flying, and/or sold their airplane.
>
> The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability
> risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11. Losing a medical
> certificate was a much smaller number than those that simply quit due
> to costs/hassle factor.
>
> How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the
> total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
> total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
> population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
> population is growing.
>
> If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
> engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
> respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going
> to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
> airlines...
>
> Dean Wilkinson
> Razor's Edge Software

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
> in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference, at least I have
> not.

There are some non-DC airports that have imposed stupid rules. For
example, Massachusetts has a rule where every airplane is supposed
to be locked/secured (e.g., proplock and/or chained to a tie-down).
At KBED, the entire airport is a stupid SIDA where everyone has to
be badged or escorted by a badged person (and it costs money
to get the badge and renew the badge).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
> in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference

Let's see, just as a small sampling of other issues...

Anyone who flies near a naval installation.
Anyone who flies near a sporting event.
Anyone who flies when the President or Vice President is in town.
Anyone who crosses the US border.
Anyone who wants to instruct.
Anyone who wants a new rating.

There are a number of new restrictions post-9/11, and most of them affect
everyone in the US, or a large portion of the flying population in the US.

> [...] If anything post-9/11 makes private air travel more benefitial vs.
> airlines. I don't think the VLJ market would be what it pre-9/11 when
> execs would easily travel by airline.

The people paying for air charters do not have to concern themselves with
the additional restrictions. For them, all they notice is the
less-restrictive atmosphere for passengers.

Conversely, if you're an airline pilot the rules basically didn't change at
all, while air charter pilots have to suffer the same rule changes we all
do.

So whether things got easier or harder really depends on who you're looking
at. But for pilots not flying for the airlines, the answer is things are
harder and more restrictive.

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

Bob Noel wrote:
> There are some non-DC airports that have imposed stupid rules. For
> example, Massachusetts has a rule where every airplane is supposed
> to be locked/secured (e.g., proplock and/or chained to a tie-down).
> At KBED, the entire airport is a stupid SIDA where everyone has to
> be badged or escorted by a badged person (and it costs money
> to get the badge and renew the badge).

That is enough to get you to give up flying!! Having to put a lock on
your airplane! I suspect that if that's all it takes, you were never
much into aviation to start with.

-Robert

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
> > There are some non-DC airports that have imposed stupid rules. For
> > example, Massachusetts has a rule where every airplane is supposed
> > to be locked/secured (e.g., proplock and/or chained to a tie-down).
> > At KBED, the entire airport is a stupid SIDA where everyone has to
> > be badged or escorted by a badged person (and it costs money
> > to get the badge and renew the badge).
>
> That is enough to get you to give up flying!! Having to put a lock on
> your airplane! I suspect that if that's all it takes, you were never
> much into aviation to start with.

1) I haven't given up flying

2) There are more rules than just that useless proplock rule

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Denny]

I am still flying actively... While I can afford the gas it doesn't
mean I enjoy the bill... But sicne 9/11 there are airports I no longer
go to because of the 'new rulz'...

Used to go into Flint, Michigan KFNT, with friends and go to the coffee
shop for breakfast... But they are determined to become a big
jetport... Now there are all kinds of ramp hassles as you walk from GA
parking to the terminal and back... Rent-a-cops who think they own the
world... At one point the line boys had to come and escort the
rent-a-cop off the GA ramp after he followed me out to my plane,
yelling that I was under arrest... He was going to arrest everyone in
sight until one the line boys pulled out a cell phone and called the
police for an 'crazy man on the GA ramp making threats'... Anyway, it
got old and I haven't been there since...

At KMBS where I get my radio work done it is similar... You have to
have someone buzz you through the door... You are supposed to be
escorted everywhere out on the ramp... I was picking up an Aztec
after radio work and was confronted by a fella with an authority
complex... Demanded to see my badge... I politely told him I didn't
have one... He said that I had to come with him for a security check...
At that point I lost my patience, and while I am old and non
confrontational, occasionally the hard nosed 18 year old I used to be,
surfaces - he backed away in a hurry... I finished my preflight and
taxied out... I still go there but only if I have to...

It isn't any one rule that is killing GA, it is death by ten thousand
nicks...

denny

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On 29 Sep 2006 14:31:33 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

>What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
>in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference, at least I have
>not.

As a foreigner there are restrictions. Some actual and some are more a
feeling (hard to explain) - but not only related to GA flying (but this
discussion would turn 'political').

before I spent several grand a year in the US, haven't done that since 2002
(besides my work schedule hasn't allowed much off-time anyway). The US
economy is losing this money, and not only from me. too bad.

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
> in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference, at least I have
> not. If anything post-9/11 makes private air travel more benefitial vs.
> airlines. I don't think the VLJ market would be what it pre-9/11 when
> execs would easily travel by airline.
>
> -Robert
>
>

I don't think you have to live in DC to experience the restrictions.
Presidential TFR, nuclear plans, sport stadiums are all over the
country, and TFRs can pop up with little warning. Nowadays I rarely fly
long trips VFR because I am afraid I might fly over something I am not
supposed to. I go IFR whenever possible. However, your point about
private travel more beneficial vs airlines has become more true after
9/11.

[M[_1_]]

wrote:

>
> The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability
> risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11.

I think the escalating price of 100LL has a lot to do with it. Yes we
all know that the cost of fuel is only small fraction of the cost of
owning a plane, but it's the most in-your-face expenditure that you
feel it every time you fuel up.

What's not helping at all is the price gap of 100LL and regular autogas
is going to further increase in the near future, as the total
consumption of 100LL continues to dwindle. A lot of high end, high
100LL consumption operators are moving to Jet-A burning aircrafts for
its speed and capability (VLJ, turboprop, diesel conversion). The
increase of 100LL price will reduce the flying hours of the low end
market, creating a vicious cycle of escalating price gap between 100LL
and car gas.

In the mean time, I don't see any significant developement in aircraft
engine able to burn E10 autogas.

100LL fuel has a very lousy future, folks. Yes it'll be around
probably 30 years from now, but expect to pay $2/gallon more national
average on 100LL than 87 unleaded in 5 years.

Here're some interesting data of total 100LL production and import from
year 1999 to year 2004 in the U.S:

Year Avgas (thousand barrels)
1999 7485
2000 6648
2001 7121
2002 6584
2003 6255
2004 6295

source:
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/oil_gas/us_supply_monthly.htm

The data in 2005 isn't available, but it'll most likely be below 2004
because that's when the gas price really started to go up (Katrina in
9/05). It won't be surprising to have 2005 total avgas consumption dip
below 6M barrels.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Yes we
> all know that the cost of fuel is only small fraction of the cost of
> owning a plane, but it's the most in-your-face expenditure that you
> feel it every time you fuel up.

Actually, it's a good third of the cost in our club Cherokees.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't think you have to live in DC to experience the restrictions.
> Presidential TFR, nuclear plans, sport stadiums are all over the
> country, and TFRs can pop up with little warning. Nowadays I rarely fly
> long trips VFR because I am afraid I might fly over something I am not
> supposed to. I go IFR whenever possible. However, your point about
> private travel more beneficial vs airlines has become more true after
> 9/11.

I've flown since 1994, and the difference between flying pre-9/11
versus post-9/11 are so insignificant (outside the Washington, D.C.
area) as to be inconsequential.

Here are the only differences Mary and I can think of here in Iowa
City:

1. Stadium TFRs.
We have six or seven home football games at nearby Kinnick Stadium
every year. From one hour prior to one hour after each of these six
games, you cannot fly within 3 miles of the stadium without talking to
nearby Cedar Rapids approach.

2. Presidential TFRs
With the election season coming up, Iowa will soon be infested with
Washington politicians. This means that we'll have to be aware of the
president's position in relation to our travel plans. A phone call to
FSS (or, if you have a Garmin 496, a glance at your screen) will tell
you where they are.

That's it.

If those two occasional inconveniences stop you from flying, you were
looking for an excuse to quit GA long before 9/11.

Personally, I think "die off" has been the biggest GA-killer of them
all. There were a helluva lot of WWII, Korean War, and Viet Nam War
pilots who started flying GA when they got out of the military. The
WWII guys are just about all gone, the Korean War guys are close at
their heels, and even the Viet Nam guys are getting long in the tooth.

There simply aren't enough of us "young" guys to fill their shoes.
Heck, at age 48, I'm NOT supposed to be "one of the young guys" at the
airport...but I am.

Between that, and skyrocketing fuel costs (which, thankfully, have
subsided some), GA is just shrinking. And it's up to those of us who
love it to make sure that this trend is reversed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Sep 2006 15:31:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>Here are the only differences Mary and I can think of here in Iowa
>City:
>
>1. Stadium TFRs.
>2. Presidential TFRs
>That's it.

If you fly near Cedar Rapids, you may be in for a surprise.

[Robert M. Gary]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> 1) I haven't given up flying

Then I don't understand the nature of your post. The OP was talking
about pilots giving up flying and wondering why. You propsed a list of
reasons including locks for planes. I still can't believe having to buy
a prop lock would make someone give up flying.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > What do they mean by "restrictions imposed since 9/11"? Unless you live
> > in D.C. I don't think you will notice a difference
>
> Let's see, just as a small sampling of other issues...
> Anyone who crosses the US border.

Hmm, I've crossed the border from Canada once and Mexico 4 times since
9/11 including 4 months after 9/11 I didn't notice any overt
differences, certainly not anything that would make me want to give up
flying (the subject of this thread). So, tell me, what border changes
have taken place that make you want to give up flying???

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hmm, I've crossed the border from Canada once and Mexico 4 times since
> 9/11 including 4 months after 9/11 I didn't notice any overt
> differences, certainly not anything that would make me want to give up
> flying (the subject of this thread). So, tell me, what border changes
> have taken place that make you want to give up flying???

Who said anything about a specific change making someone want to give up
flying?

The point is that it's not true that "unless you live in D.C. I don't think
you will notice a difference". That was the statement you made, and it's
incorrect.

In addition, collectively the changes do add up to quite a bit of extra work
on the pilot's part.

I'm surprised that you haven't noticed any difference in the rules about
border crossing pre-9/11 versus post-9/11, but the difference is there. You
should review the relevant NOTAMs if you're unclear on the changes.

Pete

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> I'm surprised that you haven't noticed any difference in the rules about
> border crossing pre-9/11 versus post-9/11, but the difference is there. You
> should review the relevant NOTAMs if you're unclear on the changes.

Pete, you forgot to post the frequency you cross the border. Do you
need me to describe the procedures for you? I haven't noticed any
appreciable difference.

-Robert

[NW_Pilot]

I see a unusual amount of 182's on eBay lately!!



> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have received a lot of emails from my customer base since I announced
> the shutdown of my flight planning software business. In addition to a
> lot of nice supportive emails, I have seen a significant number from
> pilots who have informed me that they stopped renewing their update
> subscription because they stopped flying, and/or sold their airplane.
>
> The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability
> risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11. Losing a medical
> certificate was a much smaller number than those that simply quit due
> to costs/hassle factor.
>
> How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the
> total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
> total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
> population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
> population is growing.
>
> If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
> engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
> respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going
> to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
> airlines...
>
> Dean Wilkinson
> Razor's Edge Software
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Pete, you forgot to post the frequency you cross the border.

I didn't forget.

> Do you need me to describe the procedures for you?

No. What ever would make you ask that?

> I haven't noticed any appreciable difference.

Ahh, the old "appreciable" equivocation gambit. Classic refuge of the
backpedaler.

Personally, I find the new requirement to be in continuous contact with ATC,
transmitting an ATC-assigned transponder code during the border crossing to
be a significant and appreciable difference. Perhaps you do not.
Nevertheless, your previous statement had nothing to do with an
"appreciable" difference. You claimed one would not notice ANY difference.
The question of the difference being "appreciable" is irrelevant.

Given that there IS a difference, the pilot who doesn't notice ANY
difference is simply not paying attention.

The bottom line is that restrictions imposed post-9/11 are NOT limited to
affecting pilots flying in the D.C. area. Whether you think those
restrictions are "appreciable" or any other qualifier is irrelevant. The
restrictions DO exist, and at least some pilots find them to represent a
noticeable change in how they fly.

Your own personal view of the restrictions, pertaining only to your own
attitude towards flying, is irrelevant to the question of whether the new
restrictions affect some pilots' attitudes towards flying. You'd need to
show that NO pilot finds the restrictions to be of concern, and you can't do
that.

Pete

[randall g]

On 30 Sep 2006 14:08:52 -0700, "M" > wrote:

>In the mean time, I don't see any significant developement in aircraft
>engine able to burn E10 autogas.
>
>100LL fuel has a very lousy future, folks. Yes it'll be around
>probably 30 years from now, but expect to pay $2/gallon more national
>average on 100LL than 87 unleaded in 5 years.


Computer controlled ignition may do the trick.

www.gami.com
Click "Our Products"
then "GAMI's New PRISM™ Electronic Ignition System."

I just wish they would hurry up with this product!



randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Robert M. Gary]

> > I haven't noticed any appreciable difference.
>
> Ahh, the old "appreciable" equivocation gambit. Classic refuge of the
> backpedaler.


You need to invest in a news reader that can actually go back and look
at posts. My exact quote was "any overt differences". Dictionary.com's
thesaurus shows they both share the synonym of "apparent".

> transmitting an ATC-assigned transponder code during the border crossing to
> be a significant and appreciable difference.

That's not new to 9/11. We've been doing that since well before 9/11.
In fact you can even wave it if necessary. When I was in Mexico 3
months ago I talked to a salvage recovery pilot who said he calls and
get wavers all the time to cross in non-electrical aircraft.


> Nevertheless, your previous statement had nothing to do with an
> "appreciable" difference. You claimed one would not notice ANY difference.
> The question of the difference being "appreciable" is irrelevant.

Again, you need to upgrade your news reader. My original word was
"overt" not "ANY".

> The bottom line is that restrictions imposed post-9/11 are NOT limited to
> affecting pilots flying in the D.C. area. Whether you think those
> restrictions are "appreciable" or any other qualifier is irrelevant. The
> restrictions DO exist, and at least some pilots find them to represent a
> noticeable change in how they fly.

And you are arguing they are enough to make pilots "bail out" of flying
in this thread. I disagree, I'm still flying as are others.

> Your own personal view of the restrictions, pertaining only to your own
> attitude towards flying, is irrelevant to the question of whether the new
> restrictions affect some pilots' attitudes towards flying. You'd need to
> show that NO pilot finds the restrictions to be of concern, and you can't do
> that.

Again, get a better newsreader. The thread is *NOT* about if any pilot
finds the restrictions to be of concern. The thread is about factors
that cause pilots to be "bailing out". When looking for a better
newsreader look for one that includes the Subject of the thread. You'll
notice its "Pilots Bailing Out", not "Pilots finding restrictions of
concern".

-Robert, CFII

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > 1) I haven't given up flying
>
> Then I don't understand the nature of your post. The OP was talking
> about pilots giving up flying and wondering why. You propsed a list of
> reasons including locks for planes. I still can't believe having to buy
> a prop lock would make someone give up flying.

I meant to propose the idiotic prop lock as an example of
the stupid moronic useful "security" rules that are a huge
PITA. I never ever suggested that the prop lock would be
the single reason.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

> How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions?

I haven't seen anyone answer the above question yet... how many pilots
do each of you know personally that have gone inactive due to the cost
of flying going up or because they think it has become too much of a
hassle?

Dean

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

writes:
> > How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> > of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions?
>
> I haven't seen anyone answer the above question yet... how many pilots
> do each of you know personally that have gone inactive due to the cost
> of flying going up or because they think it has become too much of a
> hassle?

I have had to give it up for a while (before getting my license) due
to the cost. But the cost has not gone up, just my other expenses. I
do plan on trying to resume my training in a month or two.

I know more than one person who has failed to complete their license
due to the cost. Flying is a very expensive hobby...

Chris

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You need to invest in a news reader that can actually go back and look
> at posts. My exact quote was "any overt differences".

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Here is the post to which I
replied:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/69c59a7e2e9a75a3?dmode=source

You will note the complete absence of the word "overt" in that post. Adding
the word "overt" later doesn't change the falseness of your original
statement any more than adding the word "appreciable" does.

> That's not new to 9/11. We've been doing that since well before 9/11.

It *is* new to 9/11. Prior to 9/11, I was not required to be in radio
contact with ATC to fly into Canada, nor did I need a squawk code. Opening
the necessary VFR flight plan was sufficient, as far as in-flight
arrangements were concerned.

There is a reason that the radio contact and transponder requirements are
given in a NOTAM. They did not exist prior to 9/11.

> In fact you can even wave it if necessary. When I was in Mexico 3
> months ago I talked to a salvage recovery pilot who said he calls and
> get wavers all the time to cross in non-electrical aircraft.

Yes, it's true...with some additional work, a waiver is possible. So what?
How does that make things *simpler*?

> Again, you need to upgrade your news reader. My original word was
> "overt" not "ANY".

No, that was not your original word.

> And you are arguing they are enough to make pilots "bail out" of flying
> in this thread.

No. I'm pointing out that your statement that only D.C. area pilots are
affected is false.

> I disagree, I'm still flying as are others.

You are well within your rights to disagree. That portion of your post is a
matter of opinion, and there's no right or wrong answer.

The claim that only D.C. pilots have been affected is what is incorrect, and
is not a matter of opinion. It is factually demonstrable to be false.

> Again, get a better newsreader.

Again, take your own advice.

> The thread is *NOT* about if any pilot
> finds the restrictions to be of concern.

My reply to your post was only to address the error in your own post. The
overall theme of the thread is irrelevant.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> If you fly near Cedar Rapids, you may be in for a surprise.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> > of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions?
>
> I haven't seen anyone answer the above question yet... how many pilots
> do each of you know personally that have gone inactive due to the cost
> of flying going up or because they think it has become too much of a
> hassle?

I've met quite a few who claim cost as the reason for hanging it up --
but many of these people quit flying years ago, long before the recent
run-up in fuel costs.

Hassle factor? I don't know any who have quit flying -- or have been
deterred from taking lessons -- because of regulation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Oct 2006 03:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>> If you fly near Cedar Rapids, you may be in for a surprise.
>
>Why?

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/duan.html

http://airspace.nifc.gov/mapping/nifc/index.cfm
3/1655 - ...SPECIAL NOTICE... FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7,
SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, PILOTS CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE
AIRSPACE ABOVE OR IN PROXIMITY TO ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. PILOTS
SHOULD NOT CIRCLE OR LOITER IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH FACILITIES. PILOTS
WHO DO SO CAN EXPECT TO BE INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AT
THEIR DESTINATION AIRPORT AND THE PILOT'S NAME MAY BE ADDED TO THE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) INCIDENT REPORTING
SYSTEM. WIE UNTIL UFN

[Jose[_1_]]

> PILOTS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE OR LOITER
> IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH FACILITIES.

This the general NOTAM, nothing special about Cedar rapids. Circling or
loitering is not the same as overflying (or even "circle to land").

I wonder however if all the IFR procedures have been vetted to see if
holding patterns that might be above such facilities have been moved.

And yes, this is yet another 911 assault on our freedoms. We might as
well export them, we're not using them any more.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[mike regish]

I'm very close to that point. I have had a double whammy in the fuel cost
factor. I have an autogas STC, so I used to go flying for about $12 to $15
an hour-chicken feed even for me. Now those hours are costing upwards of $40
per hour. I can't use the STC because of the recent ethanol mandate. Going
to Block Island used to be about $35 round trip. Now it's close to or over a
hundred.

There are several airports I would have liked to fly into that I won't
because of new rules and there are places I won't go because of new
restrictions and my reliance on a single radio that is currently not
working.

I've put my plane on a tiedown to try to save some money for flying, and I
find the flying to be less enjoyable with the new slew of potential
violations.

I may have to go back to an ultralight or even hang gliding. I've also been
thinking of selling the plane and getting a glider rating.

mike

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
>> How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
>> of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions?
>
> I haven't seen anyone answer the above question yet... how many pilots
> do each of you know personally that have gone inactive due to the cost
> of flying going up or because they think it has become too much of a
> hassle?
>
> Dean
>

[M[_1_]]

This why I think all those GA piston engine/airframe manufacturer are
so short sighted. It doesn't take much redesign on the existing low
compression engines and airframe models to make them able to run
autogas with 10% ethanol. Instead, they're busy churning out planes
and engines that require 100LL. The bottom is going to fall out from
beneath them really soon if they bet their future on 100LL. As I said
earlier, it won't be long before 100LL becomes so much more expensive
than autogas that most people will think twice before buying an
airplane.

mike regish wrote:
> I'm very close to that point. I have had a double whammy in the fuel cost
> factor. I have an autogas STC, so I used to go flying for about $12 to $15
> an hour-chicken feed even for me. Now those hours are costing upwards of $40
> per hour. I can't use the STC because of the recent ethanol mandate. Going
> to Block Island used to be about $35 round trip. Now it's close to or over a
> hundred.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:26:54 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> PILOTS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE OR LOITER
>> IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH FACILITIES.
>
>This the general NOTAM, nothing special about Cedar rapids. Circling or
>loitering is not the same as overflying (or even "circle to land").

My comment was in response to Mr. Honeck's statement:

Here are the only differences Mary and I can think of here in
Iowa City:

1. Stadium TFRs.
2. Presidential TFRs
That's it.

That may be all of the differences they were able to think of, but
they seemed to have overlooked the NOTAM concerning the Cedar Rapids
nuclear reactor near them. Prior to 9/11 this was not an issue.

[Jose[_1_]]

> My comment was in response to Mr. Honeck's statement:
>
> Here are the only differences Mary and I can think of here in
> Iowa City:
>
> 1. Stadium TFRs.
> 2. Presidential TFRs
> That's it.

Jay has proven himself unwilling to consider that something that doesn't
affect him directly does in fact affect the nation as a whole. I would
wonder why he gets so upset when an airport like Meigs closes, because
he hardly used it anyway. I've never used it, why should I care?

Same thing. But it's a waste of breath.

As to the subject line, I have numerous friends and relatives in the DC
area that I hardly get to see because of the idiotic reaction our
administration has had to 911. I do occasionally make the trip, which
requires an hour and a half on the train after landing now that law
abiding American Citizens are not permitted to fly small aircraft near
our own Capitol. Time was I could fly right into National and take in a
show at the Kennedy Center.

fuhgetaboutit

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> I haven't seen anyone answer the above question yet... how many pilots
> do each of you know personally that have gone inactive due to the cost
> of flying going up or because they think it has become too much of a
> hassle?

None.

I have, however, seen many people who over time have changed interests
and priorities, causing them to abandon activities, and I have done so
many times myself. Some people simply do it, but others need an excuse.
For those, these "new hassles" come in handy.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> >> If you fly near Cedar Rapids, you may be in for a surprise.
> >
> >Why?

> 3/1655 - ...SPECIAL NOTICE... FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. EFFECTIVE
> IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7,
> SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, PILOTS CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS
> WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE
> AIRSPACE ABOVE OR IN PROXIMITY TO ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

Yeah, I thought that's what you might mean. Face it, it's a goofy rule
(NO ONE can penetrate a nuke plant with anything less than a
bunker-busting-bomb), but it's hardly a restriction that's going to get
people to quit flying.

And *that* is the topic here.

(BTW: That plant is so far off the beaten trail, I've only over-flown
it once in 9 years, out of something like 900 flights. And THAT was as
a co-pilot.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Jay, they removed the nuke plants from the av charts so the terrorists
cannot find them and loiter around... If you KNOW where they are, it
raises questions... I see a tour of Guantanamo in your future... Big
Brother is watching, you know...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Oct 2006 18:56:17 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

> Face it, it's a goofy rule (NO ONE can penetrate a nuke
>plant with anything less than a bunker-busting-bomb),

Are you aware of how spent fuel is stored?

>but it's hardly a restriction that's going to get
>people to quit flying.

In your area, the nuke plant does not affect your flight planning, but
on the west coast shoreline, south of KSNA, the nuke plant is located
adjacent to Victor 23. A pilot who may inadvertently violate the
NOTAM, and suffers an FAA enforcement action (or a stinger missile),
might consider the experience daunting enough to quit.

[M[_1_]]

The Notam says do not circle or loiter near the Nuclear plants. It'll
be hard pressed to say an aircraft on Victor airway a few thousand feet
above passing over as circle or loitering, considering how high MOCA
usually is on west coast airways.

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> In your area, the nuke plant does not affect your flight planning, but
> on the west coast shoreline, south of KSNA, the nuke plant is located
> adjacent to Victor 23. A pilot who may inadvertently violate the
> NOTAM, and suffers an FAA enforcement action (or a stinger missile),
> might consider the experience daunting enough to quit.

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Oct 2006 08:24:39 -0700, "Denny" > wrote in
m>:

>they removed the nuke plants from the av charts

I found your comment humorous, but you'll find San Onofre still
depicted as a visual reporting point labeled "San Onofre Power Plant"
on the Los Angeles Terminal Chart.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> In your area, the nuke plant does not affect your flight planning, but
> on the west coast shoreline, south of KSNA, the nuke plant is located
> adjacent to Victor 23. A pilot who may inadvertently violate the
> NOTAM, and suffers an FAA enforcement action (or a stinger missile),
> might consider the experience daunting enough to quit.


I live near TWO nuke plants and fly over them all the time. Neither of
them is far from an airport, one plant is near two public airports.
I've never been shot at, or for that matter, even questioned.

The restriction is usually worded as "loiter" or something like that.
One of the plants near me is undergoing decommissioning, and is located
in a practice area used by several local flight schools, so in reality,
planes loiter over it all the time.

Both plants are depicted on the sectional as "stacks".

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Jay, they removed the nuke plants from the av charts so the terrorists
> cannot find them and loiter around... If you KNOW where they are, it
> raises questions... I see a tour of Guantanamo in your future... Big
> Brother is watching, you know...
>
Or, as the "Holiday" season is almost upon us, BIG SANTA is watching you: He
see's you when you're sleeping...he knows when you're awake!!


Matt "Paranoid" Barrow

--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> (BTW: That plant is so far off the beaten trail, I've only over-flown
> it once in 9 years, out of something like 900 flights. And THAT was as
> a co-pilot.)

Awh, come on, Jay... All of Iowa is far off the beaten trail... <grin>

I flew by it a few times when I was up there... It's not like there is
anything interesting to see there... It's a break from the fields of corn
and bean that the rest of Iowa seems to be made up of...

[Jay Honeck]

> In your area, the nuke plant does not affect your flight planning, but
> on the west coast shoreline, south of KSNA, the nuke plant is located
> adjacent to Victor 23. A pilot who may inadvertently violate the
> NOTAM, and suffers an FAA enforcement action (or a stinger missile),
> might consider the experience daunting enough to quit.

What are you flying that is so slow that you can be considered to be
"loitering" whilst traversing a Victor Airway?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy Natalie]

wrote:
> I have received a lot of emails from my customer base since I announced
> the shutdown of my flight planning software business. In addition to a
> lot of nice supportive emails, I have seen a significant number from
> pilots who have informed me that they stopped renewing their update
> subscription because they stopped flying, and/or sold their airplane.
>
> The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability
> risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11. Losing a medical
> certificate was a much smaller number than those that simply quit due
> to costs/hassle factor.
>
> How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
> of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the
> total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
> total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
> population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
> population is growing.
>
> If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
> engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
> respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going
> to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
> airlines...
>
> Dean Wilkinson
> Razor's Edge Software
>
We had friends who used to rent an airplane every weekend and do
something. After 9/11 they bought a boat. We kept in touch for a bit ...

We are in the DC area.

Margy

[Skylune[_2_]]

wrote:
> >
> > LSA to the rescue?
> >
> > Don
>
> LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
> witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
>
> Dean

But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
county". LMAO!!!!

http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/where_fly.html

I suppose, technically, it is true. Technically, you could also travel
cross country by pogo stick.

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 Oct 2006 09:46:20 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote in
. com>:

>
>But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
>county". LMAO!!!!
>
>http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/where_fly.html
>
>I suppose, technically, it is true. Technically, you could also travel
>cross country by pogo stick.

The New York City-based free lance aviation writer/photographer
Russell Munson (probably best known for his pictures in Richard Bach's
Jonathon Livingston Seagull) decided a while back to take his
cherished Piper Super Cub on some journeys of discovery and this DVD
was the result.

http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/mar8-2003/Mn-105-Flying-Route.html

[Jay Honeck]

> > LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
> > witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
>
> But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
> county". LMAO!!!!

Um, Skylune, once again your ignorance is showing. There are a good
number of Light Sport Aircraft with speeds that rival Cherokee 140s or
Cessna 172s -- and those planes are used for cross-country flying every
day.

And flying with an LSA ticket is limited in some ways -- but with
modern navigational tools, it's really child's play to fly
cross-country in the US.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skylune[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 09:46:20 -0700, "Skylune" > wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >
> >But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
> >county". LMAO!!!!
> >
> >http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/where_fly.html
> >
> >I suppose, technically, it is true. Technically, you could also travel
> >cross country by pogo stick.
>
> The New York City-based free lance aviation writer/photographer
> Russell Munson (probably best known for his pictures in Richard Bach's
> Jonathon Livingston Seagull) decided a while back to take his
> cherished Piper Super Cub on some journeys of discovery and this DVD
> was the result.
>
> http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/mar8-2003/Mn-105-Flying-Route.html

Cool that someone would do this. Any DVDs of anyone pogo-sticking
cross country?

[Skylune[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
> > > witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
> >
> > But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
> > county". LMAO!!!!
>
> Um, Skylune, once again your ignorance is showing. There are a good
> number of Light Sport Aircraft with speeds that rival Cherokee 140s or
> Cessna 172s -- and those planes are used for cross-country flying every
> day.
>
> And flying with an LSA ticket is limited in some ways -- but with
> modern navigational tools, it's really child's play to fly
> cross-country in the US.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

In that case, many pilots' ignorance is also showing, since many
question the utility of the LSA.....

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > LSA to the rescue?
>> >
>> > Don
>>
>> LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
>> witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
>>
>> Dean
>
> But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
> county". LMAO!!!!
>
> http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/where_fly.html
>
> I suppose, technically, it is true. Technically, you could also travel
> cross country by pogo stick.
>

What's wrong with the statement. The plane I'm building fits the LSA
requirements and is capable of 138 mph with about 4 hours between fill-ups.
That's 552 miles in a straight line. That way more cross country than my
car.

[mike regish]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> What's wrong with the statement. The plane I'm building fits the LSA
> requirements and is capable of 138 mph with about 4 hours between
> fill-ups. That's 552 miles in a straight line. That way more cross country
> than my car.
>

Or a pogo stick...

mike

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:47:40 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > LSA to the rescue?
>>> >
>>> > Don
>>>
>>> LSA seems suited more for local flying, not cross country. I am still
>>> witholding judgment on what impact LSA will really have...
>>>
>>> Dean
>>
>> But the EAA says you can use your LSA ticket to fly "across the
>> county". LMAO!!!!
>>
Sure nuff. Two of the guys in our chapter flew a newly restored Piper
Vagabond to Sun n' Fun last year.

>> http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/where_fly.html

Nuther member flew a Challenger II to Wyoming.

>>
>> I suppose, technically, it is true. Technically, you could also travel
>> cross country by pogo stick.
>>
>
>What's wrong with the statement. The plane I'm building fits the LSA
>requirements and is capable of 138 mph with about 4 hours between fill-ups.
>That's 552 miles in a straight line. That way more cross country than my
>car.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:14:15 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 1 Oct 2006 03:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>in . com>:
>
>>> If you fly near Cedar Rapids, you may be in for a surprise.
>>
>>Why?
>
>http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/duan.html
>
>http://airspace.nifc.gov/mapping/nifc/index.cfm
>3/1655 - ...SPECIAL NOTICE... FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. EFFECTIVE
>IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7,
>SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, PILOTS CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS
>WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE
>AIRSPACE ABOVE OR IN PROXIMITY TO ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. PILOTS
>SHOULD NOT CIRCLE OR LOITER IN THE VICINITY OF SUCH FACILITIES. PILOTS
>WHO DO SO CAN EXPECT TO BE INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AT
>THEIR DESTINATION AIRPORT AND THE PILOT'S NAME MAY BE ADDED TO THE
>TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) INCIDENT REPORTING
>SYSTEM. WIE UNTIL UFN


When I go down south of Chicago from here my flight path takes me
close enough to throw a rock at a nuke plant on southern Lake
Michigan. One of the routes to OSH across Lake Michigan takes you
right over one. Admittedly I am at 4000 MSL or above. A lot above
when west bound.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 2 Oct 2006 08:24:39 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>Jay, they removed the nuke plants from the av charts so the terrorists
>cannot find them and loiter around... If you KNOW where they are, it

You have sectionals that new?

>raises questions... I see a tour of Guantanamo in your future... Big
>Brother is watching, you know...
>
>denny
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Emily]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2006 08:24:39 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:
>
>> Jay, they removed the nuke plants from the av charts so the terrorists
>> cannot find them and loiter around... If you KNOW where they are, it
>
> You have sectionals that new?

Guess I missed Jay's post, but have to ask - they really removed them
from charts? Like terrorists are too stupid to use the internet or
something?

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:06:45 -0500, Emily
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2006 08:24:39 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:
>>
>>> Jay, they removed the nuke plants from the av charts so the terrorists
>>> cannot find them and loiter around... If you KNOW where they are, it
>>
>> You have sectionals that new?
>
>Guess I missed Jay's post, but have to ask - they really removed them
>from charts? Like terrorists are too stupid to use the internet or
>something?

They never were on charts, except for restricted areas, but if you use
http://airspace.nifc.gov/mapping/nifc/index.cfm
to find TFRs, the government will overlay them on charts for you.

Don

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 29 Sep 2006 13:07:24 -0700, wrote:

>I have received a lot of emails from my customer base since I announced
>the shutdown of my flight planning software business. In addition to a
>lot of nice supportive emails, I have seen a significant number from
>pilots who have informed me that they stopped renewing their update
>subscription because they stopped flying, and/or sold their airplane.
>
>The main reason given was the higher cost of fuel and the liability

I really think that is just an excuse except for those who were
already flying on a shoe string. Gas is still the cheapest part of
flying. The amount of disposable income is something else and may have
a greater impact than just the price of avgas.

I'm retired, but I have not considered the price of gas to be of great
concern. Not when I look at the overall cost of flying.

>risk/airspace restrictions imposed since 9/11. Losing a medical

Outside of a few high profile spots and airports where management has
let things go to their heads I don't think a lot has changed from the
regulation stand point. Yes, when flying cross country to a new
airport I want to know what to expect. I do feel uncomfortable going
into larger airports such as those out east where idiot politicians
have over reacted. I like to fly into Jefco (BJC) out in Colorado,
but I haven't been there in a few years so I don't know what to
expect. They have an interesting bump in base for runway 09.

Locally at MBS they were requiring an escort to and from your plane.
The last few times I was out there they just buzzed me through the
door. I even had to walk across the ramp all the way to the fuel shack
which is half way to the terminal building from the FBO. No one
hasseled me for that.

>certificate was a much smaller number than those that simply quit due
>to costs/hassle factor.
>
>How many of you are know pilots that have given up flying as a result
>of the increasing cost of flying and the new restrictions? Is the

I can not think of any. I know of quite a few who don't fly as much
as they did, but we still have an active group. There are, I believe,
17 projects underway at the local airport from a Challenger II to a
turbocharged Glasair III. No, mine is not turbocharged. There is also
a Super II which is one on the nicest pieces of workmanship I've seen.

>total active pilot headcount shrinking? By how much? Even if the
>total pilot population holds at its current level, the % of the U.S.
>population that is pilot rated is declining since the overall
>population is growing.
>
>If this trend is real, then it would appear that indeed single piston
>engine GA is slowly dying in the U.S. Growth in the VLJ market
>respresents a different kind of GA, and tells me that aviation is going

I don't think the VLJ is going to amount to much. There will be the
initial rush for those who can afford them and can put up with the
lack of room in a VLJ. Those in that price bracket are going to want
more room even if it has a prop on the front of a PT-6 or takes
another 10 million to get the room, comfort, and range

>to become the domain of the wealthy individual, corporations, and the
>airlines...

Not just the sport pilot, but with the large numbers of quality home
builts turning up there are going to be a lot of used fairly high
performance singles coming on the market that will be relatively
economical to fly.

I think a major portion to the answer for GA's woes is going to come
from the home built area and sport aircraft, but not necessarily the
sport pilot's license.

There is a market for a wide range of GA aircraft. A prime example is
the Sirrus. They've sold over 2,000 of the things already and I think
they run a tad over $400,000 or at least in the neighborhood.

>
>Dean Wilkinson
>Razor's Edge Software
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > You need to invest in a news reader that can actually go back and look
> > at posts. My exact quote was "any overt differences".
>
> Perhaps you should take your own advice. Here is the post to which I
> replied:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/69c59a7e2e9a75a3?dmode=source
>
> You will note the complete absence of the word "overt" in that post. Adding
> the word "overt" later doesn't change the falseness of your original
> statement any more than adding the word "appreciable" does.

Oh, so you want to go back 4 posts. Ok, then my quote was ...
" I don't think you will notice a difference ". Since I have not
noticed a difference in the way I fly, in my ability to fly where I
want, in crossing the border, I suspect the OP will not either.

> > I disagree, I'm still flying as are others.
>
> You are well within your rights to disagree. That portion of your post is a
> matter of opinion, and there's no right or wrong answer.
>
> The claim that only D.C. pilots have been affected is what is incorrect, and
> is not a matter of opinion. It is factually demonstrable to be false.

My claim is that "I don't think you will notice a difference", for
those outside of D.C, which is certainly true.

> My reply to your post was only to address the error in your own post. The
> overall theme of the thread is irrelevant.

The theme of the posts is pilots leaving aviation. That has always been
the theme. You tried to change the theme to "pilots bitching about ANY
change since 9/11" and then took all my posts out of context. The
context of all my posts has always been "Pilots Bailing Out". I still
hold that for those outside of D.C. there have not been enough changes
to justify the belief that post-9/11 is causing a outflux of pilots.

-Robert, CFII