USA Today .. Positive GA Pub [Archive]

Larry Dighera

January 18th 07, 12:35 AM

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:23:45 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in >:

>Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-01-16-biz-pilots-usat_x.htm

It's about time. Thanks for the heads-up.

Here are some quotes from the story:

The added hassles of business travel from tightened security and
airline cost-cutting since the Sept. 11 terrorism has helped fuel
an increase in the business use of personal aircraft. Encouraged
by a growing economy and a generally favorable business climate,
many business people — particularly those who live far from a
big-city hub — are realizing that piloting their own planes saves
time and, in some cases, money.

...

The Federal Aviation Administration estimates about two-thirds of
the hours flown by private planes are for business reasons.
According to the agency's most recent numbers, hours flown in
private planes for business reasons in 2005 were up 12.5% from
2001. Contributing to the increase: more business trips taken by
individuals or small groups in small, piston-driven airplanes.

...

In September, La Colla and an employee flew on the plane to visit
11 stores in five days. They visited eight cities at a cost of
less than $4,500. If they had taken airline flights, they would
have spent more nights in hotels, rented more cars and eaten in
more restaurants. The bill would have been much higher, La Colla
says.

Larry Dighera

January 18th 07, 12:37 AM

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:45 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> wrote in >:

>And a plug for Sport Pilot would have been nice.

Not in this case. The story is extolling the virtues of GA as a
business alternative to airline travel. The public is already way to
aware of recreational GA activity.

Larry Dighera

January 18th 07, 12:59 AM

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:23:45 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in >:

>Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-01-16-biz-pilots-usat_x.htm

You can tell the editor and author how much you enjoyed the story
here:
http://feedbackforms.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=14

Judah

January 18th 07, 02:29 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kev writes:
>
>> I just wish they'd give a (much) wider range of cost figures, instead
>> of concentrating on the higher end of owning airplanes and license
>> cost.
>
> They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
> and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
> glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
> long time.

They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

They identified the cost to purchase a 22 year old plane as $92,000,
although one can purchase a used plane for considerably less than half
that.

They identified the hourly rate to rent a plane as $200 per hour or more,
although one can rent planes for half that or less.

The article was a good, positive article, and I certainly appreciate the
positive press, especially since I identify with the subjects of the
article (I got my pilots license in 2001 and fly to save time and money in
my business).

But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation. Your
perspective is skewed.

Ken Finney

January 18th 07, 04:30 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:45 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote in >:
>
>>And a plug for Sport Pilot would have been nice.
>
> Not in this case. The story is extolling the virtues of GA as a
> business alternative to airline travel. The public is already way to
> aware of recreational GA activity.

I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. It was a
decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
they can do.

Larry Dighera

January 18th 07, 05:44 PM

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:30:07 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> wrote in >:

>It was a
>decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
>other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
>readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
>they can do.

As another poster to this message thread indicated, the cost figures
used seem unrealistically inflated. (Someone should bring this to the
attention to the author of the article.)

Because the article was primarily about the utility of GA for
_business_ use, I feel that discussing recreational aviation would
have been beyond the scope of that article, even though it may have
lent a more objective perspective on costs, as you suggest.

Jim Logajan

January 18th 07, 06:16 PM

Judah > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>> They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
>> and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
>> glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
>> long time.
>
> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
> although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/

Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html

Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm

Or a new CT for $92,900:
http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_interface/results_page.asp

And so on....

> But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
> Your perspective is skewed.

Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 07:29 PM

Ken Finney writes:

> I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
> and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
> with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. It was a
> decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
> other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
> readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
> they can do.

And unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.

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

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 07:30 PM

Judah writes:

> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
> can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.

That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
$200,000,000.

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

Ken Finney

January 18th 07, 07:35 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Judah > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>> They've considerably underplayed the high cost of general aviation,
>>> and they've not even mentioned the weather factors in aviation. Be
>>> glad that the article is so positive; I haven't seen one like it in a
>>> long time.
>>
>> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
>> although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.
>
> Or a new Cirrus SRV-G2 for $199,900:
> http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/pricing/
>
> Or a new Zodiac XL for $79,900 (or IFR certified for $94,900):
> http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/price.html
>
> Or a new Savannah for $57,995:
> http://www.skykits.com/KitsandpricingUS.rev2.htm
>
> Or a new CT for $92,900:
> http://www.flightdesignusa.com/ct_interface/results_page.asp
>
> And so on....
>
>> But it absolutely did not underplay the high cost of general aviation.
>> Your perspective is skewed.
>
> Agreed - the article was definitely skewed toward higher cost planes.

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about it.

Gig 601XL Builder

January 18th 07, 07:43 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000,
>> although one can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.
>
> That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
> $200,000,000.

Yet another example of you taking one statement out of many and basing your
entire argument on it. As Judah wrote in the post you replied to an very
serviceable aircraft can be perchased for much less than $200,000. And since
the article was about people that have real jobs and own real businesses the
fact that aircraft are available at a price that most with the need could
afford would be a nice addition to what was otherwise a pretty good article.

[email protected]

January 18th 07, 07:44 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although one
> > can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.
>
> That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
> $200,000,000.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Hey man,

I rent airplanes for $79/hr and one can find a nice IFR equipped 152
for $25k or less. Even better, one can get into a partnership and get
something nice for a good price. I started with nothing and now have a
job paying in the mid-$50s that allows me to fly around 90/hrs per
year. Obtaining a job that pays $50k/hr or more is doable by anybody
of average intelligence that is willing to work. I'm under 30 yrs old
and have a college degree, my private, instrument, and am working on my
commercial - all paid for in cash (no debt).

Quit feeling sorry for yourself and get a job that pays. You sound
lazy and whiny.

Tony

January 18th 07, 07:54 PM

In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it. The
article was talking about the utility of GA for business, which is what
paid for most of my flying, and the lower cost airplanes just don't
have the range or utility that a complex single has. I flew a couple of
trips with a friend who had a 172 -- it just didn't have the legs, and
if there was a broad area of IMC, one couldn't file IFR because the
requirement of reaching an acceptable alternate. I remember flying a
300 mile trip and had to make a fueling stop about half way to have
legal reserves.

On the other hand, an M20 has the legs and speed to allow the owner to
keep to a schedule. My own history, flying out of the Northeast, is
that something like 8% of the flights to meetings I might have
scheduled a week or more in advance (which mean they were not scheduled
looking at the weather forcast) had to be cancelled or postponed
because of weather. I pretty much took off if the forcast for where I
was going would allow me to fly an approach, but icing (reported by
pilots, not forcast), embedded thunderstorms, severe turbulance, those
were reasons for me to pick up the phone instead of my brain bag.

There's no question that GA is out of reach financially for a large
number of people, but we still have a few hundred thousand who can
afford to, and want to, fly.

Mx isn't one of them.

On Jan 18, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken Finney writes:
> > I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane company
> > and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I had ANY contact
> > with GA, and I expect the average person has even less knowledge. It was a
> > decent article, but the tone I got from it was "this is what other people,
> > other people who are rich, do". Once you say an airplane costs $400K, most
> > readers will forever consider GA as something "others" do, not something
> > they can do.And unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ken Finney

January 18th 07, 09:44 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although
>> one
>> can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.
>
> That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
> $200,000,000.
>

In the anti-sport pilot communitiy, they are always complaining about the
cost of light sport aircraft (LSA). When you respond that a new LSA is half
the cost of a new 172, they still complain about it. When you point out
that an Ercoupe is about $15K and is an LSA, they complain about something
else.

Judah

January 18th 07, 10:00 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
> $200,000,000.

Certainly for people who earn $100/wk tutoring that's true.

In 2004 the median US Income was reported as $43,389. Certainly someone
earning $43,389 might have trouble paying for a $200,000 loan for a Cessna
172SP, unless he planned to make it into a 30 year mortgage.

However, he would probably be able to afford the loan on a used model 172
that he bought through www.aso.com for $34,500 - the lowest priced 172
currently listed there. With $4,500 down, the monthly payment for a 7 year
loan on the balance would be about $450/month.

I know several people who earn about that and pay more for their car...

Judah

January 18th 07, 10:23 PM

I flew 172s on business trips many times before I joined a flight club and
worked my way into Arrows and then Bonanzas... I would say that my
Instrument Rating had a much bigger impact on my ability to fly GA for
business than the extra speed of the Bonanzas that I currently prefer.
Certainly the faster planes have improved my utility even further, but I
don't think it's fair to say that a 172 would be useless for business
flying. My general rule of thumb is that GA flying works best for flights
between 1 and 3 hours of flight time. Any shorter and you can probably
drive there in the same amount of door-to-door time (if you factor in
flying to the airport, doing the preflight, and waiting for a
rental/ride/whatever at the destination airport). Anything longer than that
and you start to get into "stop" situations - either because of IFR reserve
requirements as you describe, or just for the need to stop after 3 hours of
sitting in a plane without a toilet or center aisle. Plus for me, based out
of NY, if I'm flying more than 3 hours, I'm probably headed somewhere that
I can get to on a major carrier in less time and for less money.

But I think the time rule applies regardless of the speed of the aircraft.
The speed of the aircraft just changes the range that this time factor
works with. In the Bo, I can get to South Carolina in 3 hours (and have).
In the 172, 3 hours got me to Erie, PA. In an M20, I figure 3 hours gets
you to Detroit...

Anyway, the point is, flying faster certainly improves the utility of GA.
That's why the richest businesses fly Gulfstreams and Lears. But even 172s
can provide utility in business...

"Tony" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
> if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it. The
> article was talking about the utility of GA for business, which is what
> paid for most of my flying, and the lower cost airplanes just don't
> have the range or utility that a complex single has. I flew a couple of
> trips with a friend who had a 172 -- it just didn't have the legs, and
> if there was a broad area of IMC, one couldn't file IFR because the
> requirement of reaching an acceptable alternate. I remember flying a
> 300 mile trip and had to make a fueling stop about half way to have
> legal reserves.
>
> On the other hand, an M20 has the legs and speed to allow the owner to
> keep to a schedule. My own history, flying out of the Northeast, is
> that something like 8% of the flights to meetings I might have
> scheduled a week or more in advance (which mean they were not scheduled
> looking at the weather forcast) had to be cancelled or postponed
> because of weather. I pretty much took off if the forcast for where I
> was going would allow me to fly an approach, but icing (reported by
> pilots, not forcast), embedded thunderstorms, severe turbulance, those
> were reasons for me to pick up the phone instead of my brain bag.
>
> There's no question that GA is out of reach financially for a large
> number of people, but we still have a few hundred thousand who can
> afford to, and want to, fly.
>
> Mx isn't one of them.
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken Finney writes:
>> > I respectfully disagree. I worked about 18 years for an airplane
>> > company and lived for next to a major airport for 12 years before I
>> > had ANY contact with GA, and I expect the average person has even
>> > less knowledge. It was a decent article, but the tone I got from it
>> > was "this is what other people, other people who are rich, do". Once
>> > you say an airplane costs $400K, most readers will forever consider
>> > GA as something "others" do, not something they can do.And
>> > unfortuately, most of those readers will be right.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 11:42 PM

Tony writes:

> In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
> if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.

One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
excluded from GA. It might be hard to drum up sympathy for GA in that
99%.

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

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 11:45 PM

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yet another example of you taking one statement out of many and basing your
> entire argument on it. As Judah wrote in the post you replied to an very
> serviceable aircraft can be perchased for much less than $200,000.

As I've pointed out "less than $200,000" is not materially different
from $200 million for much of the American population. A lot of
Americans today can barely pay their rent, thanks to the continuing
evaporation of the middle classes.

> And since
> the article was about people that have real jobs and own real businesses the
> fact that aircraft are available at a price that most with the need could
> afford would be a nice addition to what was otherwise a pretty good article.

Very few people own their own businesses. Of those who do, only a
fraction can afford aircraft (and the license to pilot them). The
situation is even worse for people who are simply employees. However,
even the poorest people can vote.

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

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 11:48 PM

writes:

> I rent airplanes for $79/hr and one can find a nice IFR equipped 152
> for $25k or less.

Not everyone lives in an area where they can rent aircraft for $79 per
hour, and a 152 may not suit everyone's requirements. And even at
these prices, they are out of reach for many Americans.

> I started with nothing and now have a job paying in the mid-$50s
> that allows me to fly around 90/hrs per year.

So you need $55,000 to fly for one percent of your time. Sounds like
an awfully expensive hobby to me.

> Obtaining a job that pays $50k/hr or more is doable by anybody
> of average intelligence that is willing to work.

If only that were true.

> I'm under 30 yrs old and have a college degree, my private, instrument,
> and am working on my commercial - all paid for in cash (no debt).

Enjoy it while you can.

> Quit feeling sorry for yourself and get a job that pays.

I haven't said anything about myself.

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

Tony

January 18th 07, 11:48 PM

Read the damn post. I said that fraction could write a check for a
$400,000 airplane. Tell me how that excludes 99% from GA. It excludes
them from buying for cash a $400,000 airplane.

On Jan 18, 6:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
> > if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
> excluded from GA. It might be hard to drum up sympathy for GA in that
> 99%.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 11:49 PM

Judah writes:

> In 2004 the median US Income was reported as $43,389. Certainly someone
> earning $43,389 might have trouble paying for a $200,000 loan for a Cessna
> 172SP, unless he planned to make it into a 30 year mortgage.
>
> However, he would probably be able to afford the loan on a used model 172
> that he bought through www.aso.com for $34,500 - the lowest priced 172
> currently listed there. With $4,500 down, the monthly payment for a 7 year
> loan on the balance would be about $450/month.
>
> I know several people who earn about that and pay more for their car...

They get a lot more use out of their car than they could ever get out
of an aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic

January 18th 07, 11:59 PM

Tony writes:

> Read the damn post. I said that fraction could write a check for a
> $400,000 airplane. Tell me how that excludes 99% from GA. It excludes
> them from buying for cash a $400,000 airplane.

Try to be nice. As I've said, the majority of the population that
doesn't have access to GA, or isn't interested in it, is still a
population that can vote. If you have a poor attitude, they may
outlaw GA one day.

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

Judah

January 19th 07, 12:02 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tony writes:
>
>> In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
>> if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.
>
> One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
> excluded from GA. It might be hard to drum up sympathy for GA in that
> 99%.

99% of the population in the USA can't write a check to purchase a home
either. Does that mean that 99% of the population is excluded from home
ownership? It sure doesn't seem that way from the statistics.

GA Pilots aren't looking for sympathy. We are looking for accurate reporting.

One sim pilot seems to be looking for sympathy. Maybe it's a Sim Pilot thing.

[email protected]

January 19th 07, 01:17 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > I rent airplanes for $79/hr and one can find a nice IFR equipped 152
> > for $25k or less.
>
> Not everyone lives in an area where they can rent aircraft for $79 per
> hour, and a 152 may not suit everyone's requirements. And even at
> these prices, they are out of reach for many Americans.

Yes, and riding motorcycles is also out of reach of "many Americans".
Doesn't mean motorcycling is only for the rich. BTW, I had those
rental prices in South FL and Denver, CO. They are current prices and
those two areas have a relatively high cost of living. If you live in
an area that is too expensive for your happiness, you move. Nobody's
forced to live in a certain area in the US.

>
> > I started with nothing and now have a job paying in the mid-$50s
> > that allows me to fly around 90/hrs per year.
>
> So you need $55,000 to fly for one percent of your time. Sounds like
> an awfully expensive hobby to me.

Huh? I paid off my car in cash, I travel, I go out with my friends, I
have a savings account, etc. I gave my income (which is median where I
live) as an example of the median income person being able to fly with
no debt. I certainly don't come anywhere close to spending all my
money on flying.

>
> > Obtaining a job that pays $50k/hr or more is doable by anybody
> > of average intelligence that is willing to work.
>
> If only that were true.

Why isn't it true? Nobody paid anything for me after I was 18.
Nothing. No car, no insurance, no groceries, no books for college. I
did it all from scratch, and I'm just an average guy that worked hard.
I met a lot of people in school that did the same. America has its
problems, but hard work will always be rewarded here. The people that
complain seem to be lazy and expect things handed out to them and are
resentful of those that worked hard.

>
> > I'm under 30 yrs old and have a college degree, my private, instrument,
> > and am working on my commercial - all paid for in cash (no debt).
>
> Enjoy it while you can.

Oh yeah? Is something going to happen? I've had more than my fair
share of tough life experiences. I don't let it slow me down.

>
> > Quit feeling sorry for yourself and get a job that pays.
>
> I haven't said anything about myself.
>

Your constant whining says plenty.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 01:30 AM

Judah writes:

> GA Pilots aren't looking for sympathy. We are looking for accurate reporting.

You don't necessarily want accurate reporting, if it creates the wrong
impression.

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

Jose

January 19th 07, 01:31 AM

>>In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
>>> if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.
>
>
> One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
> excluded from GA.

Only if being excluded is the same as not being able to buy a plane for
cash. I don't think they are equivalent.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 01:31 AM

writes:

> Oh yeah? Is something going to happen?

Wait and see.

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

Tony

January 19th 07, 01:45 AM

Sam, you're dealing with a man (we think) who lives in Paris (we think)
in his mid 40s (ditto) who used to have money, and now celebrates
having enough, if we accept his blog, being able to buy a hamburger. It
would be moderately interesting to learn why he left San Diago (we
think) for Paris.

There's an obvious intellegence, but a negative attitude.

You are an inconvenient truth, you represent something he might have
been. You have to brush off some of his remarks as if they were lint on
your shoulder.

In places that I managed and owned, employees were mostly 'employees of
convenience' and I think it wouldn't take long for one of my executives
with hiring/discharging authority to decide it was inconvenient to
employ someone with his characteristics unless he was truly exceptional
at his job and added considerable value to our products. It's my guess
there's not much chance of that. I could be wrong, but that would be
the way to bet. His problems in this group and in the sim game one
suggests his personality problems are deeply seated. This kind of forum
is probably the only kind where he can pretend to be superior without
consequences. Too bad, it's a sad case, but this isn't a mental health
newsgroup, it is a - let me check -- yeah, an aviation one. Watching
him is like watching someone driving not very well. You're pretty sure
there's going to be crash sometime soon, and it's difficult not to
watch it happen.

There he goes, tires squealing, taking another corner too fast. . .

n Jan 18, 8:17 pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
>
> > > I rent airplanes for $79/hr and one can find a nice IFR equipped 152
> > > for $25k or less.
>
> > Not everyone lives in an area where they can rent aircraft for $79 per
> > hour, and a 152 may not suit everyone's requirements. And even at
> > these prices, they are out of reach for many Americans.Yes, and riding motorcycles is also out of reach of "many Americans".
> Doesn't mean motorcycling is only for the rich. BTW, I had those
> rental prices in South FL and Denver, CO. They are current prices and
> those two areas have a relatively high cost of living. If you live in
> an area that is too expensive for your happiness, you move. Nobody's
> forced to live in a certain area in the US.
>
>
>
> > > I started with nothing and now have a job paying in the mid-$50s
> > > that allows me to fly around 90/hrs per year.
>
> > So you need $55,000 to fly for one percent of your time. Sounds like
> > an awfully expensive hobby to me.Huh? I paid off my car in cash, I travel, I go out with my friends, I
> have a savings account, etc. I gave my income (which is median where I
> live) as an example of the median income person being able to fly with
> no debt. I certainly don't come anywhere close to spending all my
> money on flying.
>
>
>
> > > Obtaining a job that pays $50k/hr or more is doable by anybody
> > > of average intelligence that is willing to work.
>
> > If only that were true.Why isn't it true? Nobody paid anything for me after I was 18.
> Nothing. No car, no insurance, no groceries, no books for college. I
> did it all from scratch, and I'm just an average guy that worked hard.
> I met a lot of people in school that did the same. America has its
> problems, but hard work will always be rewarded here. The people that
> complain seem to be lazy and expect things handed out to them and are
> resentful of those that worked hard.
>
>
>
> > > I'm under 30 yrs old and have a college degree, my private, instrument,
> > > and am working on my commercial - all paid for in cash (no debt).
>
> > Enjoy it while you can.Oh yeah? Is something going to happen? I've had more than my fair
> share of tough life experiences. I don't let it slow me down.
>
>
>
> > > Quit feeling sorry for yourself and get a job that pays.
>
> > I haven't said anything about myself.Your constant whining says plenty.

Judah

January 19th 07, 01:58 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> They get a lot more use out of their car than they could ever get out
> of an aircraft.

Irrelevant.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 02:11 AM

Judah writes:

> Irrelevant.

You think that the amount of money a person spends on something should
be uncorrelated with the use he gets out of it?

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

Judah

January 19th 07, 02:12 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> You don't necessarily want accurate reporting, if it creates the wrong
> impression.

Well, I prefer a report that accurately represents reality, and tells the
whole story. A person can take specific facts and still create an innacurate
representation of the truth.

But you know that very well.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 02:20 AM

Judah writes:

> Well, I prefer a report that accurately represents reality, and tells the
> whole story.

Even if you end up losing the ability to fly as a result?

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

[email protected]

January 19th 07, 02:35 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Oh yeah? Is something going to happen?
>
> Wait and see.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Oh, wait and see is it? Wait and see for what? The Y2K crash, or the
ebola virus, or peak oil, global terrorism etc? Are you one of those
goofballs that sits around convinced something terrible is right around
the corner? If you're so good and have so much insight into the
future, play the stocks and make some money. While you are "waiting
and seeing" the rest of us are going to move on with our lives.

[email protected]

January 19th 07, 02:37 AM

Tony wrote:
> Sam, you're dealing with a man (we think) who lives in Paris (we think)
> in his mid 40s (ditto) who used to have money, and now celebrates
> having enough, if we accept his blog, being able to buy a hamburger. It
> would be moderately interesting to learn why he left San Diago (we
> think) for Paris.
>
> There's an obvious intellegence, but a negative attitude.
>

Yeah, it is odd. Like you said, he seems intelligent but has let his
attitude ruin his life. Maybe he had some criminal or civil problems
chase him into a foreign country, and now he's paying the consequences.

Kev

January 19th 07, 02:45 AM

wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> > > Oh yeah? Is something going to happen?
> >
> > Wait and see.
>
> Oh, wait and see is it? Wait and see for what? The Y2K crash, or the
> ebola virus, or peak oil, global terrorism etc? [...]

*laughing* My first thought was, he's talking about you getting
married, having three kids, and afterwards being too broke to fly :-)

Kev

Judah

January 19th 07, 02:56 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> You think that the amount of money a person spends on something should
> be uncorrelated with the use he gets out of it?

People spend similar amounts of money on cigarettes. I believe a plane is
more useful than cigarettes.

People spend less money on childbirth. I believe a child is more useful than
a car, a plane, or a cigarette.

But value is personal. And spending priorities even moreso. What you or I
think about how someone else should spend their money is irrelevant.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who makes $50,000 / yr should go out and buy
a plane. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your suggestion that most
people don't have the option.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 02:58 AM

writes:

> Oh, wait and see is it? Wait and see for what? The Y2K crash, or the
> ebola virus, or peak oil, global terrorism etc?

Time will tell. The one sure thing in the world is change.

> Are you one of those goofballs that sits around convinced something
> terrible is right around the corner?

No.

> If you're so good and have so much insight into the future, play
> the stocks and make some money.

Stay away from the stock market.

> While you are "waiting and seeing" the rest of us are going to
> move on with our lives.

Sometimes our lives move in unforeseen directions.

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

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 02:58 AM

Kev writes:

> *laughing* My first thought was, he's talking about you getting
> married, having three kids, and afterwards being too broke to fly :-)

Only one of many possibilities.

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

Judah

January 19th 07, 02:59 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Even if you end up losing the ability to fly as a result?

How exactly will my ability to fly be affected by that article in USA Today?

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 03:00 AM

Judah writes:

> People spend similar amounts of money on cigarettes. I believe a plane is
> more useful than cigarettes.

Not to heavy smokers.

> People spend less money on childbirth. I believe a child is more useful than
> a car, a plane, or a cigarette.

Useful? I suppose if there are no child labor laws.

> But value is personal. And spending priorities even moreso. What you or I
> think about how someone else should spend their money is irrelevant.

The problem is that people who don't share your preferences may find
them unacceptable or excessive. So it might not be a good idea to
advertise them.

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

mike regish

January 19th 07, 03:07 AM

I got a 4 seater for $17,500.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> They identified the costs to purchase a new plane as $400,000, although
>> one
>> can purchase a new Cessna 172SP for about half that.
>
> That's still $200,000. For most people, it might as well be
> $200,000,000.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah

January 19th 07, 03:19 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> People spend similar amounts of money on cigarettes. I believe a plane
>> is more useful than cigarettes.
>
> Not to heavy smokers.

Exactly - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...

>> People spend less money on childbirth. I believe a child is more useful
>> than a car, a plane, or a cigarette.
>
> Useful? I suppose if there are no child labor laws.

Again, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...

>> But value is personal. And spending priorities even moreso. What you or
>> I think about how someone else should spend their money is irrelevant.
>
> The problem is that people who don't share your preferences may find
> them unacceptable or excessive. So it might not be a good idea to
> advertise them.

No, the problem is that YOU don't share my preferences and find them
unacceptable or excessive. And you think that the rest of the world feels
the same way as you "because it's obvious" to you.

But the fact is that there are hundreds of millions of people in the US,
and perhaps 6 Billion in the world, and you have no idea what their
priorities are, or what they value.

Perhaps there are people out there who have dreamt about flying since they
were little boys or girls, but never heard of GA, and didn't know they
could just hop on over to the airport and learn to fly. Perhaps they were
never exposed to a story like the one in USA today.

Is that so far-fetched?

[email protected]

January 19th 07, 03:50 AM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Oh, wait and see is it? Wait and see for what? The Y2K crash, or the
> > ebola virus, or peak oil, global terrorism etc?
>
> Time will tell. The one sure thing in the world is change.
>

Yep, things never go as planned - I agree. But as long as one keeps
working toward their goals, the change seems to be for the better.

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 10:39 AM

Judah writes:

> How exactly will my ability to fly be affected by that article in USA Today?

Public opinion shapes public policy and legislation. If public
opinion were to turn against general aviation, GA might simply be
outlawed. The vast majority of the population would be unaffected and
wouldn't care. Similar things have happened in the past. Seemingly
positive stories about GA don't help if the average reader feels
excluded by them, and they may actually hurt by bringing a rich man's
hobby to the attention of the average person. "You mean people are
allowed to fly around freely in their own planes?? That's dangerous!"
might well be the reaction. The next step is to forbid people to fly
in their own planes, removing that dangerous minority from the air.

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

Mxsmanic

January 19th 07, 10:44 AM

Judah writes:

> No, the problem is that YOU don't share my preferences and find them
> unacceptable or excessive.

Actually, I'm quite interested in aviation. But I'm an exception to
the rule. People who don't fly don't care, and would cheerfully sign
a prohibition on flying with even slight provocation. Noise from
aircraft over their houses? Forbid flying. Jessica Dubroff dead?
Forbid flying. A baseball player nearly killing people in their homes
in Manhattan? Forbid flying.

Be careful what you wish for. Informing people of something that you
know about doesn't mean that they will have the same opinion of it as
you do. What seems like a great hobby to you may seem like a
dangerous practice that should be outlawed to them.

> And you think that the rest of the world feels
> the same way as you "because it's obvious" to you.

No, I'm simply very good at seeing other points of view, and thus very
prudent about trying to promote my own.

> But the fact is that there are hundreds of millions of people in the US,
> and perhaps 6 Billion in the world, and you have no idea what their
> priorities are, or what they value.

On the contrary, human behavior in large populations is pretty
consistent and predictable, as many politicians know so well. If you
plan to put yourself or your ideas in the public eye, you need to
understand how that behavior works.

> Perhaps there are people out there who have dreamt about flying since they
> were little boys or girls, but never heard of GA, and didn't know they
> could just hop on over to the airport and learn to fly.

Maybe, but they are a tiny minority at best.

There are also many more people who couldn't care less about flying
who may start to wonder about the safety of having people zipping
around in tiny planes above them once they learn that it is happening.

> Is that so far-fetched?

No, but it is a very skewed view, dangerously so, in fact.

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

Andrew Gideon

January 19th 07, 07:27 PM

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:50:20 -0800, sam.trask wrote:

> Yep, things never go as planned - I agree.

What if one plans for plans not going as planned?

Gig 601XL Builder

January 19th 07, 08:38 PM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:50:20 -0800, sam.trask wrote:
>
>> Yep, things never go as planned - I agree.
>
> What if one plans for plans not going as planned?

Then everything will run as planned. It is truly the exception that proves
the rule.

mike regish

January 19th 07, 09:49 PM

Not what he said. Try reading the post.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tony writes:
>
>> In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
>> if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.
>
> One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
> excluded from GA. It might be hard to drum up sympathy for GA in that
> 99%.
>
> --

mike regish

January 19th 07, 09:51 PM

I think he's currently incarcerated.

mike

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>
> Yeah, it is odd. Like you said, he seems intelligent but has let his
> attitude ruin his life. Maybe he had some criminal or civil problems
> chase him into a foreign country, and now he's paying the consequences.
>

Morgans[_6_]

January 20th 07, 04:47 AM

"Ken Finney" > wrote

> Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
> Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
> it.

If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might think
twice.

It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to be
much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is going on
with that story before you make any decisions.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

January 20th 07, 03:30 PM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:50:20 -0800, sam.trask wrote:
>
> > Yep, things never go as planned - I agree.
>
> What if one plans for plans not going as planned?

Then one will have a miserable life - at least I would!

I am happiest when I have significant goals that I am working towards.
I've always had something, whether it be working towards my engineering
degree a few years ago, or a certain job, etc. Currently it's a career
in aviation. So far the way I've gone about obtaining those goals did
not go exactly as planned (which is usually not a bad thing
surprisingly enough). For the most part been able to accompolish all
of my goals, even if the journey taken was not at planned.

There was a point a few years ago after I graduated college and began
working. It was kind of like what now? I'd accompolished my major
goals and didn't really have anything major I was working towards. I
was pretty unhappy until I figured out why.

The Visitor

January 20th 07, 11:30 PM

Oh sure, put "Pub" in the subject line!

Jay Beckman wrote:
> Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-01-16-biz-pilots-usat_x.htm
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>
>

Ken Finney

January 22nd 07, 01:11 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>
>> Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
>> Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
>> it.
>
> If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might
> think twice.
>
> It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to
> be much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is
> going on with that story before you make any decisions.
> --
> Jim in NC

I don't know if "knock-off" is the correct term. There is a whole school
of design in Europe that has produced some real similar designs. I
understand that the 701 designer licensed a predecessor company to ICP (the
Savannah's builder) to make a 701 clone, but didn't limit the license so
that they couldn't compete directly with the Heinzes. But in my mind, the
Savannah is different enough from the 701 that this shouldn't be an issue
anyway. I had the opportunity the last two years at Arlington to compare
the Savannah and the 701 pretty much side-by-side. I'm not a pilot (yet),
and I'm not a airframe engineer, but it didn't appear that the Savannah was
built any less strong than the 701, in fact, the contrary seemed to be true.
I subscribe to both 701 and Savannah mailing lists, and both the builders
and pilots of Savannahs appear to be happier than the builders and pilots of
the 701s. The 701 people do seem to want to bash the Savannah people more
than the Savannah people want to bash the 701 people. There is some bad
blood out there. I understand the US distributor for the Savannah is
really, really POed that the account was "stolen" from him, and doesn't have
much to say good about ICP, Savannah, and/or Eric these days.

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

Morgans

January 22nd 07, 02:55 AM

"Ken Finney" > wrote

> I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site. There
were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well supported.
--
Jim in NC

Jim Logajan

January 22nd 07, 04:44 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>
>> I'd like to know more about what you speak of.
>
> I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site.
> There were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well
> supported.

Perhaps you are thinking of this page:

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

No specific safety criticisms that I can see of the Savannah - just of its
STOL flight characteristics being inferior to that of the 701.

Morgans

January 22nd 07, 07:12 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>>
>>> I'd like to know more about what you speak of.
>>
>> I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site.
>> There were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well
>> supported.
>
> Perhaps you are thinking of this page:
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html
>
> No specific safety criticisms that I can see of the Savannah - just of its
> STOL flight characteristics being inferior to that of the 701.

They are there. Read between the lines; if you don't choose to do so, you
will not see them.

I'm sure it would be unpopular with the lawyers to outright state that
another's design is unsafe.

See my drift?

Jim Logajan

January 22nd 07, 07:01 PM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html
>>
>> No specific safety criticisms that I can see of the Savannah - just
>> of its STOL flight characteristics being inferior to that of the 701.
>
> They are there. Read between the lines; if you don't choose to do so,
> you will not see them.
>
> I'm sure it would be unpopular with the lawyers to outright state that
> another's design is unsafe.
>
> See my drift?

I am well aware of innuendo and rhetorical devices. My objective was to
point out that the rhetoric and innuendo was hollow.

But more specifically, if you search the NTSB accident database for amateur
built 701s and for amateur built Savannahs, you'll find 21 accidents (none
fatal) for the 701s compared with _no_ entries at all for the Savannahs.
Obviously the U.S. 701 fleet is older and larger than the U.S. Savannah
fleet, but the point here is that with regard to innuendo and rhetorical
devices, Zenith Aircraft is inside the proverbial glass house and throwing
stones.