Excellent TV Piece on GA

[Jay Honeck]

http://www.kgan.com/csArticles/articles/000055/005537.htm

Amazing! This Cedar Rapids, Iowa TV station did a 2-part piece on
learning to fly -- and did a wonderful job!

The CFI in both segments, Tim Bush, is outstanding. He's a real
pistol, locally, with a zillion ideas for growing GA, and endless
energy to boot.

If only we could get more publicity like this....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> http://www.kgan.com/csArticles/articles/000055/005537.htm
>
> Amazing! This Cedar Rapids, Iowa TV station did a 2-part piece on
> learning to fly -- and did a wonderful job!
>
> The CFI in both segments, Tim Bush, is outstanding. He's a real
> pistol, locally, with a zillion ideas for growing GA, and endless
> energy to boot.
>
> If only we could get more publicity like this....

I think the six-thousand-dollar part is where a lot of viewers will stop
listening. I can't find Part I but the medical part would also lose a fair
number of viewers.

If it were as difficult to drive as it is to fly, cars would be so rare that
they'd turn heads as they passed (and people would be trying to forbid them to
escape the noise).

Conversely, if it were as easy to fly as it is to drive, the landscape would
be littered with the wreckage of planes and cadavers, but the aircraft would
only cost $15,000 or so, and new models would come out every year, rendering
the old ones obsolete.

[Jay Honeck]

> I think the six-thousand-dollar part is where a lot of viewers will stop
> listening. I can't find Part I but the medical part would also lose a fair
> number of viewers.

$6K is what a cheap used car costs around here. It's also the price
of a single semester at our public university, which has 30,000
students. Clearly, money is not the over-riding issue keeping more
people out of the cockpit.

The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation, and
takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head and
cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.

> If it were as difficult to drive as it is to fly, cars would be so rare that
> they'd turn heads as they passed (and people would be trying to forbid them to
> escape the noise).

I wish. Cars can do things that planes can't. Further, personal cars
do more necessary things than personal planes can do. I own both --
and I drive a heckuva lot more than I fly, for the reasons I've
stated. Trust me -- if planes *could* substitute for cars, I'd fly
every day.

> Conversely, if it were as easy to fly as it is to drive, the landscape would
> be littered with the wreckage of planes and cadavers, but the aircraft would
> only cost $15,000 or so, and new models would come out every year, rendering
> the old ones obsolete.

Two things keep more people from flying: Ignorance and fear.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> $6K is what a cheap used car costs around here. It's also the price
> of a single semester at our public university, which has 30,000
> students. Clearly, money is not the over-riding issue keeping more
> people out of the cockpit.

For a lot of people, $6000 is a great deal of money.

> The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
> your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation, and
> takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head and
> cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.

Then why doesn't the FAA eliminate it? I'm sure there are many people with
minor but disqualifying conditions who would disagree with you, as well as
airline captains who have been forced into an early change of career.

> Two things keep more people from flying: Ignorance and fear.

As well as a lack of money and/or robust health (as the FAA would define it).

[William Hung]

On Nov 21, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > $6K is what a cheap used car costs around here. It's also the price
> > of a single semester at our public university, which has 30,000
> > students. Clearly, money is not the over-riding issue keeping more
> > people out of the cockpit.
>
> For a lot of people, $6000 is a great deal of money.
>

In France perhaps, but in the US even people on welfare drive $10-20k
cars.

> > The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
> > your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation, and
> > takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head and
> > cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.
>
> Then why doesn't the FAA eliminate it? I'm sure there are many people with
> minor but disqualifying conditions who would disagree with you, as well as
> airline captains who have been forced into an early change of career.
>

No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot. The FEW
who are disqualified can apply for a variance or a waiver, if they are
deemed safe to fly, they will be permitted to fly. Professional
pilots are held to higher standards, and rightly so, as far as
physical capabilities are concerned.

> > Two things keep more people from flying: Ignorance and fear.
>
> As well as a lack of money and/or robust health (as the FAA would define it).

See my answers above. Jay is correct ignorance and fear are the ONLY
reasons people aren't flying. Anyone can walk up to an FBO with a
$100 and be airborne and flying within 15 minutes. The $6,000 figure
is to get you thru your entire PPL training. Just think of it as a
'pay-as-you-fly' plan, no one said you have to have $6,000 up front
but that'd help.

I've refrained from responding to you until now because you just don't
seem to be able to comprehend or appreciate the answers when people
make a sincere and honest attempt to respond to you. You really
should give flying a try; you might really enjoy flying up in the open
air. I guaranty you it is a world of difference from flying on a
computer.

William Hung

[[email protected]]

> See my answers above. Jay is correct ignorance and fear are the ONLY
> reasons people aren't flying. Anyone can walk up to an FBO with a

I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

..
>
> I think the six-thousand-dollar part is where a lot of viewers will
> stop listening. I can't find Part I but the medical part would also
> lose a fair number of viewers.
>
> If it were as difficult to drive as it is to fly, cars would be so
> rare that they'd turn heads as they passed (and people would be trying
> to forbid them to escape the noise).
>
> Conversely, if it were as easy to fly as it is to drive, the landscape
> would be littered with the wreckage of planes and cadavers, but the
> aircraft would only cost $15,000 or so, and new models would come out
> every year, rendering the old ones obsolete.
>



You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> $6K is what a cheap used car costs around here. It's also the price
>> of a single semester at our public university, which has 30,000
>> students. Clearly, money is not the over-riding issue keeping more
>> people out of the cockpit.
>
> For a lot of people, $6000 is a great deal of money.
>
>> The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
>> your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation,
>> and takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head
>> and cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.
>
> Then why doesn't the FAA eliminate it? I'm sure there are many people
> with minor but disqualifying conditions who would disagree with you,
> as well as airline captains who have been forced into an early change
> of career.
>
>> Two things keep more people from flying: Ignorance and fear.
>
> As well as a lack of money and/or robust health (as the FAA would
> define it).
>


And being an idiot.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

> No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
> you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot. The FEW
> who are disqualified can apply for a variance or a waiver, if they are
> deemed safe to fly, they will be permitted to fly.

Say WHAT???

Variance? ? ? WAIVER ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haw! ! !
--
Jim in NC

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
> your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation, and
> takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head and
> cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.
>
Uhh.. my doc does a real thorough job when I get my 2nd class medical.
Blood pressure, temperature, height and weight, urine sample, felt all
over (literally) and yes, I even have to cough. I would not classify it
as a joke, I would call it a very thorough flight physical.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Second class vs. third class. Makes a difference if your going to be paid
for your flying, you are held to a higher standard.


"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> The medical requirement is, quite frankly, a joke. The doc checks
>> your eyes, your heart, makes sure you can carry on a conversation, and
>> takes your check. Heck, you don't even have to "turn your head and
>> cough" to get signed off for a 3rd class medical.
>>
> Uhh.. my doc does a real thorough job when I get my 2nd class medical.
> Blood pressure, temperature, height and weight, urine sample, felt all
> over (literally) and yes, I even have to cough. I would not classify it
> as a joke, I would call it a very thorough flight physical.
>

[kontiki]

news.verizon.net wrote:
> Second class vs. third class. Makes a difference if your going to be
> paid for your flying, you are held to a higher standard.
>

The only difference between 2nd and 3rd class is a slightly
stricter vision requirement (must be 20/20 distant where 3rd
class allows for 20/40 distant). They are both held to the
same standard, other than that particular aspect of the vision
test. The actual physical examination should be the same.

[William Hung]

On Nov 22, 1:38 am, wrote:
> > See my answers above. Jay is correct ignorance and fear are the ONLY
> > reasons people aren't flying. Anyone can walk up to an FBO with a
>
> I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
> ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
> when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
> particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
> there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
> would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
> utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
> hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.

Read my entire response please. My point was that one does not need
$6,000 to fly, $100 will do it.

Wil

[William Hung]

On Nov 22, 2:35 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "William Hung" > wrote
>
> > No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
> > you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot. The FEW
> > who are disqualified can apply for a variance or a waiver, if they are
> > deemed safe to fly, they will be permitted to fly.
>
> Say WHAT???
>
> Variance? ? ? WAIVER ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>
> Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haw! ! !
> --
> Jim in NC

Calm down Jim. lol If a person is missing say an arm or hearing,
can't that person be qualified with stipulation? That's what I meant
by waiver/variance. We're talking private flying now, not
professional.

Wil

[Jay Honeck]

> I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
> ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
> when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
> particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
> there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
> would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
> utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
> hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.

Hmmm. I've spent the last 13 years flying my family from coast to
coast, Canada to Mexico, on vacations ranging from overnight to two
weeks in duration. I've flown hundreds of times in support of my
business(es) during that time as well.

Leaving from Iowa City I can be in Chicago for brunch, St Louis for
dinner, and home by the 10 o'clock news. Do *that* on a horse!

Although personal flying will never be as rock-solid reliable as a
Greyhound bus (due primarily to my own budget and equipment
limitations), to say that the PPL has little practical value is
inaccurate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The only difference between 2nd and 3rd class is a slightly
> stricter vision requirement (must be 20/20 distant where 3rd
> class allows for 20/40 distant). They are both held to the
> same standard, other than that particular aspect of the vision
> test. The actual physical examination should be the same.

Okay, so I exaggerate a bit. I *did* pee in a cup (which was never
looked at. Either that or they ran a urine analyis in the ten minutes
I was actually in the doc's office), they *did* weigh me and measure
my height (which tells them...what?), and they did take my blood
pressure.

To call this a "throrough" physical is silly. Unless your blood
pressure is sky high, or you can't read the eye chart, you're not
going to fail a flight physical...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:56:07 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > The only difference between 2nd and 3rd class is a slightly
> > stricter vision requirement (must be 20/20 distant where 3rd
> > class allows for 20/40 distant). They are both held to the
> > same standard, other than that particular aspect of the vision
> > test. The actual physical examination should be the same.
>
> Okay, so I exaggerate a bit. I *did* pee in a cup (which was never
> looked at. Either that or they ran a urine analyis in the ten minutes
> I was actually in the doc's office), they *did* weigh me and measure
> my height (which tells them...what?), and they did take my blood
> pressure.
>
> To call this a "throrough" physical is silly. Unless your blood
> pressure is sky high, or you can't read the eye chart, you're not
> going to fail a flight physical...

Years ago, back when I took medicals, a friend steered me to one local AME. The
guy had had a J-3 get away from him while hand-propping. He came out of the
experience with a busted airplane and a real loathing for the FAA. Suffice it
to say that if you could see the doc when he walked into the examination room,
say "hi" to him when he greeted you, and *hit* the damn cup, you'd pass.

Ron Wanttaja

[AJ]

The link takes us to a page for Part II, but when you click on it, you
get Part I. What gives?

[Mxsmanic]

William Hung writes:

> In France perhaps, but in the US even people on welfare drive $10-20k
> cars.

People in the US are living on borrowed time and are drowning in debt.

> No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
> you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot.

Then why is the medical for a pilot's license so much more strict than that
for a car?

> Professional pilots are held to higher standards, and rightly so, as far as
> physical capabilities are concerned.

Why rightly so? Are the same standards applied to ship captains and train
engineers?

> You really
> should give flying a try; you might really enjoy flying up in the open
> air. I guaranty you it is a world of difference from flying on a
> computer.

If I ever have the resources to do so, I might. However, it's entirely
plausible that I might find that I prefer simulation to the real thing, for a
number of reasons.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> The only difference between 2nd and 3rd class is a slightly
> stricter vision requirement (must be 20/20 distant where 3rd
> class allows for 20/40 distant).

So why do you have to cough for a second-class medical? That would be a check
for an inguinal hernia, which is totally unrelated to aptitude for flying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> kontiki writes:
>
>> The only difference between 2nd and 3rd class is a slightly
>> stricter vision requirement (must be 20/20 distant where 3rd
>> class allows for 20/40 distant).
>
> So why do you have to cough for a second-class medical? That would be
> a check for an inguinal hernia, which is totally unrelated to aptitude
> for flying.
>


How would you know? You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> In France perhaps, but in the US even people on welfare drive $10-20k
>> cars.
>
> People in the US are living on borrowed time and are drowning in debt.
>
>> No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
>> you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot.
>
> Then why is the medical for a pilot's license so much more strict than
> that for a car?
>
>> Professional pilots are held to higher standards, and rightly so, as
>> far as physical capabilities are concerned.
>
> Why rightly so? Are the same standards applied to ship captains and
> train engineers?
>
>> You really
>> should give flying a try; you might really enjoy flying up in the
>> open air. I guaranty you it is a world of difference from flying on
>> a computer.
>
> If I ever have the resources to do so, I might. However, it's
> entirely plausible that I might find that I prefer simulation to the
> real thing, for a number of reasons.
>


Not the learst of which is you'd be a complete menace in a real airplane.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:

> > In France perhaps, but in the US even people on welfare drive $10-20k
> > cars.

> People in the US are living on borrowed time and are drowning in debt.

> > No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
> > you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot.

> Then why is the medical for a pilot's license so much more strict than that
> for a car?

> > Professional pilots are held to higher standards, and rightly so, as far as
> > physical capabilities are concerned.

> Why rightly so? Are the same standards applied to ship captains and train
> engineers?

> > You really
> > should give flying a try; you might really enjoy flying up in the open
> > air. I guaranty you it is a world of difference from flying on a
> > computer.

> If I ever have the resources to do so, I might. However, it's entirely
> plausible that I might find that I prefer simulation to the real thing, for a
> number of reasons.

Yeah, mostly because the real world scares you ****less.

You'd rather hole up in your simulated bat cave and make grandiose
pronouncements on people living a real life.

But since the real world scares you so much, you'll never have the
resources to do anything other than be a USENET irritant.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

>
> Read my entire response please. My point was that one does not need
> $6,000 to fly, $100 will do it.

I did and my point was that the dollar amount does not have much to do
with somebody's desire to fly or get a PPL. Its similar to why I don't
go skydiving even though I know it may be less expensive than flying.

[[email protected]]

>
> Hmmm. I've spent the last 13 years flying my family from coast to
> coast, Canada to Mexico, on vacations ranging from overnight to two
> weeks in duration. I've flown hundreds of times in support of my
> business(es) during that time as well.
>
> Leaving from Iowa City I can be in Chicago for brunch, St Louis for
> dinner, and home by the 10 o'clock news. Do *that* on a horse!
>

I agree its more useful than riding a horse, but I don't think that
flying in the midwest in winter and fall is that reliable in a light
single either. On some good days, no doubt its a great option to have
but you probably need to have and maintain an instrument rating, night
currency etc., its a fair bit of money.. even with all this I doubt
you can do better than the airlines on average, its certainly not
cheaper.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"William Hung" > wrote

> Calm down Jim. lol If a person is missing say an arm or hearing,
> can't that person be qualified with stipulation? That's what I meant
> by waiver/variance. We're talking private flying now, not
> professional.

That sure is not how you make it sound, in context. A missing arm or
something is not why most people can not get a medical, without a waiver.
Here is what you posted:

>No need to eliminate it, [the physical] if you are physically able to drive
>a car,
>you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot. The FEW
>who are disqualified can apply for a variance or a waiver, if they are
>deemed safe to fly, they will be permitted to fly.

It is at this point that I started to laugh.

The VAST Majority of people that drive a car that can not get a physical,
can not get a medical certificate because they fail to meet other
qualifications, such as non approved prescription drugs, disallowed physical
conditions such as heart problems, kidney stones, epilepsy, and a list of
other diseases. This is the reason why your statement is laughable.

A very small percentage of people apply and get medical approval through the
waiver process. Most know that they can not get approved, and don't even
bother applying. Waivers certainly do not allow "all but a few" to get
certified to fly.

The sidelines are full of people who have lost their medicals. It is
laughable for you to think that anyone can get a medical to fly. Sport
pilot certification is here, largely because of this fact.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:54:45 -0800 (PST), William Hung
> wrote:

>On Nov 22, 2:35 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "William Hung" > wrote
>>
>> > No need to eliminate it, if you are physically able to drive a car,
>> > you are physically able to fly a plane as a private pilot. The FEW
>> > who are disqualified can apply for a variance or a waiver, if they are
>> > deemed safe to fly, they will be permitted to fly.
>>
>> Say WHAT???
>>
>> Variance? ? ? WAIVER ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>
>> Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haw! ! !
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>Calm down Jim. lol If a person is missing say an arm or hearing,
>can't that person be qualified with stipulation? That's what I meant
>by waiver/variance. We're talking private flying now, not
>professional.
>
>Wil

Private/professional doesn't necessarily make a difference. Do a
search on Statement Of Demonstrated Authority (SODA).

In some cases, a checkride is given, verifying that the physical issue
does not interfer with the abilities of the pilot.

I know an ATP rated pilot who has a SODA for monocular vision
(industrial accident). My last biennial was so I could haul him down
to the FSDO airport for his SODA ride.

TC

[Kingfish]

On Nov 21, 5:11 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Amazing! This Cedar Rapids, Iowa TV station did a 2-part piece on
> learning to fly -- and did a wonderful job!
>
> The CFI in both segments, Tim Bush, is outstanding. He's a real
> pistol, locally, with a zillion ideas for growing GA, and endless
> energy to boot.
>
> If only we could get more publicity like this....

Only part I'd disagree with is the six month duration for completing
training. When I was a full time instructor, the folks that only had
the weekends to fly would take the better part of a year owing to
weather and unavoidable schedule conflicts. As far as cost, if you
could get it done for $5k you're lucky. Here in CT it's closer to $7k
with the run-up in fuel costs.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Private/professional doesn't necessarily make a difference. Do a
> search on Statement Of Demonstrated Authority (SODA).
>
> In some cases, a checkride is given, verifying that the physical issue
> does not interfer with the abilities of the pilot.
>
> I know an ATP rated pilot who has a SODA for monocular vision
> (industrial accident). My last biennial was so I could haul him down
> to the FSDO airport for his SODA ride.
Sure, I know that people get a certificate with disabilities though the
waiver process, all of the time.

What I took issue with is the idea that he put out that about anyone that
can drive can fly, simply by getting a waiver.

The fact is that far more people can not fly (but yet can drive a car)
because of other medical situations that a medical waiver is ever going to
help out, than people that waivers could help.

I'm having a hard time trying to put this all into words. I think you
probably know what I mean, though it has not been well stated.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:47:23 -0800 (PST), Kingfish
> wrote:

> Here in CT it's closer to $7k
>with the run-up in fuel costs.

I'd go even higher, now.

At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.

For a 55 hr. PPL, that's over 10 grand. I think it would even run
high8's to low 9's at Meriden or Robertson.

[Mike Isaksen]

"B A R R Y" wrote...
>
> Kingfish wrote:
>> Here in CT it's closer to $7k
>>with the run-up in fuel costs.
>
> I'd go even higher, now.
>
> At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
> wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
> bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
> schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
> For a 55 hr. PPL, that's over 10 grand. I think it would even run
> high8's to low 9's at Meriden or Robertson.

I will echo all those prices on Long Island, NY, except I would add the
hidden fuel surcharge of $8-10 per hour. It's never posted on the rate board
and claimed to change every day, but the few times I rented over the past
year its been consistant.

[Jay Honeck]

> > At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
> > wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
> > bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
> > schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.

Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> > At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
>> > wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
>> > bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
>> > schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
> Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.
> --

In Oklahoma you can get a 152 for $57-$67, depending on hourly or block
time, and instructors for as little as $25.

I rent a 172SP with autopilot and color moving map for $100.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Maxwell" wrote ...
>
> In Oklahoma you can get a 152 for $57-$67, depending on hourly or
> block time, and instructors for as little as $25.
>
> I rent a 172SP with autopilot and color moving map for $100.
>

Wow, that's an amazing price diff. I assume you are talking Hobbs, but even
if it's Tach, that's a great price. What airport is that at?

A 172SP with the NAV II King MFD costs about $135 hobbs wet with a $12 fuel
surcharge on LI, NY (plus nearly 9% state sales tax). Any CFI gets $35-50/hr
cash on the side, $50-60 thru an FBO, and $65-85 if you bring your own plane
to the FBO. The FBOs are paying their CFI's between 33% to 66% of what they
collect.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>Okay, so I exaggerate a bit. I *did* pee in a cup (which was never
>looked at. Either that or they ran a urine analyis in the ten minutes
>I was actually in the doc's office), they *did* weigh me and measure
>my height (which tells them...what?), and they did take my blood
>pressure.
>

It's quite likely that the urine test was done. It doesn't take ten
minutes, just a few seconds. They're only testing for the presence of sugar
or proteins. It's done by dipping test strips in the sample. Probably takes
all of 15 seconds.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Maxwell]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:sSF1j.19600$rg1.13916@trndny04...
>
> "Maxwell" wrote ...
>>
>> In Oklahoma you can get a 152 for $57-$67, depending on hourly or
>> block time, and instructors for as little as $25.
>>
>> I rent a 172SP with autopilot and color moving map for $100.
>>
>
> Wow, that's an amazing price diff. I assume you are talking Hobbs, but
> even if it's Tach, that's a great price. What airport is that at?
>
> A 172SP with the NAV II King MFD costs about $135 hobbs wet with a $12
> fuel surcharge on LI, NY (plus nearly 9% state sales tax). Any CFI gets
> $35-50/hr cash on the side, $50-60 thru an FBO, and $65-85 if you bring
> your own plane to the FBO. The FBOs are paying their CFI's between 33% to
> 66% of what they collect.
>

That is a big difference, you may want to shop around. I know we have FBOs
here that charge a great deal more.

This FBO is at KRVS. Prices are hobbs and wet, and they have a good safety
record over many years.

http://christiansenaviation.com/flight_school_approx_cost.html

http://christiansenaviation.com/aircraft_rental_prices.html

The SP I fly occasionally has dual King 155As, KAP 140, KLN 94, KT 76C.
Don't don't recall the ADF.

They also have some pretty decent P models for $71 on block time.

The only down side is neither will fly as slow as 33 kts.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Nov 23, 12:13 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.
> --

Jay,
I always thought that God's Country was much bigger. How could all
God's children fit into an area of only 24.4 square miles?

Hai Longworth

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:13:06 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
> wrote:

>> > At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
>> > wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
>> > bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
>> > schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
>Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.

We live in the area of the $200k+ "starter" home and $1000/mo. single
bedroom apartment. ;^(

The guy I know who owns a school pays his instructors $25/billable
hour, billed out at $55. I don't think he could keep the lights on
for a $5 cut, and he wouldn't have many decent instructors if he paid
them much less.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's quite likely that the urine test was done. It doesn't take ten
> minutes, just a few seconds. They're only testing for the presence of sugar
> or proteins. It's done by dipping test strips in the sample. Probably takes
> all of 15 seconds.

Yep, I just checked with my wife (a medical technologist), and she
verified that the urine analysis for a flight physical would be quite
rudimentary, and take just a minute or two to complete...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.
> > --
> Jay,
> I always thought that God's Country was much bigger. How could all
> God's children fit into an area of only 24.4 square miles?

Oh, heck -- I'm not just counting Iowa City.

Flight instruction is even cheaper in the *rest* of Iowa... Prolly as
low as $25/hour once you get outside of Iowa City. (AKA: "24 square
miles surrounded by reality")
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
>> ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
>> when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
>> particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
>> there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
>> would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
>> utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
>> hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.
>
> Hmmm. I've spent the last 13 years flying my family from coast to
> coast, Canada to Mexico, on vacations ranging from overnight to two
> weeks in duration. I've flown hundreds of times in support of my
> business(es) during that time as well.
>
> Leaving from Iowa City I can be in Chicago for brunch, St Louis for
> dinner, and home by the 10 o'clock news. Do *that* on a horse!

Likewise! Leaving from Cheyenne, I can check on projects in Lincoln, NE,
Manhattan, KS, and Alva, OK and be home for dinner. The next day, I can
check on three other projects in-progress.

That kind of flexibility isn't available in an airline, a car, and certainly
not a horse.

We'll do $5.7 in business this DOWN year.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> We'll do $5.7 in business this DOWN year.

Wow. That'll buy about a gallon and a half of 100LL these days if you're
lucky. Congrats.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
. net...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> We'll do $5.7 in business this DOWN year.
>
> Wow. That'll buy about a gallon and a half of 100LL these days if you're
> lucky. Congrats.

Make that $5.7M.

C'mon fingers!
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> We'll do $5.7 in business this DOWN year.
>>
>> Wow. That'll buy about a gallon and a half of 100LL these days if
>> you're lucky. Congrats.
>
> Make that $5.7M.
>

I see you went to the Geroge Bush school of math and economics.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:0c06a846-b3c5-4e93-8237-
:

>> > At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
>> > wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
>> > bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
>> > schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
> Out here in God's Country,


What, Jebus drinks in Iowaer bars?


Bertie

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
....

I *did* pee in a cup (which was never
> looked at. Either that or they ran a urine analyis in the ten minutes
> I was actually in the doc's office)
....

They dip it for sugar, takes about 30 seconds with a reagent strip.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
>>>wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
>>>bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
>>>schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
>
> Out here in God's Country, instruction is $30/hour.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
You need to find your slowest weeks during the year and hook up with the
local flight schools! If the rental rates are also cheaper a week or
two flying vacation with "discount flying and hotel" for the right and
left coasters might be a good idea.

Margy

[[email protected]]

On Nov 22, 10:50 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
> > ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
> > when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
> > particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
> > there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
> > would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
> > utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
> > hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.
>
> Hmmm. I've spent the last 13 years flying my family from coast to
> coast, Canada to Mexico, on vacations ranging from overnight to two
> weeks in duration. I've flown hundreds of times in support of my
> business(es) during that time as well.
>
> Leaving from Iowa City I can be in Chicago for brunch, St Louis for

Madoon, the boycott is broken, next thing he'll be here for Cubs
games.

> dinner, and home by the 10 o'clock news. Do *that* on a horse!
>
> Although personal flying will never be as rock-solid reliable as a
> Greyhound bus (due primarily to my own budget and equipment
> limitations), to say that the PPL has little practical value is
> inaccurate.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Good for you if you are able to use GA to further your business but
one size does not fit all. In a free market system like in the US,
many businesses probably are not leaving money on the table just
because they are not using GA in their day to day operations like you
do. I am guessing that most businesses that can use GA profitably are
already doing so. Some use private jets to boost their businesses too,
but it does not mean that those who aren't using private jets for
business are making a mistake. If GA is indeed such a great idea and
opportunity for businesses then it means either people are doing a
lousy job marketing the benefits of GA, or that many people are being
fools to not use GA in their daily businesses. American business is
way too smart so I really doubt the latter and I am skeptical of the
former. If GA is dying even in a heavily subsidized environment like
the US (no landing fees, lots of free airports etc), then it probably
is because enough people do not see value in it.

>
> > Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> >> We'll do $5.7 in business this DOWN year.
>
> > Wow. That'll buy about a gallon and a half of 100LL these days if you're
> > lucky. Congrats.
>
> Make that $5.7M.
>
> C'mon fingers!
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY

[Jay Honeck]

> If GA is dying even in a heavily subsidized environment like
> the US (no landing fees, lots of free airports etc), then it probably
> is because enough people do not see value in it.

Aside from business flying (which is booming, BTW), I think much of
GA's decline is directly related to the "wussification" of American
youth rather than any inherent lack of value.

Most American kids -- obese, sedentary, enamored with "Facebook" --
would rather sit in front of the Playstation than actually *do*
anything. Learning to fly takes discipline and a desire to work hard
-- two things that appear to be in short supply nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You need to find your slowest weeks during the year and hook up with the
> local flight schools! If the rental rates are also cheaper a week or
> two flying vacation with "discount flying and hotel" for the right and
> left coasters might be a good idea.

Cool idea. We've thought of it before, but haven't found an
affordable advertising venue that "hits" the right crowd.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Cool idea. We've thought of it before, but haven't found an
> affordable advertising venue that "hits" the right crowd.

How about the little clickable "sponser blurb" adds that appear between
stories on Avweb.

If it had a good "quick read gotcha" you might get people to click on it.

I have no idea if there is cost involved, but I bet there is. At any rate,
I would say I (a sample of one) click on them more than clickable ads in any
other venue.

What are you thinking? Work on advanced, or more ratings? A beginner quick
start?

It does sound interesting, and could be good for the CFI's, and for the
hotel, and those who used it.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Yeah, that could be part of the issue also, the iPods, the
Playstations and even the internet have eaten into a lot of outdoor
activities.. Good to hear that business flying is booming, I think it
would be unfortunate if GA takes a hit in the coming years via user
fees or landing fees.

>
> Aside from business flying (which is booming, BTW), I think much of
> GA's decline is directly related to the "wussification" of American
> youth rather than any inherent lack of value.
>
> Most American kids -- obese, sedentary, enamored with "Facebook" --
> would rather sit in front of the Playstation than actually *do*
> anything. Learning to fly takes discipline and a desire to work hard
> -- two things that appear to be in short supply nowadays.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>
>>Cool idea. We've thought of it before, but haven't found an
>>affordable advertising venue that "hits" the right crowd.
>
>
> How about the little clickable "sponser blurb" adds that appear between
> stories on Avweb.
>
> If it had a good "quick read gotcha" you might get people to click on it.
>
> I have no idea if there is cost involved, but I bet there is. At any rate,
> I would say I (a sample of one) click on them more than clickable ads in any
> other venue.
>
> What are you thinking? Work on advanced, or more ratings? A beginner quick
> start?
>
> It does sound interesting, and could be good for the CFI's, and for the
> hotel, and those who used it.
I bet all of those would work! Ron did a 10 day PIC instrument rating
(he actually did it in 9 as he got one day off for good behaviour).
While he was doing it I didn't talk to him for the 10 days as I knew he
needed to eat, drink and sleep aviation. I was telling one of my
docents how it really worked for Ron. This guy said he could never do
it with the distractions at home, so he went to PIC instead of having
them send the instructor and at the young age of 70 got his instrument
rating. See if you can hook up with the local PIC guys or someone else
who knows how to do a 10 day instrument.

Get a PP block rate for x hours at an average of 3 hours a day every day
and IF that rate is substantially cheaper than other areas bill it as a
flying vacation where you can get 30 hours of instruction (or 40 or
whatever) at this low rate ...

In addition to ads on AvWeb etc. I'd try local aviation rags in high
rent districts like AutoPilot in the NE, etc. If some of the variation
we've heard about($60 wet v. $110 wet, $50/hr for instruction v. $25)
that could make a $75 and hour difference. At 3 hours a day that's
$225, so a $100 room and you are saving money and getting a flying
vacation. Now for this to really work you have to have instructors who
can gear things to a 1.5 lesson in the relatively early am and another
in the pm and have decent weather, but it could work.

You would have to have activities for the non-flying spouse if one comes
and other stuff for sure.

Margy

[Tina]

Re physicals as a major reason for decline in active pilots: would you
guess fear of failing a physical affects the number of new pilots by
as much as 20%?

I don't know what IS responsible for the decline in GA pilots, but
doubt the physical is a leading cause. I suspect flying is not as
exciting a prospect as other activities for many people. Those of us
who are older went to airports to watch airplanes -- not many do that
anymore.

Then there is the interstate road system. Its completion has extended
the useful radius of auto travel markedly. If one looks at door to
door times, there are many 200 mile trips that are now as almost as
quickly, and more reliably, completed driving as flying. Today's
prospective pilots have grown up with that: those of us a few decades
older might have had the convenience of trips of that length be a
factor. Travel time is no longer as compelling a reason.

Do you think that among those who can afford it -- and cost IS a
factor -- there's the fear, not of flying, but of lawsuits? I've been
told but have not looked at the data, that insurance costs are a
significant part of a new light airplane's cost.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> the "wussification" of American
> youth rather than any inherent lack of value.
>

One has to wonder who exactly wussifies them. Might it in large part be
<gasp> their parents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Cool idea. We've thought of it before, but haven't found an
> affordable advertising venue that "hits" the right crowd.
>

The flying magazines. In fact, if those prices are even half-true and
with the dollar exchange rate being what it is, get together with the
nearest Part 141 school, build a package for overseas pilots and
advertise in the British and German magazines. Hour building, basic
training and advanced training for ME, commercial, instructor or
instrument ratings are all of interest.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> the "wussification" of American
>> youth rather than any inherent lack of value.
>>
>
> One has to wonder who exactly wussifies them. Might it in large part
> be <gasp> their parents?

Parents are to blame but when schools start suspending students for using
the new "N" word it's reached a level of stupidity previously unmatched.

The new N word is Noose.

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4982891&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

[Jay Honeck]

> > the "wussification" of American
> > youth rather than any inherent lack of value.
>
> One has to wonder who exactly wussifies them. Might it in large part be
> <gasp> their parents?

Absolutely! I've got friends who won't let their kids go out for
sports, because they might get hurt. I've got friends who won't let
their kids fly in a small airplane. I've got friends who got angry
when the Boy Scouts made the kids do stuff that was "too dangerous" --
like canoeing.

Of course, these are the same parents that think SOCCER is a real
sport...

<ducking!>

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

[Kingfish]

On Nov 23, 11:34 am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "B A R R Y" wrote...
>
>
>
> > Kingfish wrote:
> >> Here in CT it's closer to $7k
> >>with the run-up in fuel costs.
>
> > I'd go even higher, now.
>
> > At HVN, HFD, and IJD, Warriors and 172's are renting for $120-125/hr.
> > wet, with 150's and Traumahawk's hitting $105-$110. Some of the
> > bigger schools are going $55-60/hr. for instructors. I don't know of
> > schools charging less than $50/hr. for instruction.
>
> > For a 55 hr. PPL, that's over 10 grand. I think it would even run
> > high8's to low 9's at Meriden or Robertson.
>
> I will echo all those prices on Long Island, NY, except I would add the
> hidden fuel surcharge of $8-10 per hour. It's never posted on the rate board
> and claimed to change every day, but the few times I rented over the past
> year its been consistant.

Yikes. Okay, haven't been keeping up on the costs since '03 or so when
I stopped doing primary instruction. I do recall when working in ops
at Brigeport, students from Farmingdale would fly across the Sound to
burn up our pattern as our airport didn't charge landing fees for
T&Gs. I've seen the avgas prices for L.I. airports on Airnav though.

Scary.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Cool idea. We've thought of it before, but haven't found an
> > affordable advertising venue that "hits" the right crowd.
>
> The flying magazines. In fact, if those prices are even half-true and
> with the dollar exchange rate being what it is, get together with the
> nearest Part 141 school, build a package for overseas pilots and
> advertise in the British and German magazines. Hour building, basic
> training and advanced training for ME, commercial, instructor or
> instrument ratings are all of interest.

We had a French guy stay with us last summer for a month, while he
finished up his Private with a local CFI. It worked out well for all
concerned.

Trouble is, I doubt anyone would want to train here in the winter,
which is the only time we're not full. As much as I'd love to do
this, there's little sense in my paying to enhance our business during
the nice weather, cuz you can't fuller than full.

I've got it! We need student pilots from, say, Siberia to come here
to train in the winter, when we're slow and we've got lots of
available suites. They will think the weather in Iowa is quite tame,
and we'll have some interesting people show up at Movie Night!

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

[Skylune]

On Nov 25, 2:20 pm, wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:50 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > > I doubt these are the only reasons. The return on investment is what
> > > ultimately matters and is perceived differently by different people
> > > when it comes to investing $6000. Just as I don't have any
> > > particularly strong interest in learning to rock climb, I can imagine
> > > there are those who view flying with a similar apathy. In the end it
> > > would be hard to make the case that the PPL has a greater practical
> > > utility than say, learning to ride a horse. PPL flying is a niche
> > > hobby, and its hard to imagine that would change anytime soon.
>
> > Hmmm. I've spent the last 13 years flying my family from coast to
> > coast, Canada to Mexico, on vacations ranging from overnight to two
> > weeks in duration. I've flown hundreds of times in support of my
> > business(es) during that time as well.
>
> > Leaving from Iowa City I can be in Chicago for brunch, St Louis for
>
> Madoon, the boycott is broken, next thing he'll be here for Cubs
> games.
>
>
>
> > dinner, and home by the 10 o'clock news. Do *that* on a horse!
>
> > Although personal flying will never be as rock-solid reliable as a
> > Greyhound bus (due primarily to my own budget and equipment
> > limitations), to say that the PPL has little practical value is
> > inaccurate.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Unfortunate that the GA economic powerhouse has crippled the Chicago
economy, though...

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, that could be part of the issue also, the iPods, the
> Playstations and even the internet have eaten into a lot of outdoor
> activities.. Good to hear that business flying is booming, I think it
> would be unfortunate if GA takes a hit in the coming years via user
> fees or landing fees.

Keep in mind that business and private expenditures are orders of magnitude
apart. General aviation that might be booming for business could still be
hopelessly beyond the reach of pilots flying for leisure. That's why you
don't see too many people flying Learjets for leisure, and you don't see too
many CEOs flying in Piper Cubs or ultralights.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yeah, that could be part of the issue also, the iPods, the
>> Playstations and even the internet have eaten into a lot of outdoor
>> activities.. Good to hear that business flying is booming, I think it
>> would be unfortunate if GA takes a hit in the coming years via user
>> fees or landing fees.
>
> Keep in mind that business and private expenditures are orders of
> magnitude apart. General aviation that might be booming for business
> could still be hopelessly beyond the reach of pilots flying for
> leisure. That's why you don't see too many people flying Learjets for
> leisure, and you don't see too many CEOs flying in Piper Cubs or
> ultralights.
>

Yes, you do, fjukktard.

Wrong again.


Bertie

[Kingfish]

On Nov 26, 10:53 am, Skylune > wrote:
>
> Unfortunate that the GA economic powerhouse has crippled the Chicago
> economy, though...

Now here's a blast from the past.. Care to explain your theory?

[Jay Honeck]

> > Unfortunate that the GA economic powerhouse has crippled the Chicago
> > economy, though...
>
> Now here's a blast from the past.. Care to explain your theory?

He's sarcastically referring to our moratorium on visiting Chicago
since King Daley ripped up Meigs Field. We haven't been back since
-- we won't go back till Daley is out of office.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> He's sarcastically referring to our moratorium on visiting Chicago
> since King Daley ripped up Meigs Field. We haven't been back since
> -- we won't go back till Daley is out of office.

Does he have an heir to inherit his office?

[BDS[_2_]]

> Mxsmanic > wrote in

> > Keep in mind that business and private expenditures are orders of
> > magnitude apart. General aviation that might be booming for business
> > could still be hopelessly beyond the reach of pilots flying for
> > leisure. That's why you don't see too many people flying Learjets for
> > leisure, and you don't see too many CEOs flying in Piper Cubs or
> > ultralights.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets and
Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun airplanes to fly if
what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.

Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new aircraft,
and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus. But after the
honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the smaller, simpler
aircraft to fly for fun every time.

I'm sure you're suprised to learn this and I'm sure it doesn't fit into what
you'd suppose to be true. That doesn't make it any less true however.

BDS

[Gig 601XL Builder]

BDS wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>
>>> Keep in mind that business and private expenditures are orders of
>>> magnitude apart. General aviation that might be booming for
>>> business could still be hopelessly beyond the reach of pilots
>>> flying for leisure. That's why you don't see too many people
>>> flying Learjets for leisure, and you don't see too many CEOs flying
>>> in Piper Cubs or ultralights.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>
> People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets
> and Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun
> airplanes to fly if what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
>
> Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new
> aircraft, and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus.
> But after the honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the
> smaller, simpler aircraft to fly for fun every time.
>
> I'm sure you're suprised to learn this and I'm sure it doesn't fit
> into what you'd suppose to be true. That doesn't make it any less
> true however.
>
> BDS

Yep I know to CEOs here locally one with a Cub and one with a Luscombe who,
if they desired, afford to fly just about anything they wanted.

[Jim Stewart]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> BDS wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> Keep in mind that business and private expenditures are orders of
>>>> magnitude apart. General aviation that might be booming for
>>>> business could still be hopelessly beyond the reach of pilots
>>>> flying for leisure. That's why you don't see too many people
>>>> flying Learjets for leisure, and you don't see too many CEOs flying
>>>> in Piper Cubs or ultralights.
>> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>>
>> People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets
>> and Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun
>> airplanes to fly if what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
>>
>> Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new
>> aircraft, and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus.
>> But after the honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the
>> smaller, simpler aircraft to fly for fun every time.
>>
>> I'm sure you're suprised to learn this and I'm sure it doesn't fit
>> into what you'd suppose to be true. That doesn't make it any less
>> true however.
>>
>> BDS
>
> Yep I know to CEOs here locally one with a Cub and one with a Luscombe who,
> if they desired, afford to fly just about anything they wanted.

OTOH, there's the warbird addiction...

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>
> People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets and
> Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun airplanes to fly if
> what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
>
> Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new aircraft,
> and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus. But after the
> honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the smaller, simpler
> aircraft to fly for fun every time.

Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons. If what
you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as they are the
smallest and simplest of all.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons. If
> what
> you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as they are the
> smallest and simplest of all.

Every time when I forget that you are dumber than a post, you say something
like this to remind me.

Are you really that stupid?

No need to answer. It was a rhetorical question.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>>
>> People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets
>> and Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun
>> airplanes to fly if what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
>>
>> Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new
>> aircraft, and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus.
>> But after the honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the
>> smaller, simpler aircraft to fly for fun every time.
>
> Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons.
> If what you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as
> they are the smallest and simplest of all.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> >
> > People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like Learjets
and
> > Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun airplanes to
fly if
> > what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
> >
> > Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new
aircraft,
> > and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus. But after the
> > honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the smaller, simpler
> > aircraft to fly for fun every time.
>
> Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons. If
what
> you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as they are the
> smallest and simplest of all.

Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and flying
for leisure?

BDS

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"BDS" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BDS writes:
>>
>> > You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>> >
>> > People who have the means don't generally fly airplanes like
>> > Learjets
> and
>> > Barons for leisure because they are not particularly fun airplanes
>> > to
> fly if
>> > what you're after is the sheer joy of flying.
>> >
>> > Sure, they're all fun to fly initially when you're learning a new
> aircraft,
>> > and larger, faster, and more complex is always a bonus. But after
>> > the honeymoon is over all the pilots I know would chose the
>> > smaller, simpler aircraft to fly for fun every time.
>>
>> Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons.
>> If
> what
>> you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as they are
>> the smallest and simplest of all.
>
> Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and
> flying for leisure?
>

He doesn't even understand the difference between sitting in a chair at
a desk and flying for chrissake!


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"BDS" > wrote in message
...
> Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and
> flying
> for leisure?

You're asking someone who doesn't know the difference between flying and
playing with a toy. The same person who won't drive because it's too boring,
but has no problems simulating a cross continental flight on autopilot.

I don't think MX understands much of anything.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
> > But after the honeymoon is over

> Perhaps that is what you would choose, but someone is buying Barons. If
what
> you say were true, everyone would be flying ultralights, as they are the
> smallest and simplest of all.

Looks like you ignored the sentence about the honeymoon being over.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> He's sarcastically referring to our moratorium on visiting Chicago
>> since King Daley ripped up Meigs Field. We haven't been back since
>> -- we won't go back till Daley is out of office.
>
> Does he have an heir to inherit his office?
>



Waht's it to you, fjukktard?



Al you have to do is get an older copy of MSFS/



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and flying
> for leisure?

Yes.

[Jay Honeck]

> Does he have an heir to inherit his office?

Sadly, yes. This from Wikipedia:

"Daley is married to Margaret Daley, who was diagnosed with breast
cancer in 2002 and is still undergoing treatment. They have four
children: Nora, Patrick, Elizabeth and Kevin. Patrick Daley enlisted
in the 82nd Airborne after not being able to handle West Point and
attending other schools but strangely has not been deployed to Iraq
while the rest of Fort Bragg has."

So, I suppose we'll have a King Patrick Daley ruling Chicago in a few
years...

:-(

Oh, well. We've really learned to enjoy Kansas City, St Louis, and
Minneapolis.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and
flying
> > for leisure?
>
> Yes.

Great. Now you know who is buying the Barons.

BDS

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and
>> flying for leisure?
>
> Yes.
>

Nope


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
>> Do you understand the difference between flying to get somewhere and
>> flying
>> for leisure?
>
> Yes.

Your earlier posting indicates otherwise.

[738brow]

On Nov 25, 11:40 pm, Tina > wrote:
> Re physicals as a major reason for decline in active pilots: would you
> guess fear of failing a physical affects the number of new pilots by
> as much as 20%?
>
> I don't know what IS responsible for the decline in GA pilots, but
> doubt the physical is a leading cause. I suspect flying is not as
> exciting a prospect as other activities for many people. Those of us
> who are older went to airports to watch airplanes -- not many do that
> anymore.
>
> Then there is the interstate road system. Its completion has extended
> the useful radius of auto travel markedly. If one looks at door to
> door times, there are many 200 mile trips that are now as almost as
> quickly, and more reliably, completed driving as flying. Today's
> prospective pilots have grown up with that: those of us a few decades
> older might have had the convenience of trips of that length be a
> factor. Travel time is no longer as compelling a reason.
>
> Do you think that among those who can afford it -- and cost IS a
> factor -- there's the fear, not of flying, but of lawsuits? I've been
> told but have not looked at the data, that insurance costs are a
> significant part of a new light airplane's cost.



Hi all, new to this News Group. The Aviation groups have been a nice
find for me.

I'm 43 years old and when I was a young boy, I was either going to fly
Aircraft for a living, or play Music for a living.. I guess Music
pulled at my heart strings just a little harder..

Now that I have proven myself as an Audio Engineer, a touring
Musician, and a guy who is insane enough to believe he can raise a
family doing these things, I want desperately to achieve my PPL, and
move on to an instrument rating.. I have some friends here {KTVC} who
fly and are quite kind about taking me along when they can.. So, I at
least get to go up. I also fly on commercial jets with some frequency
and thankfully, I enjoy this as well.

I guess the real reason for my post is to try to give those of you who
were resourceful enough, brave enough, and in the right place at the
right time, years ago to get your PPL, the reason why many of my
friends, and myself, can't do it..

THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN GA IS LACK OF MONEY. PERIOD, END OF
STORY. I can tell story after story of people who could have afforded
this years ago. The problem is, however, that we are not living years
ago.. The middle class, or even the upper middle class, can not afford
to fly in many cases.. What passes for making a living in this country
should embarrass the hell out of us.

Fuel cost's are incredible. I have a V-6 and a V-8 {my work van}
sitting in my driveway that about kills me every time I pull up to the
pump. Could I scrape the between 5 and 8 grand it would take to get
my PPL? Sure I could, but then what? Could I rent once a week to fly
around? Yeah, what a great time that would be.. Could I find a decent
single for between 40 and 60 grand for VFR flight? Yep, I could do
that, but it would sit on the ground thanks to the
$678,867,846,875,874, they want per second to insure and fuel that
damn thing..

The bottom line for us Middle class folks out here is that the numbers
just don't ad up.

Damn it, someday, I'm gonna write the right song, and get it to the
right people, and that will be that. I'll be flying then.. I'm
hopeful. It could still happen..

It breaks my heart..

Ivan........................

Thanks..............................

[Mxsmanic]

738brow writes:

> THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN GA IS LACK OF MONEY. PERIOD, END OF
> STORY.

Mostly, yes, although red tape runs a very close second.

> I can tell story after story of people who could have afforded
> this years ago. The problem is, however, that we are not living years
> ago.. The middle class, or even the upper middle class, can not afford
> to fly in many cases.. What passes for making a living in this country
> should embarrass the hell out of us.

There has been a shift in recent decades back to the same distribution of
wealth that obtained in the 19th century, so what you say is largely true.
People simply cannot afford the things they used to be able to afford.

> Could I scrape the between 5 and 8 grand it would take to get
> my PPL? Sure I could, but then what? Could I rent once a week to fly
> around? Yeah, what a great time that would be.. Could I find a decent
> single for between 40 and 60 grand for VFR flight? Yep, I could do
> that, but it would sit on the ground thanks to the
> $678,867,846,875,874, they want per second to insure and fuel that
> damn thing..

Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life, but the cost is
extraordinarily low, and there's no red tape.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life,
>

Says it all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


> Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life, but the cost is
> extraordinarily low, and there's no red tape.

Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less money,
and is just as close to flying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 738brow writes:
>
>> THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN GA IS LACK OF MONEY. PERIOD, END OF
>> STORY.
>
> Mostly, yes, although red tape runs a very close second.
>
>> I can tell story after story of people who could have afforded
>> this years ago. The problem is, however, that we are not living years
>> ago.. The middle class, or even the upper middle class, can not
>> afford to fly in many cases.. What passes for making a living in this
>> country should embarrass the hell out of us.
>
> There has been a shift in recent decades back to the same distribution
> of wealth that obtained in the 19th century, so what you say is
> largely true. People simply cannot afford the things they used to be
> able to afford.
>
>> Could I scrape the between 5 and 8 grand it would take to get
>> my PPL? Sure I could, but then what? Could I rent once a week to fly
>> around? Yeah, what a great time that would be.. Could I find a decent
>> single for between 40 and 60 grand for VFR flight? Yep, I could do
>> that, but it would sit on the ground thanks to the
>> $678,867,846,875,874, they want per second to insure and fuel that
>> damn thing..
>
> Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life, but the cost is
> extraordinarily low, and there's no red tape.


Bwawhahwhahhwahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahw hahwhahwhahwhahwhahwah
whhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw!



It's sockpuppet time again!


Bertie
>

[Jay Honeck]

> THE REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN GA IS LACK OF MONEY. PERIOD, END OF
> STORY.

My 17-year-old son just earned his ticket, and spent a bit less than a
semester at the University of Iowa would cost to do it.

To put that in a different perspective, a used Chevy Lumina costs
about the same as going to flight school to earn your Private Pilot's
certificate.

Given the hundreds of thousands of kids in college right now, and the
hundreds of thousands of cheap cars on the road, I'd say it's a matter
of priority, not money.

> Could I scrape the between 5 and 8 grand it would take to get
> my PPL? Sure I could, but then what? Could I rent once a week to fly
> around? Yeah, what a great time that would be.. Could I find a decent
> single for between 40 and 60 grand for VFR flight? Yep, I could do
> that, but it would sit on the ground thanks to the
> $678,867,846,875,874, they want per second to insure and fuel that
> damn thing..

Insurance on my plane is cheaper than insurance on my car. We burn
car gas in our plane, so it's no better -- or worse -- than fueling
your car. And you can go a helluva faster (and get farther away from
home) in the plane.

> The bottom line for us Middle class folks out here is that the numbers
> just don't ad up.
>
> Damn it, someday, I'm gonna write the right song, and get it to the
> right people, and that will be that. I'll be flying then.. I'm
> hopeful. It could still happen..
>
> It breaks my heart..

Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
and I are living proof.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life, but the cost is
> > extraordinarily low, and there's no red tape.
>
> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less money,
> and is just as close to flying.

I know you guys have beans up your collective butts about MX, but what
he's saying is both accurate and feasible for folks who don't have a
lot of money.

Flying MS Flight Simulator is part of what sparked my initial interest
in aviation, way back in the 1980s, even with the rudimentary wife-
frame sims of the day. It kept my interest going throughout the 80s
and early 90s, and -- when I was finally able to put it all together
and get my ticket -- it made earning my private MUCH easier.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Flight sims are a good
tool, both for pilot wannabes like Ivan, and for current pilots. To
say otherwise does guys like Ivan a huge disservice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kingfish]

On Nov 30, 11:42 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Given the hundreds of thousands of kids in college right now, and the
> hundreds of thousands of cheap cars on the road, I'd say it's a matter
> of priority, not money.
>
> Insurance on my plane is cheaper than insurance on my car. We burn
> car gas in our plane, so it's no better -- or worse -- than fueling
> your car. And you can go a helluva faster (and get farther away from
> home) in the plane.
>
> Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
> and I are living proof.
> --

Gotta agree with Jay here, it you make it a priority it *can* be done.
Nobody ever said flying was an inexpensive indulgence though, no
matter what reason you have for getting involved in it. As far as fuel
cost, topping a Warrior/172's standard 50gal tanks (even with mogas)
would run $150 ($220+ if burning 100LL). I recall reading years ago
the breakeven point for owning vs renting was around 50 hours per year
(somebody correct me if I'm wrong here) That might be a useful metric
for making the decision to go ahead. Then again, Light Sport might be
the way to go, although the feedback I've gotten from the LS CFIs I've
chatted with is that most folks are taking almost as long (hourwise)
to get the Light Sport ticket as the PPL. Go figure...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> > Try flight simulation. It isn't quite real life, but the cost is
>> > extraordinarily low, and there's no red tape.
>>
>> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less
>> money, and is just as close to flying.
>
> I know you guys have beans up your collective butts about MX, but what
> he's saying is both accurate and feasible for folks who don't have a
> lot of money.


No it isn't.


You can;'t fly a sim, fjukwit.
You can play Super mario brothers but you can't and never will fly.

Of course, you could say the same thing of a cherokee,,,,,





Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course, you could say the same thing of a cherokee,,,,,

*sigh* Another feeble attempt at wit from the class idiot...

I know it's not polite to feed the trolls, but I think it's past time
for your mommy to take away that computer. Judging by your
vocabulary, sentence structure, and spelling, I'd peg you at about
midway through a 6th grade education -- and you clearly have homework
to do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:b58c5c2b-7e79-4fc2-a8dd-
:

>> Of course, you could say the same thing of a cherokee,,,,,
>
> *sigh* Another feeble attempt at wit from the class idiot...
>
> I know it's not polite to feed the trolls, but I think it's past time
> for your mommy to take away that computer. Judging by your
> vocabulary, sentence structure, and spelling, I'd peg you at about
> midway through a 6th grade education -- and you clearly have homework
> to do.
> --

Wow, lames from the Cherokee driver.

Ouch.

Don;t you have some skidmarks to clean up or do your Mexican slaves do all
that while you while away your time here, fjukktard?


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> but what
> he's saying is both accurate
>

No, it's not. And, more to the point: He has no way of knowing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less money,
> and is just as close to flying.

It is far less realistic than computerized simulation.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
> and I are living proof.

What other things have you sacrificed to pay for it? You've just indicated
that your son sacrifced a semester of college education or a car in order to
get his license. It's not free.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less
>> money, and is just as close to flying.
>
> It is far less realistic than computerized simulation.


No, it isn't.


Bertie

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

For someone who claims to teach English you have a amazing ability to not
comprehend it. He never said his son sacrificed a semester of college.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
>> and I are living proof.
>
> What other things have you sacrificed to pay for it? You've just
> indicated
> that your son sacrifced a semester of college education or a car in order
> to
> get his license. It's not free.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
>> and I are living proof.
>
> What other things have you sacrificed to pay for it? You've just
> indicated that your son sacrifced a semester of college education or a
> car in order to get his license. It's not free.


You're both idiots.


Bertie
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > but what
> > he's saying is both accurate
>
> No, it's not. And, more to the point: He has no way of knowing.

Well, I'll give the latter point.

However, simming is an excellent, nearly cost-free way of giving
yourself a cheap aviation "fix". Need proof? Stop by the inn on
Movie Night to see the number of real, live pilots waiting patiently
for their turn on "The Kiwi" -- our full-sized flight simulator.

Especially now that we've got F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft modeled in the
sim! (Kinda hard to get any real stick time in a Viper nowadays, ya
know...)

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

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> For someone who claims to teach English you have a amazing ability to not
> comprehend it. He never said his son sacrificed a semester of college.

But he did. The money spent on getting a pilot's license is money that can
never be used for any other purpose, including a semester of college.

If you spend money on flying, there are other things that you cannot spend
money on. The total amount of money cannot change, so you cannot spend it on
one thing without refraining from spending it on another.

Many people may prefer the car or the semester of college, and so they do not
fly.

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less
> >> money, and is just as close to flying.
>
> > It is far less realistic than computerized simulation.
>
> No, it isn't.

Can you *really* be so stupid?

Never mind, "Bertie". We've got megabytes of evidence, in your own
words...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
> > and I are living proof.
>
> What other things have you sacrificed to pay for it? You've just indicated
> that your son sacrifced a semester of college education or a car in order to
> get his license. It's not free.

Nope, it's not.

But -- as opposed to most of our non-pilot friends -- we don't drive
around in brand new luxury cars, we don't live in a 4000 sq ft
"McMansion", we don't have any credit card debt, and we don't go on
cruises or trips abroad. We have chosen instead to make GA the
centerpoint of our life, both in business and leisure.

Unless you have unlimited money, you have to prioritize your
spending. We have chosen to make flying our top priority, after food
and shelter. If you want to fly bad enough, you do things like that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:fadf4fb1-3dfa-4d78-b0f1-
:

>> >> Or you can sit in a chair and make airplane noises. That's even less
>> >> money, and is just as close to flying.
>>
>> > It is far less realistic than computerized simulation.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Can you *really* be so stupid?



Nope,
>
> Never mind, "Bertie". We've got megabytes of evidence, in your own
> words...
> --


You;re an idiot Jay, Time to face it.
Simualtion contributes far more negative notions to a prospective pilot
than positive unless it's used as a procedural tool.


The fact that you can't see that combined with the drivel you post does
nothing but support that notion.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> For someone who claims to teach English you have a amazing ability to
>> not comprehend it. He never said his son sacrificed a semester of
>> college.
>
> But he did. The money spent on getting a pilot's license is money
> that can never be used for any other purpose, including a semester of
> college.
>
> If you spend money on flying, there are other things that you cannot
> spend money on.



Wow, you should go on mastermind, special subject, the bleedin obvious.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1fba6cb1-8477-4704-b71c-
:

>> > but what
>> > he's saying is both accurate
>>
>> No, it's not. And, more to the point: He has no way of knowing.
>
> Well, I'll give the latter point.
>
> However, simming is an excellent, nearly cost-free way of giving
> yourself a cheap aviation "fix".


No it isn't. it's jerking off



Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Ivan, it *can* be done without breaking the bank. My son, my wife,
>> and I are living proof.
>
> What other things have you sacrificed to pay for it?

What have you sacrificed to live your life in a vacuum?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> But -- as opposed to most of our non-pilot friends -- we don't drive
> around in brand new luxury cars, we don't live in a 4000 sq ft
> "McMansion", we don't have any credit card debt, and we don't go on
> cruises or trips abroad. We have chosen instead to make GA the
> centerpoint of our life, both in business and leisure.

So you've sacrificed a great deal in order to be able to fly. I suspect that
there aren't many people around who are prepared to make such extensive
sacrifices just for the opportunity to spend a few hours in a small aircraft
once in a while.

> Unless you have unlimited money, you have to prioritize your
> spending. We have chosen to make flying our top priority, after food
> and shelter. If you want to fly bad enough, you do things like that.

Yes, but the problem with GA today is precisely that: you have to want to fly
really, really bad in order to make the sacrifices necessary to do it. There
just aren't that many people who want to fly that badly, and so GA withers.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> But -- as opposed to most of our non-pilot friends -- we don't drive
>> around in brand new luxury cars, we don't live in a 4000 sq ft
>> "McMansion", we don't have any credit card debt, and we don't go on
>> cruises or trips abroad. We have chosen instead to make GA the
>> centerpoint of our life, both in business and leisure.
>
> So you've sacrificed a great deal in order to be able to fly.

Wheras you have nothing to sacifice.




Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> But -- as opposed to most of our non-pilot friends -- we don't drive
>> around in brand new luxury cars, we don't live in a 4000 sq ft
>> "McMansion", we don't have any credit card debt, and we don't go on
>> cruises or trips abroad. We have chosen instead to make GA the
>> centerpoint of our life, both in business and leisure.
>
> So you've sacrificed a great deal in order to be able to fly. I suspect
> that
> there aren't many people around who are prepared to make such extensive
> sacrifices just for the opportunity to spend a few hours in a small
> aircraft
> once in a while.
>
>> Unless you have unlimited money, you have to prioritize your
>> spending. We have chosen to make flying our top priority, after food
>> and shelter. If you want to fly bad enough, you do things like that.
>
> Yes, but the problem with GA today is precisely that: you have to want to
> fly
> really, really bad in order to make the sacrifices necessary to do it.
> There
> just aren't that many people who want to fly that badly, and so GA
> withers.

But it only looks that way to someone as jobless, clueless and helpless as
you. For productive and gainfully employed people, it doesn't appear to be
nearly as difficult.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jay Honeck writes:
> >
> >> But -- as opposed to most of our non-pilot friends -- we don't drive
> >> around in brand new luxury cars, we don't live in a 4000 sq ft
> >> "McMansion", we don't have any credit card debt, and we don't go on
> >> cruises or trips abroad. We have chosen instead to make GA the
> >> centerpoint of our life, both in business and leisure.
> >
> > So you've sacrificed a great deal in order to be able to fly. I suspect
> > that
> > there aren't many people around who are prepared to make such extensive
> > sacrifices just for the opportunity to spend a few hours in a small
> > aircraft
> > once in a while.

After reading:

"we don't drive around in brand new luxury cars..."

"we don't live in a 4000 sq ft "McMansion"..."

"we don't have any credit card debt..."

"we don't go on cruises or trips abroad..."

Mx says:

"So you've sacrificed a great deal in order to be able to fly. I suspect
that there aren't many people around who are prepared to make such extensive
sacrifices..."

This is almost as brilliant as stating that "flying has nothing to do with
being in the air." - another one of my favorites on the Mx hit parade!

Mx, thank you - you are indeed great entertainment here.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> But it only looks that way to someone as jobless, clueless and helpless as
> you. For productive and gainfully employed people, it doesn't appear to be
> nearly as difficult.

Then why are so few of the latter investing in aviation?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:

> > But it only looks that way to someone as jobless, clueless and helpless as
> > you. For productive and gainfully employed people, it doesn't appear to be
> > nearly as difficult.

> Then why are so few of the latter investing in aviation?

My god, what a clueless idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> But it only looks that way to someone as jobless, clueless and
>> helpless as you. For productive and gainfully employed people, it
>> doesn't appear to be nearly as difficult.
>
> Then why are so few of the latter investing in aviation?
>

Asshole.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Maxwell writes:
>
>> > But it only looks that way to someone as jobless, clueless and
>> > helpless as you. For productive and gainfully employed people, it
>> > doesn't appear to be nearly as difficult.
>
>> Then why are so few of the latter investing in aviation?
>
> My god, what a clueless idiot.
>

Breathtaking eh?

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The total amount of money cannot change, so you
> cannot spend it on one thing without refraining from spending it on
> another.
>

We don't all live on a fixed income. And some of us make more than
$360.00/month.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> We don't all live on a fixed income. And some of us make more than
> $360.00/month.

Everyone has a finite income.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> We don't all live on a fixed income. And some of us make more than
>> $360.00/month.
>
> Everyone has a finite income.
>


Except your's which is more like a black hole.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> > We don't all live on a fixed income. And some of us make more than
> > $360.00/month.

> Everyone has a finite income.

Captain Obvious and his loyal sidekick Non Sequitur Kid put in a new
appearance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>>We don't all live on a fixed income. And some of us make more than
>>$360.00/month.
>
> Everyone has a finite income.

"fixed income" != "finite income," idiot-boi.

Once again, you're posting just like a useless halfwit who never
gets tired of the view from within his rectal cavity.
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> "fixed income" != "finite income," idiot-boi.

I know, but a finite income is the basis for my statement, not a fixed income.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> "fixed income" != "finite income," idiot-boi.
>
> I know, but a finite income is the basis for my statement, not a fixed
> income.


You're an idiot.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Nov 28, 3:29 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Does he have an heir to inherit his office?
>
> Sadly, yes. This from Wikipedia:
>
> "Daley is married to Margaret Daley, who was diagnosed with breast
> cancer in 2002 and is still undergoing treatment. They have four
> children: Nora, Patrick, Elizabeth and Kevin. Patrick Daley enlisted
> in the 82nd Airborne after not being able to handle West Point and
> attending other schools but strangely has not been deployed to Iraq
> while the rest of Fort Bragg has."
>
> So, I suppose we'll have a King Patrick Daley rulingChicagoin a few
> years...
>
> :-(
>
> Oh, well. We've really learned to enjoy Kansas City, St Louis, and
> Minneapolis.

Some places are "fly to", some are "fly over"....JG

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"