Common instruments on small aircraft

[Mxsmanic]

Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots, GPS
units, and EHSI displays? What about a radar altimeter? The Baron I
fly in simulation is equipped with these (as is the A36), but fancy
instruments are free in simulation, so I'm wondering how likely one is
to have them in real life.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots, GPS
> units, and EHSI displays? What about a radar altimeter? The Baron I
> fly in simulation is equipped with these (as is the A36), but fancy
> instruments are free in simulation, so I'm wondering how likely one is
> to have them in real life.
>
You can have anything you want in a small aircraft if you have the money
and are willing to accept the trade-offs.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You can have anything you want in a small aircraft if you have the money
> and are willing to accept the trade-offs.

Understood. But I was wondering about what you're likely to encounter
if you're renting an aircraft, or training in an aircraft. What kind
of equipment do rentals usually have, and what kind of equipment is
usually found in aircraft used for pilot training?

Put another way, am I being spoiled by an EHSI and GPS and weather
radar and a multi-axis autopilot in my sim GA aircraft?

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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Put another way, am I being spoiled by an EHSI and GPS and weather
> radar and a multi-axis autopilot in my sim GA aircraft?
>

No, you are not being spoiled by flying a sim - you are missing out.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matt Barrow]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:5qydnZ_59p0sv6fYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> Put another way, am I being spoiled by an EHSI and GPS and weather
>> radar and a multi-axis autopilot in my sim GA aircraft?
>>
>
> No, you are not being spoiled by flying a sim - you are missing out.
>
It's much more fun driving, say, a Nissan 350Z, than slot cars or go-karts.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I'm wondering how likely one is
> to have them in real life.

Not very

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots, GPS
> units, and EHSI displays? What about a radar altimeter?

The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one NAV.
It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I bought a
handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But they sold that
flight school and I don't think you can rent those planes anymore.

Later I switched to a Cessna dealer who rented out all new (1999 or later)
model Cessnas. They all had 2 radios, 2 navs, built-in GPS and Autopilot.
Some had add-ons like an HSI or a large screen display. One even had
weather. The flight school would charge slightly more for the planes with
the add-ons, I think about $10/hr more. From what I hear, they now have a
couple of G1000 planes as well that they rent out with a special checkout
and for a slightly higher price as well, but I haven't flown them.

Then I joined a flight club. All the planes in the flight club have similar
equipment - 2 nav/coms, Autopilot, GPS. The club has 2 Archers, 3 Arrows,
and 3 Bonanzas, with nearly identical panels. The Bonanzas, as "travel"
planes, have some add-ons like HSIs, and one has a StrikeFinder. The
airframes aren't brand new like at the Cessna Dealer, but they are clean,
well maintained, include modern avionics, and the price and availability
are worth it.

My field also has a couple of share programs for people who want to buy a
share of plane. Cirrus is big on this, but OurPlane is one who I believe
also markets Cessna 182 shares. I believe those planes are all brand new
planes with G1000 systems.

I have never flown with a Radar Altimiter, nor even seen one. Based on your
messages, I believe your Baron simulation does not accurately reflect the
typical flight experience of a Private Pilot in the US. Perhaps it is
modeled after some other flight experience.

[Gene Seibel]

In our 1966 Cherokee 180:
No autopilot.
No radar altimeter.
No HSI
Two navcoms
One ADF
One Transponder
No panel GPS - use a handheld.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots, GPS
> units, and EHSI displays? What about a radar altimeter? The Baron I
> fly in simulation is equipped with these (as is the A36), but fancy
> instruments are free in simulation, so I'm wondering how likely one is
> to have them in real life.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
> news:5qydnZ_59p0sv6fYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <...>
>>> Put another way, am I being spoiled by an EHSI and GPS and weather
>>> radar and a multi-axis autopilot in my sim GA aircraft?
>>>
>>
>> No, you are not being spoiled by flying a sim - you are missing out.
>>
> It's much more fun driving, say, a Nissan 350Z, than slot cars or
> go-karts.

DRIVING a go-cart is WAY more fun than watching one on TV...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots,
....
> The Baron I fly in simulation is equipped with these

Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...

Stefan

[Judah]

Stefan > wrote in news:aba8b$453a578c$54497ec8$24035
@news.hispeed.ch:

> Mxsmanic schrieb:
>
>> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots,
> ...
>> The Baron I fly in simulation is equipped with these
>
> Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...
>
> Stefan
>

Only when in 16x mode

[Judah]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Stefan > wrote in
> news:aba8b$453a578c$54497ec8$24035 @news.hispeed.ch:
>
>> Mxsmanic schrieb:
>>
>>> Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like autopilots,
>> ...
>>> The Baron I fly in simulation is equipped with these
>>
>> Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
> Only when in 16x mode
>

Oh, and Manic, so you don't have to ask... No, the GA Aircraft that I fly
do not have a 16x mode button which causes time to travel at 16x normal. I
heard that NASA and the Military had worked on one in the early 70s, but
the results were just too upsetting to tolerate because they had limited
control of the speed at which time travelled. All three times that they
tried it, the Pilots of that craft found themselves on a planet that was
controlled by talking Apes.

"Damn them!!! Damn them all to hell!!!"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote

> Oh, and Manic, so you don't have to ask... No, the GA Aircraft that I fly
> do not have a 16x mode button which causes time to travel at 16x normal. I
> heard that NASA and the Military had worked on one in the early 70s, but
> the results were just too upsetting to tolerate because they had limited
> control of the speed at which time travelled. All three times that they
> tried it, the Pilots of that craft found themselves on a planet that was
> controlled by talking Apes.
>
> "Damn them!!! Damn them all to hell!!!"

LOL! Perfect. You anticipated the next question, and saved an extra post!

Sad, but true.

Still, there are those among us who say he is asking good questions, and to not
discourage him. Hmmmm.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> It's much more fun driving, say, a Nissan 350Z, than slot cars or go-karts.

An interesting analogy. Is it more fun to drive the Nissan on city
streets in traffic, following all the rules, or is it more fun to ride
go-karts on a private track where you can go faster and maneuver more
and where there are fewer unpleasant rules?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one NAV.
> It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I bought a
> handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But they sold that
> flight school and I don't think you can rent those planes anymore.

I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.

> From what I hear, they now have a
> couple of G1000 planes as well that they rent out with a special checkout
> and for a slightly higher price as well, but I haven't flown them.

Hmm ... I'd be worried in a plane like that, too, but not for the same
reasons.

> Then I joined a flight club. All the planes in the flight club have similar
> equipment - 2 nav/coms, Autopilot, GPS. The club has 2 Archers, 3 Arrows,
> and 3 Bonanzas, with nearly identical panels. The Bonanzas, as "travel"
> planes, have some add-ons like HSIs, and one has a StrikeFinder. The
> airframes aren't brand new like at the Cessna Dealer, but they are clean,
> well maintained, include modern avionics, and the price and availability
> are worth it.

Those sound nice.

> I have never flown with a Radar Altimiter, nor even seen one. Based on your
> messages, I believe your Baron simulation does not accurately reflect the
> typical flight experience of a Private Pilot in the US. Perhaps it is
> modeled after some other flight experience.

The Baron simulation seems to accurately simulate Barons, but from
what I understand, the Baron is an upscale aircraft with a high price
tag, and thus is probably not representative of other private
aircraft. The A36 simulation includes similar avionics (better
weather radar but no radar altimeter), which I suspect is better
equipment than many of the real ones have.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...

I enjoy it, especially in large aircraft, and autopilot is a great
advantage on long trips.

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

[Steven Barnes]

So is the "speed up the world 32 times" option. I'm waiting for my A&P to
get a bid for one on my real airplane...


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stefan writes:
>
> > Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...
>
> I enjoy it, especially in large aircraft, and autopilot is a great
> advantage on long trips.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Matt Barrow writes:
>
>> It's much more fun driving, say, a Nissan 350Z, than slot cars or go-karts.
>
>An interesting analogy. Is it more fun to drive the Nissan on city
>streets in traffic, following all the rules, or is it more fun to ride
>go-karts on a private track where you can go faster and maneuver more
>and where there are fewer unpleasant rules?

If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.

Same thing for an airplane. An airplane can take you to all sorts of
interesting, educational, entertaining, profitable places.

With the simulator, no matter where you go, there you are.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Steven Barnes writes:

> So is the "speed up the world 32 times" option.

Agreed. It's one of the advantages of simulation. Although it does
seem a bit like cheating.

In practice, I usually just go on flights that are of an acceptable
duration in real time, and then fly them in real time. It's true that
small aircraft take a long time to get anywhere compared to large
jets--but then again they often seem to be much faster than cars (even
though their actual speed over the ground isn't that much greater).

For example, driving from Phoenix to the Grand Canyon takes hours, but
I can be there in about 45 minutes in a Baron.

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

[Jim Macklin]

To see what is common in REAL aircraft, see on-line ads for
selling REAL airplanes and check-out the manufactures'
webpages.
Beech Baron and Bonanza are the top of the price and quality
in piston airplanes. The latest avionics are very common.
On the other-hand, a 50 year old Bonanza or 30 year old
Baron may have been updated with the latest, or keep stock
as a classic.
A J3 Cub barely has instruments or the capacity to carry the
weight and probably doesn't have an electrical system to
supply power. A new Legacy Cub may have a "glass cockpit"
using panel mounted hand-held units.



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
| Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
|
| > Are small GA aircraft often equipped with things like
autopilots, GPS
| > units, and EHSI displays? What about a radar altimeter?
The Baron I
| > fly in simulation is equipped with these (as is the
A36), but fancy
| > instruments are free in simulation, so I'm wondering how
likely one is
| > to have them in real life.
| >
| You can have anything you want in a small aircraft if you
have the money
| and are willing to accept the trade-offs.
|
| Neil
|
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
> You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
> interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
> if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.

That part doesn't apply to a plane.

> Same thing for an airplane. An airplane can take you to all sorts of
> interesting, educational, entertaining, profitable places.

Using general aviation for transportation is very different from using
it for leisure. When you use it for leisure, you can afford to wait
for good weather and you can be happy going anywhere. When you use it
for transportation, you cannot afford to wait for good weather and you
have to go to specific places.

> With the simulator, no matter where you go, there you are.

Which is where I want to be. I hate travel.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one
>> NAV. It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I
>> bought a handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But
>> they sold that flight school and I don't think you can rent those
>> planes anymore.
>
> I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.

Worried about what, exactly?

>> From what I hear, they now have a
>> couple of G1000 planes as well that they rent out with a special
>> checkout and for a slightly higher price as well, but I haven't flown
>> them.
>
> Hmm ... I'd be worried in a plane like that, too, but not for the same
> reasons.

Worried about what, exactly?

>> Then I joined a flight club. All the planes in the flight club have
>> similar equipment - 2 nav/coms, Autopilot, GPS. The club has 2 Archers,
>> 3 Arrows, and 3 Bonanzas, with nearly identical panels. The Bonanzas,
>> as "travel" planes, have some add-ons like HSIs, and one has a
>> StrikeFinder. The airframes aren't brand new like at the Cessna Dealer,
>> but they are clean, well maintained, include modern avionics, and the
>> price and availability are worth it.
>
> Those sound nice.

I have to say, they are nice. I enjoy the club planes very much. Great
planes with a great pricetag.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> In practice, I usually just go on flights that are of an acceptable
> duration in real time, and then fly them in real time. It's true that
> small aircraft take a long time to get anywhere compared to large
> jets--but then again they often seem to be much faster than cars (even
> though their actual speed over the ground isn't that much greater).
>
> For example, driving from Phoenix to the Grand Canyon takes hours, but
> I can be there in about 45 minutes in a Baron.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Cruising Speed of a Baron is about 175 -
185Kts, or about 200-215MPH. The speed limit on most US Highways is 65-75MPH.
In no-wind conditions, if both vehicles are travelling in a straight line
(rare for IFR aircraft, but even rarer for vehicles on the ground) the Baron
is faster by nearly a factor of 3. Perhaps you are not flying the Baron
properly to achieve maximum performance.

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote
>
>> Oh, and Manic, so you don't have to ask... No, the GA Aircraft that I
>> fly do not have a 16x mode button which causes time to travel at 16x
>> normal. I heard that NASA and the Military had worked on one in the
>> early 70s, but the results were just too upsetting to tolerate because
>> they had limited control of the speed at which time travelled. All
>> three times that they tried it, the Pilots of that craft found
>> themselves on a planet that was controlled by talking Apes.
>>
>> "Damn them!!! Damn them all to hell!!!"
>
> LOL! Perfect. You anticipated the next question, and saved an extra
> post!
>
> Sad, but true.
>
> Still, there are those among us who say he is asking good questions, and
> to not discourage him. Hmmmm.

A small number of his questions might actually allow someone to learn from
others' experience.

Typically, though, he is just looking for validation of his simulator
experience, or his decision to avoid actual flight, and that's when I start
to get annoyed.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote

> A small number of his questions might actually allow someone to learn from
> others' experience.

You are really reaching for it, when you use <might> in the above sentence.

MOST of his questions are unnecessary, argumentative, have already been
answered in previous threads, or just plain dumb. We can do without his
questions. Are you sure that continuing the dialogue with him is what you want
to be doing?

Did you read the post from Dudley in today's postings? He hit the nail on the
head. In short, Dudley said the guy is one of the best trolls he has seen in a
long time. As usual, Dudley is right on. He goes on to say that he is so good,
because he gets people like you to post in response to him, and people like me
to say it is the wrong thing to do.

I really want to quit doing this. I want the troll to go away. Do you? You
know what to do. Do the right thing.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:02:49 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Judah writes:
>
> > The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one NAV.
> > It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I bought a
> > handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But they sold that
> > flight school and I don't think you can rent those planes anymore.
>
> I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.

Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:

http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)
******************************************

I can't help but notice that your "fun" meter is pegged, even while it is
sitting on the ground. You really need to get that thing worked on. It should
not move off the bottom peg at least until you start the engine, and not peg
until you get airborn.

You never know when you are going to get a ramp inspection, and have an
inspector ground you for having a necessary instrument being inoperative.

Please attend to this, at your earliest convenience. I will be alerting your
local FAA inspectors to the problem, for your safety, of course.

Sincerely;
Jim in NC

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> Did you read the post from Dudley in today's postings? He hit the nail on the
> head. In short, Dudley said the guy is one of the best trolls he has seen in a
> long time. As usual, Dudley is right on.

I would say he's not. Having been a sysop on Compuserve back in the
80's, and on the net for decades, and having got into some decent
trolling and flamewars, I'd say that he's not a troll. But I would
say that those who get annoyed at him should seriously get a life
before they get angry and hit a kid, or kill someone in their plane,
when they lose their temper over the least little things.

See, I have a younger brother who's a nuclear engineer with a zillion
degrees. He has a dry sense of humor, takes little offense or even
recognition of other people at times, and will ask questions but keep
his opinion even when he's dead wrong. In short, his messages are very
similar to Mxsmanics. But he's an okay guy, really.

So I think he's just the way he is, and IMO people who post offensive
replies to him show us far more about their own limitations than his.
I'm sure they're nice people in person, but you really couldn't tell
from their harsh and really unfunny replies.

Regards, Kev

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> In practice, I usually just go on flights that are of an acceptable
>> duration in real time, and then fly them in real time. It's true that
>> small aircraft take a long time to get anywhere compared to large
>> jets--but then again they often seem to be much faster than cars (even
>> though their actual speed over the ground isn't that much greater).
>>
>> For example, driving from Phoenix to the Grand Canyon takes hours, but
>> I can be there in about 45 minutes in a Baron.
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe the Cruising Speed of a Baron is about
> 175 -
> 185Kts, or about 200-215MPH. The speed limit on most US Highways is
> 65-75MPH.
> In no-wind conditions, if both vehicles are travelling in a straight line
> (rare for IFR aircraft, but even rarer for vehicles on the ground) the
> Baron
> is faster by nearly a factor of 3. Perhaps you are not flying the Baron
> properly to achieve maximum performance.

His Baron goes nowhere.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote

> But I would
> say that those who get annoyed at him should seriously get a life
> before they get angry and hit a kid, or kill someone in their plane,
> when they lose their temper over the least little things.

"I" would say you are way out of line, comparing somone who gets annoyed at
"him", to a person that loses their temper and hits a kid, or kills someone in
their plane, when they lose their temper over the least little thing.

WAY over the line, out of line.

> See, I have a younger brother who's a nuclear engineer with a zillion
> degrees. He has a dry sense of humor, takes little offense or even
> recognition of other people at times, and will ask questions but keep
> his opinion even when he's dead wrong.

I teach high school kids. Believe me when I tell you I come across people like
your brother all of the time. The difference is, they have a real interest in
the subject they are asking about. This guy does not.

This is a group about flying airplanes, not simulator games. Real airplanes. He
has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in flying a real plane, and does
not see why anyone would feel the need to fly a real airplane. His questions
belong in a simulator group, and could be answered by the people in that group
that are also real pilots, and have real knowlege about the things he wants to
know. His questions are only annoying in this group, since they have no place
here.

> In short, his messages are very similar to Mxsmanics. But he's an okay guy,
> really.

I'm glad. It is possible that this guy is a okay guy in person, also. I don't
know, because I have never met him.

Their is another big difference, between the comparison you make to your
brother, and the questions he asks, and you answer. At some point, you have
control over what you choose to answer, and when to ignore, or redirect the
questions. There is no such choice, here.

It is like a non smoker (you) sitting in a public place, having a conversation
with a friend, and he (a smoker) comes up, sits down, and lights up. The breeze
is blowing the smoke all over both of you. You have a very easy choice to make.
Get up and move if you don't like it. You continue your conversation, and he
gets up and moves, so he can join the conversation, and continues to let his
smoke blow all over both of you, again.

What do you do? Would you continue to move, and have him follow? He does have
the right to be ther and smoke, right?

I doubt that you would remain silent, nor would most people. Yet you say it is
not right to object to his questions, and interuptions, and outright domination
of the subjects.

If the people of a locality decide that this public place that he is smoking in,
is offending too many people, they can get an issue put on a ballot, and a vote
takes place removing the right of the smoker to light up in this place.

We are the non smokers. We can not make it a violation for him to post (light
up) here, so we have to put up with it. Does that make it right? No. All we
can do is ask (as a majority) that he take his questions (smoke) elsewhere. I
have to believe that you are in the minority, and if it were possibble to vote
on it, he would be asked to leave.

If you want to answer his questions, go over to the sim group, when he moves
over there to ask his questions. You have the option of going into the smoking
room with him, if you choose.

> So I think he's just the way he is, and IMO people who post offensive
> replies to him show us far more about their own limitations than his.
> I'm sure they're nice people in person, but you really couldn't tell
> from their harsh and really unfunny replies.

Some have been offensive, yes. That is the nature of usenet. I believe that
although I have been vocal, in most cases I have not been vulgar, or overly
offensive. Some have. So what? It says nothing abut them, other than the fact
that they are extremely frustrated and annoyed by the continued invasion, by a
troll. I've been in this group for somewhere around 7 years, and I have never
seen anything close to what this guy has been doing. Nothing even similar to
draw a comparison. It is no wonder that people are frustrated. I am pretty
laid back, and as you can probably tell, I'm frustrated.

Very frustrated.
--
Jim in NC

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:51:49 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:23:37 GMT, RK Henry
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>An interesting analogy. Is it more fun to drive the Nissan on city
>>>streets in traffic, following all the rules, or is it more fun to ride
>>>go-karts on a private track where you can go faster and maneuver more
>>>and where there are fewer unpleasant rules?
>>
>>If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
>>You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
>>interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
>>if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.
>
>Having driven on an actual race track (Lime Rock Park & Stafford Motor
>Speedway), I pick option "C":
>
>Drive on the track, and then take out the lady...
>
>Track vs. street? I'll take the kart on the track, and take the lady
>somewhere later! <G>

But what if the lady is one of the racers?
I've been warned about fast women.
And then there are the ones who fly airplanes...
<G>

RK Henry

[RK Henry]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:57:00 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> If we're restricted to those choices, the Nissan would be more fun.
>> You can go to the beach, the mountains, the movies, the museum, other
>> interesting places where you can see things and meet other people. And
>> if you do meet someone, the Nissan has a place for her to sit.
>
>That part doesn't apply to a plane.

Which parts? Why not?

>> Same thing for an airplane. An airplane can take you to all sorts of
>> interesting, educational, entertaining, profitable places.
>
>Using general aviation for transportation is very different from using
>for good weather and you can be happy going anywhere. When you use it
>it for leisure. When you use it for leisure, you can afford to wait
>for transportation, you cannot afford to wait for good weather and you
>have to go to specific places.

No it isn't.

General aviation can be used very effectively for both business and
leisure transportation. Unless one lives in a place with almost
perpetually bad weather, VFR weather prevails so much of the time that
the airplane can be a very effective transportation tool. The ability
to go IFR, which is commonplace for many GA pilots and for the GA
fleet, adds a bit more to utility, making an airplane usable under an
even wider range of conditions. Better equipped aircraft can extend
that capability further, but those capabilities only extend the
percentage of flyable conditions by just a few more basis points. Many
kinds of weather conditions are transient, and waits of only a few
minutes to a few hours may be sufficient to bring weather good enough
to make the flight. Most of the time, the skies are clear enough to
fly where you want to go.

While airlines are very well equipped with the latest technology,
there are some kinds of weather that even they won't attempt. There's
really no such thing as an "All-Weather" aircraft.

It's sometimes amusing to observe those weather conditions that you
can fly in a GA airplane when ground transportation is difficult or
impossible. It's also interesting to note that there are weather
conditions that can be legally (if not wisely) flown in a GA aircraft
when the airlines are grounded (in the U.S.).

RK Henry

[Alt Beer]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:02:49 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Judah writes:
> >
> > > The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one
NAV.
> > > It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I bought
a
> > > handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But they sold
that
> > > flight school and I don't think you can rent those planes anymore.
> >
> > I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.
>
> Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja


Looks like an IC-T8 ham rig on the panel.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> Which parts? Why not?

Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these places don't
have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather than a plane.

> General aviation can be used very effectively for both business and
> leisure transportation. Unless one lives in a place with almost
> perpetually bad weather, VFR weather prevails so much of the time that
> the airplane can be a very effective transportation tool. The ability
> to go IFR, which is commonplace for many GA pilots and for the GA
> fleet, adds a bit more to utility, making an airplane usable under an
> even wider range of conditions.

I've consistently heard that if you plan to take trips on a schedule
and with any significant length, you'll need to plan on flying IFR,
which not everyone can do. There are few areas where the weather is
consistently clear and perfect over long distances. Deserts are one
such type of place, but they have disadvantages of their own
(desolation and extreme heat, for example).

Plus you need to be able to handle potential icing issues, just in
case.

If you don't have an IFR rating and the ability to deal with icing,
plus (preferably) an ability to fly at fairly high altitudes over
weather, your prospects for real travel on a schedule are limited.
You cannot say, for example, "let's fly to Portland on Saturday,"
because you don't know if weather will permit it, and your guest
passenger may not be too happy if you cancel things due to weather at
the last minute.

> Better equipped aircraft can extend
> that capability further, but those capabilities only extend the
> percentage of flyable conditions by just a few more basis points. Many
> kinds of weather conditions are transient, and waits of only a few
> minutes to a few hours may be sufficient to bring weather good enough
> to make the flight.

The same time periods might abruptly put you back into bad weather.
And if the flight lasts three hours and covers a substantial distance,
a lot can happen.

Lately, every time I try to fly around KSEA (in a sim--but the sim
picks up real-world weather in real time), it's IFR. Yesterday it was
so bad that I couldn't see the runway even from 100 feet away; that
flight ended tragically.

> While airlines are very well equipped with the latest technology,
> there are some kinds of weather that even they won't attempt. There's
> really no such thing as an "All-Weather" aircraft.

Certainly, but airliners are so well equipped that there are few
situations that truly ground them or require diversions. Sometimes
they get overconfident.

> It's sometimes amusing to observe those weather conditions that you
> can fly in a GA airplane when ground transportation is difficult or
> impossible.

Point taken. Certainly there is no way to drive a car with zero
visibility. And aircraft are not bothered by snow on the ground. I'm
not sure how rain affects GA aircraft (?). I don't know much about
the risks of extreme heat or cold in GA, either (?).

> It's also interesting to note that there are weather
> conditions that can be legally (if not wisely) flown in a GA aircraft
> when the airlines are grounded (in the U.S.).

Hmm ... which ones?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Judah writes:
> >
> >> The first plane I trained in was as basic as they get - one radio, one
> >> NAV. It was adequate as a trainer, and even for renting (although I
> >> bought a handheld GPS after I started renting more frequently). But
> >> they sold that flight school and I don't think you can rent those
> >> planes anymore.
> >
> > I think I'd be worried in a plane like that.
>
> Worried about what, exactly?

A lack of redundancy. Also, to determine your position exactly with
navaids, you either need two of them or some sort of distance
information, e.g., 1 VOR+DME, or 2 VORs.

Yes, I know that you might be flying routinely in VMC and might be
able to just look out the window, but I like to have reliable backup
for my own, highly subjective determinations of where I am.

I tried flying from Phoenix to KSAN not long ago by following the
interstates, but I didn't realize until I saw Palm Springs below that
I was following the wrong interstate. Granted, this was simulation,
and you might say that real life provides a clearer picture on the
ground than simulation, but I think all interstates look very similar,
and I might well make the same mistake in real life (essentially just
one of following I-10 instead of whatever leads to San Diego).

> Worried about what, exactly?

Failure of insufficiently tested all-in-one avionics. It's best to
minmize the number of tools or instruments that have
interdependencies.

> I have to say, they are nice. I enjoy the club planes very much. Great
> planes with a great pricetag.

How do they afford it? Somebody must have paid for all that gear up
front at some point. Who owns the aircraft?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)

Where are the cabin pressure controls and the FMCs?

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

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:53:24 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
> >
> > Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:
> >
> > http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
>
> I can't help but notice that your "fun" meter is pegged, even while it is
> sitting on the ground. You really need to get that thing worked on. It should
> not move off the bottom peg at least until you start the engine, and not peg
> until you get airborn.

It's a *recording* fun meter, like a G-Meter. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> I'm sure they're nice people in person, but you really couldn't tell
> from their harsh and really unfunny replies.

USENET is like alcohol, in that it causes people to reveal their real
personalities.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> "I" would say you are way out of line, comparing somone who gets annoyed at
> "him", to a person that loses their temper and hits a kid, or kills someone in
> their plane, when they lose their temper over the least little thing.
>
> WAY over the line, out of line.

In fact, you are demonstrating his point, both with your attitude
above and with your three-page post on a question of personality
rather than the topic under discussion.

People who get angry or flustered over a simple text exchange on
USENET can be a lot more dangerous in real life. The same personality
dynamics are at work in both cases. The person who can't tolerate
disagreement in a simple online exchange may not wish to agree with
established rules of flight or instruments, either, and may feel
inclined to hit people who disagree with him and are within arm's
reach.

People who are immune to this do not engage in personal attacks, and
write posts on the subject at hand, not long essays on the people they
dislike. These personality characteristics, both positive and
negative, carry over into life outside cyberspace.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I could be wrong, but I believe the Cruising Speed of a Baron is about 175 -
> 185Kts, or about 200-215MPH.

I get a ground speed of about 195-200 kts in many cases, which would
be as much as 230 mph.

> The speed limit on most US Highways is 65-75MPH.
> In no-wind conditions, if both vehicles are travelling in a straight line
> (rare for IFR aircraft, but even rarer for vehicles on the ground) the Baron
> is faster by nearly a factor of 3. Perhaps you are not flying the Baron
> properly to achieve maximum performance.

It's not a race, and there are many parts of the flight that are not
performed at maximum speeds. The route is usually close to being a
straight line, but not exactly.

I should be able to take a commercial flight from KPHX to KSAN and be
there in about 40 minutes. In fact, it takes several hours.

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

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:58:39 GMT, "Alt Beer" > wrote:

> > http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
> >
> > Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)
>
> Looks like an IC-T8 ham rig on the panel.

Close. IC-A5 aircraft transceiver. Built in, powered by the aircraft electrical
system, hooked to the standard PTT switch. Replaced a defunct Narco, weighs
less than a pound. Hooked to an antenna made from Radio Shack and plumbing
parts.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/antenna.htm

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:06:24 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
> > Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:
> >
> > http://www.wanttaja.com/hhrad2.JPG
> >
> > Be afraid. Be very afraid. :-)
>
> Where are the cabin pressure controls and the FMCs?

They fall away with the SRBs.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/leoraker.JPG

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay B]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I should be able to take a commercial flight from KPHX to KSAN and be
> there in about 40 minutes. In fact, it takes several hours.

Bull****...

Typical commercial ops between PHX and SAN take about 40-50 minutes
cycle to cycle

I've had it take longer (or shorter) due to ground movement capacity
issues at either the departure or arrival points but the actual flying
time has never taken "several hours."

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Of course he's wrong, and continues making dogmatic yet incorrect statements
that provoke similar responses to yours- that's why he's a troll.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay B writes:

> Bull****...
>
> Typical commercial ops between PHX and SAN take about 40-50 minutes
> cycle to cycle

I'm not sure how you manage that, but a commercial flight for me
involves a lot more than the time between take-off and landing. In
fact, no commercial flight takes less than about 4 hours overall,
which is why I prefer high-speed trains for trips of less than 1000 km
or so.

> I've had it take longer (or shorter) due to ground movement capacity
> issues at either the departure or arrival points but the actual flying
> time has never taken "several hours."

If only commercial airline flights required just "actual flying time."

The closest I can remember is America West flights at KPHX for which
you could buy a ticket and board about 20 minutes before the flight.
Overall that still added a good hour or more to the total time
required, though.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RK Henry writes:
>
>> Which parts? Why not?
>
> Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these places don't
> have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather than a plane.
>

Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the field
or within walking distance. There are also airports within mountain terrain
(and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to appreciate
it from the sky). And there are even several airports with Beaches on the
field or within easy reach of the airport by walking, taxi, or public
transportation.

Since I always say, "Name 3" here are 3 examples:

KTEB - Aviation Hall of Fame
26N - Walk to Ocean City Beach and Boardwalk
KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos (AIY is closer (walkable to
Casinos), but I believe they closed it recently)


There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft, especially if you
enjoy flying. For those with a paranoid fear of flying, certainly they can
take their cars.

[Jim Macklin]

Shangri-La at Grand Lake, golf and boating, you can also
fish.
Oshkosh Kalamazoo

another three


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| Mxsmanic > wrote in
| :
|
| > RK Henry writes:
| >
| >> Which parts? Why not?
| >
| > Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these
places don't
| > have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather
than a plane.
| >
|
| Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums
either on the field
| or within walking distance. There are also airports within
mountain terrain
| (and of course, you don't actually have to land on a
mountain to appreciate
| it from the sky). And there are even several airports with
Beaches on the
| field or within easy reach of the airport by walking,
taxi, or public
| transportation.
|
| Since I always say, "Name 3" here are 3 examples:
|
| KTEB - Aviation Hall of Fame
| 26N - Walk to Ocean City Beach and Boardwalk
| KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos (AIY is
closer (walkable to
| Casinos), but I believe they closed it recently)
|
|
| There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft,
especially if you
| enjoy flying. For those with a paranoid fear of flying,
certainly they can
| take their cars.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> I can't help but notice that your "fun" meter is pegged, even while it is
>> sitting on the ground. You really need to get that thing worked on. It
>> should
>> not move off the bottom peg at least until you start the engine, and not peg
>> until you get airborn.
>
> It's a *recording* fun meter, like a G-Meter. :-)

OK, it's a cumulative thing, eh? I guess you are in original factory new
specifications, then.

I will call the FAA, and tell them not to visit you.

I have my eye on you, though! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> Worried about what, exactly?
>
> A lack of redundancy. Also, to determine your position exactly with
> navaids, you either need two of them or some sort of distance
> information, e.g., 1 VOR+DME, or 2 VORs.

Again, a lack of training has left you without some very basic knowledge.
You can toggle between your primary and backup frequency even on 1 VOR to
pinpoint your position with good accuracy. You already have the skill, you
just don't understand how to apply them because you have not had proper
training.

> Yes, I know that you might be flying routinely in VMC and might be
> able to just look out the window, but I like to have reliable backup
> for my own, highly subjective determinations of where I am.

Unfortunately, the perspective in a Sim does not compare to the actual
perspective in a real airplane, and so I understand your concern. In a real
plane, this is not a major issue.

> I tried flying from Phoenix to KSAN not long ago by following the
> interstates, but I didn't realize until I saw Palm Springs below that
> I was following the wrong interstate. Granted, this was simulation,
> and you might say that real life provides a clearer picture on the
> ground than simulation, but I think all interstates look very similar,
> and I might well make the same mistake in real life (essentially just
> one of following I-10 instead of whatever leads to San Diego).

Yes, but in real life, there are many more cues than just the road. You can
use your sectional to determine the location of towers, bridges, cities,
tracks, and other similar milestones so that you are not dependent on a
single point of failure.

>> Worried about what, exactly?
>
> Failure of insufficiently tested all-in-one avionics. It's best to
> minmize the number of tools or instruments that have
> interdependencies.

I believe the G1000 panel has steam-guage backups of the minimum required
equipment.

>> I have to say, they are nice. I enjoy the club planes very much. Great
>> planes with a great pricetag.
>
> How do they afford it? Somebody must have paid for all that gear up
> front at some point. Who owns the aircraft?

The club members split the costs. The club has grown through several planes
over many years, and I have not been a member since the beginning, so I
don't know the exact history of how the first planes were purchased.
However, I imagine it started off with some number of people who decided to
start a flight club, purchased a plane or two using a mortgage, and split
the costs of the mortgage, tiedown, maintenance, upgrades, etc. I doubt
very much than anyone other than a bank "paid for all that gear up front".

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> I can't help but notice that your "fun" meter is pegged, even while it
> is sitting on the ground. You really need to get that thing worked on.
> It should not move off the bottom peg at least until you start the
> engine, and not peg until you get airborn.


I dunno. That plane looks fun even on the ground! :)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> Close. IC-A5 aircraft transceiver. Built in, powered by the aircraft
> electrical
> system, hooked to the standard PTT switch. Replaced a defunct Narco, weighs
> less than a pound. Hooked to an antenna made from Radio Shack and plumbing
> parts.

I thought your electrical system consisted of a gel cell battery for the radio
and lights, charged on the ground by a 110V
battery charger. No?

I might have you confused with someone else. It does not happen very often. Me
getting confused, that is. At least I don't think it does. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:06:57 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
> >
> > Close. IC-A5 aircraft transceiver. Built in, powered by the aircraft
> > electrical
> > system, hooked to the standard PTT switch. Replaced a defunct Narco, weighs
> > less than a pound. Hooked to an antenna made from Radio Shack and plumbing
> > parts.
>
> I thought your electrical system consisted of a gel cell battery for the radio
> and lights, charged on the ground by a 110V
> battery charger. No?
>
> I might have you confused with someone else. It does not happen very often. Me
> getting confused, that is. At least I don't think it does. :-)

Add this to one of the times, then. :-) I've got a "normal" electrical system
in Moonraker, though given my preference, I would have preferred just a battery.
Too damn much weight in the generator, battery, and starter, though I did switch
to an Odyssey dry cell a couple of years back.

Ron Wanttaja

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Very frustrated.

I can certainly understand your frustration. That's why I plonked him for
about a week myself. But unlike your Smokers' example, you can plonk him and
then you won't see his messages... It's quite refreshing, actually.

Then after a few days you may realize that there's not much to read on this
board if you leave out his threads. He certainly has prompted a lot of
activity on this group...

You can instead choose just to ignore the questions or comments that don't
contribute to this group, and limit yourself to addressing the stuff that is
useful to pilots. That's what I have tried to do. For example, a discussion
of the different types of avionics that can be found on rentable aircraft
seems to be very appropriate in this newsgroup.

Admittedly, I've not been completely consistent, because admittedly, when he
leaves himself wide open it's just too much fun not to point out the folly of
his arrogance.

But unlike second hand smoke, there really is no one forcing you to read his
messages or even his threads...

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> I could be wrong, but I believe the Cruising Speed of a Baron is about
>> 175 - 185Kts, or about 200-215MPH.
>
> I get a ground speed of about 195-200 kts in many cases, which would
> be as much as 230 mph.

So then how is it that you claim that that is not faster than driving?

>> In no-wind conditions, if both vehicles are travelling in a straight
>> line (rare for IFR aircraft, but even rarer for vehicles on the ground)
>> the Baron is faster by nearly a factor of 3. Perhaps you are not flying
>> the Baron properly to achieve maximum performance.
>
> It's not a race, and there are many parts of the flight that are not
> performed at maximum speeds. The route is usually close to being a
> straight line, but not exactly.
>
> I should be able to take a commercial flight from KPHX to KSAN and be
> there in about 40 minutes. In fact, it takes several hours.

That's irrelevant here. You're talking about a Baron, which is a GA plane.
One of the reasons I fly GA is specifically because I don't have to get to
the airport 60 minutes before flight time just to stand in lines to get X-
Ray'd and/or felt up. I get to the airport, do a preflight, start the
engines, and go. Typically 10-20 minutes of preparation.

It's not all that different than checking for oil and filling up the gas
tank before taking a cross-country trip in your car.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If only commercial airline flights required just "actual flying time."

And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving time".
You are very effective at comparing apples to oranges. Some people would call
it Sophistry.

[A Lieberma]

Judah > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

> plane. One of the reasons I fly GA is specifically because I don't
> have to get to the airport 60 minutes before flight time just to stand
> in lines to get X- Ray'd and/or felt up. I get to the airport, do a
> preflight, start the engines, and go. Typically 10-20 minutes of
> preparation.

The above verifies based on my own experiences and looking back on one of
my own videos from KJAN to KMBO

Preflight 7 minutes
Startup procedures 1:05 minutes
Ground clearance 10 seconds.
Taxi 3:00 minutes
Runup 1:30 minutes
Clearance for take off 2 seconds (number one for takeoff)

So from opening the door of the plane to take off takes on average 12 1/2
minutes for me.

> It's not all that different than checking for oil and filling up the
> gas tank before taking a cross-country trip in your car.

Exactly right. Just a normal procedure and makes it even safer then most
cars on the road.....

At least all "major" systems and components are checked before a journey
in which most poeple can't say they do for their cars, such as check the
oil level, antifreeze level, battery condition and so on and so on.

I'd bet most people don't check the air pressure on their tires before a
long journey.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the field
> or within walking distance.

The Louvre doesn't.

> There are also airports within mountain terrain
> (and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to appreciate
> it from the sky). And there are even several airports with Beaches on the
> field or within easy reach of the airport by walking, taxi, or public
> transportation.

I guess if you want to see the specific museums, beaches, or ski
resorts that are right next to airfields, then you're in luck. If you
want to see anything else, though, that's not going to work.

> KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos

Cab rides don't count.

> There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft, especially if you
> enjoy flying.

Yes. But aircraft for basic transportation are far less practical,
except for the kind of long-distance transportation provided by
commercial airlines.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Again, a lack of training has left you without some very basic knowledge.
> You can toggle between your primary and backup frequency even on 1 VOR to
> pinpoint your position with good accuracy. You already have the skill, you
> just don't understand how to apply them because you have not had proper
> training.

Makeshift solutions are not something I'd want to depend on.

> Unfortunately, the perspective in a Sim does not compare to the actual
> perspective in a real airplane, and so I understand your concern. In a real
> plane, this is not a major issue.

If weather conditions permit. But ideally I'd want to be able to fly
even in poor visibility.

> Yes, but in real life, there are many more cues than just the road.

Not in the deserts of the American Southwest. Sometimes it's nothing
for miles. Although I'll grant that with a chart I might be able to
find something.

The basic idea was to just follow a highway to my destination, since
I've read that early pilots managed to do this much of the time.

> You can
> use your sectional to determine the location of towers, bridges, cities,
> tracks, and other similar milestones so that you are not dependent on a
> single point of failure.

If I had a sectional. Unfortunately, those are expensive, and finding
one for the southwestern U.S. in France would be problematic (and
costly).

> I believe the G1000 panel has steam-guage backups of the minimum required
> equipment.

I prefer a more non-integrated solution, because it reduces
interdependent failures. If the G1000 were just an information
display, fine; but I would not trust it to tie everything together.
That's too much dependence on one box.

> The club members split the costs. The club has grown through several planes
> over many years, and I have not been a member since the beginning, so I
> don't know the exact history of how the first planes were purchased.
> However, I imagine it started off with some number of people who decided to
> start a flight club, purchased a plane or two using a mortgage, and split
> the costs of the mortgage, tiedown, maintenance, upgrades, etc. I doubt
> very much than anyone other than a bank "paid for all that gear up front".

Still, a fleet of planes is quite an investment. How many aircraft
are there, and how many members in the club?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving time".

They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
time is essentially the same as driving time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> So then how is it that you claim that that is not faster than driving?

Where did I claim that? I said exactly the opposite, in fact.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If weather conditions permit. But ideally I'd want to be able to fly
> even in poor visibility.

Dayem, here I go again....

I fly in poor viz all the time. Perfectly safe. In fact, safer then my
drive to the airport!

> If I had a sectional. Unfortunately, those are expensive, and finding
> one for the southwestern U.S. in France would be problematic (and
> costly).

Get out of your game and on the net. There is a source to download from if
you look real carefully.

Allen

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the
>> field or within walking distance.
>
> The Louvre doesn't.

So?

>> There are also airports within mountain terrain
>> (and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to
>> appreciate it from the sky). And there are even several airports with
>> Beaches on the field or within easy reach of the airport by walking,
>> taxi, or public transportation.
>
> I guess if you want to see the specific museums, beaches, or ski
> resorts that are right next to airfields, then you're in luck. If you
> want to see anything else, though, that's not going to work.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to the
nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time. Many airports even offer crew cars at no cost for
pilots for a few hours' ride in the area.

>> KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos
>
> Cab rides don't count.

You could also rent a car. At AIY, the cabs used to listen to the CTAF and
be waiting for you when you landed.

>> There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft, especially if
>> you enjoy flying.
>
> Yes. But aircraft for basic transportation are far less practical,
> except for the kind of long-distance transportation provided by
> commercial airlines.

Nonsense. GA Flying is much more convenient and practical than Airline
transportation for getting to places that are either not near a major
airport, or are anywhere from 150-600 NM away. I will fly this evening to
Winchester, VA from New York. To drive there would take me about 5 hours,
not including stops. To fly there commercially, I would have to fly to the
nearest airport about 90 minutes away, get to my airport 60 minutes before
departure, and fly about 60 minutes, totalling about 3.5 hrs. Flying GA, I
will get there in about 90 minutes (maybe 1:45 because of strong headwinds
tonight). I will land at Winchester Regional airport, where a rental car
will be waiting for me because I called in advance. I will then drive about
5 minutes to my destination. The cost for me to fly myself to Winchester
will be cheaper than a last-minute round trip ticket to Dulles, and the
rental car cost at Winchester is about 60% of the rental car cost at
Dulles. So not only will I save over an hour (or 3 hours if you compare
with driving), I will save money and enjoy the experience.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge and
experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making claims
about things that you have no idea about.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> The above verifies based on my own experiences and looking back on one of
> my own videos from KJAN to KMBO
>
> Preflight 7 minutes
> Startup procedures 1:05 minutes
> Ground clearance 10 seconds.
> Taxi 3:00 minutes
> Runup 1:30 minutes
> Clearance for take off 2 seconds (number one for takeoff)
>
> So from opening the door of the plane to take off takes on average 12 1/2
> minutes for me.

Where's the flight plan?

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the
>> field
>> or within walking distance.
>
> The Louvre doesn't.
>
I can't drive to the Louvre. There's a little thing called the Atlantic
Ocean in my way.

I have a better chance of flying my plane to Paris and walking than I do of
driving.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:

> Makeshift solutions are not something I'd want to depend on.

What makes you say this is makeshift?

> If weather conditions permit. But ideally I'd want to be able to fly
> even in poor visibility.

Then you would get your Instrument Rating and fly a plane that had the
minimum required equipment. You might also carry some backup instruments like
a handheld GPS and handheld NAV/COM.

> If I had a sectional. Unfortunately, those are expensive, and finding
> one for the southwestern U.S. in France would be problematic (and
> costly).

There are several sites where you can download sectionals at no cost. It was
discussed in an earlier thread. You can google it.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving
>> time".
>
> They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
> time is essentially the same as driving time.
>

I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> So?

Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
relevant.

> Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to the
> nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
> substantially less time.

And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
some cases.

> Many airports even offer crew cars at no cost for
> pilots for a few hours' ride in the area.

Cool.

> You could also rent a car.

That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

> At AIY, the cabs used to listen to the CTAF and
> be waiting for you when you landed.

Sounds very convenient? I presume they had enough business to justify
that.

> Nonsense. GA Flying is much more convenient and practical than Airline
> transportation for getting to places that are either not near a major
> airport, or are anywhere from 150-600 NM away. I will fly this evening to
> Winchester, VA from New York. To drive there would take me about 5 hours,
> not including stops. To fly there commercially, I would have to fly to the
> nearest airport about 90 minutes away, get to my airport 60 minutes before
> departure, and fly about 60 minutes, totalling about 3.5 hrs. Flying GA, I
> will get there in about 90 minutes (maybe 1:45 because of strong headwinds
> tonight). I will land at Winchester Regional airport, where a rental car
> will be waiting for me because I called in advance. I will then drive about
> 5 minutes to my destination. The cost for me to fly myself to Winchester
> will be cheaper than a last-minute round trip ticket to Dulles, and the
> rental car cost at Winchester is about 60% of the rental car cost at
> Dulles. So not only will I save over an hour (or 3 hours if you compare
> with driving), I will save money and enjoy the experience.

So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

> You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge and
> experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making claims
> about things that you have no idea about.

Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Get out of your game and on the net. There is a source to download from if
> you look real carefully.

I've found some terminal charts but nothing with a wide selection of
sectionals. Navigation data is big business and some things seem to
be jealously guarded.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> So then how is it that you claim that that is not faster than driving?
>
> Where did I claim that? I said exactly the opposite, in fact.
>

In an earlier post on this very thread you said...

> In practice, I usually just go on flights that are of an acceptable
> duration in real time, and then fly them in real time. It's true that
> small aircraft take a long time to get anywhere compared to large
> jets--but then again they often seem to be much faster than cars (even
> though their actual speed over the ground isn't that much greater)."

But I would consider a factor of 2-3 times faster over the ground as
significantly greater.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Judah writes:
> >
> >> And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving
> >> time".
> >
> > They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
> > time is essentially the same as driving time.
> >
>
> I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
> jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?

What? You don't have a relief tube in your car? :-)

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberma writes:
>
>> Get out of your game and on the net. There is a source to download
>> from if you look real carefully.
>
> I've found some terminal charts but nothing with a wide selection of
> sectionals. Navigation data is big business and some things seem to
> be jealously guarded.

Keep looking, they are out there. And for free that is!

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberma writes:
>
>> The above verifies based on my own experiences and looking back on
>> one of my own videos from KJAN to KMBO
>>
>> Preflight 7 minutes
>> Startup procedures 1:05 minutes
>> Ground clearance 10 seconds.
>> Taxi 3:00 minutes
>> Runup 1:30 minutes
>> Clearance for take off 2 seconds (number one for takeoff)
>>
>> So from opening the door of the plane to take off takes on average 12
>> 1/2 minutes for me.
>
> Where's the flight plan?

What makes you think a flight plan was or is needed?

Typical of you to go off tangent to your own question.

For what it's worth. VFR, I don't file a flight plan, get in my plane
just like my car. The above was a VFR flight.

IFR, takes 5 minutes on simple flights to 10 minutes to multi leg flights
to get everything in order thanks to computerization of planning. This
includes getting my approach plates in order, filing the plan with the
FAA.

No different then planning a trip in a car. After all, you don't get on
the road without checking maps for routes desired. Samething in the air,
I select the routes I desire.

Sheeze, so you don't file flight plans in your game world, what's the
difference? Or would that be like a REAL simulator.

Allen

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> Take a look, then, at a photo of the panel of *my* airplane:

Awh, 'ell, that's quite a bit more than my previous aircraft (a
gyrocopter)... Its airspeed indicator was a disc in a plastic tube that rose
up with increased air speed -- similar to this
(http://www.hallwindmeter.com/images/short_bracket.jpg)... No altimeter...
I'm thinking that there *might* have been some sort of engine temperature
gauge, but I'm not sure... There might have been some sort of very small
tachometer, but it was small enough to not be really useful... Come to think
of it, I'm not even sure it had a compass... Most flights were done at 500
ft or less, so you follow roads, rivers, or anything else that might be
interesting... <grin>

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Keep looking, they are out there. And for free that is!

I discover new stuff every few days.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> What makes you say this is makeshift?

Because it is. It takes a lot of time and attention during phases of
flight where time and attention are at a premium.

If it were that easy, there wouldn't be two navaid receivers in so
many aircraft.

> Then you would get your Instrument Rating and fly a plane that had the
> minimum required equipment. You might also carry some backup instruments like
> a handheld GPS and handheld NAV/COM.

I'd want a GPS and radios in the plane, but I might well carry
handhelds just to be safe (along with a lot of other emergency stuff).

> There are several sites where you can download sectionals at no cost. It was
> discussed in an earlier thread. You can google it.

I'll look around.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
> jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?

You can't imagine holding patterns, weather diversions, and
less-than-straight routing?

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> What makes you think a flight plan was or is needed?

I never said it was needed. I just asked where it was. A flight plan
is always a good idea.

> For what it's worth. VFR, I don't file a flight plan, get in my plane
> just like my car. The above was a VFR flight.

Where and when will they look for you if you crash?

> IFR, takes 5 minutes on simple flights to 10 minutes to multi leg flights
> to get everything in order thanks to computerization of planning. This
> includes getting my approach plates in order, filing the plan with the
> FAA.

Then it should be easy to file one for VFR flights.

> Sheeze, so you don't file flight plans in your game world ...

Actually I do. Even some VFR flight plans.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> But I would consider a factor of 2-3 times faster over the ground as
> significantly greater.

Not compared to jets.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Judah writes:
>
>> There are many pleasurable things to do using aircraft, especially
>> if you enjoy flying.
>
> Yes. But aircraft for basic transportation are far less practical,
> except for the kind of long-distance transportation provided by
> commercial airlines.
>
Well, I doubt that many of us would think of using an airplane to go
grocery shopping, if that's what you're getting at. I find the "break
even" point for trips with my wife to be a roughly 600 n/mi. radius. For
those distances, we can beat both the time and cost of flying
commercially, and while it would cost less to drive, there is no
comparison when it comes to the level of exhaustion on arrival.

Neil

[RK Henry]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:40:35 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> RK Henry writes:
>>
>>> Which parts? Why not?
>>
>> Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these places don't
>> have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather than a plane.
>>
>
>Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the field
>or within walking distance. There are also airports within mountain terrain
>(and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to appreciate
>it from the sky). And there are even several airports with Beaches on the
>field or within easy reach of the airport by walking, taxi, or public
>transportation.
>
>Since I always say, "Name 3" here are 3 examples:
>
>KTEB - Aviation Hall of Fame
>26N - Walk to Ocean City Beach and Boardwalk
>KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos (AIY is closer (walkable to
>Casinos), but I believe they closed it recently)


GKT- The Tennessee Air Museum, Sevierville, TN. The museum is on the
airport. (www.tnairmuseum.com) Of course other local destinations
include Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and The Great Smoky Mountain
National Park, but you'll need ground transportation for those. I live
close enough that driving is feasible, but flying is a nicer way to
get to the museum and I don't have to buck highway traffic.

CRE- Crescent Beach, North Myrtle Beach, SC. The beach is a couple of
blocks from the airport. About a mile. Of course MYR is 13 NM
southwest at Myrtle Beach, but I haven't actually been there. The last
time I was in Myrtle Beach, MYR was a military base. MYR is also close
to the shore. (Current pireps on CRE & MYR please.)

W45- Luray, VA. Luray Caverns. (www.luraycaverns.com) Free courtesy
transportation to the caverns. After the tour of the caverns, which
includes a recital of the Great Stalacpipe Organ, there's an antique
auto museum with several interesting cars I'd never seen before.

FFA- First Flight at Kill Devil Hills, NC. The Wright Brothers museum
is said to be within walking distance. This destination is still on my
to-do list. (Current pireps on this one too please.) www.nps.gov/wrbr

CGX - Meigs Field. Oh no! It's gone! Destroyed in a midnight terrorist
attack by Osama bin Daley. And it was on my to-do list if I ever
visited Chicago and its museums. Right next to downtown. Well, scratch
that one. I guess scratch Chicago too, since any city that would
destroy such an asset can't be worth bothering with. Just goes to show
what happens when you let opportunities slip by.

RK Henry

[Stefan]

>> Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the field
>> or within walking distance.

Possibly. But very few museums I'm interested in have airports, and very
few museums with airports are of any interest to me.

Stefan

[Jim Stewart]

Steven Barnes wrote:
> So is the "speed up the world 32 times" option. I'm waiting for my A&P to
> get a bid for one on my real airplane...

The A&P would love that if it ran the Hobbs
meter at 32x as well.



>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Stefan writes:
>>
>>
>>>Must be real fun to fly MSFS on autopilot...
>>
>>I enjoy it, especially in large aircraft, and autopilot is a great
>>advantage on long trips.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
>

[Don Poitras]

In rec.aviation.student RK Henry > wrote:

> GKT- The Tennessee Air Museum, Sevierville, TN. The museum is on the
> airport. (www.tnairmuseum.com) Of course other local destinations
> include Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and The Great Smoky Mountain
> National Park, but you'll need ground transportation for those. I live
> close enough that driving is feasible, but flying is a nicer way to
> get to the museum and I don't have to buck highway traffic.

> CRE- Crescent Beach, North Myrtle Beach, SC. The beach is a couple of
> blocks from the airport. About a mile. Of course MYR is 13 NM
> southwest at Myrtle Beach, but I haven't actually been there. The last
> time I was in Myrtle Beach, MYR was a military base. MYR is also close
> to the shore. (Current pireps on CRE & MYR please.)

Funny. In all the times I've gone there, I've never heard "Crescent
Beach" before. It's Grand Strand Airport, or North Myrtle Beach. This
is a great airport. Almost always someone comes out with a cart to
direct you to parking. They normally have 5 or more cars available for
rental and will let you have one for free if you are just going out for
a short lunch. Walking to the beach is about 3/4 mile. Wide, clean,
fine-grained sand.


> W45- Luray, VA. Luray Caverns. (www.luraycaverns.com) Free courtesy
> transportation to the caverns. After the tour of the caverns, which
> includes a recital of the Great Stalacpipe Organ, there's an antique
> auto museum with several interesting cars I'd never seen before.

> FFA- First Flight at Kill Devil Hills, NC. The Wright Brothers museum
> is said to be within walking distance. This destination is still on my
> to-do list. (Current pireps on this one too please.) www.nps.gov/wrbr

Don't forget W95. South of FFA, Ocracoke is still my favorite
destination. Land within spitting distance of the ocean. Take a short
walk to Howard's Pub or a little further to check out the village.
(Think Patrick McGoohan...)

--
Don Poitras

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> So?
>
> Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
> close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
> relevant.
>
>> Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to
>> the nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
>> substantially less time.
>
> And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
> some cases.

That depends on way too many factors for such a generic claim. It also
largely depends on how you value your own time.

In my case it is frequently not cheaper to fly privately than it is to fly
commercially, especially when ALL related costs are considered. For
example, it costs me $30 per day to park at LGA... When flying GA, I don't
pay to park at the gate across from my tiedown area, even if I park there
for a week. I need to add that to my total cost in an apples-to-apples
comparison. Interestingly enough, comparing my time in a Commercial vs. GA
scenario varies, because if I am on a commercial flight at a decent hour, I
can usually work on the plane, which makes up for some of the lost time
waiting in lines, etc. But the biggest savings comes when I am flying to a
destination that is not serviced by a major airport, but which has a small
airport very nearby. Then I save time by flying to an airport 10 or 15
minutes away from my destination, instead of flying commercially to a major
metro 60-120 minutes away.

>> You could also rent a car.
>
> That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

Doesn't count in what way? A claim that flying is a useful method of
transportation?

Then I could say the same thing about your example. Driving to the Louvre
doesn't count, because you have to walk past the front lawn and up the
stairs to get to the ticket counter. So even though you drove most of the
way, the example is invalid because you also had to walk. I also presume
that you don't have Metro stops at every specific location that you want to
visit, and must find a way to get from the final stop to your ultimate
destination... Sometimes it might even include a taxi.

> So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
> I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

In my experience, there is a "sweet spot" where GA will be more cost
effective than commercial flying. It varies by the type of plane flown, the
cost, and the location where you live, and my sweet spot has gotten bigger
as I've grown into faster planes at better rates. In my case, I will
frequently save time and money flying GA to airports that are from 150 -
600 miles from my home. Shorter than 150 miles, it becomes more practical
to drive, because the time savings is not very significant. Longer than 600
miles or so, it generally becomes more practical to fly commercially
because the costs for cross-country Airline flights tend to be
disproportionately low.

>> You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge
>> and experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making
>> claims about things that you have no idea about.
>
> Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
> the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

I enjoy discussions stemming from questions that you ask in the interest of
learning more about piloting aircraft. I am glad to share my experiences
witn you and the rest of this group. I've even stopped trying to convince
you to go take a discovery flight, since you have made it clear that you
will not. But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
based on opinions that have been founded in something other than fact, you
can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider that quite on topic.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> What makes you say this is makeshift?
>
> Because it is. It takes a lot of time and attention during phases of
> flight where time and attention are at a premium.

It's a simple cost benefit factor. I believe for a certain period of time
in the 70s, most Piper trainer aircraft came stock with only one radio. It
was adequate. In fact, it was an improvement over the light beacons of the
early flying days. But believe it or not, people were able to navigate
successfully by air even before there were Radio Navaids... And if they
made a wrong turn, much as in a car, they turned around and found their
way, or stopped at an airport and asked for directions.

>> Then you would get your Instrument Rating and fly a plane that had the
>> minimum required equipment. You might also carry some backup
>> instruments like a handheld GPS and handheld NAV/COM.
>
> I'd want a GPS and radios in the plane, but I might well carry
> handhelds just to be safe (along with a lot of other emergency stuff).
>
>> There are several sites where you can download sectionals at no cost.
>> It was discussed in an earlier thread. You can google it.
>
> I'll look around.
>

The very first link offerred by a google of "free Sectionals" produces a
link that will satisfy your need. Took me all of about 2 minutes to find.

[Judah]

Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-FBD347.15455622102006
@reader2.panix.com:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Judah writes:
>> >
>> >> And if only cross-country travel by car required only "actual driving
>> >> time".
>> >
>> > They do. You can drive directly from door to door, so total travel
>> > time is essentially the same as driving time.
>> >
>>
>> I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
>> jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?
>
> What? You don't have a relief tube in your car? :-)
>

Hahah! You know, I should probably get one of those Gel Packs for the car
like I have for the plane. Especially for the road trips that involve the
kids! :)

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> I see. So you couldn't imagine stopping for gas, traffic lights, traffic
>> jams, detours, and stretch/bio breaks on a 600 mile cross country trip?
>
> You can't imagine holding patterns, weather diversions, and
> less-than-straight routing?

Sure I can. What is your point? I was responding to your comment that drive
time doesn't include anything but time actually driving, which is inaccurate.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> But I would consider a factor of 2-3 times faster over the ground as
>> significantly greater.
>
> Not compared to jets.
>

Not compared to the speed of light, either.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> For what it's worth. VFR, I don't file a flight plan, get in my plane
>> just like my car. The above was a VFR flight.
>
> Where and when will they look for you if you crash?

Probably wherever you last showed up on their radar, especially if you have a
transponder, were receiving flight following, and/or called for help on the
emergency frequency.

>> IFR, takes 5 minutes on simple flights to 10 minutes to multi leg flights
>> to get everything in order thanks to computerization of planning. This
>> includes getting my approach plates in order, filing the plan with the
>> FAA.
>
> Then it should be easy to file one for VFR flights.

It is.

>> Sheeze, so you don't file flight plans in your game world ...
>
> Actually I do. Even some VFR flight plans.

That's interesting. Do you use VATSim? What is the purpose of a flight plan
in a simulation? They will certainly know where to look if you crash.

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:24:26 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Poitras) wrote:

>In rec.aviation.student RK Henry > wrote:
>
>> GKT- The Tennessee Air Museum, Sevierville, TN. The museum is on the
>> airport. (www.tnairmuseum.com) Of course other local destinations
>> include Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and The Great Smoky Mountain
>> National Park, but you'll need ground transportation for those. I live
>> close enough that driving is feasible, but flying is a nicer way to
>> get to the museum and I don't have to buck highway traffic.
>
>> CRE- Crescent Beach, North Myrtle Beach, SC. The beach is a couple of
>> blocks from the airport. About a mile. Of course MYR is 13 NM
>> southwest at Myrtle Beach, but I haven't actually been there. The last
>> time I was in Myrtle Beach, MYR was a military base. MYR is also close
>> to the shore. (Current pireps on CRE & MYR please.)
>
>Funny. In all the times I've gone there, I've never heard "Crescent
>Beach" before. It's Grand Strand Airport, or North Myrtle Beach. This
>is a great airport. Almost always someone comes out with a cart to
>direct you to parking. They normally have 5 or more cars available for
>rental and will let you have one for free if you are just going out for
>a short lunch. Walking to the beach is about 3/4 mile. Wide, clean,
>fine-grained sand.

Right you are. I've always called it "Crescent Beach" because that's
where it gets its ID: CRE. Not sure when it stopped being Crescent
Beach and started being Grand Strand. It is indeed a very nice
airport. And a nice beach.

Illustrating for the unbelievers that an airplane can be used for some
nice trips.

>> W45- Luray, VA. Luray Caverns. (www.luraycaverns.com) Free courtesy
>> transportation to the caverns. After the tour of the caverns, which
>> includes a recital of the Great Stalacpipe Organ, there's an antique
>> auto museum with several interesting cars I'd never seen before.
>
>> FFA- First Flight at Kill Devil Hills, NC. The Wright Brothers museum
>> is said to be within walking distance. This destination is still on my
>> to-do list. (Current pireps on this one too please.) www.nps.gov/wrbr
>
>Don't forget W95. South of FFA, Ocracoke is still my favorite
>destination. Land within spitting distance of the ocean. Take a short
>walk to Howard's Pub or a little further to check out the village.
>(Think Patrick McGoohan...)

I'll make a note, number 6.

RK Henry

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:40:35 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> RK Henry writes:
>>>
>>>> Which parts? Why not?
>>>
>>> Beach, mountains, movies, museum, etc. Most of these places don't
>>> have a runway out in front, so they require a car rather than a plane.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, you are incorrect. MANY airports have museums either on the
>>field
>>or within walking distance. There are also airports within mountain
>>terrain
>>(and of course, you don't actually have to land on a mountain to
>>appreciate
>>it from the sky). And there are even several airports with Beaches on the
>>field or within easy reach of the airport by walking, taxi, or public
>>transportation.
>>
>>Since I always say, "Name 3" here are 3 examples:
>>
>>KTEB - Aviation Hall of Fame
>>26N - Walk to Ocean City Beach and Boardwalk
>>KACY - Short cab ride to Atlantic City Casinos (AIY is closer (walkable to
>>Casinos), but I believe they closed it recently)
>
>
> GKT- The Tennessee Air Museum, Sevierville, TN. The museum is on the
> airport. (www.tnairmuseum.com) Of course other local destinations
> include Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and The Great Smoky Mountain
> National Park, but you'll need ground transportation for those. I live
> close enough that driving is feasible, but flying is a nicer way to
> get to the museum and I don't have to buck highway traffic.
>
> CRE- Crescent Beach, North Myrtle Beach, SC. The beach is a couple of
> blocks from the airport. About a mile. Of course MYR is 13 NM
> southwest at Myrtle Beach, but I haven't actually been there. The last
> time I was in Myrtle Beach, MYR was a military base. MYR is also close
> to the shore. (Current pireps on CRE & MYR please.)
>
> W45- Luray, VA. Luray Caverns. (www.luraycaverns.com) Free courtesy
> transportation to the caverns. After the tour of the caverns, which
> includes a recital of the Great Stalacpipe Organ, there's an antique
> auto museum with several interesting cars I'd never seen before.
>
> FFA- First Flight at Kill Devil Hills, NC. The Wright Brothers museum
> is said to be within walking distance. This destination is still on my
> to-do list. (Current pireps on this one too please.) www.nps.gov/wrbr
>
> CGX - Meigs Field. Oh no! It's gone! Destroyed in a midnight terrorist
> attack by Osama bin Daley. And it was on my to-do list if I ever
> visited Chicago and its museums. Right next to downtown. Well, scratch
> that one. I guess scratch Chicago too, since any city that would
> destroy such an asset can't be worth bothering with. Just goes to show
> what happens when you let opportunities slip by.
>
> RK Henry

a few West coast ones... :-)

S16 - Copalis State. Land right on the beach... :-) It is a kind of
popular place in Washington state. I have yet to do this, and my instructor
hasn't done it yet either. I don't know of many beaches that you are
acutally allowed to land on. :-)

MMV - McMinneville, Or. They have a pretty cool air museum here, and is the
current home of the Spruce Goose.

BFI - Boeing Field, Seattle, WA - Museum of Flight (www.museumofflight.org)
, one of the best aviation museums on the west coast. Can walk through a
Concorde, and the first jet Air Force One.
(http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=8835E3E8-2D58-4DFE-87C9-1087DA0DD65B)

PWT - Bremerton National. Airport Diner, some of the best fish and chips in
Puget Sound, taxi right up to the restaurant.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RK Henry writes:
>> General aviation can be used very effectively for both business and
>> leisure transportation. Unless one lives in a place with almost
>> perpetually bad weather, VFR weather prevails so much of the time that
>> the airplane can be a very effective transportation tool. The ability
>> to go IFR, which is commonplace for many GA pilots and for the GA
>> fleet, adds a bit more to utility, making an airplane usable under an
>> even wider range of conditions.
>
> I've consistently heard that if you plan to take trips on a schedule
> and with any significant length, you'll need to plan on flying IFR,
> which not everyone can do. There are few areas where the weather is
> consistently clear and perfect over long distances. Deserts are one
> such type of place, but they have disadvantages of their own
> (desolation and extreme heat, for example).
>
> Plus you need to be able to handle potential icing issues, just in
> case.
>
> If you don't have an IFR rating and the ability to deal with icing,
> plus (preferably) an ability to fly at fairly high altitudes over
> weather, your prospects for real travel on a schedule are limited.
> You cannot say, for example, "let's fly to Portland on Saturday,"
> because you don't know if weather will permit it, and your guest
> passenger may not be too happy if you cancel things due to weather at
> the last minute.

Yes, a current IFR rating could be helpful, but a VFR pilot should be very
concious of what the weather is and what the weather will do, doesn't leave
without a "back up" plan, should the weather not do what is expected. Also
things like Fligh****ch are very useful tools for the VFR pilot to find out
what the weather is doing up ahead of him. Also, a good pilot will keep his
passengers informed of what is going on with the weather. I had a coworker
who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday
morning. We planned this flight several weeks ahead of time. The day
before the weather forecast showed that it could be questionable weather,
but still looked flyable. I let him know that it is questionable, but won't
really know for sure in the morning. The next morning the ceilings at PWT
dropped to 600', and we couldn't go. Tried again the next Saturday morning,
with basically the same results. After this I suggested a dinner flight,
and we went on the next Friday. I am up front with my passengers when they
fly with me, and say that the flight is very dependent on the weather, and
will keep them in the loop as far as what is going on with the weather, and
if they want will explain the things that went into my decision, especially
for a "no-go" decision.

You make it sound that a Private Pilot is on the same level as an Airline
Transport Pilot and is flying regular routes, which is not the case. You
also make it sound like a Private Pilot is taking passengers that are paying
for transportation, which if that was the case, you wouldn't be a Private
Pilot for very long as the FAA would quickly take your certificate. By
telling my passengers up front that the flight is very dependent on weather,
and there is always a possibility that we may not be able to go, it makes
making the "no-go" decision a whole lot easier and less stressfull, and they
are typically less disappointed. I have yet to come across a passenger that
was upset with because I made a "no-go" decision at the last minute, they
have always been understanding, especially when you explain to them why you
can't go.

The president of the flying club I belong to, is an ATP rated pilot and is
currently a 747 captain for a notable airline, and has been flying for this
airline for more than 20 years (started in 727s and moved up). He was
planning on a trip to Sun Valley from Seattle, in the club's 182, which does
have the Garmin gns430 GPS, and the Garmin Mode S transponder. Weather in
Seattle wasn't that great, and I figured he would go IFR, but he canceled
the flight. I saw him the next weekend, and asked why... he simply stated
"Weather...", so an Instrument Rating doesn't always get you where you want
to go.

> The same time periods might abruptly put you back into bad weather.
> And if the flight lasts three hours and covers a substantial distance,
> a lot can happen.

Again, a VFR pilot should always be aware of the weather, and have a
suitable backup plan before leaving. This is where things like Fligh****ch
(EFAS - Enroute Flight Advisory Service) is most helpful for keeping track
of what the the weather is doing ahead of you.

>
> Lately, every time I try to fly around KSEA (in a sim--but the sim
> picks up real-world weather in real time), it's IFR. Yesterday it was
> so bad that I couldn't see the runway even from 100 feet away; that
> flight ended tragically.
>

What time of the day are you flying around Seattle. Seattle is notorious
for "morning clouds and afternoon sun". Last week and the weekend before,
the weather was pretty crappy. I was in Hawaii the last 4 days, but looking
at the NOAA observations, and there wasn't anything really horrible the last
couple days in Seattle. Today is the typical "morning clouds and afternoon
sun"

It also sounds like SEA might have been below IFR minimums, but I know what
the IFR minimums for SEA are, as I know it probably depends on the avionics
in the plane as well (remember hopping a comercial flight from GTF to SEA,
and it was the first day in about a week that they could land at SEA as
their planes didn't have an adequate avionics package to land in very low
visibility.

>> While airlines are very well equipped with the latest technology,
>> there are some kinds of weather that even they won't attempt. There's
>> really no such thing as an "All-Weather" aircraft.

>
> Certainly, but airliners are so well equipped that there are few
> situations that truly ground them or require diversions. Sometimes
> they get overconfident.

Thunderstorms??? Turbulence??? In my trip to Hawaii, the captain informed
us the they were dodging a couple areas of weather, and as we went into
Honolulu we went around the north shore of Oahu to avoid some weather. They
aren't going to flying through stuff just becasue they can.

[Don Poitras]

In rec.aviation.piloting Wade Hasbrouck > wrote:

> a few West coast ones... :-)

> S16 - Copalis State. Land right on the beach... :-) It is a kind of
> popular place in Washington state. I have yet to do this, and my instructor
> hasn't done it yet either. I don't know of many beaches that you are
> acutally allowed to land on. :-)

> MMV - McMinneville, Or. They have a pretty cool air museum here, and is the
> current home of the Spruce Goose.

> BFI - Boeing Field, Seattle, WA - Museum of Flight (www.museumofflight.org)
> , one of the best aviation museums on the west coast. Can walk through a
> Concorde, and the first jet Air Force One.
> (http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=8835E3E8-2D58-4DFE-87C9-1087DA0DD65B)

I wish you could walk through the Concorde. Instead you can step aboard
and peer down the isle through a plexiglass panel. Even moth-balled, it's
still too special for the hoi-polloi...

> PWT - Bremerton National. Airport Diner, some of the best fish and chips in
> Puget Sound, taxi right up to the restaurant.


--
Don Poitras

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Don Poitras" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Wade Hasbrouck >
> wrote:
>
>> a few West coast ones... :-)
>
>> S16 - Copalis State. Land right on the beach... :-) It is a kind of
>> popular place in Washington state. I have yet to do this, and my
>> instructor
>> hasn't done it yet either. I don't know of many beaches that you are
>> acutally allowed to land on. :-)
>
>> MMV - McMinneville, Or. They have a pretty cool air museum here, and is
>> the
>> current home of the Spruce Goose.
>
>> BFI - Boeing Field, Seattle, WA - Museum of Flight
>> (www.museumofflight.org)
>> , one of the best aviation museums on the west coast. Can walk through a
>> Concorde, and the first jet Air Force One.
>> (http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=8835E3E8-2D58-4DFE-87C9-1087DA0DD65B)
>
> I wish you could walk through the Concorde. Instead you can step aboard
> and peer down the isle through a plexiglass panel. Even moth-balled, it's
> still too special for the hoi-polloi...

It is still pretty cool. At least the Museum of Flight lets you inside of
it... The one that is at the Smithsonian hangar at Dulles, all you get to
do is walk around it and look at it from the outside. There are a lot of
cool planes (mostly historically significant) at the Smithsonian hangar at
Dulles. SR-71 Blackbird, Enola Gay, Enterprise, and the Concorde. The
Museum of Flight at Boeing Field does have a Blackbird, but wasn't
designated as an SR-71, it was the model that had the drone on top somthing
like "YF-12A". They also have a Blackbird cockpit that you can sit, which I
am sure the Air Force went through and made there wasn't anything classified
in it.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Doesn't count in what way? A claim that flying is a useful method of
> transportation?

Yes.

> Then I could say the same thing about your example. Driving to the Louvre
> doesn't count, because you have to walk past the front lawn and up the
> stairs to get to the ticket counter.

I walk to the Louvre.

The walk to the Louvre from the museum's parking lot is extremely
short. The walk from the nearest airport is about 20 miles.

> In my experience, there is a "sweet spot" where GA will be more cost
> effective than commercial flying. It varies by the type of plane flown, the
> cost, and the location where you live, and my sweet spot has gotten bigger
> as I've grown into faster planes at better rates. In my case, I will
> frequently save time and money flying GA to airports that are from 150 -
> 600 miles from my home.

That does seem to be a useful range for GA. Of course, it doesn't
come remotely close to justifying GA for transportation, but if one
already has a license and an aircraft, why not?

> But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
> based on opinions that have been founded in something other than
> fact, you can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider
> that quite on topic.

Looking at general aviation objectively, it's extremely difficult to
see any real transportation value to it, except for certain specific
circumstances (heavy, short-range business travel, and some other
purposes).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> Yes, a current IFR rating could be helpful, but a VFR pilot should be very
> concious of what the weather is and what the weather will do, doesn't leave
> without a "back up" plan, should the weather not do what is expected.

Sure, but if you want to get from point A to point B, and the weather
doesn't cooperate, you are simply out of luck. This means that you
cannot rely on GA for scheduled (meaning planned in advance) travel if
you can only fly VFR.

The longer the trip you plan, the more likely it is that an inability
to fly IFR will prevent you from completing it (or even starting it).

> Also things like Fligh****ch are very useful tools for the VFR pilot to find out
> what the weather is doing up ahead of him. Also, a good pilot will keep his
> passengers informed of what is going on with the weather.

Unless I were flying over desert in the severest clear weather, I'd
fly IFR with passengers. You never know when clouds or fog might
appear ahead. Being equipped to handle icing would be handy, too,
although avoidance would be the key policy for that.

> I had a coworker
> who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday
> morning. We planned this flight several weeks ahead of time. The day
> before the weather forecast showed that it could be questionable weather,
> but still looked flyable. I let him know that it is questionable, but won't
> really know for sure in the morning. The next morning the ceilings at PWT
> dropped to 600', and we couldn't go. Tried again the next Saturday morning,
> with basically the same results.

The Seattle area seems to be IFR heaven. Very often when I load
real-world weather into my sim for a flight, it's all IFR, and I have
to file a flight plan to go anywhere (fortunately, I'm building up a
nice little library of common IFR flight plans).

> I am up front with my passengers when they
> fly with me, and say that the flight is very dependent on the weather, and
> will keep them in the loop as far as what is going on with the weather, and
> if they want will explain the things that went into my decision, especially
> for a "no-go" decision.

If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.

> You make it sound that a Private Pilot is on the same level as an Airline
> Transport Pilot and is flying regular routes, which is not the case.

If you seriously want to use GA for transportation, the private pilot
IS on the same level. Without an IFR rating and an appropriate
aircraft, a private pilot is fairly useless for real transportation,
unless he happens to live in a place like Death Valley.

> You also make it sound like a Private Pilot is taking passengers that are paying
> for transportation, which if that was the case, you wouldn't be a Private
> Pilot for very long as the FAA would quickly take your certificate.

Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
transport them here or there, with no money involved.

> The president of the flying club I belong to, is an ATP rated pilot and is
> currently a 747 captain for a notable airline, and has been flying for this
> airline for more than 20 years (started in 727s and moved up). He was
> planning on a trip to Sun Valley from Seattle, in the club's 182, which does
> have the Garmin gns430 GPS, and the Garmin Mode S transponder. Weather in
> Seattle wasn't that great, and I figured he would go IFR, but he canceled
> the flight. I saw him the next weekend, and asked why... he simply stated
> "Weather...", so an Instrument Rating doesn't always get you where you want
> to go.

He could have gone if he had really wanted to, with the proper rating
and aircraft. Maybe IFR irritates him; I can understand that, as it's
mostly instruments and radio, rather than admiring the countryside
outside the window. He already does that at work, so it would be a
sort of busman's holiday.

A 747 captain who doesn't have a plane of his own?

> Again, a VFR pilot should always be aware of the weather, and have a
> suitable backup plan before leaving.

Often the only backup plan is not to go, which is unacceptable if you
really need to get somewhere (the underlying presumption if you are
flying for transportation).

> What time of the day are you flying around Seattle. Seattle is notorious
> for "morning clouds and afternoon sun".

The bad weather has indeed been early in the day. I fly late in the
day here in Paris, but since I use real time and weather in many
cases, it's early morning with 1/4 mile of visibility when I try to
fly. It's good IFR practice, though. And it seems to be mostly low
visiblity, not windy or icy.

> Last week and the weekend before, the weather was pretty crappy.

Yes, I was there ... so to speak. My practice flights from KPAE to
KTIW were all IFR, but it was good practice. No rain and seemingly
very little wind, but practically zero visibility. I had one tragic
accident at KTIW when I couldn't see the runway until I was only about
100 feet off the threshold (and heading directly for a tall tree).
Thank goodness a new Baron 58 was waiting for me only seconds later!

> It also sounds like SEA might have been below IFR minimums, but I know what
> the IFR minimums for SEA are, as I know it probably depends on the avionics
> in the plane as well (remember hopping a comercial flight from GTF to SEA,
> and it was the first day in about a week that they could land at SEA as
> their planes didn't have an adequate avionics package to land in very low
> visibility.

I'm flying a simulated Baron 58. The 737-800 I have will autoland
under any conditions (if I don't misprogram the FMC and A/P, that is).

> Thunderstorms??? Turbulence???

Like I said, sometimes airliners get overconfident. It's unfortunate
that PICs are under more pressure than they should be to complete
flights in some cases.

> In my trip to Hawaii, the captain informed
> us the they were dodging a couple areas of weather, and as we went into
> Honolulu we went around the north shore of Oahu to avoid some weather. They
> aren't going to flying through stuff just becasue they can.

Maybe. But there have been many cases in which they've tried to do
so, and sometimes it doesn't work out. Pilots are under pressure, as
I've said; it's one of the drawbacks to flying for one's job. I'm
pretty sure a smart pilot with no pressure would back away from just
about any unpleasant weather, just to be safe.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> It's a simple cost benefit factor. I believe for a certain period of time
> in the 70s, most Piper trainer aircraft came stock with only one radio. It
> was adequate. In fact, it was an improvement over the light beacons of the
> early flying days. But believe it or not, people were able to navigate
> successfully by air even before there were Radio Navaids... And if they
> made a wrong turn, much as in a car, they turned around and found their
> way, or stopped at an airport and asked for directions.

Them's the good old days. Technically it's still perfectly possible
today, but it's a lot more difficult procedurally. After all, you
used to be able to fly without a license, too. Today you can still
fly without a license in theory, but it won't be legal.

> The very first link offerred by a google of "free Sectionals" produces a
> link that will satisfy your need. Took me all of about 2 minutes to find.

I get "AHS Roundup: Three teams line up MIAA Tourney spots" as the
first link, and nothing on the page that references aviation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Probably wherever you last showed up on their radar, especially if you have a
> transponder, were receiving flight following, and/or called for help on the
> emergency frequency.

Yup. But that could be a long way from where you actually went down.

From a safety standpoint, the more visible you are to others,
including ATC, the better off you are if something goes wrong.

> That's interesting. Do you use VATSim?

I'm considering VATSIM, yes. Currently I just use the in-game
features, which are not fancy or ideal, but enough to introduce me to
the concepts.

For example, yesterday I "filed" a VFR flight plan from Montgomery
Field (San Diego) to Palm Springs. I didn't like the default routing,
which took me over high mountains that would require a climb to over
11,000', so I added new waypoints that would take me through the
valley that leads to the city, not much higher than 8000'. I went
through some Class B along the way but I didn't bother to worry about
that on this flight (actually, the sim never proposed a Class B
transition to me, so I might never have actually entered Class B--the
sim doesn't provide clear information on the minima for the outer
parts of the airspace, although it marks their boundaries).

> What is the purpose of a flight plan in a simulation?

What is the purpose of anything in a simulation? To emulate real
life, of course.

> They will certainly know where to look if you crash.

If I crash, the game is over.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Not compared to the speed of light, either.

The speed of light isn't an aircraft; a jet airliner is.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> The A&P would love that if it ran the Hobbs
> meter at 32x as well.

Interestingly enough, the add-on aircraft in my sim have Hobbs meters,
and they definitely increment. I don't know if the sim provides a way
to reset them. The EHSI also keeps track of lamp hours; I don't know
what happens to the lamp as it ages.

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

[Don Tuite]

Harmonicas are best. Saxophones take two hands. Banjos only work in
open cockpits.

Don

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The walk to the Louvre from the museum's parking lot is extremely
> short.

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility? ;)

Seriously, though. I can't walk to any museums from my house. Yet I find
walking to be a valid mode of transportation.

> That does seem to be a useful range for GA. Of course, it doesn't
> come remotely close to justifying GA for transportation, but if one
> already has a license and an aircraft, why not?

It justifies it for me. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

>> But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
>> based on opinions that have been founded in something other than
>> fact, you can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider
>> that quite on topic.
>
> Looking at general aviation objectively, it's extremely difficult to
> see any real transportation value to it, except for certain specific
> circumstances (heavy, short-range business travel, and some other
> purposes).

I don't believe either of us are looking at it objectively. But it serves my
purposes quite well, and I appreciate the value that it offers me.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

One man's trash is another man's treasure...

[RK Henry]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:10:38 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Sure, but if you want to get from point A to point B, and the weather
>doesn't cooperate, you are simply out of luck. This means that you
>cannot rely on GA for scheduled (meaning planned in advance) travel if
>you can only fly VFR.
>
>The longer the trip you plan, the more likely it is that an inability
>to fly IFR will prevent you from completing it (or even starting it).
>...
>Unless I were flying over desert in the severest clear weather, I'd
>fly IFR with passengers. You never know when clouds or fog might
>appear ahead. Being equipped to handle icing would be handy, too,
>although avoidance would be the key policy for that.
>...
>If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
>wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.
>...
>If you seriously want to use GA for transportation, the private pilot
>IS on the same level. Without an IFR rating and an appropriate
>aircraft, a private pilot is fairly useless for real transportation,
>unless he happens to live in a place like Death Valley.

You know, you're awfully opinionated for someone who doesn't know what
the hell he's talking about.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

> Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
> Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
> world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
> General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
> they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> You know, you're awfully opinionated for someone who doesn't know what
> the hell he's talking about.

I'm opinionated, but I'm polite, and I stick to the subject, without
attacking the individual.

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

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>A Lieberma writes:
>
>> Keep looking, they are out there. And for free that is!
>
> I discover new stuff every few days.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

hmm... don't think you looked very hard... a Google search for "sectional
charts online" (no quotes), the site at the top of the list is one of the
better sites for online sectional and terminal charts...

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm opinionated, but I'm polite,
>

No, you're not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Being opinionated about
subjects you know nothing or very little about is not polite. It is an
insult to the people you are trying to discuss with when those people
obviously know perfectly well what they are talking about. It's also
illogical and plain dumb, if I may say so. Being aware of one's limits
of knowledge and acting accordingly in discussions - that's polite. Oh,
and should you think of using the good old excuse of "All I'm being is
open-minded and sceptic (sp?)" - that can be done in a polite and
sensible manner, too. You don't.

And this not-so-subtle difference you refuse to understand is the key
to all the problems you have in human interaction (here). Thanks for
bringing it up so succinctly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> Yes, a current IFR rating could be helpful, but a VFR pilot should be
>> very
>> concious of what the weather is and what the weather will do, doesn't
>> leave
>> without a "back up" plan, should the weather not do what is expected.
>
> Sure, but if you want to get from point A to point B, and the weather
> doesn't cooperate, you are simply out of luck. This means that you
> cannot rely on GA for scheduled (meaning planned in advance) travel if
> you can only fly VFR.

"scheduled" is poor choice of words, as to the FAA, that inferes "airline"
"air taxi" or "on demand operation", which is strictly prohibited under Part
91 of the FARs (part under which Private Pilots operate). In the eyes of
the FAA a "planned flight" is different than a "scheduled flight" (scheduled
implies that it occurs regularly and is "for hire" or "on demand")

If I want to drive from GTF to SEA, and the weather doesn't cooperate, I am
out of luck too. I have had this happen (Avalanches have been know to close
Snoqualmie Pass on I-90, and Steven Pass can be quite treacherous in the
winter). I was stuck on the eastside of the Cascades for two days while
they cleared both Stevens Pass on US 2 and Snoqualmie Pass I-90 because of
Avalanches, along with freezing rain on I-90 in Eastern Washington, not to
mention the 3 other mountain passes that had to cross to get to Eastern
Washington. This has actually happened to me twice two separate years)

No form of transportation is perfect and 100% reliable.

>
> The longer the trip you plan, the more likely it is that an inability
> to fly IFR will prevent you from completing it (or even starting it).

Many people fly from places like Seattle or California to Oshkosh every year
for EAA's AirVenture. I know many people that make flights from Seattle to
places on the other side of the Cascades, and the Rockies for that matter
with out problems. Granted it gets tougher in the winter time, and for that
matter driving across the Cascades in the winter time also becomes tougher
and is something I try to avoid.

>
>> Also things like Fligh****ch are very useful tools for the VFR pilot to
>> find out
>> what the weather is doing up ahead of him. Also, a good pilot will keep
>> his
>> passengers informed of what is going on with the weather.
>
> Unless I were flying over desert in the severest clear weather, I'd
> fly IFR with passengers. You never know when clouds or fog might
> appear ahead. Being equipped to handle icing would be handy, too,
> although avoidance would be the key policy for that.

Do you even know what Fligh****ch and EFAS are? Have you heard of Pilot
Reports? You make it sound like once you a Private Pilot is in the air he
is all alone and helpless.

Do you have any knowledge about weather? Do you know what weather conditions
need to be present for low clouds or fog to form or when they are likely to
form?

Are you familar with the weather trends of the areas that you are flying in?
i.e. fog in the Seattle area doesn't start to form until after midnight and
usually doesn't become problem until early morning...

Those pieces of knowledge alone can be extremely helpful figuring out what
might be going on at your destination or along the route.

Let me guess you would probably file IFR if it was a 2000' ceiling, 6 mile
visibility in going from PAE to SEA in a Cessna 172 or even the Baron.

>
>> I had a coworker
>> who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday
>> morning. We planned this flight several weeks ahead of time. The day
>> before the weather forecast showed that it could be questionable weather,
>> but still looked flyable. I let him know that it is questionable, but
>> won't
>> really know for sure in the morning. The next morning the ceilings at
>> PWT
>> dropped to 600', and we couldn't go. Tried again the next Saturday
>> morning,
>> with basically the same results.
>
> The Seattle area seems to be IFR heaven. Very often when I load
> real-world weather into my sim for a flight, it's all IFR, and I have
> to file a flight plan to go anywhere (fortunately, I'm building up a
> nice little library of common IFR flight plans).

Depends on when you fly... Fall/Winter (October - March) is definitely
"tougher" because of the weather. Spring/Summer are nice. afternoons,
Evenings, and nights in the Fall/Winter are generally better than mornings.

>
>> I am up front with my passengers when they
>> fly with me, and say that the flight is very dependent on the weather,
>> and
>> will keep them in the loop as far as what is going on with the weather,
>> and
>> if they want will explain the things that went into my decision,
>> especially
>> for a "no-go" decision.
>
> If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
> wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.

Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and
says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?",
this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

If you have passengers asking for these types of things, or you are
volunteering to fly them places like this, depending on how it is initiated,
it will more than likely will result in a violation of FAR 61.113. FAA says
that compensation doesn't always have to take a monetary form, doing a
"favor" for someone can be considered compensation by the FAA. You are
starting to imply that a Private Pilot can operate as an "air taxi" or "on
demand operation" which is strictly prohibited for Private Pilots. A
Private Pilot can only fly in furthence of a business if it is "incidental
and there are no other passengers or cargo on board for hire"

I make it perfectly clear to my passengers, that I am the one responsible
for the safety of the flight, and if at any point I see that it is not safe
to go or continue, I will terminate the flight, and ask before they get in
the airplane (alot of times before I even book the plane) if they can deal
with the possible dissappointment and/or hardship of not being able to go or
complete the flight, and if they can't, we don't fly. I am not an airline,
I am not an air taxi, I am not an on demand operation, I am a private pilot
who wants to go someplace with some friends, and see it as a convient form
of transportation to take my friends and myself places that we want to go,
and if the weather doesn't cooperate, we have a backup plan either an
alternate route or ground transportation if we really want to go.

I would rather fly to my hometown in Montana from Seattle in about 5 hours,
vs. the 10 hours of driving to get there.

You also make it sound like a Private Pilot doesn't check the weather until
about 5 minutes before his friends show up at the airport to go fly, when in
reality, a responsible pilot will be checking it further out in advance than
you may think. For instance, if I am going flying in two weeks, I will keep
an eye on the long range forecasts, starting about 10 days out from the
flight. While these forecasts are not pinpoint accurate, they are generally
accurate enough to tell me if I need to start reconsidering my options,
especially with in 3 days or so of the flight. I do this about once a day
up until about 24 hours before the flight, at which time the more detailed
forecasts (online stanadard weather briefings) and things such as the
Terminal Area Forecasts start become available as they forecast what the
ceilings should do and what the visibility should be. Then I will check it
again before leaving for the airport, which is when I call Flight Service
for a Standard Weather Breifing (up to this point I get Standard Weather
Breifings online through DUATS), I actually call Flight Service and talk to
them just in case I missed something in the online breifings. If at any
point during this process, I feel that things are not safe for the flight, I
let my passengers know and what our options are (wait and see, wait it out,
cancel the flight, find a different mode of transportation). This makes it
much easier should it become a "no-go".

>
>> You make it sound that a Private Pilot is on the same level as an Airline
>> Transport Pilot and is flying regular routes, which is not the case.
>
> If you seriously want to use GA for transportation, the private pilot
> IS on the same level. Without an IFR rating and an appropriate
> aircraft, a private pilot is fairly useless for real transportation,
> unless he happens to live in a place like Death Valley.

A Private Pilot IS NOT on the same level. Again "regular travel" implies a
"scheduled service" and operating under something other than FAR Part 91.

>
>> You also make it sound like a Private Pilot is taking passengers that are
>> paying
>> for transportation, which if that was the case, you wouldn't be a Private
>> Pilot for very long as the FAA would quickly take your certificate.
>
> Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
> transport them here or there, with no money involved.

FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation
doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113. If I am taking
friends and family on a trip they must realize, that there is always a
possibility we might not be able to fly or that we may need to stay longer
at our destination, otherwise again we don't fly and we find a different
mode of transportation. If a friend comes up to me and says "I need to go
somplace, can you fly me there?" and I do the flight (even if I pay for the
flight), that can still be considered a violation of FAR 61.113.

>
>> The president of the flying club I belong to, is an ATP rated pilot and
>> is
>> currently a 747 captain for a notable airline, and has been flying for
>> this
>> airline for more than 20 years (started in 727s and moved up). He was
>> planning on a trip to Sun Valley from Seattle, in the club's 182, which
>> does
>> have the Garmin gns430 GPS, and the Garmin Mode S transponder. Weather
>> in
>> Seattle wasn't that great, and I figured he would go IFR, but he canceled
>> the flight. I saw him the next weekend, and asked why... he simply
>> stated
>> "Weather...", so an Instrument Rating doesn't always get you where you
>> want
>> to go.
>
> He could have gone if he had really wanted to, with the proper rating
> and aircraft. Maybe IFR irritates him; I can understand that, as it's
> mostly instruments and radio, rather than admiring the countryside
> outside the window. He already does that at work, so it would be a
> sort of busman's holiday.

That first sentence is almost insulting, implying that he is not properly
rated and would consider taking improperly rated aircraft.

He has the proper rating, as he is a Designated Pilot Examiner for Private,
Commercial, Instrument, ATP, Flight Instructor, and Multi Engine which means
he has all of those ratings and is current, and he had properly rated
aircraft, an IFR rated Cessna 182 with Garmin gns 430 GPS, DME, Garmin Mode
S transponder, etc.

Going "because you really want/need to" will more than likely get you
killed, becuase you are no longer thinking rationally about the situation
and results in poor judgement.

I know him, you don't... He doesn't mind IFR, as long as it is sensible and
safe. He was doing IFR with a student the other weekend. If he didn't like
IFR he wouldn't do it. He evaluated the situation, and felt that it was not
safe to go, even IFR, and knowing him, he doesn't go if it is not safe.

Do you actually think your typical airline captain has his eyes glued to the
instrument panel when it is VMC outside the plane?

>
> A 747 captain who doesn't have a plane of his own?

What are you implying? I almost take this as an insult, like he is a
"lesser" 747 captain because he doesn't have his own plane.

In a way he does "have his own plane..." The club is limited to 60 members,
each member is a 1/60 owner in each of the three planes the club has. Why
own your own plane and pay all of the maintenance on it yourself, when you
can share the cost with 59 other people and the availability and upkeep of
the planes are excellent, and since he is the president of the club he also
gets a certain amount of free flight time each month.

>
>> Again, a VFR pilot should always be aware of the weather, and have a
>> suitable backup plan before leaving.
>
> Often the only backup plan is not to go, which is unacceptable if you
> really need to get somewhere (the underlying presumption if you are
> flying for transportation).

A backup plan could be an alternate route or other means of transportation.
I believe his back up plan, and in the case of many others, is to drive,
which to the Private Pilots I know, is a suitable and acceptable back up
plan, which is better than killing yourself in an airplane because you did
something stupid or had "get-there-itis"

>
>> What time of the day are you flying around Seattle. Seattle is notorious
>> for "morning clouds and afternoon sun".
>
> The bad weather has indeed been early in the day. I fly late in the
> day here in Paris, but since I use real time and weather in many
> cases, it's early morning with 1/4 mile of visibility when I try to
> fly. It's good IFR practice, though. And it seems to be mostly low
> visiblity, not windy or icy.

Seattle typically is not windy or icy.

>
>> Last week and the weekend before, the weather was pretty crappy.
>
> Yes, I was there ... so to speak. My practice flights from KPAE to
> KTIW were all IFR, but it was good practice. No rain and seemingly
> very little wind, but practically zero visibility. I had one tragic
> accident at KTIW when I couldn't see the runway until I was only about
> 100 feet off the threshold (and heading directly for a tall tree).
> Thank goodness a new Baron 58 was waiting for me only seconds later!
>
>> It also sounds like SEA might have been below IFR minimums, but I know
>> what
>> the IFR minimums for SEA are, as I know it probably depends on the
>> avionics
>> in the plane as well (remember hopping a comercial flight from GTF to
>> SEA,
>> and it was the first day in about a week that they could land at SEA as
>> their planes didn't have an adequate avionics package to land in very low
>> visibility.

I meant to say "I don't know what the IFR minimums are for SEA"

If you are flying IFR in the simulator, don't you know what the IFR minimums
are? Just because you are on an IFR flight plan, doesn't mean you can land
in zero visibility, especially at a place like TIW, as many airports have
some minimums where if you don't see the runway at a given altitude, you are
required to execute a missed approach.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Don Poitras" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Wade Hasbrouck >
> wrote:
>
>> a few West coast ones... :-)
>
>> S16 - Copalis State. Land right on the beach... :-) It is a kind of
>> popular place in Washington state. I have yet to do this, and my
>> instructor
>> hasn't done it yet either. I don't know of many beaches that you are
>> acutally allowed to land on. :-)
>
>> MMV - McMinneville, Or. They have a pretty cool air museum here, and is
>> the
>> current home of the Spruce Goose.
>
>> BFI - Boeing Field, Seattle, WA - Museum of Flight
>> (www.museumofflight.org)
>> , one of the best aviation museums on the west coast. Can walk through a
>> Concorde, and the first jet Air Force One.
>> (http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=8835E3E8-2D58-4DFE-87C9-1087DA0DD65B)
>
> I wish you could walk through the Concorde. Instead you can step aboard
> and peer down the isle through a plexiglass panel. Even moth-balled, it's
> still too special for the hoi-polloi...
>


You aren't missing much in the Concorde cabin. I flew on it from Heathrow to
Bahrain in '76. The seats were nice leather but the size of standard coach
seats. The food was good and the view out the window was interesting but
other than that it felt like a really long regional jet. Thank god it was
fast because it was not comfortable.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?
>
> I walk IFR.
>
>> Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no
>> value.
>> Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in
>> the
>> world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
>> General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
>> they wouldn't use it.
>
> I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
> transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
> that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
> aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.
>

Some of us value our time. I understand that you don't, else you would earn
more than $637 per hour. But in my case GA allows me to leave the office and
see 4 customers in a day instead of 2 or 3 if I were to drive.

[Jim Stewart]

Don Tuite wrote:

> Harmonicas are best. Saxophones take two hands. Banjos only work in
> open cockpits.

Ernest Gann, (Fate is the Hunter), managed a small accordion.

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:38:38 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>
>> Harmonicas are best. Saxophones take two hands. Banjos only work in
>> open cockpits.
>
>Ernest Gann, (Fate is the Hunter), managed a small accordion.
>
Well, in a DC3 cockpit,, I could see a 2-row diatonic like a Hohner
pokerwork. But I think even a 12-bass PA would be a stretch.

In calm air, you could keep the wings level with the rudder pedals for
32 bars, so I guess playing 2-hands is ok if you're trimmed and not
maneuvering. Still no trombones, and a glockenspeil would hide the
panel.

Don

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Some of us value our time. I understand that you don't, else you would earn
> more than $637 per hour.

Things can change unexpectedly and suddenly in life, and they don't
always change in a positive way. Live for today and be happy.

> But in my case GA allows me to leave the office and
> see 4 customers in a day instead of 2 or 3 if I were to drive.

Sounds like a very exceptional case.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No, you're not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Being opinionated about
> subjects you know nothing or very little about is not polite. It is an
> insult to the people you are trying to discuss with when those people
> obviously know perfectly well what they are talking about. It's also
> illogical and plain dumb, if I may say so. Being aware of one's limits
> of knowledge and acting accordingly in discussions - that's polite. Oh,
> and should you think of using the good old excuse of "All I'm being is
> open-minded and sceptic (sp?)" - that can be done in a polite and
> sensible manner, too. You don't.
>
> And this not-so-subtle difference you refuse to understand is the key
> to all the problems you have in human interaction (here). Thanks for
> bringing it up so succinctly.

I provide the theory ... and others provide the illustration.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> "scheduled" is poor choice of words, as to the FAA, that inferes "airline"
> "air taxi" or "on demand operation", which is strictly prohibited under Part
> 91 of the FARs (part under which Private Pilots operate). In the eyes of
> the FAA a "planned flight" is different than a "scheduled flight" (scheduled
> implies that it occurs regularly and is "for hire" or "on demand")

I wasn't using the FAA's dictionary. Scheduled meant marked on a
calendar, written in a planner, or just memorized as something one
plans to do.

> No form of transportation is perfect and 100% reliable.

But aviation is unusually vulnerable to weather. That's why so much
of modern aviation seeks to reduce the effects of weather.

> Do you even know what Fligh****ch and EFAS are? Have you heard of Pilot
> Reports? You make it sound like once you a Private Pilot is in the air he
> is all alone and helpless.

I think it's safe to plan as if you'll be alone. You aren't really
likely to be alone and helpless, but having contigency plans for that
possibility cannot hurt. I might have any number of ways to know and
avoid bad weather, but I have to be prepared to handle bad weather if
I encounter it.

> Depends on when you fly... Fall/Winter (October - March) is definitely
> "tougher" because of the weather. Spring/Summer are nice. afternoons,
> Evenings, and nights in the Fall/Winter are generally better than mornings.

It was okay last night, although my flight ended tragically for other
reasons related directly to the sim. I almost landed safely. I'm not
sure if I survived.

> Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
> FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and
> says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?",
> this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
> illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

So where does one draw the line? Is it against regulations to say yes
to any request for a plane ride? After all, that would be planning
the flight, in a sense.

> I make it perfectly clear to my passengers, that I am the one responsible
> for the safety of the flight, and if at any point I see that it is not safe
> to go or continue, I will terminate the flight, and ask before they get in
> the airplane (alot of times before I even book the plane) if they can deal
> with the possible dissappointment and/or hardship of not being able to go or
> complete the flight, and if they can't, we don't fly. I am not an airline,
> I am not an air taxi, I am not an on demand operation, I am a private pilot
> who wants to go someplace with some friends, and see it as a convient form
> of transportation to take my friends and myself places that we want to go,
> and if the weather doesn't cooperate, we have a backup plan either an
> alternate route or ground transportation if we really want to go.

That's fine, but it just emphasizes how unsuitable GA is for practical
transportation in most cases. You don't have to worry about that with
a car. Commercial airlines don't worry about it excessively, although
it's occasionally a factor.

> For instance, if I am going flying in two weeks, I will keep
> an eye on the long range forecasts, starting about 10 days out from the
> flight.

A ten-day forecast isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

> FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
> prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation
> doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113. If I am taking
> friends and family on a trip they must realize, that there is always a
> possibility we might not be able to fly or that we may need to stay longer
> at our destination, otherwise again we don't fly and we find a different
> mode of transportation. If a friend comes up to me and says "I need to go
> somplace, can you fly me there?" and I do the flight (even if I pay for the
> flight), that can still be considered a violation of FAR 61.113.

No FAR is violated if you just go by car, or by commercial airline.

> Going "because you really want/need to" will more than likely get you
> killed, becuase you are no longer thinking rationally about the situation
> and results in poor judgement.

Maybe, but for the umpteenth time, this just emphasizes how
impractical GA is for transportation.

> Do you actually think your typical airline captain has his eyes glued to the
> instrument panel when it is VMC outside the plane?

I think a lot of them doze off a bit during long flights.

> What are you implying?

That a 747 captain should be able to afford his own plane.

> If you are flying IFR in the simulator, don't you know what the IFR minimums
> are?

I don't know anything that requires a chart, as I don't have charts.

> Just because you are on an IFR flight plan, doesn't mean you can land
> in zero visibility, especially at a place like TIW, as many airports have
> some minimums where if you don't see the runway at a given altitude, you are
> required to execute a missed approach.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature decided to reduce the visibility while I
was en route. I could have executed a missed approach, but for what
purpose? Everything was in the same condition. I was not equipped to
land anywhere with only a hundred feet or so in front of me. Do I
just stay in a holding pattern until the weather improves or I run out
of fuel? It's a serious question.

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

[Gene Seibel]

I have used my airplane to travel to jobsites for many years. It has
several advantages.

1) By the time you wait in line to get on an airliner, and have extra
stops and plane changes, especially with today's security issues, I can
usually get their quicker.

2) I can often get there cheaper, especially if it's a last minute
trip, or when I consider fees for changing tickets for my unpredictable
return trip, or fees for extra luggage for the test equipment I
sometimes need to carry.

3) Easy to change plans or add a new destination, which I have done on
numerous occasions.

4) It makes me a happy camper.

It's certainly not impractical.
--
Gene Seibel KB0NNN
http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?
>
> I walk IFR.
>
> > Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
> > Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
> > world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
> > General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
> > they wouldn't use it.
>
> I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
> transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
> that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
> aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
>> But in my case GA allows me to leave the office and
>> see 4 customers in a day instead of 2 or 3 if I were to drive.
>
> Sounds like a very exceptional case.

Not exceptional in anyway whatsoever.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 25 Oct 2006 10:51:07 -0700, "Gene Seibel" > wrote:

>I have used my airplane to travel to jobsites for many years. It has
>several advantages.
>
>1) By the time you wait in line to get on an airliner, and have extra
>stops and plane changes, especially with today's security issues, I can
>usually get their quicker.
>

BEFORE today's security issues I could normally beat the airlines out
to about the distance of Denver/Boulder/Orlando which is max nonstop
for the Deb.

>2) I can often get there cheaper, especially if it's a last minute
>trip, or when I consider fees for changing tickets for my unpredictable
>return trip, or fees for extra luggage for the test equipment I
>sometimes need to carry.

On a last minute trip with a non discount airfare the Deb would be
cheaper. With Joyce and I it was cheaper than a pair of discount
airfares.

>
>3) Easy to change plans or add a new destination, which I have done on
>numerous occasions.

If the mood hits you can change.

>
>4) It makes me a happy camper.

I love mine too.
>
>It's certainly not impractical.

But the weather is much more of a factor than it is flying commercial.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

Many cities that had airline service 30 years ago, no longer
have any service, even an old Beech BE99 doesn't stop
anymore.
Years ago a company with offices in Wichita and Burlington
would have regular staff meetings. In order to get four to
six people to Burlington for an 8 AM Monday meeting they had
to buy six tickets and leave Wichita Sunday morning. They
then had to have rooms at the hotel for 6. The meeting
would run until 4-5 PM, after the last flight out that day,
so another night in the hotel. Then they would travel on
Tuesday, getting home in the late afternoon. Cost was in
the $5,000 range, considering lost time, even more.

But they could charter a King Air for a round trip cost of
$2.00 a mile [higher now] and depart Wichita at 6 AM and be
there for the 8 AM meeting. When they finished at 5-6 PM
they'd go back to the airport and be home for a late dinner
and their own bed by 9 PM. No lost week-end, no strange
hotels, no days missed in the office.

The cost was a King Air, a motel room for the pilot so duty
time limits could have the required 10 hours of consecutive
rest between "days" and a charge for meals and taxi. They
also paid a wait time charge for the pilot and airplane for
time in excess of the flight time waiting.

It is hard to beat the time from LAX to NYC, even with a
personal G-V and most Lear Jets require a fuel stop coast to
coast. But most business trips are under 1,000 miles and a
200 mph Bonanza can cover that in 5-6 hours. The airlines
require you check-in 1-2 hours early, fly a 2 hour flight
and take 1/2 an hour to get your bags.
You can't get any real work done on the airlines and you
"meet the 'nicest' people on the airlines."


"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
| On 25 Oct 2006 10:51:07 -0700, "Gene Seibel"
> wrote:
|
| >I have used my airplane to travel to jobsites for many
years. It has
| >several advantages.
| >
| >1) By the time you wait in line to get on an airliner,
and have extra
| >stops and plane changes, especially with today's security
issues, I can
| >usually get their quicker.
| >
|
| BEFORE today's security issues I could normally beat the
airlines out
| to about the distance of Denver/Boulder/Orlando which is
max nonstop
| for the Deb.
|
| >2) I can often get there cheaper, especially if it's a
last minute
| >trip, or when I consider fees for changing tickets for my
unpredictable
| >return trip, or fees for extra luggage for the test
equipment I
| >sometimes need to carry.
|
| On a last minute trip with a non discount airfare the Deb
would be
| cheaper. With Joyce and I it was cheaper than a pair of
discount
| airfares.
|
| >
| >3) Easy to change plans or add a new destination, which I
have done on
| >numerous occasions.
|
| If the mood hits you can change.
|
| >
| >4) It makes me a happy camper.
|
| I love mine too.
| >
| >It's certainly not impractical.
|
| But the weather is much more of a factor than it is flying
commercial.
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Gene Seibel]

I find that the weather is not a factor 80% of the time. The airline or
driving option is there for those times. I have to fly commercial
ocassionally to properly appreciate GA. ;)


Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
> But the weather is much more of a factor than it is flying commercial.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bart]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> > I'm opinionated, but I'm polite,
> >
>
> No, you're not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Being opinionated about
> subjects you know nothing or very little about is not polite.


>From what I've seen, Mxsmanic seems to know alot more than he is being
given credit for. In fact, I've been impressed with how much knowledge
he has on aviation considering he apparently uses sims rather than
doing the real thing.

As for this particular thread, he has an opinion that GA is in general,
not practical for tranportation purposes. He has a level of knowledge
on the subject and he has also made some reasonable assumptions to come
to this conclusion.

Therefore, I believe your assertion that he is impolite is wrong. He
has an opinion on a subject that he is at least somewhat familiar with
and he is discussing it. He has not been impolite or made personal
attacks on anyone. (Which is more than I can say for other's in this
group).

And in the opinion of *this* licensed pilot, he is correct. In general,
GA is NOT practical for transportation. Of course there are exceptions
to the rule, but most families aren't keen on being restricted to going
to aviation museums that are on airport properties for their vacations.

The fact that weather is a major factor on GA travel, the fact that
once you get to your destination you STILL most likely have to rent a
car, the fact that it's still going to cost more to fly yourself to
your destination than drive or fly commercially.... makes GA
impractical.

Sure, you can create a scenario that will contradict this (if you live
in a place where the weather is VFR most of the time, if you plan to go
to the aviation museum at an airport or if you fly to an airport where
courtesy cars are available for use for as long and when you need them,
etc). BUT, if you were to work up a scenario for a *typical* trip, GA
flying is NOT practical.

You guys that have the equipment, money, resources and the situation to
make your GA flying practical for transportation - that's great. But
don't fool yourselves into thinking that it's par for the course.

[Jim Stewart]

Bart wrote:

Much snippage....

> You guys that have the equipment, money, resources and the situation to
> make your GA flying practical for transportation - that's great. But
> don't fool yourselves into thinking that it's par for the course.

That's really the point.

Many of us have had times in our lives where car
ownership was not practical. OTOH, most of us
would now not find a bicycle to be practical for
a day-to-day means of transportation.

"Practical" is absolutely relative to a person's
financial resources, time, geographical location
and other individual issues.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bart > posted:
>
> The fact that weather is a major factor on GA travel, the fact that
> once you get to your destination you STILL most likely have to rent a
> car, the fact that it's still going to cost more to fly yourself to
> your destination than drive or fly commercially.... makes GA
> impractical.
>
A lot of this depends on the individual. I doubt that Jay's family would
agree with you that their aircraft is impractical as transportation. I
don't understand the notion that it is a problem that one is "still most
likely to have to rent a car"; so what? Your notion that it will cost more
to fly oneself to the destination is quite often untrue, unless one's time
is worth little, or if the alternative of flying commercially is
considered (in which case one would still rent a car... so, once again I
don't understand that as a criticism of GA usage).

Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed out,
the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an hour, and
most of the time less than a day. That is not much to be concerned about
if you compare that to having to make connecting flights to take the same
trip commercially. On a recent return from a vacation, we were delayed by
over a day because of this, and we were the lucky ones... others were
delayed for almost a week because all the flights to their destination
were overbooked.

> You guys that have the equipment, money, resources and the situation
> to make your GA flying practical for transportation - that's great.
> But don't fool yourselves into thinking that it's par for the course.
>
It may not be practical for you, and I certainly wouldn't cite
transportation as the primary reason for GA. I fly more hours in the
vicinity than I do going someplace. OTOH, there are places I wouldn't go
very often if I had to drive because drive time is 5+ hours and I can fly
there in 1.5 hours. So, I can easily make a 1/2 day trip out of something
that would be a 2-day affair.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Many of us have had times in our lives where car
> ownership was not practical. OTOH, most of us
> would now not find a bicycle to be practical for
> a day-to-day means of transportation.
>
> "Practical" is absolutely relative to a person's
> financial resources, time, geographical location
> and other individual issues.

And practicality in a broad sense must be determined with respect to
financial resources of typical people in the majority. Most people
simply cannot afford to fly from place to place, and so GA is not
practical for their transportation at all. People who fly as pilots
find excuses to fly, but as a general rule, their flying is impossible
to justify in any practical way--they fly because they want to fly,
period, even though they fly at a tremendous loss. It's interesting
that some seem to feel they must deny this and defend their flying as
some sort of practical solution to a practical problem. GA is almost
never in that category.

In fact, the impracticality of GA is what has driven the development
of commercial aviation. Commercial aviation has spent decades
developing methods to fly reliably from place to place under all
weather conditions, with minimum cancellations and diversions, and at
an affordable cost. Commercial aviation has tried to make flying
something akin to taking a train or bus, and it has largely succeeded.
This is something that GA has never done and never will do.

I'm amused by the perpetual predictions of misinformed or
overenthusiastic futurists who seem to think that at some point in the
future everyone will be flying a personal flying machine instead of
driving a car. I don't see that ever happening, for a great many
reasons. Certainly there has been no movement whatsoever in that
direction. In fact, over time, GA has steadily become more and more
of a rich man's hobby, rather than a form of practical transportation.

And, if the truth be told, I think that GA that worked like automobile
transportation does today would be a total disaster for society. The
unforgiving nature of flying tends to ensure that this will never
happen.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> A lot of this depends on the individual. I doubt that Jay's family would
> agree with you that their aircraft is impractical as transportation. I
> don't understand the notion that it is a problem that one is "still most
> likely to have to rent a car"; so what?

Because if you take a car somewhere, you don't have to rent a plane to
finish the trip.

> Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed out,
> the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an hour, and
> most of the time less than a day.

When the meeting is at 10 AM, that's a show-stopper.

> That is not much to be concerned about
> if you compare that to having to make connecting flights to take the same
> trip commercially.

The commercial flight can generally be relied upon; the GA flight
cannot. Commercial aviation has spent decades and billions of dollars
to ensure that airliners can fly in all but the worst weather.

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

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In fact, over time, GA has steadily become more and more
> of a rich man's hobby, rather than a form of practical transportation.

In Alaska, GA is often the only form of practical transportation. In May of
1999, there was one aircraft and one pilot for every 61 Alaskans [1]. Small
planes are a common sight and links [2] and [3] are examples of what one
might see at any sizeable lake with houses on its shores.

[1] http://sled.alaska.edu/akfaq/aksuper.html
[2] http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/day14.html
(Advance to photo 10.)
[3] http://trips.lugojweb.com/trips2005/alaska/day20.html
(Advance to photos 2 and 3.)

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> In Alaska, GA is often the only form of practical transportation.

So I've heard ... but you have to admit that Alaska is kind of a
special case (for one thing, it's almost as big as the CONUS). It
must be a nice place for people who like to fly.

Looks like Hawaii is also fertile ground for GA, but for somewhat
different reasons.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> It's a simple cost benefit factor. I believe for a certain period of
>> time in the 70s, most Piper trainer aircraft came stock with only one
>> radio. It was adequate. In fact, it was an improvement over the light
>> beacons of the early flying days. But believe it or not, people were
>> able to navigate successfully by air even before there were Radio
>> Navaids... And if they made a wrong turn, much as in a car, they turned
>> around and found their way, or stopped at an airport and asked for
>> directions.
>
> Them's the good old days. Technically it's still perfectly possible
> today, but it's a lot more difficult procedurally. After all, you
> used to be able to fly without a license, too. Today you can still
> fly without a license in theory, but it won't be legal.

I'm not sure, but I believe the first pilot's license was actually issued
by the Wright Brothers...

>> The very first link offerred by a google of "free Sectionals" produces
>> a link that will satisfy your need. Took me all of about 2 minutes to
>> find.
>
> I get "AHS Roundup: Three teams line up MIAA Tourney spots" as the
> first link, and nothing on the page that references aviation.
>

I meant Google Groups, sorry.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=free%20Sectionals&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&sa=N&tab=wg

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Probably wherever you last showed up on their radar, especially if you
>> have a transponder, were receiving flight following, and/or called for
>> help on the emergency frequency.
>
> Yup. But that could be a long way from where you actually went down.
>
> From a safety standpoint, the more visible you are to others,
> including ATC, the better off you are if something goes wrong.

A VFR Flight plan doesn't do more to improve your visibility with ACT except
to inlude a name, contact phone number, and aircraft color.

>> They will certainly know where to look if you crash.
>
> If I crash, the game is over.

This is different than in real life.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?
>
> I walk IFR.

How do you maintain separation from other ground-craft? GCT?

>> Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no
>> value. Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of
>> people in the world, because there are many people, both pilots and
>> otherwise, that use General Aviation as a form of transportation. If
>> there is no value in it, they wouldn't use it.
>
> I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
> transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
> that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
> aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

Why do you think that? Why would people fly if it did not provide some
benefit?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How do you maintain separation from other ground-craft? GCT?

I'm ugly, which serves as my TCAS.

> Why do you think that?

Because all the evidence points to it.

> Why would people fly if it did not provide some benefit?

Because they enjoy flying.

Why do people ride horses? It certainly isn't for transportation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> A VFR Flight plan doesn't do more to improve your visibility with ACT except
> to inlude a name, contact phone number, and aircraft color.

That's an improvement, especially if they are trying to figure out
what happened to you, or if they are looking for your crash site.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> A lot of this depends on the individual. I doubt that Jay's family
>> would agree with you that their aircraft is impractical as
>> transportation. I don't understand the notion that it is a problem
>> that one is "still most likely to have to rent a car"; so what?
>
> Because if you take a car somewhere, you don't have to rent a plane to
> finish the trip.
>
Again, I say, "so what?" It's a non-issue, because if you fly
commercially, you *still* have to rent a car to get around.

>> Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed
>> out, the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an
>> hour, and most of the time less than a day.
>
> When the meeting is at 10 AM, that's a show-stopper.
>
People who "must be there" at a particular time miss a lot of meetings,
regardless of their mode of transportation.

>> That is not much to be concerned about
>> if you compare that to having to make connecting flights to take the
>> same trip commercially.
>
> The commercial flight can generally be relied upon; the GA flight
> cannot. Commercial aviation has spent decades and billions of dollars
> to ensure that airliners can fly in all but the worst weather.
>
That is not my experience at all. Within the last 5 months, my wife and I
have missed connecting flights due to airline issues 2 out of 2 times. I
have yet to miss my arrival times flying GA.

Neil

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Why do people ride horses? It certainly isn't for transportation.

As usual, WRONG AGAIN.

Amish community use horses for PRIMARY transportation. Of course you
wouldn't know that in your sim world.

Allen

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Why do people ride horses? It certainly isn't for transportation.
>
> As usual, WRONG AGAIN.

Surprise!

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> How do you maintain separation from other ground-craft? GCT?
>
> I'm ugly, which serves as my TCAS.

Visual conditions are required for ugliness separation.

>> Why do you think that?
>
> Because all the evidence points to it.

Only if you have selective evidence tracking.

>> Why would people fly if it did not provide some benefit?
>
> Because they enjoy flying.

Most people enjoy having sex. And yet there are many reasons that people
have sex.

> Why do people ride horses? It certainly isn't for transportation.

Some people actually DO ride horses for transportation. Someone else
mentioned the Amish, who do it for religious reasons. Mounted Police patrol
numerous cities around the world including New York, London, Toronto,
Washington DC, and Detroit because it is more efficient for their purpose.
There are certain parts of the world where riding a horse or pack animal is
the only possible way to navigate the terrain.

However, there are other ways in which I find your example very
appropriate. In New York, the Mounted Police and Horse & Buggy drivers put
blinders on the sides of the horses' heads. The blinders allow the horses
to see only in the direction that their head is pointed at any given time.
This helps prevent them from being scared of the busy world around them so
that they can pretend that it does not exist.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Visual conditions are required for ugliness separation.

Many pedestrians are equipped with radar that warns them of ugly
traffic without the need to look.

> Most people enjoy having sex. And yet there are many reasons that people
> have sex.

Apart from enjoying it, the only other reason that occurs to me is
reproduction, and I don't think that's a common reason.

> Some people actually DO ride horses for transportation.

But most people don't.

> However, there are other ways in which I find your example very
> appropriate. In New York, the Mounted Police and Horse & Buggy drivers put
> blinders on the sides of the horses' heads. The blinders allow the horses
> to see only in the direction that their head is pointed at any given time.
> This helps prevent them from being scared of the busy world around them so
> that they can pretend that it does not exist.

I don't think pilots have that problem, usually.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Apart from enjoying it, the only other reason that occurs to me is
> reproduction, and I don't think that's a common reason.

Man, you are not playing with a full deck of cards to say something as
stupid as the above.

Time to leave that sim world and join the REAL world.....

Allen

[Bart]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> > Neil Gould writes:
> >
> >> A lot of this depends on the individual. I doubt that Jay's family
> >> would agree with you that their aircraft is impractical as
> >> transportation. I don't understand the notion that it is a problem
> >> that one is "still most likely to have to rent a car"; so what?
> >
> > Because if you take a car somewhere, you don't have to rent a plane to
> > finish the trip.
> >
> Again, I say, "so what?" It's a non-issue, because if you fly
> commercially, you *still* have to rent a car to get around.

But in cases where you *would* take a car, you wouldn't need one.


> >> Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed
> >> out, the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an
> >> hour, and most of the time less than a day.
> >
> > When the meeting is at 10 AM, that's a show-stopper.
> >
> People who "must be there" at a particular time miss a lot of meetings,
> regardless of their mode of transportation.

But you're much more likely to miss it if you're depending on GA.



> > The commercial flight can generally be relied upon; the GA flight
> > cannot. Commercial aviation has spent decades and billions of dollars
> > to ensure that airliners can fly in all but the worst weather.
> >
> That is not my experience at all. Within the last 5 months, my wife and I
> have missed connecting flights due to airline issues 2 out of 2 times. I
> have yet to miss my arrival times flying GA.

I haven't missed a connecting flight for about the last 20 times I've
flown commercially. On average, many more people make their connecting
flights than not.

As for GA, I've been trying to make a trip for two weeks now, but
haven't been able due to weather. If I had needed to, I could have made
the trip in a car and been back home the same day two weeks ago. I put
it off because I'm using it as an excuse to fly - which I believe is
what most GA pilots probably do.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Many of us have had times in our lives where car
> ownership was not practical. OTOH, most of us
> would now not find a bicycle to be practical for
> a day-to-day means of transportation.
>
> "Practical" is absolutely relative to a person's
> financial resources, time, geographical location
> and other individual issues.

Agreed... There was a time in my life where a bicycle was a practical means
of transportation... As my economic situation improved, it progressed to a
motorcycle... Then to various cars, SUVs, trucks, etc... At one point it was
sports cars -- perhaps we shouldn't use the term 'practical' with respect to
some of them... <grin> These days, my economic situation allows me the
option to choose whichever means of transportation is more suitable for the
moment or perhaps whatever I'm in the mood for... I can throw two bikes in
the back of my plane, fly down to Galveston and bike along the sea wall...
Hmmm... I wonder if those simmers can do *that*...

[Bart]

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
> > If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
> > wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.
>
> Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
> FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and
> says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?",
> this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
> illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
almost every time they fly.

Case in point - you said in a previous post:

" I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
National) on a Saturday morning."

So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.

In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
do not include.



> > Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
> > transport them here or there, with no money involved.
>
> FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
> prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation
> doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113.

Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is
perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply
compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement.

[Jay Beckman]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...

<SNIP>

> That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
> violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
> almost every time they fly.
>
> Case in point - you said in a previous post:
>
>" I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
> National) on a Saturday morning."
>
> So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.
>
> In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
> may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
> do not include.

I may be confusing this type of situation with a different scenario, but,
IIRC, you also have to be able to prove a "commonality" for making the
flight. Just being amenable to giving a buddy a lift somewhere because *he*
wants to go there is not enough if YOU don't really have a reason to go
there beyond helping your buddy. You have to have a reason to go too.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Marty Shapiro]

"Bart" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>> > If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
>> > wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.
>>
>> Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91
>> and FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes
>> to me and says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you
>> fly me there?", this would most likely be considered a violation of
>> 61.113, and would be illegal for a Private Pilot to do.
>
> That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
> violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in
> violation almost every time they fly.
>
> Case in point - you said in a previous post:
>
> " I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
> National) on a Saturday morning."
>
> So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.
>
> In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation
> (which
> may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
> do not include.
>
>
>
>> > Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
>> > transport them here or there, with no money involved.
>>
>> FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
>> prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that
>> compensation doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR
>> 61.113.
>
> Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is
> perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply
> compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement.
>

The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time
(whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.

If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no
problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your
friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight,
then you are in violation.

There are some exceptions for private pilots as specified either in
the FARs or by FAA policy specified in the Air Transportation Operations
Inspector's Handbook, Order 8400.10. The ones I'm aware of are FAR 91.321
regarding the carriage of candidates in elections or the policy stated in
8400.10 section 1345 for "Life Flights" (like Angel Flight) where a private
pilot is allowed to take a tax deduction and inspectors are specifically
instructed not to treat this tax deductibility of costs as constituting
"compensation for hire".

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bart]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> "Bart" > wrote:
> The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time
> (whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.
>
> If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no
> problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
> transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your
> friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight,
> then you are in violation.

As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft
(ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.

Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
pro rata.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>> > If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
>> > wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.
>>
>> Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
>> FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me
>> and
>> says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me
>> there?",
>> this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
>> illegal for a Private Pilot to do.
>
> That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
> violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
> almost every time they fly.
>
> Case in point - you said in a previous post:
>
> " I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton
> National) on a Saturday morning."
>
> So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113.

No I am not...

Amongst my coworkers, it is no secret that I am now a Private Pilot. It is
also no secret to them that I enjoy going to PWT for Fish and Chips, as I
have told them on many occasions that I think they are some of the best
around. So, when said coworker said he wanted to go to PWT for lunch, it is
not a violation of FAR 61.113, because I was wanting to go there for lunch
as well...

>
> In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
> may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
> do not include.
>

FAA says that "compensation" may not always be tangible, which is more of
what my point was getting at... Respect and regard gained from doing a
favor for someone, especially someone like a direct manager, can be
considered compensation.

i.e. if my manager had asked me to fly fly him to Portland to pick up the
car he bought in Portland off of E-Bay, and even though I pay for the entire
flight, that is a violation of FAR 61.113. Same thing can be said of
friends asking you to basically be a basic "taxi service" for them by taking
them to job interviews or weddings or what ever event, if you don't have any
other reason for the flight, it is my opinion you are asking for trouble
from the FAA. And even if you did have a reason for the flight, you might
get some uncessary attention from the FAA.

>
>
>> > Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to
>> > transport them here or there, with no money involved.
>>
>> FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is
>> prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation
>> doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113.
>
> Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is
> perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply
> compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement.

Compensation doesn't have to be "described" in the commitment/agreement to
get you trouble with the FAA. If you are agreeing to transport friends
around, while you aren't receiving anything tangible, the respect they will
have for you and regard that they will hold for you is considered to be
compensation by the FAA, and is a violation of FAR 61.113. As a private
pilot, I am not a taxi service for my friends.

Private Pilots have to be very concious of "why" they are flying, and if I
ask myself before every flight that I take passengers on "Why are we
flying?", and if the answer doesn't involve me in some way, (other than I am
their mode of transportion) i.e. I don't have a real reason myself for doing
the flight, then I am probably asking for trouble from the FAA, and while it
may be tough, I probably should say "no." to the friend and the flight.

If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and that is
the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just because I
have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi service" for
my friends and family and transport them around where ever they want to go
when they want to go.

[Bart]

Bart wrote:
> As for GA, I've been trying to make a trip for two weeks now, but
> haven't been able due to weather. If I had needed to, I could have made
> the trip in a car and been back home the same day two weeks ago. I put
> it off because I'm using it as an excuse to fly - which I believe is
> what most GA pilots probably do.

To make my point even further, I just recieved an email from a member
of my flying club that battery in our plane is dead.

If this were a car it would be no big deal since I could go to an auto
parts store and replace the battery myself. But since we need a
licensed A&P mechanic to do the job, and there's not exactly one on
every corner, we'll have to wait in line to get the job done.

There's your 'ole reliable GA!

Flight rescheduled.... *again*.

[Bart]

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
> Amongst my coworkers, it is no secret that I am now a Private Pilot. It is
> also no secret to them that I enjoy going to PWT for Fish and Chips, as I
> have told them on many occasions that I think they are some of the best
> around. So, when said coworker said he wanted to go to PWT for lunch, it is
> not a violation of FAR 61.113, because I was wanting to go there for lunch
> as well...

But can you *prove* that you were wanting to go there for also? ;)


> > In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which
> > may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described,
> > do not include.
> >
>
> FAA says that "compensation" may not always be tangible, which is more of
> what my point was getting at... Respect and regard gained from doing a
> favor for someone, especially someone like a direct manager, can be
> considered compensation.

That's quite a stretch. Show me the precedent for the FAA considering
respect to considered compensation. How would one prove having gained
respect?


> If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and that is
> the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just because I
> have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi service" for
> my friends and family and transport them around where ever they want to go
> when they want to go.

Not true. You can be a taxi service all you want - just as long as you
are not being compensated for it.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 29 Oct 2006 00:00:05 -0700, "Bart" > wrote:

> Bart wrote:
> > As for GA, I've been trying to make a trip for two weeks now, but
> > haven't been able due to weather. If I had needed to, I could have made
> > the trip in a car and been back home the same day two weeks ago. I put
> > it off because I'm using it as an excuse to fly - which I believe is
> > what most GA pilots probably do.
>
> To make my point even further, I just recieved an email from a member
> of my flying club that battery in our plane is dead.
>
> If this were a car it would be no big deal since I could go to an auto
> parts store and replace the battery myself. But since we need a
> licensed A&P mechanic to do the job, and there's not exactly one on
> every corner, we'll have to wait in line to get the job done.

The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).

Ron Wanttaja

[Marty Shapiro]

"Bart" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> "Bart" > wrote:
>> The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the
>> flight time
>> (whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation.
>>
>> If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there
>> is no
>> problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
>> transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to
>> transport your friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in
>> going on the flight, then you are in violation.
>
> As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the
> aircraft (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.
>
> Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
> is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
> the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
> pro rata.
>
>

Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Bart writes:

> To make my point even further, I just recieved an email from a member
> of my flying club that battery in our plane is dead.
>
> If this were a car it would be no big deal since I could go to an auto
> parts store and replace the battery myself. But since we need a
> licensed A&P mechanic to do the job, and there's not exactly one on
> every corner, we'll have to wait in line to get the job done.
>
> There's your 'ole reliable GA!
>
> Flight rescheduled.... *again*.

Safety isn't free. And you need lots of safety in an environment as
unforgiving as the skies. But it is true that this is part of what
makes GA impractical for any type of regular transportation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no
> problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air
> transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your
> friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight,
> then you are in violation.

Does wanting to go flying count as having a purpose?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
> They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
> transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
> stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
> for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
> empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
> or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

That rules out a great deal of the motivation for GA, and thus makes
no sense.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> hmm... don't think you looked very hard... a Google search for "sectional
> charts online" (no quotes), the site at the top of the list is one of the
> better sites for online sectional and terminal charts...

Unfortunately, it does not provide PDFs.

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

[TxSrv]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of
> say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings
> safety seminars that providing air transportation for a
> friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
> stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time
> as compensation for this exact case, where the
> pilot does not charge at all.

If it's your own airplane and you pay 100% of fuel and other
direct costs, logging the time can't possibly be compensation.
You can fly the plane any time you want. Having a friend in the
right seat doesn't make any difference. If I want to build time
for a rating, I can fly solo to places I rather not go to, like
the food at that airport restaurant sucks. Or I can do a favor
for a friend and take him there for free upon request.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that
logged time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old
(drawing Social Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How
is my logged time in my plane compensatory?

Fred F.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Amongst my coworkers, it is no secret that I am now a Private Pilot. It is also no secret to them that I enjoy going to PWT for Fish and Chips, as I have told them on many occasions that I think they are some of the best around.

By the FAA's (twisted IMHO) logic, this can be considered "holding out".

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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.

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.

[Jim Macklin]

If you are going and offer a ride, it isn't holding out. If
you tell your friends you'll take them where THEY want to
go, that is holding out. Post a notice on a bulletin board
at the store or on-line and you're open for business. Offer
a friend of long standing a ride and it isn't a charter or
commercial operation.

You can't even take a package for your boss, but you can
take your packages and samples.

"Hey, Fred, I'm going to xyz for lobster, want to go?" is
OK. Hey, everybody, you can ride with me to xyz for
lobster, share the cost!" isn't.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> Amongst my coworkers, it is no secret that I am now a
Private Pilot. It is also no secret to them that I enjoy
going to PWT for Fish and Chips, as I have told them on many
occasions that I think they are some of the best around.
|
| By the FAA's (twisted IMHO) logic, this can be considered
"holding out".
|
| 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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you are going and offer a ride, it isn't holding out. If
> you tell your friends you'll take them where THEY want to
> go, that is holding out.

If you "make it known you are a pilot and like to fly", and get
"business" (flights) that way, you are holding out.

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.

[TxSrv]

Jose wrote:
>> The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
>> assumption that logged time is of any value.
>
> Where? I'd like to see the case.
>

It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
think is absurd.

Fred F.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> If you "make it known you are a pilot and like to fly", and get
> "business" (flights) that way, you are holding out.

The FAA must have a lot of time on its hands if it can worry about
trivia like this.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

>>> The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

> The ruling also said, “We prefer not to rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem, it said, if you don’t log the time.

It does not follow from this that they cannot make an assumption that
the logged time is of any value. They "preferred not to rule", which
leaves the door open for them to rule any way they want in the future.
In fact, they =deliberately= left the door open by not making a ruling
that would be seen as outrageously silly, or being forced to make the
opposite ruling and be held to it as precedent. Therefore I conclude
that the FAA =will= look at logging time as compensation whenever it
thinks it can get away with it.

> However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging time alone was compensatory in your own airplane.

What about renters and flying club members? The observation above is of
little comfort.

> Conceptually, the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I think is absurd.

I agree, which is why I think the FAA has it =so= wrong.

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.

[Marty Shapiro]

TxSrv > wrote in
:

> Jose wrote:
>>> The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
>>> assumption that logged time is of any value.
>>
>> Where? I'd like to see the case.
>>
>
> It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
> issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
> ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
> conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
> you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
> rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
> it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
> to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
> pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.
>
> However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
> time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
> the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
> money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
> think is absurd.
>
> Fred F.

Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation. The FAA gets to
decide how its rules are interpreted. There was one case, written up
several years ago in AOPA Pilot IIRC where the FAA changed their
interpretation of the regulations in the middle of an NTSB hearing. The
pilot lost under this new interpretation and appealed. The courts ruled
that the FAA could do this and the penalty would apply.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote
>> > If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
>> > wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.
>>
>> Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
>> FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me
>> and
>> says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me
>> there?",
>> this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
>> illegal for a Private Pilot to do.
>
> That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
> violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
> almost every time they fly.
>
Bart,

Who said the FAA rules aren't absurd?

A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I
like it or not.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Bart" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft
> (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.
>
> Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
> is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
> the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
> pro rata.
>


No! There must be "commonality."

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged
> time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social
> Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my
> plane compensatory?
>
> Fred F.

The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

Karl
"Curaor" N185KG

[TxSrv]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> ...
> Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation.
> ...

Help me find one FAA or NTSB document which says that, though.
I'm talking my airplane; I pay for fuel. Say a pilot/friend's
plane is at a nearby airport after maintenance was done. He asks
for a ride there to retrieve it, and no pmt for fuel, as two
months ago he did the same favor for me. How can FAA argue that
mere logging of time is a violation for both of us on this mutual
pair of flights? It's irrational.

The other hurdle they have is arguing the logged time is of any
benefit to me. How many people do we know, upon reaching 1500
hours in their retirement years, get an ATP for the heck of it?
In a 172-class airplane. That's the only advanced rating
requiring total hours I can get now.

Sillier yet would be where Dad owns a plane and asks me to fly it
now and then to keep it active. No pax; no problem. But if one
day I give a friend a ride, the logging of time magically becomes
compensation. That makes no sense.

Fred F.

[TxSrv]

karl gruber wrote:
> ...
> The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
> which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

IOW, if I log the time in my own plane, it's 135. If not logged,
it's permissible. FAA's legal opinions on 135 are on their web
site, and I don't think there's one which would stretch a favor
for a friend that far. They often decide a 135 issue based upon
the expectations of the passenger. So, if I fly a pilot/friend to
another field to retrieve his airplane, for no payment (cost
sharing prohibited if no common purpose), that pilot/friend is
under no delusion I'm an air taxi operator. And one who flies
charter for free. I make it up in volume. :-)

Fred F.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> A VFR Flight plan doesn't do more to improve your visibility with ACT
>> except to inlude a name, contact phone number, and aircraft color.
>
> That's an improvement, especially if they are trying to figure out
> what happened to you, or if they are looking for your crash site.

You gonna answer the phone from your crash site?

[Judah]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in
news:LNydnZoqtMjE0tnYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com:

> If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and
> that is the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just
> because I have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi
> service" for my friends and family and transport them around where ever
> they want to go when they want to go.

So what you are saying is that if I give my sister a ride to LGA so she can
catch a commercial flight, I am considered a Taxi even if I don't ask for
compensation? Will the government require me to have a Hack License and a
Medallion?

Does that mean I can use the Taxi lanes instead of the Passenger Pick Up/Drop
off lanes?

[Bart]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
> They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
> transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
> stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
> for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
> empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
> or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

Ok - well maybe I'm wrong. I read an article in AOPA awhile back that
was on the legalities of this very subject that said it illegal *if*
there are shared expenses.

Can anyone point to any official statements or rulings by the FAA?

[Marty Shapiro]

TxSrv > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> ...
>> Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation.
> > ...
>
> Help me find one FAA or NTSB document which says that, though.
> I'm talking my airplane; I pay for fuel. Say a pilot/friend's
> plane is at a nearby airport after maintenance was done. He asks
> for a ride there to retrieve it, and no pmt for fuel, as two
> months ago he did the same favor for me. How can FAA argue that
> mere logging of time is a violation for both of us on this mutual
> pair of flights? It's irrational.

Yes. But no one ever claimed that the regulations or, more
importantly, their interpretation by the FAA made sense. By regulation, if
you do not have a commonality of purpose, with a private pilot certificate
or less, you can not provide your friend this transportation, even if you
pay all the expenses. It may be irrational, but it's the regulation.

>
> The other hurdle they have is arguing the logged time is of any
> benefit to me. How many people do we know, upon reaching 1500
> hours in their retirement years, get an ATP for the heck of it?
> In a 172-class airplane. That's the only advanced rating
> requiring total hours I can get now.
>
> Sillier yet would be where Dad owns a plane and asks me to fly it
> now and then to keep it active. No pax; no problem. But if one
> day I give a friend a ride, the logging of time magically becomes
> compensation. That makes no sense.
>
There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as their
is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises when there is
no commonality of purpose. And the NTSB ALJs are very strict on this.
Take the example of giving a friend a ride to a wedding. If you are going
to the same wedding, no problem. Let's say you are going to the same
destination, but not to the wedding and give your friend a ride. You have
no commonality of purpose. See Administrator v. Carter, Order EA-3730,
Docket SE12735, NTSB Decisions (1992).
> Fred F.
>

Nobody ever said it made sense.

That's the regulations and, more importantly, the FAA interpretation
of their regulations.

Just like the regulations regarding Sport Pilot and medicals. Two
pilots develop the exact same medical condition which would result in the
failure of a class III medical but does not prevent them from keeping a
driver license. First pilot just lets his medical expire. The second
takes and fails a medical. The first pilot can continue to fly as a Sport
Pilot, the second can't. Makes no sense, but that's the regulation.

Google "NTSB compensation private pilot". Look at the Alameda Aero
Club Newsletter, Traps For The Unwary, and The FAA's Charitable
Contribution to Charities.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[TxSrv]

Marty Shapiro wrote:

> There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as
> their is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises
> when there is no commonality of purpose.

Find a case which says that where no compensation is paid. The
Carter case you cited involved transporting a friend's sick
father for medical treatment, and who promised to reimburse the
full cost. Without common purpose, not even cost-sharing (1/2)
is permissible. It is implied that the pilot didn't get paid,
perhaps because the man passed on. Made no difference; it was
the promise which was the compensation.

I'm referring only to the logging of time in your own plane on
your own fuel as compensation. Find the case where that's
prohibited on such narrow grounds. As per another poster, I used
to pick up and return Mom/Dad to the big Class airport when they
visited. Look then to how the Carter case discusses the pax
expectation of the skills of a comm'l pilot. So let's see. If I
fly them to an apt restaurant and return, they don't expect me to
have comm'l skills. If I drop them off at said apt, they do.

Fred F.

[Jim Logajan]

TxSrv > wrote:
> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>
>> There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as
>> their is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises
>> when there is no commonality of purpose.
>
> Find a case which says that where no compensation is paid.

The following case is one where no _material_ compensation was paid, but
the FAA prevailed against the pilot:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5061.PDF

It seems goodwill is considered compensation. Of course "goodwill" is
sometimes rather vague, though in certain contexts like accounting a
monetary value can be (and is) assigned for purposes of computing assets.

Here's a case where no material compensation _or_ goodwill was "earned" and
so the pilot managed to win the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

The cases I cite aren't the most relevant, but the U.S. court system (and
the NTSB) have placed only a fraction of the available case law on the net
for public access. I know there are commercial databases which would
provide comprehensive access but I'm not inclined at this time to subscribe
to them.

The NTSB provides a search mechanism of some of the case law regarding the
FARs here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

(By the way, several 61.113 case are filed under the subsection 61.118
which is listed in the current FARs as non-existent. I can only presume
that the numbering changed sometime after the year 2000.)

[TxSrv]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> It seems goodwill is considered compensation.

Goodwill per NTSB always means a business context, such as
expectation of possible future $$ benefit. The two cases you
cited have complicating facts. In Murray, the pvt pilot had done
subcontract work for the tavern owner who threw on the Super
Bowl party deal which included Part 135 transport of the pax to
the party site. In both cases, the pilot showed up as a
substitute for a prearranged Part 135 flight where the charter
aircraft or 135 pilot was OTS. The pax likely assumed the
substitute guy was a commercial operation also.

I'm alluding only to a pure (and rather common) case of a favor
to a friend/relative, no business context, the pax know who you
are as not comm'l/charter, and the only "compensation" is your
logging time in your own airplane at your own expense.

Fred F.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> compensation. That makes no sense.
>
> Fred F.


Bingo!

Sense when did the FAA make sense?

Karl
"Curator"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> No! There must be "commonality."

Does the "regulation" require the commonality to one-to-one
and on-to?

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

[Bart]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
> batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).

Ok - but we still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes
at least a day.

[Bart]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
> batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).

We still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes at least
a day. And assuming the best case scenario of it getting put in
sometime tomorrow, I will then be forced two wait at least another two
days due to weather.

[Bart]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
> They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
> transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
> stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
> for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
> empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
> or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

Another point (not saying that I'm right or you're right) is that if
you are paying for the entire cost of the flight, how can logging
flight time which *you* are paying for be perceived as being received
from the passenger?

The logged time cannot (should not) be considered compensation from the
passenger because the passenger in now way provided it to you. However,
if there are shared expenses, then it could be seen that the passenger
payed for some of the logged time.

[Bart]

karl gruber wrote:
> "Bart" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft
> > (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.
> >
> > Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
> > is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
> > the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
> > pro rata.
> >
>
>
> No! There must be "commonality."

No! Only if sharing expenses. ;)

[Bart]

karl gruber wrote:
> Who said the FAA rules aren't absurd?
>
> A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I
> like it or not.

Sorry but I don't believe it.

When I see something official from the FAA that says that it is a
violation to carry a passenger at that person's request when all
expenses are paid by the pilot, then I will believe it.

All I've seen to this point are anecdotes and peoples opinions - some
of which are based on FAA rulings but the rulings don't deal with this
specific question.

The closest I've come to something concrete is an AOPA article on the
specific legalities of this situation and it said that it is a
violation when the expenses are shared.

[Bart]

Bart wrote:
> I will then be forced two wait at least another two days due to weather.

Oops. My brain got ahead of my typing. The above should read "I will
then be forced *to* wait..." <grin>

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You gonna answer the phone from your crash site?

No, but knowing that the aircraft is dark green might well be useful
to search-and-rescue teams.

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

[Jay Beckman]

"Bart" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
>> They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing
>> air
>> transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One
>> even
>> stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
>> for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
>> empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of
>> whether
>> or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.
>
> Another point (not saying that I'm right or you're right) is that if
> you are paying for the entire cost of the flight, how can logging
> flight time which *you* are paying for be perceived as being received
> from the passenger?
>
> The logged time cannot (should not) be considered compensation from the
> passenger because the passenger in now way provided it to you. However,
> if there are shared expenses, then it could be seen that the passenger
> payed for some of the logged time.

I think I see why this is so confusing...It has nothing to do with the
passenger.

If you do not have "commonality" for making the trip, the chance to log
flight time (regardless of the reason, regardless if you split it pro rata
or not) can be viewed as compensation.

If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered compensation.

Jay B

[RK Henry]

On 29 Oct 2006 19:34:18 -0800, "Bart" > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
>> batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).
>
>Ok - but we still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes
>at least a day.

Did someone just leave the master switch on? Can't you just charge the
battery?

I've never had a battery just die. It usually exhibits its death
throes for months, giving plenty of time to shop Trade-A-Plane for the
best price.

RK Henry

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
> don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
> doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
> that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered compensation.

Does this "opportunity" not exist in other circumstances? Every time I
fly I have the opportunity to log time I might otherwise not be logging.
Every time I wake up I have the opportunity to fly.

The FAA is so bizzare on this it is no surprise it gets no respect.
What surprises me is the number of pilots that seem to =support= this
kind of interpretation.

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.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> You gonna answer the phone from your crash site?
>
> No, but knowing that the aircraft is dark green might well be useful
> to search-and-rescue teams.
>

So the search and rescue teams wouldn't notice the airplane if it were blue
and white?

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
>> don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
>> doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
>> that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered
>> compensation.
>
>Does this "opportunity" not exist in other circumstances?

Such as?

>Every time I fly I have the opportunity to log time I might otherwise not
>be logging. Every time I wake up I have the opportunity to fly.

You're splitting hairs. The difference is that there is no concern
regarding "commonality" if you are solo.

>The FAA is so bizzare on this it is no surprise it gets no respect.

IMO, It's not the FAA as an institution, but rather it's SOME people within
the FAA combined with a lack of outside oversight that make them so
draconian at times.

>What surprises me is the number of pilots that seem to =support= this kind
>of interpretation.

Knowing about and having a handle on from where the FAA is coming doesn't
automatically mean pilots like or support a specific reg. It does suggest
that they are smart enough to know how not to bust it though.

Jay B

[Bart]

RK Henry wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2006 19:34:18 -0800, "Bart" > wrote:
>
> >Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> >> The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
> >> batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).
> >
> >Ok - but we still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes
> >at least a day.
>
> Did someone just leave the master switch on? Can't you just charge the
> battery?
>
> I've never had a battery just die. It usually exhibits its death
> throes for months, giving plenty of time to shop Trade-A-Plane for the
> best price.

We've been having issues with it for awhile. Nobody has been able to
figure out exactly what the problem is.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
>>> don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
>>> doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
>>> that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered
>>> compensation.
>>Does this "opportunity" not exist in other circumstances?
> Such as?

Right now I am not flying. But the opportunity to log time that I might
not otherwise be logging exists right now, since I can go to the airport
and go flying. I can even take my wife.

Or I can choose not to.

The opportunity exists.

>>Every time I fly I have the opportunity to log time I might otherwise not
>>be logging. Every time I wake up I have the opportunity to fly.
> You're splitting hairs. The difference is that there is no concern
> regarding "commonality" if you are solo.

The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs. And I never
mentioned being solo. I can take my sister to visit a friend while I
enjoy the fall colors. No commonality. This is an opportunity to log time.

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 Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>>If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
>>>>don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your
>>>>passenger doesn't give >>>>you a penny) you are being given an
>>>>opportunity to log time that you might not otherwise be logging...this
>>>>is considered compensation.

>>>Does this "opportunity" not exist in other circumstances?

>> Such as?

>Right now I am not flying. But the opportunity to log time that I might
>not otherwise be logging exists right now, since I can go to the airport
>and go flying. I can >even take my wife.
> Or I can choose not to.
>The opportunity exists.

I don't think you're using the same definition of "opportunity" as the FAA.
From what I'm hearing/reading, the FAAs definition of "opportunity" goes
more toward the cirmcumstances from which the flight arose. If you are
going flying and you invite me to come along for a ride from Buffalo to
Flushing, NY...no problem. But, if I say to you, I've been meaning to go to
Flushing, NY. Hey, I know, why don't you fly me up there? .. and you agree
(and even if YOU pay all the costs involved...) then this is a violation of
the idea of commonality. My needing to go to Flushing is providing you with
an opportunity to log time because of me...not because you suggested it.

>
>>>Every time I fly I have the opportunity to log time I might otherwise not
>>>be logging. Every time I wake up I have the opportunity to fly.

>> You're splitting hairs. The difference is that there is no concern
>> regarding "commonality" if you are solo.

>The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs.

No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs.

>And I never mentioned being solo. I can take my sister to visit a friend
>while I enjoy the fall colors. No commonality. This is an opportunity to
>log time.

The way I think this situation gets interpreted, If you suggest the
flight...no problem. But if you go fly with the primary reason being the
taking of your sister to visit her friend, (as a private pilot) IMO, you
would be doing so in potential violation of the way in which the FAA has
interpreted this situation in the past.

....and if I'm wrong, I'm sure the correction bus will be along very shortly.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Judah]

"Bart" > wrote in news:1162078725.590455.253850
@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

>> >> Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed
>> >> out, the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an
>> >> hour, and most of the time less than a day.
>> >
>> > When the meeting is at 10 AM, that's a show-stopper.
>> >
>> People who "must be there" at a particular time miss a lot of meetings,
>> regardless of their mode of transportation.
>
> But you're much more likely to miss it if you're depending on GA.

Bad weather affects nearly all modes of transportation. It creates traffic
and accidents on the roads. It delays commercial airliners. And it can
cause delays for GA. However, I would point out that if you are instrument
rated and current, and not flying into a major metro airport like EWR, IAD,
ORD, or LAX, you will likely suffer fewer and shorter delays in a single
engine spam can than you will in a CRJ or 737 flying to one of the major
metros...

>> > The commercial flight can generally be relied upon; the GA flight
>> > cannot. Commercial aviation has spent decades and billions of dollars
>> > to ensure that airliners can fly in all but the worst weather.
>> >
>> That is not my experience at all. Within the last 5 months, my wife and
>> have missed connecting flights due to airline issues 2 out of 2 times. I
>> have yet to miss my arrival times flying GA.
>
> I haven't missed a connecting flight for about the last 20 times I've
> flown commercially. On average, many more people make their connecting
> flights than not.

I think it may depend on the connection, but I also think you are mistaken.
Again, the above airports, which are the hubs for many airlines, have the
worst records.

> As for GA, I've been trying to make a trip for two weeks now, but
> haven't been able due to weather. If I had needed to, I could have made
> the trip in a car and been back home the same day two weeks ago. I put
> it off because I'm using it as an excuse to fly - which I believe is
> what most GA pilots probably do.

Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
see a whole other level of practicality to GA.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I don't think you're using the same definition of "opportunity" as the FAA.
> From what I'm hearing/reading, the FAAs definition of "opportunity" goes
> more toward the cirmcumstances from which the flight arose. If you are
> going flying and you invite me to come along for a ride from Buffalo to
> Flushing, NY...no problem. But, if I say to you, I've been meaning to go to
> Flushing, NY. Hey, I know, why don't you fly me up there? .. and you agree
> (and even if YOU pay all the costs involved...) then this is a violation of
> the idea of commonality. My needing to go to Flushing is providing you with
> an opportunity to log time because of me...not because you suggested it.

"The idea of commonality" is something the FAA made up out of whole
cloth, bypassing the normal rulemaking procedure.

The "opportunity" to fly to Flushing was not provided by you. Icould
still go to Flushing if I wanted to, irrespective of your request.
Instead, what was provided was the opportunity to have my flight
=benefit= you.

>>> You're splitting hairs...
>>The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs.
> No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs.

Then it would behoove you to split long hairs. :)

> But if you go fly with the primary reason being the
> taking of your sister to visit her friend, (as a private pilot) IMO, you
> would be doing so in potential violation of the way in which the FAA has
> interpreted this situation in the past.

This seems to be true. It is also asinine. (and my rants, if they be
interpreted as such, are directed at the part of the FAA that comes up
with and defends this kind of thing, not at you or any other poster)

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.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...

> The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs. And I never
> mentioned being solo. I can take my sister to visit a friend while I
> enjoy the fall colors. No commonality. This is an opportunity to log
> time.

Is Big Brother actually watching to the degree of tin-hat paranoia that some
people seem to express about it?

Given the choice to "log time" --ie, stay proficienct flying-- and not --ie,
let proficiency lapse-- I'll take the former when family or friends are
involved. As always, safety comes first, bureaucracy second.

Increasingly the options are:

1) Fly and risk somebody telling you not to
2) Never fly because somebody might tell me not to

-c

[Skylune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?
>
> I walk IFR.
>
> > Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
> > Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
> > world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
> > General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
> > they wouldn't use it.
>
> I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
> transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
> that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
> aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Self deception is an integral part of the GA game. They have an
organization, the AOPA, that puts out complete propaganda about the
utility of GA for travel, as well as how simple it is to fly. Look at
the GA Serving America Website. It is replete with nonsense about the
utility of VFR GA for transportation. It really is quite humourous.

Rather than focusing on improving pilots' skills (though they devote
much of their efforts to this), the AOPA strays into political matters
such as whether taxpayers should keep providing subsidies to
recreational pilots. It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER. It
constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
properties. In short, it is a very nefarious special interest lobby
that has contempt for all but its pilot members, who it refers to as
the "elite". Reading a few entries on the NTSB GA crash website puts
the notion of private pilots being elite to rest. As you know, there
are quite a few boobs flying around. Some of the pilots themselves
admit to this.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
news:LNydnZoqtMjE0tnYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com...
> If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and that
is
> the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just because I
> have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi service"
for
> my friends and family and transport them around where ever they want to go
> when they want to go.

Has anyone considered the possibility that these supposed rules are pure
unadulterated bull**** and perhaps we should just ignore them? With this
type of logic, when my daughter finally goes off to college, I would not be
able to give her a lift up there in my own plane... It's a form of
transportation just like a car... Instead of trying to 'work around' the
rules, we should be revolting against this sort of bull****...

[Jose[_1_]]

> It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
> has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
> weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER. It
> constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
> his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
> properties.

Do you realize that it takes NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER for that same geezer
to drive a fully laden SUV down the highway at 55 mph, only ten or
fifteen feet away from ONRUSHING traffic?

Medicals for all drivers! Damn the AAA!

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.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Instead of trying to 'work around' the
> rules, we should be revolting against this sort of bull****...

Agreed. Got any ideas?

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
> that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
> see a whole other level of practicality to GA.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of private general aviation
pilots have an instrument rating?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> Self deception is an integral part of the GA game. They have an
> organization, the AOPA, that puts out complete propaganda about the
> utility of GA for travel, as well as how simple it is to fly. Look at
> the GA Serving America Website. It is replete with nonsense about the
> utility of VFR GA for transportation. It really is quite humourous.

If GA were practical for transportation, it would be a lot more
widespread. If it were as practical as cars, it would be as common as
cars. The fact that is actually extremely rare implies that GA is
only useful to people who like to fly for the sake of flying, in most
cases.

> Rather than focusing on improving pilots' skills (though they devote
> much of their efforts to this), the AOPA strays into political matters
> such as whether taxpayers should keep providing subsidies to
> recreational pilots.

How do taxpayers subsidize recreational pilots?

> It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
> has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
> weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER.

A driver's license doesn't require much of a medical, either. Why is
that a problem?

> It constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
> his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
> properties.

He already has the right to drive past them or even through them in a
car. Why should flying be different?

Besides, a skilled old geezer is a lot safer than a careless or
incompetent young athlete.

> In short, it is a very nefarious special interest lobby
> that has contempt for all but its pilot members, who it refers to as
> the "elite". Reading a few entries on the NTSB GA crash website puts
> the notion of private pilots being elite to rest. As you know, there
> are quite a few boobs flying around. Some of the pilots themselves
> admit to this.

Yes. GA is its own worst enemy.

What puzzles me is how so many manifestly incompetent and stupid
people can still get private pilot's licenses. There are way more
idiots flying than I would expect, given the difficulty of obtaining a
license.

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

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> To make my point even further, I just recieved an email from a member
> of my flying club that battery in our plane is dead.
>
> If this were a car it would be no big deal since I could go to an auto
> parts store and replace the battery myself. But since we need a
> licensed A&P mechanic to do the job, and there's not exactly one on
> every corner, we'll have to wait in line to get the job done.

You've got to be kidding... Batteries are as user replaceable as landing
lights...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I
> like it or not.

And if the passenger happens to be your wife who suggests that you fly off
to some nice little airport with a restaurant nearby for dinner? And she
picks up the tab? Or what about if instead of being married, you've just
been living together for the last 20+ years?

The 'rules' are bull****... Ignore them...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes at least
> a day. And assuming the best case scenario of it getting put in
> sometime tomorrow, I will then be forced two wait at least another two
> days due to weather.

Depending upon what type of plane we're talking about and whether the plane
is close by and the flight can be made in daylight, one option might be to
jumpstart or hand prop the aircraft and fly it back to your home field... Or
grab a battery out of another plane and take it there for temporary use to
get back to your home airport... I've had a battery die (or drain because of
leaving something on) before and I just hand propped it and flew it back...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> I've never had a battery just die. It usually exhibits its death
> throes for months, giving plenty of time to shop Trade-A-Plane for the
> best price.

I've had it happen with a car battery before... Starting my car after work,
it turned over normally and I thought that it had started and released the
key... Turned out that I had done it too quick and the car hadn't started...
Tried to start it again and all I got was a slight clicking noise... Just
barely enough juice to make the lights on the radio dimly glow... Car
batteries are not any different than aircraft batteries... Same basic
technology, thus same failure modes... Yeah, it could happen on an aircraft
battery also... My experience though is that this sort of failure mode is
rather rare since I've only had this sort of thing happen once for any
vehicle battery that I ever owned...

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>> Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I
>> agree that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating
>> and you will see a whole other level of practicality to GA.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what percentage of private general aviation
> pilots have an instrument rating?

For the U.S., that information is available on the FAA web site.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> Agreed. Got any ideas?

Well, I think I'll let Grace pay for my fuel and dinner over at Carls BBQ
over at EYQ...

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I don't think you're using the same definition of "opportunity" as the
>> FAA. From what I'm hearing/reading, the FAAs definition of "opportunity"
>> goes more toward the cirmcumstances from which the flight arose. If you
>> are going flying and you invite me to come along for a ride from Buffalo
>> to Flushing, NY...no problem. But, if I say to you, I've been meaning to
>> go to Flushing, NY. Hey, I know, why don't you fly me up there? .. and
>> you agree (and even if YOU pay all the costs involved...) then this is a
>> violation of the idea of commonality. My needing to go to Flushing is
>> providing you with an opportunity to log time because of me...not because
>> you suggested it.
>
> "The idea of commonality" is something the FAA made up out of whole cloth,
> bypassing the normal rulemaking procedure.

I would agree. I think they thought they found a hole (hole cloth?) in the
regs that was allowing a quasi-black market form of 135 flying (I could be
wrong...) so they slammed the door on it (or tried to) by coming up with a
grey area to cover a grey area.

>The "opportunity" to fly to Flushing was not provided by you. Icould still
>go to Flushing if I wanted to, irrespective of your request. Instead, what
>was provided >was the opportunity to have my flight =benefit= you.

The sticking point would be whether or not I suggested we go, or you
suggested we go. Me = BAD .. You = OK.

>
>>>> You're splitting hairs...
>>>The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs.
>> No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs.
>
> Then it would behoove you to split long hairs. :)

Errr, let's not go there. :oP


>>But if you go fly with the primary reason being the taking of your sister
>>to visit her friend, (as a private pilot) IMO, you would be doing so in
>>potential violation of >>the way in which the FAA has interpreted this
>>situation in the past.
>
>This seems to be true. It is also asinine. (and my rants, if they be
>interpreted as such, are directed at the part of the FAA that comes up with
>and defends this kind >of thing, not at you or any other poster)

Completely understood but thanks for saying so.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> For the U.S., that information is available on the FAA web site.

I've no doubt that it's available somewhere, so you've contributed
nothing by pointing this out.

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

[RK Henry]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:49:44 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote:

>"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>> A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I
>> like it or not.
>
>And if the passenger happens to be your wife who suggests that you fly off
>to some nice little airport with a restaurant nearby for dinner? And she
>picks up the tab? Or what about if instead of being married, you've just
>been living together for the last 20+ years?

What if it's your girlfriend and after dinner you're "rewarded" with
an intimate encounter? Would the FAA consider that compensation? Could
your girlfriend then be charged with prostitution?

RK Henry

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> For the U.S., that information is available on the FAA web site.
>
> I've no doubt that it's available somewhere, so you've contributed
> nothing by pointing this out.

Once I pointed out which agency's web site had the information I presumed
it would trivial for a person of average intelligence to locate it and
follow the obvious links.

Here's the web site: http://www.faa.gov

This way you can determine the information authoritatively - otherwise if I
claimed, say, that half of all pilots were instrument rated you'd have no
way of validating this information.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...

>> Instead of trying to 'work around' the rules, we should be revolting
>> against this sort of bull****...
>
> Agreed. Got any ideas?

Civil disobedience, letter campaigning, public awareness drives, etc. The
GA community needs to remind the rest of the community that pilots, not
bureaucrats, are the experts of the sky. Otherwise, just do it and don't
get caught. If -everybody- defies the rule, it is no longer a rule.

-c

[Jose[_1_]]

> The sticking point would be whether or not I suggested we go, or you
> suggested we go. Me = BAD .. You = OK.

Neither case "provides" an opportunity that didn't exist before. But
you are right, that is the FAA's position.

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.

[gatt]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...

> What if it's your girlfriend and after dinner you're "rewarded" with
> an intimate encounter? Would the FAA consider that compensation? Could
> your girlfriend then be charged with prostitution?

More importantly, Does This Ever Happen?!

I've asked this type of question and heard lots of answers before, but what
still remains unanswered is, "Do they really even CARE about these trivial
little things?" Or, do those rules exist in case somebody -is- trying to
run an illegitimate black market air transport service?

Whoever got busted for taking their girlfriend for a dinner ride, a daughter
to college or friends to a football game? Personally, I refuse to NOT fly
because I -might- cross a boundary that the FAA -might- actually bother
enforcing.

I've got one life to spend flying and sharing the gift and hobby of flight.
I'm not going to sacrifice that because of what some bureaucrat MIGHT do.
Otherwise, if they pull my ticket, someday I will have at least flown. (It
is better to have flown and lost...) In exchange, for the safety and
respect of myself and my passengers, I do commit myself to medical currency,
aircraft proficiency and educated decision-making with regard to determining
whether to make a flight.


-c

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> For the U.S., that information is available on the FAA web site.
>
> I've no doubt that it's available somewhere, so you've contributed
> nothing by pointing this out.
>
I think he contributed the point that you should occasionally try
looking something up on your own instead of asking someone else to look
it up for you. He even told you where to look.

[Jose[_1_]]

> "Do they really even CARE about these trivial
> little things?" Or, do those rules exist in case somebody -is- trying to
> run an illegitimate black market air transport service?

They act like they care, if you ask them. I do support their stance
against an illigetimate black market air transport service. However,
taking your friend home from college (everyone knows you love to fly)
isn't such an animal, though the FAA has made noises as if it were. By
extension, taking your son TO college is equally a black market air
tranport service (especially if you take his friend), and it gets
sillier after that.

I would say that the problem arises from "impersonating an air transport
service", and this is easily solved if the rules state something along
the lines of "A private pilot may carry passengers. A pilot who is
excercising the privilages of a private pilot may not represent himself
or the operation as a commercial pilot, implicitly or explicitly.
Explicitly representing the operation as a private pilot is sufficient
to meet this rule. A private pilot may share expenses with passengers.
Shared expenses need not be pro-rata, but in no case may a pilot
receive more reimbursement or compensation than his actual expenses.
Logging of flight time shall not be considered compensation, neither
shall goodwill.

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.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, RK Henry > posted:

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:49:44 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> > wrote:
>
>> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether
>>> you or I like it or not.
>>
>> And if the passenger happens to be your wife who suggests that you
>> fly off to some nice little airport with a restaurant nearby for
>> dinner? And she picks up the tab? Or what about if instead of
>> being married, you've just been living together for the last 20+
>> years?
>
> What if it's your girlfriend and after dinner you're "rewarded" with
> an intimate encounter? Would the FAA consider that compensation? Could
> your girlfriend then be charged with prostitution?
>
How could that possibly be, when she's the "John" (payer) in this
instance? OTOH, _you_ might be charged with prostitution after being
busted for accepting compensation for a "charter" flight on your PPL. ;-)

Neil

[Bart]

Judah wrote:
> Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
> that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
> see a whole other level of practicality to GA.

I'm not instrument rating and I agree that IR pilots will have more
flexibility with weather. But I believe the larger percentage of GA
pilots are not IR. And the while IR pilots have *more* flexibility, in
most cases, it is still not as reliable as commercial or ground
transportation.

[Bart]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
> don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
> doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
> that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered compensation.

What if I don't log the time? ;)

[A Lieberma]

John Theune > wrote in news:92P1h.6711$Wy6.2533
@trnddc01:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Jim Logajan writes:
>>
>>> For the U.S., that information is available on the FAA web site.
>>
>> I've no doubt that it's available somewhere, so you've contributed
>> nothing by pointing this out.
>>
> I think he contributed the point that you should occasionally try
> looking something up on your own instead of asking someone else to look
> it up for you. He even told you where to look.

And you all wonder why I am so &)(&(#$& frustrated this person......

Sure wish the noise level would go down pre Msmanic days.....

Allen

[gatt]

Jose, your regulation idea makes far too much sense for such a bureaucracy.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> "Do they really even CARE about these trivial little things?" Or, do
>> those rules exist in case somebody -is- trying to run an illegitimate
>> black market air transport service?
>
> They act like they care, if you ask them. I do support their stance
> against an illigetimate black market air transport service. However,
> taking your friend home from college (everyone knows you love to fly)
> isn't such an animal, though the FAA has made noises as if it were. By
> extension, taking your son TO college is equally a black market air
> tranport service (especially if you take his friend), and it gets sillier
> after that.
>
> I would say that the problem arises from "impersonating an air transport
> service", and this is easily solved if the rules state something along the
> lines of "A private pilot may carry passengers. A pilot who is
> excercising the privilages of a private pilot may not represent himself or
> the operation as a commercial pilot, implicitly or explicitly. Explicitly
> representing the operation as a private pilot is sufficient to meet this
> rule. A private pilot may share expenses with passengers. Shared expenses
> need not be pro-rata, but in no case may a pilot receive more
> reimbursement or compensation than his actual expenses. Logging of flight
> time shall not be considered compensation, neither shall goodwill.
>
> 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.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
>> that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
>> see a whole other level of practicality to GA.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what percentage of private general aviation
> pilots have an instrument rating?
>

I don't know off the top of my head.

What percentage of licensed drivers have CDLs?

[Judah]

"Bart" > wrote in news:1162329774.342372.325560
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Judah wrote:
>> Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
>> that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
>> see a whole other level of practicality to GA.
>
> I'm not instrument rating and I agree that IR pilots will have more
> flexibility with weather. But I believe the larger percentage of GA
> pilots are not IR. And the while IR pilots have *more* flexibility, in
> most cases, it is still not as reliable as commercial or ground
> transportation.

If your purpose for flying is as a reliable mode of transportation, wouldn't
you do what is necessary to ensure it as such?

Would you stay with a learner's permit and complain that you can't drive at
night or on highways?

[Jay Beckman]

"Bart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>> If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
>> don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your passenger
>> doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an opportunity to log time
>> that you might not otherwise be logging...this is considered
>> compensation.
>
> What if I don't log the time? ;)

I'd have to call that "No Harm, No Foul..."

:O)

Jay B

[Jay Beckman]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:49:44 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> > wrote:
>
>>"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>>> A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or
>>> I
>>> like it or not.
>>
>>And if the passenger happens to be your wife who suggests that you fly off
>>to some nice little airport with a restaurant nearby for dinner? And she
>>picks up the tab? Or what about if instead of being married, you've just
>>been living together for the last 20+ years?
>
> What if it's your girlfriend and after dinner you're "rewarded" with
> an intimate encounter? Would the FAA consider that compensation? Could
> your girlfriend then be charged with prostitution?
>
> RK Henry

Don't know about the prostitution rap, but I don't think anyone would accuse
her of "holding out."

<Evil Grin>

Jay B

[Jim Stewart]

Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Judah writes:
>>
>>
>>>Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
>>>that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
>>>see a whole other level of practicality to GA.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what percentage of private general aviation
>>pilots have an instrument rating?
>>
>
>
> I don't know off the top of my head.
>
> What percentage of licensed drivers have CDLs?

Or large-displacement motorcycle ratings?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Or large-displacement motorcycle ratings?

Well, obviously the BMW motorcycles need a special type of rating since
they utilize a horizontally opposed air-cooled cylinder type of engine...

Hmmm... Come to think of it, so do the old VW drivers...

[gatt]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...

>> What if I don't log the time? ;)
>
> I'd have to call that "No Harm, No Foul..."

I asked a Portland cop one time if my assault weapon was legal and, if so,
was it legal to transport in my vehicle across town.

He said the weapon may or may not be legal and that it should be
disassembled for transport, but, above all, nobody cares as long as I don't
get in any trouble with it.

I view the FAA policies in this discussion as probably about the same; as
long as you're not doing something grossly deceptive or negligent and the
aircraft and pilot are licensed, current and airworthy, there will probably
never be a problem. If I were to take out an ad or solicit otherwise and it
came to their attention, I'd probably have a bit of explaining to do. Since
the principle benefits I derive from flying are experience and enjoyment, I
have no fear that the FAA is going to come on some witchhunt to get me.
Mainly because I've never heard anybody with a contrary example.

-c

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Sure wish the noise level would go down pre Msmanic days.....

Perhaps if people would stop feeding the trolls...

naaah, that would make way too much sense.

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

[Marty Shapiro]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> What if I don't log the time? ;)
>>
>> I'd have to call that "No Harm, No Foul..."
>
> I asked a Portland cop one time if my assault weapon was legal and, if
> so, was it legal to transport in my vehicle across town.
>
> He said the weapon may or may not be legal and that it should be
> disassembled for transport, but, above all, nobody cares as long as I
> don't get in any trouble with it.
>
> I view the FAA policies in this discussion as probably about the same;
> as long as you're not doing something grossly deceptive or negligent
> and the aircraft and pilot are licensed, current and airworthy, there
> will probably never be a problem. If I were to take out an ad or
> solicit otherwise and it came to their attention, I'd probably have a
> bit of explaining to do. Since the principle benefits I derive from
> flying are experience and enjoyment, I have no fear that the FAA is
> going to come on some witchhunt to get me. Mainly because I've never
> heard anybody with a contrary example.
>
> -c
>
>
>

Did you ever hear of Bob Hoover?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I don't know off the top of my head.

Then why reply? It only wastes your bandwidth and mine.

It's surprising to see how many people feel compelled to reply, even
though they have no idea what the answer to the question might be.
What is the real source of "noise" here?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If your purpose for flying is as a reliable mode of transportation, wouldn't
> you do what is necessary to ensure it as such?

Yes ... which implies that pilots without an instrument rating aren't
really serious about using aircraft for transportation, no matter what
they might claim.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Skylune,

> the
> weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER.
>

You mean, just like DRIVING? The horrors...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> I don't know off the top of my head.
>
> Then why reply? It only wastes your bandwidth and mine.

I also asked a question, which you simply ignored in your tirade... Who's the
troll now?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If your purpose for flying is as a reliable mode of transportation,
>> wouldn't you do what is necessary to ensure it as such?
>
> Yes ... which implies that pilots without an instrument rating aren't
> really serious about using aircraft for transportation, no matter what
> they might claim.
>
That depends on their needs for transportation, no? Many people have more
than one mode of transportation available to them. A byciclist that
doens't own snow tires because they don't intend to ride to work in the
winter can still be serious about using their bike for transportation.
This "all or nothing" notion that either an aircraft should totally
replace another vehicle or it's not serious transportation is just plain
absurd; there are times to fly, times to drive, and times to take a
commercial flight, and they don't have to overlap at all.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Judah writes:
>
>> I don't know off the top of my head.
>
> Then why reply? It only wastes your bandwidth and mine.
>
You don't appear to have much of a problem in wasting either one.

> What is the real source of "noise" here?
>
You are a good deal of it.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> That depends on their needs for transportation, no?

Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> That depends on their needs for transportation, no?
>
> Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
> independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
> about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.
>
This is not usually true. One can't necessarily ride a bike in "just about
any weather", yet the bike can generally be considered "reliable
transportation". Your argument is not valid.

Neil

[gatt]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...

>> Since the principle benefits I derive from flying are experience and
>> enjoyment, I have no fear that the FAA is
>> going to come on some witchhunt to get me. Mainly because I've never
>> heard anybody with a contrary example.
>
> Did you ever hear of Bob Hoover?

Three things:

1) Met him.

2) Turns out, he's still flying.

3) If the FAA is going to ground Bob Hoover because of a witchhunt as people
recognize it, (there is more to the story, but it's nobody's business. It
was medical in nature) it proves that the FAA will ground the best pilot
alive on wild-ass speculation and it really is us against them.

If you choose to let them bully you into submission without so much as a
fight for it, that's your business. I am fortunate in that flying is not my
livelihood. That's a battle that, if it ever came up, wouldn't destroy me if
I lost. I don't allow my skivvies to get knotted up too much about whether
I might theoretically offend the FAA based on some trivial reason; if they
ever decide to harrass me for taking my dad flying or something, they'll
find me medically and practically current in an airworthy and inspected
aircraft. Then we'll see what happens.

But I'm not going to not fly for fear that they might tell me not to fly. In
1988, somebody significant told me that because of my vision, the FAA would
never allow me to fly a plane. I'm glad I didn't listen.

-c
PP-ASEL-IA

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> That depends on their needs for transportation, no?
>
> Outside the category of meteorologists, the need for transportation is
> independent of the weather. Therefore someone who cannot fly in just
> about any weather cannot provide reliable transportation.
>

I just looked up the days annually that were clear, partly cloudy and cloudy
for the nearest city to me I could find at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/clpcdy.txt . In this case
Little Rock Arkansas. Over the last 35 years they've averaged 119 clear, 100
partly cloudy and 147 cloudy. The vast majority of the clear and partly
cloudy would be VFR and a fairly large number of the cloudy days would be
VFR.

Sure there are days that you just can't fly without a IFR rating for that
matter there are days that you can't fly with an IFR rating. But guess what
there are days that I've been on commercial flight that I would have been
better off in a car. But with just a little bit of flexibility a VFR pilot
can and do on a regular basis use GA for reliable transportation.

I'm still better off seeing 4 of my clients tomorrow than I would be driving
and seeing 2 today and 2 the next and having to stay in a hotel on the night
in between.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> This is not usually true. One can't necessarily ride a bike in "just about
> any weather", yet the bike can generally be considered "reliable
> transportation". Your argument is not valid.

There are very few types of weather that will stop a bicycle. A VFR
flight is stopped by a fluffy little cloud.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> There are very few types of weather that will stop a bicycle. A VFR
> flight is stopped by a fluffy little cloud.

As usual WRONG AGAIN.

If it's a puffy LITTLE cloud as you describe, just fly around it.

Allen

[Judah]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

> Judah > wrote
> in :
>
>> You gonna answer the phone from your crash site?
>
> If the pilot survived, chances are the mobile survived too.
>

If that's the case, is the pilot going to wait for CAP to call him and see
where he's at? Or is he going to call 911 first?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> This is not usually true. One can't necessarily ride a bike in "just about
>> any weather", yet the bike can generally be considered "reliable
>> transportation". Your argument is not valid.
>
> There are very few types of weather that will stop a bicycle. A VFR
> flight is stopped by a fluffy little cloud.

You try so hard to justify your fear of flying, but sophomoric statements
like the above simply prove your complete and total ignorance, and separation
from reality.

It certainly helps to explain your handle.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You try so hard to justify your fear of flying ...

I don't fear flying; I fear people. People are the danger in
aviation. Just about all incidents can be traced directly to their
mistakes, in one form or another.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> You try so hard to justify your fear of flying ...
>
> I don't fear flying; I fear people. People are the danger in
> aviation. Just about all incidents can be traced directly to their
> mistakes, in one form or another.

You waffle worse than Clinton.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> You try so hard to justify your fear of flying ...
>
> I don't fear flying; I fear people. People are the danger in
> aviation. Just about all incidents can be traced directly to their
> mistakes, in one form or another.
>

I think we are nearing a huge breakthrough here. Manic is a sad boy-man that
is hiding in a basement somewhere due to his fear of people if this fear is
because of things that have happened to him or he thinks have happened to
him we don't know. His only contact with the outside world is through
simulations including simulations of community like this newsgroup. Because
this is his only contact and people hate what they fear he must not only
fear but hate us as well.