$16,619.85

[Dallas]

That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.

(Assuming 55 hours, *not* including the seven tests, materials and ground
school.)

One hour of dual training in the U.K. - $315.27
One hour of single engine trainer rental in the U.K. - $285.27
One gallon of 100LL in Europe - $13.00

I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.
--
Dallas

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dallas schrieb:
> That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.
>
> (Assuming 55 hours, *not* including the seven tests, materials and ground
> school.)
>
> One hour of dual training in the U.K. - $315.27
> One hour of single engine trainer rental in the U.K. - $285.27
> One gallon of 100LL in Europe - $13.00
>
> I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.

well, your numbers are wrong or based on only on reference.

besides, we here use real money (Euro), FYI.

#m

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.
>
> (Assuming 55 hours, *not* including the seven tests, materials and ground
> school.)
>
> One hour of dual training in the U.K. - $315.27
> One hour of single engine trainer rental in the U.K. - $285.27
> One gallon of 100LL in Europe - $13.00
>
> I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.

Give it a little more time. The politicians and the fanatics are working
on it now. We should get caught up fairly soon. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.

In France, it's more like $20,000. Add another $20,000 for an instrument
rating, if you want that.

> I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.

Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
flying their own aircraft.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:37:16 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> well, your numbers are wrong or based on only one reference.

No, I used two references, a U.K. one and the second one was a German
reference posted today with an estimate of $16,000 USD at the current Euro
exchange rate.

I posted this because I've been interested in what it costs to get a ticket
on that side of the pond. I'd be interested to see your numbers.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:43:02 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Give it a little more time. The politicians and the fanatics are working
> on it now. We should get caught up fairly soon. :-))

Yeah, they just bumped the rental rate at my FBO this month. :- (


--
Dallas

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:43:02 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Give it a little more time. The politicians and the fanatics are working
>> on it now. We should get caught up fairly soon. :-))
>
> Yeah, they just bumped the rental rate at my FBO this month. :- (
>
>
What the politicians and the Arabs don't acheive, the good ole' American
lawyer will finish up for them :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
> flying their own aircraft.

Horlicks.

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.
>
> (Assuming 55 hours, *not* including the seven tests, materials and ground
> school.)
>
> One hour of dual training in the U.K. - $315.27
> One hour of single engine trainer rental in the U.K. - $285.27
> One gallon of 100LL in Europe - $13.00

It can be done for less. For example, at my school, an hour of dual (tacho
too, so you only pay for about 50 mins when flying for an hour) is UKP 114
(about $227.20 according to XE.com). My ground exams are free, and I'm not
doing any real ground school to speak of (teaching myself from the
recommended texts, which are about UKP 100 or so.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:
>
>> That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.
>
> In France, it's more like $20,000. Add another $20,000 for an
> instrument rating, if you want that.

Nope, wrong again.
>
>> I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.
>
> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges
> such as flying their own aircraft.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!


Bertie
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.

Me, too. My son finished his for right around $5K.

With a price differential that great, any European flight student
would be way ahead financially to simply rent a suite here while
attending our local flight school. We had a French fellow do that
here last spring, well before the run-up of the Euro; it makes even
more sense now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dallas schrieb:

> No, I used two references, a U.K. one and the second one was a German
> reference posted today with an estimate of $16,000 USD at the current Euro
> exchange rate.

therefore it would've been a good idea to stick to the local currency
(UK-pound and Euro).

> I posted this because I've been interested in what it costs to get a ticket
> on that side of the pond. I'd be interested to see your numbers.

I'd estimate at least 20% less.

And here almost nobody (IMHO) needs that much more than the required 40
hours. Maybe 45. I hat 40 hours and 13 minutes (I had to fly some time
to fill up to the 40 hours and we had a detour at the final destination
that added the additional 13 minutes).

#m

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> We had a French fellow do that
> here last spring, well before the run-up of the Euro; it makes even
> more sense now.

except for all the loops one has to jump through like fingerprinting,
visa (!), etc.
for a visa you have to show up in person at the embassy (earlier one was
able to do that by mail, BTDT), this costs you at least 1 day (including
"interviews"). for a student visa you need a M1, but if you go Part 61
the flight school is not able to issue the required papers (and you have
to chose your flight school beforehand, changes are close to impossible
now, BTDT, too). Then you need the fingerprinting and the flight school
has to report you to the government/FAA. Each involved party in this
process, including the immigration officer can make your plans go south.
Then - not flying related - you have to deal with the new sentiments
against foreigners.

So to sum it up: Canada or South Africa are a very good alternative.

#m

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.

> Me, too. My son finished his for right around $5K.

> With a price differential that great, any European flight student
> would be way ahead financially to simply rent a suite here while
> attending our local flight school. We had a French fellow do that
> here last spring, well before the run-up of the Euro; it makes even
> more sense now.

It is not just Europe but also Asia and lots of schools are already
addressing the off shore training market.

For example, there is a helicopter training outfit at KSBD that caters
to the Asian market; it is sometimes a challenge to understand what
the students in the pattern's position and intentions are.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jules]

What year was that in?

Martin Hotze wrote:
And here almost nobody (IMHO) needs that much more than the required 40
> hours. Maybe 45. I hat 40 hours and 13 minutes (I had to fly some time
> to fill up to the 40 hours and we had a detour at the final destination
> that added the additional 13 minutes).

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Martin Hotze > said:
>So to sum it up: Canada or South Africa are a very good alternative.

I know. I'm a Canadian citizen, but a permanent resident in the US. I've
gotten conflicting answers as to whether getting a float plane rating
counts as a new basic license (in which case I'd have to jump through all
the foreign pilot hoops) or an add-on to my existing ASEL (in which case I
don't). Depending on which answer is right, I might have to go up to
Georgian Bay Airways instead of going down to Jack Brown's.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I'm cruising down the Information Superhighway in high gear, surfing the
waves of the Digital Ocean, exploring the uncharted regions of Cyberspace.
Actually I'm sitting on my butt staring at a computer screen."

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jules schrieb:
> What year was that in?

1996

> Martin Hotze wrote:
> And here almost nobody (IMHO) needs that much more than the required 40
>> hours. Maybe 45. I hat 40 hours and 13 minutes (I had to fly some time
>> to fill up to the 40 hours and we had a detour at the final destination
>> that added the additional 13 minutes).
>

[Dallas]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:55:02 GMT, wrote:

> it is sometimes a challenge to understand what
> the students in the pattern's position and intentions are.

I was just going to say that... it happens almost every time I fly in
Texas, we seem to have quite a few schools that cater to overseas students.

I've learned to treat them as NORDO because their transmissions are
virtually useless.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:33:00 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> therefore it would've been a good idea to stick to the local currency
> (UK-pound and Euro).

As my target audience for this post was for those on the left side of the
pond, it made more sense to convert their currency to USD.

--
Dallas

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dallas schrieb:

>> therefore it would've been a good idea to stick to the local currency
>> (UK-pound and Euro).
>
> As my target audience for this post was for those on the left side of the
> pond, it made more sense to convert their currency to USD.

Who knows where the exchange rate will be in 2 years from now (for
example). Then you have to recalculate all the values only to have exact
numbers when you find this posting through search-engines. And IMHO it
is general knowledge to know the exchange rate (not the very exact
numbers but the roundabouts) for the most important currencies.

#m

[Tina]

Your statement would be a huge surprise to my 'commoner' UK friends
who own their own airplanes.

On Dec 29, 1:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dallas writes:
> > That's the cost for your ticket in Europe.
>
> In France, it's more like $20,000. *Add another $20,000 for an instrument
> rating, if you want that.
>
> > I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.
>
> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
> flying their own aircraft.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 29, 12:32*pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> With a price differential that great, any European flight student
> would be way ahead financially to simply rent a suite here while
> attending our local flight school. *We had a French fellow do that
> here last spring, well before the run-up of the Euro; it makes even
> more sense now.

Ha, another shameless plug for your motel.;)

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

[[email protected]]

>
> As my target audience for this post was for those on the left side of the
> pond, it made more sense to convert their currency to USD.
>
> --
> Dallas

That is true but its the local currency that matters when you discuss
the price of a service in a foreign country. Nobody living and working
in the US is going to go to Europe for flight training (although the
reverse can be true). If you really want to compare the costs of
flying between the USA and Europe, it might be more meaningful to
compare the fractions of disposable incomes that are required for
learning to fly in both regions. So I guess the question is, if you
are comfortably able to afford a PPL in the US (and your salary is
$xxx) and move to Germany to work in a similar job (where your salary
is EUR yyy), can you afford to learn to fly there as if you are still
in the US? I really doubt it.

[[email protected]]

>
> With a price differential that great, any European flight student
> would be way ahead financially to simply rent a suite here while
> attending our local flight school. We had a French fellow do that
> here last spring, well before the run-up of the Euro; it makes even
> more sense now.

The US is great for time building if you already have a license.. I
knew one Dutch national at my local airport who came over for a few
months and racked up all the hours he needed to go from a commercial
to an ATP and he told me it would have been far too expensive to do so
back home. I think the benefits disappear if you come purely for
primary PPL training since you would need $1000 for the airfare alone,
plus car rentals, apartment rentals etc which would probably add up to
more than the cost of a European PPL.

[[email protected]]

> In France, it's more like $20,000. Add another $20,000 for an instrument
> rating, if you want that.

In France they use the Euro.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> Your statement would be a huge surprise to my 'commoner' UK friends
> who own their own airplanes.

The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Hotze writes:

> except for all the loops one has to jump through like fingerprinting,
> visa (!), etc.
> for a visa you have to show up in person at the embassy (earlier one was
> able to do that by mail, BTDT), this costs you at least 1 day (including
> "interviews"). for a student visa you need a M1, but if you go Part 61
> the flight school is not able to issue the required papers (and you have
> to chose your flight school beforehand, changes are close to impossible
> now, BTDT, too). Then you need the fingerprinting and the flight school
> has to report you to the government/FAA. Each involved party in this
> process, including the immigration officer can make your plans go south.
> Then - not flying related - you have to deal with the new sentiments
> against foreigners.

Nevertheless, an aviation magazine here described getting an IR in the U.S. in
detail, and the pilot still came out ahead financially. He does have to fly a
U.S.-registered aircraft, but apparently he specifically registered his own in
the U.S., so he's all set to fly IFR in France, bypassing the crippling cost
and red tape of the French government for the most part.

[Andy Hawkins]

In article >,
> wrote:
> The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.

I'd better give up my PPL then. I obviously won't fit in.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> Your statement would be a huge surprise to my 'commoner' UK friends
>> who own their own airplanes.
>
> The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.
>

Even if true, you;re still talking crap.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Martin Hotze writes:
>
>> except for all the loops one has to jump through like fingerprinting,
>> visa (!), etc.
>> for a visa you have to show up in person at the embassy (earlier one
>> was able to do that by mail, BTDT), this costs you at least 1 day
>> (including "interviews"). for a student visa you need a M1, but if
>> you go Part 61 the flight school is not able to issue the required
>> papers (and you have to chose your flight school beforehand, changes
>> are close to impossible now, BTDT, too). Then you need the
>> fingerprinting and the flight school has to report you to the
>> government/FAA. Each involved party in this process, including the
>> immigration officer can make your plans go south. Then - not flying
>> related - you have to deal with the new sentiments against
>> foreigners.
>
> Nevertheless, an aviation magazine here described getting an IR in the
> U.S. in detail, and the pilot still came out ahead financially. He
> does have to fly a U.S.-registered aircraft, but apparently he
> specifically registered his own in the U.S., so he's all set to fly
> IFR in France, bypassing the crippling cost and red tape of the French
> government for the most part.
>



Wrong again

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in -
berlin.de:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
>> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges
>> such as flying their own aircraft.
>
> He's technically right for parts of Europe.
> The Vatican is an absolute monarchy.
>

Bwahawahw!

And they say you guys don't have a sense of humour

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.
>
> I'd better give up my PPL then. I obviously won't fit in.
>

Not a cucumber sandwhich and Pims man then?


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Not a cucumber sandwhich and Pims man then?

Definitely not. And no 'noble' blood anywhere in my family tree so far as I
can tell.

Oh well.

Better start looking for that whippet.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Not a cucumber sandwhich and Pims man then?
>
> Definitely not. And no 'noble' blood anywhere in my family tree so far
> as I can tell.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Better start looking for that whippet.
>


In your rusty 1978 Cortina, no doubt.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> In your rusty 1978 Cortina, no doubt.

Close. It's an Escort.

:p

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> In your rusty 1978 Cortina, no doubt.
>
> Close. It's an Escort.
>

Excellent. Got you and your bird's name on the windscreen?


Bertie

[Tina]

Here's a minor insight into mx's comment. Since he is not of 'noble'
blood, the stratifcation he mentions is a reason why he is condemned
to spending his time alone playing computer games while others are
actually living a real life in Paris.

I have several clients who use similiar excuses to explain how it is
they, who are intelligent, have managed to live a less fulfilling life
than their inferiors.

If those clients can be helped to see a different reality, they are on
their way to a healthier mental existance.

Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
drink from it.

You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:ccba189a-4b60-4ada-9d31-
:

> Here's a minor insight into mx's comment. Since he is not of 'noble'
> blood, the stratifcation he mentions is a reason why he is condemned
> to spending his time alone playing computer games while others are
> actually living a real life in Paris.
>
> I have several clients who use similiar excuses to explain how it is
> they, who are intelligent, have managed to live a less fulfilling life
> than their inferiors.
>

Yes, in my case it's a problem as well. Most people are way to stupid to
see what a genius I am.
I should be ruling the world.


> If those clients can be helped to see a different reality, they are on
> their way to a healthier mental existance.
>
> Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
> drink from it.
>
> You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
> common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?
>

Pretty much sums it up.


Bertie

[Judah]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> What the politicians and the Arabs don't acheive, the good ole' American
> lawyer will finish up for them :-))

And here I thought it was the other way around...

[Lou]

a healthier mental existance.
>
> > Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
> > drink from it.
>
> > You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
> > common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?
>
> Pretty much sums it up.
>
> Bertie

Or in your case Bertie, the blind leading the blind.
Lou

[Dallas]

On 30 Dec 2007 08:21:47 GMT, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> One downpoint is that you get little information about other parts of
> the world, and what you get seems to be wrong.

What can I say, the information I'm getting comes from you guys..

http://tinyurl.com/2onf6n

--
Dallas

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Lou > wrote in news:2734a54d-d053-43b7-8196-
:

> a healthier mental existance.
>>
>> > Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
>> > drink from it.
>>
>> > You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
>> > common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?
>>
>> Pretty much sums it up.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Or in your case Bertie, the blind leading the blind.


Awww, Lou. Still sore?


Hell of a way to go around in life.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Martin Hotze > wrote in news:fl8kmi$mnp$1
@kirk.hotze.com:

> Dallas schrieb:
>
>>> One downpoint is that you get little information about other parts of
>>> the world, and what you get seems to be wrong.
>>
>> What can I say, the information I'm getting comes from you guys..
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2onf6n
>
> ok, I did a quick search and this is what I found (just as an example;
> so note that this is only *one* example and not a general situation,
> prices do vary):
> <http://www.valentinis.net/fliegen/download/ulig_ausbildung_2007.pdf>
> page 11 - I do a quick translation:
> ----
> 45 hours w/Katana DV20 incl. CFI
> about 95 hours ground school
> test preparation
> some training materials (not really much, IMHO)
> membership (similar to AOPA)
> landing fees for about 150 landings
> totals EUR 6,666.00


OOOWWWWWW! the devil's type rating.


This isn't going to play well in Jesusland


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Excellent. Got you and your bird's name on the windscreen?

Nah. The name changes so often I wouldn't be able to afford it.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Excellent. Got you and your bird's name on the windscreen?
>
> Nah. The name changes so often I wouldn't be able to afford it.

He heh.

Bertie

[Dallas]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:32:04 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> do you have some other 'facts' than somebody's post in r.a.s?

First place I looked:

http://www.anglianflightcentres.co.uk/prices.html

Assuming best case 45 hours:

45 hours C172 x 121.50 = £ 5,467.00
30 hours instructor x £37 = £ 1.110.00
Total: £ 6,577.50 GBP

$ 13,108.99 USD

Does not include:
One to one ground school with instructor (per hour) £20.00
Fee for the issue of Private Pilots Licence (JAA 5 year) POA
Medical Fee (Depending on age and on ECG Requirements) POA
Landing fee (full member) £5.00
Full Member (annual) £105.00
Proficiency Test £35.00
Skill Test £150.00
R/T test £50.00
IMC test £50.00
PPL Written Exams (each) £20.00

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:32:04 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> do you have some other 'facts' than somebody's post in r.a.s?

Second place I looked:

http://www.cabairflyingschools.com/download/datasheets/here/PRICES-2007.pdf

Cessna 172 - £7,255.00 GBP + VAT

$14,480.60 USD

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

> ----
> 45 hours w/Katana DV20 incl. CFI
> about 95 hours ground school
> test preparation
> some training materials (not really much, IMHO)
> membership (similar to AOPA)
> landing fees for about 150 landings
> totals EUR 6,666.00
> according to xe.net (Live rates at 2007.12.30 17:28:04 UTC):
> USD 9,827.73

This is a minimum though. I have not come across anybody who has
managed a PPL in 45 hours here in the US. I am sure there are some but
its not usual. Most take between 60 and 70 hrs (that's 50% more than
45 hrs). Bad weather, cancellations etc will quickly add more hours
and in many cases you want to spend extra hours training in a stiff
crosswind for eg.
If the debate is between whether the US or Europe is cheaper for
learning to fly, its a no contest really. Anybody who can afford a
cheap used car in the US can afford to get a PPL in the US.

[John Halpenny]

On Dec 29, 3:01*pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, Martin Hotze > said:
>
> >So to sum it up: Canada or South Africa are a very good alternative.
>


See for example:
http://www.harvsair.com/site/information/jaa-faq.html

These people have been doing flight training for many years, and claim
half the price of the same thing in Europe.

John Halpenny

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
>> ----
>> 45 hours w/Katana DV20 incl. CFI
>> about 95 hours ground school
>> test preparation
>> some training materials (not really much, IMHO)
>> membership (similar to AOPA)
>> landing fees for about 150 landings
>> totals EUR 6,666.00
>> according to xe.net (Live rates at 2007.12.30 17:28:04 UTC):
>> USD 9,827.73
>
> This is a minimum though.

in the US this might be true.

> I have not come across anybody who has
> managed a PPL in 45 hours here in the US. I am sure there are some but
> its not usual.

see, this is one of the differences. :-)
It took me about 5 or 6 months here in Europe besides a full time job.

> Most take between 60 and 70 hrs (that's 50% more than
> 45 hrs). Bad weather, cancellations etc will quickly add more hours
> and in many cases you want to spend extra hours training in a stiff
> crosswind for eg.
> If the debate is between whether the US or Europe is cheaper for
> learning to fly, its a no contest really.

the discussion is whether it's cheaper for Europeans to go to the US for
learning to fly. Right now (IMHO) we're about $5K in the US plus
airfare, housing, time, etc. compared to about $10K in Europe.

> Anybody who can afford a
> cheap used car in the US can afford to get a PPL in the US.

so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?

#m

[[email protected]]

>
> The debate is whether flying in Europe is so astronomically expensive
> that it's out of reach for normal people, and specifically if the
> prices that "Dallas" found are typical.

I don't think its out of reach in Europe but a person would need to be
more motivated than in the US to take up flying. I certainly would
have thought twice about learning to fly if the costs were 50% higher.
Here in California, I can rent a C-150 wet for $75 per hr (was $65 two
years ago) and there are dozens of scenic airports to go to on a
sunday morning with no landing fees to worry about.

[ManhattanMan]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?
>

I just sold a 1996 Cadillac DeVille, every option except moonroof, excellant
condition, 78,000 miles, for $5,500....
Yes, you can get a very nice used car for $5K........

[Judah]

Tina > wrote in news:ccba189a-4b60-4ada-9d31-
:

> Here's a minor insight into mx's comment. Since he is not of 'noble'
> blood, the stratifcation he mentions is a reason why he is condemned
> to spending his time alone playing computer games while others are
> actually living a real life in Paris.
>
> I have several clients who use similiar excuses to explain how it is
> they, who are intelligent, have managed to live a less fulfilling life
> than their inferiors.
>
> If those clients can be helped to see a different reality, they are on
> their way to a healthier mental existance.
>
> Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
> drink from it.
>
> You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
> common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?
>

How 'bout, "You can give cents to a Manic, but you can't make them common"

[[email protected]]

>
> the discussion is whether it's cheaper for Europeans to go to the US for
> learning to fly. Right now (IMHO) we're about $5K in the US plus
> airfare, housing, time, etc. compared to about $10K in Europe.
>

For time building (for an ATP for instance) it makes a lot of sense.
Just for a PPL, I am not sure it does. It would still be a close call
though. You could probably get a PPL for something like $12K flying in
from Europe for a month. The extra 2K would be worth it since the
training in the US is probably a richer experience with so many
airports/airplanes/airspaces and the greater exposure to using English
on the radio.
Getting past the bureaucracy involved to train here might be the main
hurdle..

>
> so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?
>

Yep, the US is a strange place, teenagers working in departmental
stores can drive swanky BMWs and Mercs here. ;) It only costs a few
hundred dollars a month to hang on to a fancy car.

[Jay Honeck]

> > so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?
>
> I just sold a 1996 Cadillac DeVille, every option except moonroof, excellant
> condition, 78,000 miles, for $5,500....
> Yes, you can get a very nice used car for $5K........

My Toyota T100 4x4 Extended cab was just $2500. It needed work to the
tune of 2 AMUs. So, for a total of $4500, I've got an outstanding off-
road (or on) truck that I use every day. It's the Mighty Grape II,
and we use it to haul mogas to our plane.

For just $500 more (here in Iowa), you can learn to fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> > so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?
>>
>> I just sold a 1996 Cadillac DeVille, every option except moonroof,
>> excellant condition, 78,000 miles, for $5,500....
>> Yes, you can get a very nice used car for $5K........
>
> My Toyota

And you whine about Chinese imports?


Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:

>> so a cheap used car sells for about $5K over there?
>
> Yep, the US is a strange place, teenagers working in departmental
> stores can drive swanky BMWs and Mercs here. ;) It only costs a few
> hundred dollars a month to hang on to a fancy car.


sorry, my emphasis was on the _cheap_. Cheap cars (beaters) can be had
for at least half of the money and they might be good for a year or two
to drive (without much expectations re luxury).

#m

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> In continental Europe, you get the same prices but with a ¤ instead of
> a £ sign, meaning about 67 percent of the above.

But then comes the exchange rate:

> full PPL-A 7,405 EUR

That's nearly $US 11,000.

Still extremely expensive. In France, for 90% of the population, that's more
than four months of salary.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> It's undisputed that flying is considerably cheaper in the US.
>
> The debate is whether flying in Europe is so astronomically expensive
> that it's out of reach for normal people, and specifically if the
> prices that "Dallas" found are typical.

That requires that you define "out of reach" and "normal people."

For most people in both Europe and the U.S., flying is either absolutely out
of reach (meaning that they cannot possibly afford it, no matter what
sacrifices are made), or practically out of reach (meaning that the sacrifices
required to scrape up the money are so great that they eclipse any desire to
fly).

A lot has changed since those halcyon days of the 1970s (which, incidentally,
also were very near the peak of buying power for Americans).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> In continental Europe, you get the same prices but with a ¤ instead
>> of a £ sign, meaning about 67 percent of the above.
>
> But then comes the exchange rate:
>
>> full PPL-A 7,405 EUR
>
> That's nearly $US 11,000.
>
> Still extremely expensive. In France, for 90% of the population,
> that's more than four months of salary.



So? Don't fly then.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> It's undisputed that flying is considerably cheaper in the US.
>>
>> The debate is whether flying in Europe is so astronomically expensive
>> that it's out of reach for normal people, and specifically if the
>> prices that "Dallas" found are typical.
>
> That requires that you define "out of reach" and "normal people."

Easy, look in a mirror.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Just for a PPL, I am not sure it does. It would still be a close call
> though. You could probably get a PPL for something like $12K flying in
> from Europe for a month. The extra 2K would be worth it since the
> training in the US is probably a richer experience with so many
> airports/airplanes/airspaces and the greater exposure to using English
> on the radio.

That may well be the case for a lot of people from *mainland* Europe.
However, I know our instructors often say that people that come back from
the States with a PPL often have a lot less exposure to ATC, airspace and
(most importantly) marginal weather than you would get here in the UK.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
>> Just for a PPL, I am not sure it does. It would still be a close call
>> though. You could probably get a PPL for something like $12K flying
>> in from Europe for a month. The extra 2K would be worth it since the
>> training in the US is probably a richer experience with so many
>> airports/airplanes/airspaces and the greater exposure to using
>> English on the radio.
>
> That may well be the case for a lot of people from *mainland* Europe.
> However, I know our instructors often say that people that come back
> from the States with a PPL often have a lot less exposure to ATC,
> airspace and (most importantly) marginal weather than you would get
> here in the UK.
>

All good things when you;re trying to learn! The other stuff could be
categorised as advanced.
In any case, it's all in where in the US you learn. Most go to FLA or
similar because of the weather.

In any case, they will definitle learn more about aircraft handling than
they would in the UK.




Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> In any case, they will definitle learn more about aircraft handling than
> they would in the UK.

Why do you say that? I would have thought the PPL syllabus in the two
countries would be relatively comparable. What things do they do in the
States that we wouldn't cover here in the UK?

Andy

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
> drink from it.
>
> You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
> common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?

Or the old "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her
think." With the last pronoun changed to "him" in this case.

[Dallas]

On 30 Dec 2007 19:26:08 GMT, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> London has the highest living costs
Fair enough... I'll concede that it isn't as expensive as I was led to
believe.

*****

> landing fees 880 EUR

Wolfgang, would you explain how landing fees work in Europe.

Does the fee apply to every landing, including local training such as touch
and gos?

Who does the accounting in this situation (who counts the landings) ?

Who does the billing/collection of the money?

Are you expected to pay on the day of use or can a towered airport record
your tail number and bill your address?


--
Dallas

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Tina wrote:
>> Some horses can be shown a fresh water spring, but won't willingly
>> drink from it.
>>
>> You know, if someone could rephase that last line, , it might become a
>> common saying. Bertie, would "Mx is an idiot" be a suitable rephasing?
>
> Or the old "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." With the
> last pronoun changed to "him" in this case.

"You can take the boi out of the institution, but you can't take the institution out of
the boi."

[[email protected]]

> For most people in both Europe and the U.S., flying is either absolutely out
> of reach (meaning that they cannot possibly afford it, no matter what
> sacrifices are made), or practically out of reach (meaning that the sacrifices

That's just not true. Unless you are homeless and have no education,
its not such a big deal to at least learn to fly. I know a few teenage
kids at my local airport who earned their PPLs with just a part time
job at the FBO during the summers. It can be done and its actually a
cake if you have a college education. $5k or even $10k is not that
much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:
>> For most people in both Europe and the U.S., flying is either absolutely out
>> of reach (meaning that they cannot possibly afford it, no matter what
>> sacrifices are made), or practically out of reach (meaning that the sacrifices
>
> That's just not true. Unless you are homeless and have no education,
> its not such a big deal to at least learn to fly. I know a few teenage
> kids at my local airport who earned their PPLs with just a part time
> job at the FBO during the summers. It can be done and its actually a
> cake if you have a college education. $5k or even $10k is not that
> much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
> of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.

You have to remember that Anthony's view of such things is colored by
the fact that he basically lives off the charity of alleged friends (the
folks who spent a week cleaning his tiny apartment for him - can you
imagine the sickening mess?). Have you checked out his lengthy begging
list at Amazon? Provides quite an insight into his obsessions over the
past six or seven years.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Have you checked out his lengthy begging
> list at Amazon? Provides quite an insight into his obsessions over the
> past six or seven years.

ROFL.... Please post a URL

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's just not true. Unless you are homeless and have no education,
> its not such a big deal to at least learn to fly.

Then why do so few people do it? In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent
of the population learns to fly.

> I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
> PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.

How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn to fly?

> It can be done and its actually a cake if you have a college education.

Why would a college education make it easier?

> $5k or even $10k is not that
> much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
> of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.

Most families of four never go to Europe.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That's just not true. Unless you are homeless and have no education,
>> its not such a big deal to at least learn to fly.
>
> Then why do so few people do it? In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one
> percent of the population learns to fly.

Wrong again.

>
>> I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
>> PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.
>
> How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn
> to fly?

Anyone that realy wants to.

>
>> It can be done and its actually a cake if you have a college
>> education.
>
> Why would a college education make it easier?

Jesus wept.
>
>> $5k or even $10k is not that
>> much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
>> of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.
>
> Most families of four never go to Europe.
>
So what?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That's just not true. Unless you are homeless and have no education,
> > its not such a big deal to at least learn to fly.

> Then why do so few people do it? In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent
> of the population learns to fly.

In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent of the population learns to play
golf, play the guitar, or do needle point.

What's your point other than you're homeless and have no education?

> > I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
> > PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.

> How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn to fly?

Only you would think a teenage kid getting a summer job is "extreme".

> > It can be done and its actually a cake if you have a college education.

> Why would a college education make it easier?

People with a college education tend to make more money than uneducated
people like you.

> > $5k or even $10k is not that
> > much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
> > of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.

> Most families of four never go to Europe.

Nor do they go to Asia, Fiji, the Bahamas, or lots of other places.

What's your point other than you can't afford to go anywhere?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Snapper]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>> I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
>> PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.
>
> How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn to
> fly?

At 16 I worked full time for ~$100/week, then spend $60/hr on my precious
one lesson a week ($1 per minute dual!). By 17 I was earning $160/wk and
spending $120/wk flying. Went without a car (or girlfriend) till I had my
PPL.

Btw, that was in the early 80's here in Australia. No car or girlfriend is
pretty extreme I guess ......

Currently:
- Tomahawk or C150 rents for dual $213/hr (US$187), solo $130/hr (US$114)
- Cherokee dual is $253/hr (US$223), solo ~$168.hr (US$148).

A PPL in the Land of Oz is between $12k - $15k, about the same as a second
hand 3 y/o car. Or half the price of a good ski boat. Priorities.


Cheers,

David

--
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who use binary, and those
who don't.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
> Then why do so few people do it? In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one
> percent
> of the population learns to fly.

Because most of the population is too stupid to learn to fly. It takes
intelligence to get a PPL. Those who don't fly are clearly inferior.
>
>> I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
>> PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.
>
> How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn to
> fly?
>

Only the few with the brains


>> It can be done and its actually a cake if you have a college education.
>
> Why would a college education make it easier?

It's a test to see if you're smart enough to fly.

>
>> $5k or even $10k is not that
>> much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
>> of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.
>
> Most families of four never go to Europe.

If they aren't smart enough to fly, they can go to Europe. I hear France
accepts sub-standard Americans.

[Tina]

On Dec 31, 4:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>

> > $5k or even $10k is not that
> > much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
> > of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.
>
> Most families of four never go to Europe.

It's worth remembering earning a pilots license is less expensive
than, for instance, leaving the US to live in, say, Paris.

And many more in the US learn to fly than abandon this country to live
in, say, Paris.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:6bdda8ae-296b-436f-aa83-
:

> On Dec 31, 4:42 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>
>> > $5k or even $10k is not that
>> > much in the grand scheme of things these days. That would be the cost
>> > of a vacation trip to Europe for a family of 4.
>>
>> Most families of four never go to Europe.
>
> It's worth remembering earning a pilots license is less expensive
> than, for instance, leaving the US to live in, say, Paris.

Maybe not, the difference in the price of peanut butter there could pay
back the pirce of the ticket in less than a single lifetime..


From anthony@... Mon Nov 04 04:51:30 2002
> To: >
> References: >
> Subject: Re: [Laid Off Land] Re: What have you cut back?
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:51:26 +0100
>
>
> I don't know how to cook, but I discovered that house brands of canned
> ravioli cost only $0.65, and pound cake costs only $1.09. The ravioli
> provides 450 kcal or so, and the pound cake provides 872. The two of
> these, with glasses of whole milk (215 kcal per glass, and $0.80 per
> litre, with 3 glasses per litre), provide almost 1800 kcal for about $2
> per day, which isn't too bad.
>
> Still, groceries are actually a fairly minor expense compared to things
> like rent. If you cannot pay for groceries, there's no way you can pay
> rent or mortgage, but if you can pay rent or mortgage, there's always
> enough left over to buy some food.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent of the population learns to play
> golf, play the guitar, or do needle point.

I don't have figures for those hobbies, although I know that golf is extremely
expensive.

> Only you would think a teenage kid getting a summer job is "extreme".

I don't think that. But a teenager getting a summer job just to pay for
flying lessons is extremely unusual.

> People with a college education tend to make more money than uneducated
> people like you.

From what I've seen, the advantages of a college education are debatable,
after you adjust for years of lost revenue and the cost of repaying loans.

> Nor do they go to Asia, Fiji, the Bahamas, or lots of other places.

True.

[Mxsmanic]

Snapper writes:

> At 16 I worked full time for ~$100/week, then spend $60/hr on my precious
> one lesson a week ($1 per minute dual!). By 17 I was earning $160/wk and
> spending $120/wk flying. Went without a car (or girlfriend) till I had my
> PPL.

Sounds like quite a bit of sacrifice.

> Btw, that was in the early 80's here in Australia. No car or girlfriend is
> pretty extreme I guess ......

For most teenagers, yes.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Because most of the population is too stupid to learn to fly. It takes
> intelligence to get a PPL. Those who don't fly are clearly inferior.

It doesn't take that much intelligence, particularly when most instruction
relies on rote learning rather than application of theory. Rote learning
makes it possible to teach anyone anything, in time.

> If they aren't smart enough to fly, they can go to Europe. I hear France
> accepts sub-standard Americans.

It's even harder to get a license in France than it is in the U.S. And the
rewards are fewer.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> It's worth remembering earning a pilots license is less expensive
> than, for instance, leaving the US to live in, say, Paris.

No, it's not. In fact, living in Paris is much cheaper than visiting Paris as
well.

> And many more in the US learn to fly than abandon this country to live
> in, say, Paris.

There are about ten times as many American pilots are there are Americans in
Paris. But it's really comparing apples and oranges.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent of the population learns to play
> > golf, play the guitar, or do needle point.

> I don't have figures for those hobbies, although I know that golf is extremely
> expensive.

If one insists on new, top of the line clubs and plays at exclusive members
only courses it can be expensive, however used clubs cost next to nothing
and public courses cost about the same as going to a movie.

Once again you show no knowledge of the real world.

> > Only you would think a teenage kid getting a summer job is "extreme".

> I don't think that. But a teenager getting a summer job just to pay for
> flying lessons is extremely unusual.

Teenagers get summer jobs to pay for whatever it is they are interested
in; flying is no special exception.

Of course the concept of getting a job may be unfamiliar to you.

> > People with a college education tend to make more money than uneducated
> > people like you.

> From what I've seen, the advantages of a college education are debatable,
> after you adjust for years of lost revenue and the cost of repaying loans.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Couldn't hack in school either?

Is there ANYTHING in life where you managed to succeed?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-29, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
>> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
>> flying their own aircraft.
>
> Horlicks.

I'd say it more strongly: "********".

I'm hardly a noble (I'm a postal worker) yet I own shares in two
aircraft (one powered, one glider). Incidentally, we charge ourselves
GBP 45 per hour for our 160hp O-320 powered Auster. (Admittedly we
rarely run at 75% power when cruising, it just turns fuel into noise
without really making you go faster - the big engine for the aircraft is
really to help climb and let us tow gliders).

Admittedly 45/hr translates to US$90 hr which seems like a lot for an
owned rather than rented aircraft to US readers, but the US dollar has
plunged in value over the last few years. When I left the US in 2002, it
was about GBP1 = US$1.55. Today, it's about GBP1 = US$2.00 - a very
significant change. But since I'm not earning money in US dollars, it
doesn't really matter that it"s US$90 instead of some lower US$ value
because I don't use US$.

Of course, it means when I visit the US, the flying almost feels free of
charge it's so cheap, and as the dollar further devalues it only becomes
cheaper going that way.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-31, Dallas > wrote:
>> landing fees 880 EUR
>
> Wolfgang, would you explain how landing fees work in Europe.

Europe isn't a country - they may not work the same in every European
country. It's a misconception that the EU is a bit like the USA - a
collection of non-sovereign states. Europe is a collection of
independent states, and as such, things work differently in different
countries.

At my airfield, for instance, I've never paid a landing fee (because I'm
based there). Visitors do though.

>
> Does the fee apply to every landing, including local training such as touch
> and gos?
>
> Who does the accounting in this situation (who counts the landings) ?
>
> Who does the billing/collection of the money?
>
> Are you expected to pay on the day of use or can a towered airport record
> your tail number and bill your address?

All those, at least heere, are up to the airfield. Typically when you
visit an airfield, you'll pay any fees (fuel, landings etc.) before you
depart. Most places I've been, the "FBO" (we don't call them that here)
presents you with a bill with your fuel and any other fees, just like
what happens if you buy fuel at a US airfield (or go to one of the few
US airfields that charge a landing fee).
--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tina writes:
>
>> It's worth remembering earning a pilots license is less expensive
>> than, for instance, leaving the US to live in, say, Paris.
>
> No, it's not. In fact, living in Paris is much cheaper than visiting Paris as
> well.

Especially when you're so dependent on the charity of others. Burned out
that rice cooker they gave you yet?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> No, it's not. In fact, living in Paris is much cheaper than visiting Paris as
> well.

Living anywhere is cheaper than visiting there dipwad.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

> From what I've seen, the advantages of a college education are debatable,
> after you adjust for years of lost revenue and the cost of repaying loans.

There was a study some time ago that showed that during the course of
his/her lifetimes, a college graduate earns an average of a million
dollars more than somebody who skips college. I remember John Kerry
quoted this during his 2004 campaign. The cost of a college education
is significantly less than a million dollars, so its the best possible
investment one can make. The cost of a PPL is even more insignificant.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent of the population learns to
> fly.

That claim is incorrect - where did you get it? The current number of
active pilots is ~0.2% of the entire U.S. population and if one includes
the number of people who learned to fly but are no longer active, the
number is probably even larger. About 30 years ago the number of active
pilots was ~0.4% of the entire U.S. population.

If one does a comparison with the number of licensed automobile drivers (an
arguably better metric than using the entire population) there are about
330 licensed automobile drivers for every certificated aircraft pilots.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 1 Jan, 17:26, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > It's worth remembering earning a pilots license is less expensive
> > than, for instance, leaving the US to live in, say, Paris.
>
> No, it's not. *In fact, living in Paris is much cheaper than visiting Paris as
> well.
>
> > And many more in the US learn to fly than abandon this country to live
> > in, say, Paris.
>
> There are about ten times as many American pilots are there are Americans in
> Paris. *But it's really comparing apples and oranges.


Over ripe ones on sale today were they?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 1 Jan, 17:25, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> nobody writes:
> > Because most of the population is too stupid to learn to fly. It takes
> > intelligence to get a PPL. Those who don't fly are clearly inferior.
>
> It doesn't take that much intelligence, particularly when most instruction
> relies on rote learning rather than application of theory. *Rote learning
> makes it possible to teach anyone anything, in time.
>
> > If they aren't smart enough to fly, they can go to Europe. I hear France
> > accepts sub-standard Americans.
>
> It's even harder to get a license in France than it is in the U.S. *And the
> rewards are fewer.

Nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 1 Jan, 17:24, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Snapper writes:
> > At 16 I worked full time for ~$100/week, then spend $60/hr on my precious
> > one lesson a week ($1 per minute dual!). *By 17 I was earning $160/wk and
> > spending $120/wk flying. *Went without a car (or girlfriend) till I had my
> > PPL.
>
> Sounds like quite a bit of sacrifice.

Well, you'd have to give up your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 1 Jan, 17:23, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > In the U.S., less than 1/10 of one percent of the population learns to play
> > golf, play the guitar, or do needle point.
>
> I don't have figures for those hobbies, although I know that golf is extremely
> expensive.
>
> > Only you would think a teenage kid getting a summer job is "extreme".
>
> I don't think that. *But a teenager getting a summer job just to pay for
> flying lessons is extremely unusual.
>

No, it isn't, fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> I'm hardly a noble (I'm a postal worker) yet I own shares in two
> aircraft (one powered, one glider).

Do you also share your car?

> Incidentally, we charge ourselves
> GBP 45 per hour for our 160hp O-320 powered Auster.

How much does your car cost per hour?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There was a study some time ago that showed that during the course of
> his/her lifetimes, a college graduate earns an average of a million
> dollars more than somebody who skips college.

I've seen studies that show just the opposite, with the cost of many college
degrees not being justified by the potential increase in income. And I've
obtained similar results running the numbers myself.

> The cost of a college education
> is significantly less than a million dollars, so its the best possible
> investment one can make.

A million dollars is a $25,000-a-year difference. The real-world difference
is often much smaller than that. And people also forget that years spent in
college are years spent going into debt, rather than earning money, and that
further deepens the hole.

It's possible to make lots of money as a real-estate agent, and that doesn't
require a college education.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Living anywhere is cheaper than visiting there dipwad.

Paris is a long way from being the world's most expensive place to live.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> That claim is incorrect - where did you get it?

Dividing 240,000 (the number of pilots I could recall) by 300 million.

> The current number of
> active pilots is ~0.2% of the entire U.S. population and if one includes
> the number of people who learned to fly but are no longer active, the
> number is probably even larger. About 30 years ago the number of active
> pilots was ~0.4% of the entire U.S. population.

Wow.

> If one does a comparison with the number of licensed automobile drivers (an
> arguably better metric than using the entire population) there are about
> 330 licensed automobile drivers for every certificated aircraft pilots.

Looks like there's room for improvement.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 31 Dec 2007, 12:49, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * *Bertie the > wrote:
>
> > In any case, they will definitle learn more about aircraft handling than
> > they would in the UK.
>
> Why do you say that? I would have thought the PPL syllabus in the two
> countries would be relatively comparable. What things do they do in the
> States that we wouldn't cover here in the UK?

I answered this earleir, andy, but I see it hasn't propogated on every
server due to the attachment I made.
Turns around a point are a good example. They don't do them in the uk,
but every yank here would know them from his private pilot days.
Imagin flying a circle around a point on the ground. About 800 yards
in radius or so. Your job, to maintain a perfect circle around the
reference point. Easy,right? Dial in the wind and away you go. Now add
some wind. Let's say it's from 360. You're obviously going to be blown
downwind so how do you correct? You correct by varying the bank around
the circle. So, the question I'm posing you is this; at which point do
you have the steepest bank? Shallowest? Where's your wingtip
throughout?
You might be able to figure this out, but you'll be in a tiny minority
if you do. It takes a bit of explaining. But i'll leave you with it to
ponder for a bit.
One thing I would bet good money on is that after you've learned how
htis works, if you go to your instructors with this, they'll more than
likely give you the wrong answer as well. After it's been explained to
you you can go out and try it and prove it to yourself.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > There was a study some time ago that showed that during the course of
> > his/her lifetimes, a college graduate earns an average of a million
> > dollars more than somebody who skips college.

> I've seen studies that show just the opposite, with the cost of many college
> degrees not being justified by the potential increase in income. And I've
> obtained similar results running the numbers myself.

Is that how you justify your lack of education?

> > The cost of a college education
> > is significantly less than a million dollars, so its the best possible
> > investment one can make.

> A million dollars is a $25,000-a-year difference. The real-world difference
> is often much smaller than that. And people also forget that years spent in
> college are years spent going into debt, rather than earning money, and that
> further deepens the hole.

The real-world difference is also often much larger than that. If you had
gone to school you would know what "average" means and that the numbers
include such things as women who stop working after they get their Mrs.

It is 4 years of school for a normal person and 20 to 30 years of full
time work.

Nothing precludes one from working while going to college though it does
reduce the number of hours one can work for about 9 out of 12 months.

There is nothing that requires one to go into debt to go to college.

> It's possible to make lots of money as a real-estate agent, and that doesn't
> require a college education.

It is probably also possible to make lots of money teaching English if
one is competent.

For the definition of "sour grapes", see "Mxsmanic"; never able to
actually do anything and spends every waking moment attempting to
rationalize his failures.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Living anywhere is cheaper than visiting there dipwad.

> Paris is a long way from being the world's most expensive place to live.

Tottaly correct and tottaly irrelevant to the discussion.

For someone who supposedly teaches English, your comprehension skills
are minimal at best.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> There was a study some time ago that showed that during the course of
>>> his/her lifetimes, a college graduate earns an average of a million
>>> dollars more than somebody who skips college.
>
>> I've seen studies that show just the opposite, with the cost of many college
>> degrees not being justified by the potential increase in income. And I've
>> obtained similar results running the numbers myself.
>
> Is that how you justify your lack of education?

Hey, give him a little credit. He was the hit of both Longview
Elementary and Powell Junior High. They hit him on a regular basis, in
fact...

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On 1 Jan, 17:24, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Snapper writes:
>>> At 16 I worked full time for ~$100/week, then spend $60/hr on my precious
>>> one lesson a week ($1 per minute dual!). By 17 I was earning $160/wk and
>>> spending $120/wk flying. Went without a car (or girlfriend) till I had my
>>> PPL.
>> Sounds like quite a bit of sacrifice.
>
> Well, you'd have to give up your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches..

And his canned ravioli.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Is that how you justify your lack of education?

I've never indicated what level of education I have.

> It is probably also possible to make lots of money teaching English if
> one is competent.

With very rare exceptions, there aren't any teaching jobs that pay well.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Do you consider 100K not well? That's the pay for Long Island NY teachers
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Is that how you justify your lack of education?
>
> I've never indicated what level of education I have.
>
>> It is probably also possible to make lots of money teaching English if
>> one is competent.
>
> With very rare exceptions, there aren't any teaching jobs that pay well.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Is that how you justify your lack of education?

> I've never indicated what level of education I have.

You indicate it with every post you make.

> > It is probably also possible to make lots of money teaching English if
> > one is competent.

> With very rare exceptions, there aren't any teaching jobs that pay well.

Not for you, that's for sure.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> That claim is incorrect - where did you get it?
>
> Dividing 240,000 (the number of pilots I could recall) by 300 million.
>
>> The current number of
>> active pilots is ~0.2% of the entire U.S. population and if one
>> includes the number of people who learned to fly but are no longer
>> active, the number is probably even larger. About 30 years ago the
>> number of active pilots was ~0.4% of the entire U.S. population.
>
> Wow.



Nope, wrong again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Living anywhere is cheaper than visiting there dipwad.
>
> Paris is a long way from being the world's most expensive place to live.
>

So?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> I'm hardly a noble (I'm a postal worker) yet I own shares in two
>> aircraft (one powered, one glider).
>
> Do you also share your car?
>
>> Incidentally, we charge ourselves
>> GBP 45 per hour for our 160hp O-320 powered Auster.
>
> How much does your car cost per hour?
>

You don't fly, you don't drive.

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-01, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Do you also share your car?

What's your point?

>> Incidentally, we charge ourselves
>> GBP 45 per hour for our 160hp O-320 powered Auster.
>
> How much does your car cost per hour?

I have no idea, it's not useful to calculate the cost of a car per hour.
What's your point?

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Mxsmanic]

news.verizon.net writes:

> Do you consider 100K not well? That's the pay for Long Island NY teachers

In Long Island, no, I don't consider it well paid. It might be quite
comfortable in Grand Junction, Colorado.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> news.verizon.net writes:
>
>> Do you consider 100K not well? That's the pay for Long Island NY
>> teachers
>
> In Long Island, no, I don't consider it well paid. It might be quite
> comfortable in Grand Junction, Colorado.
>

For someone who earns less than the guy who sweeps up the floor in Walmarts
in Kandahar that's mighty big talk

Bertie

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> I know a few teenage kids at my local airport who earned their
>> PPLs with just a part time job at the FBO during the summers.
>
> How many teenage kids are willing to go to that extreme just to learn to fly?
>

I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.

I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing that isn't
a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires strong motivation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.
>
> I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing
> that isn't a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires
> strong motivation.
>

Well, it's not begging for change to buy three potatoes, but some people do
it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:

> > I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.

> I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing that isn't
> a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires strong motivation.

You mean things like cool clothes, guitars and amplifiers, surf boards,
motorcycles, cars, video games, iPods, water skies, tickets to concerts,
and any other number of things a teenager could be interested in that
aren't a "necessity of life" for a teenager living with parents?

But, you probably don't understand any of that down there in your
bunker.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Well, I'll give you an example.. Turns around a point.

That was one of the ones I could think of. The other one I've read about is
'S' turns about a line feature like a road.

> This is just one example, but it's he best.
> Ponder this for a while. If you get it right you'll be one of a tiny
> minority that does when introduced to it.
> Then take it to your instructor and ask him. I will put good money on him
> getting it wrong.

While I think I can get my head around what would need to be done to
maintain it, the actual practice is likely to be somewhat different
obviously!

While I can see that it's useful, I'm not sure I see why you'd necessarily
be a worse pilot never having done it.

Again, comments coming from a somewhat naive PPL student, so not
contradicting you, just trying to understand for my own benefit.

Cheers

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Well, I'll give you an example.. Turns around a point.
>
> That was one of the ones I could think of. The other one I've read
> about is 'S' turns about a line feature like a road.

They're essentially the same manuever. Just a variation.

There's a really cool one called eights on pylons. In those, you have to
pick two pylons and do a figure of eight around them. The wind is
blowing frm one pylon to the other.
But in these the bank angle is constant as you make the round part of
the eights. So, you have to adjust your speed around the figure to make
the groundspeed constant all the way around. You aren;'t allowed to
touch the throttle though, which means you climb and dive around the
figure to do that.
That's a commercial manuever.

>> This is just one example, but it's he best.
>> Ponder this for a while. If you get it right you'll be one of a tiny
>> minority that does when introduced to it.
>> Then take it to your instructor and ask him. I will put good money on
>> him getting it wrong.
>
> While I think I can get my head around what would need to be done to
> maintain it, the actual practice is likely to be somewhat different
> obviously!
>
> While I can see that it's useful, I'm not sure I see why you'd
> necessarily be a worse pilot never having done it.
>
> Again, comments coming from a somewhat naive PPL student, so not
> contradicting you, just trying to understand for my own benefit.
>

Did you get it right though?

The theory is one thing. Doing them is another. Remember you have to
hold altitude, you have to keep your eye on the point and you have to
stay oriented. They aren't easy to do well.
This means you're not looking at your instruments much. You have to
constantly adjust your bank angle and this means you are constantly
adjusting the back pressure on your stick.
It's an introduction to a type of handling that is fluid and intuitive,
rather than stodgy and numbers based.
It also gives an essential awareness of how the airplane is behaving in
regard to it's track over the ground, which is indespensible when you
are manuevering low, as in a circuit, for instance. It also comes in
extremely handy when you're modeling ground track in your head flying
instruments.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> There's a really cool one called eights on pylons. In those, you have to
> pick two pylons and do a figure of eight around them. The wind is
> blowing frm one pylon to the other.
> But in these the bank angle is constant as you make the round part of
> the eights. So, you have to adjust your speed around the figure to make
> the groundspeed constant all the way around. You aren;'t allowed to
> touch the throttle though, which means you climb and dive around the
> figure to do that.
> That's a commercial manuever.

Again, sounds like a good exercise in control, but I'm not sure I see the
practical applications. I suppose any 'better' control can only be good.
Trying to think of a similar manoevre you do on a driving test that has
little real world application. Reversing around a corner perhaps (we do this
in the UK)

> Did you get it right though?

Haven't tried it. Maybe I'll give it a go on the sim.

(big grin implied there by the way!)

> The theory is one thing. Doing them is another. Remember you have to
> hold altitude, you have to keep your eye on the point and you have to
> stay oriented. They aren't easy to do well.
> This means you're not looking at your instruments much. You have to
> constantly adjust your bank angle and this means you are constantly
> adjusting the back pressure on your stick.
> It's an introduction to a type of handling that is fluid and intuitive,
> rather than stodgy and numbers based.
> It also gives an essential awareness of how the airplane is behaving in
> regard to it's track over the ground, which is indespensible when you
> are manuevering low, as in a circuit, for instance. It also comes in
> extremely handy when you're modeling ground track in your head flying
> instruments.

Like I said above, I guess any increase in your ability to control the plane
and make adjustments based on the effect of wind can only be good. Perhaps
I'll try to give it a go when I finally get to do some more flying.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,

> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
> > Well, I'll give you an example.. Turns around a point.

> That was one of the ones I could think of. The other one I've read about is
> 'S' turns about a line feature like a road.

> > This is just one example, but it's he best.
> > Ponder this for a while. If you get it right you'll be one of a tiny
> > minority that does when introduced to it.
> > Then take it to your instructor and ask him. I will put good money on him
> > getting it wrong.

> While I think I can get my head around what would need to be done to
> maintain it, the actual practice is likely to be somewhat different
> obviously!

> While I can see that it's useful, I'm not sure I see why you'd necessarily
> be a worse pilot never having done it.

> Again, comments coming from a somewhat naive PPL student, so not
> contradicting you, just trying to understand for my own benefit.

Where this turning stuff practice comes in handy is in being able to
keep your pattern ground track where it is supposed to be when the winds
blow without having to think about it a lot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.
>
> I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing that isn't
> a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires strong motivation.


You'd probably be MUCH better off had your parents made you get a job
for one particular thing that you wanted when you were young.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> Where this turning stuff practice comes in handy is in being able to
> keep your pattern ground track where it is supposed to be when the winds
> blow without having to think about it a lot.

I guess so. That's the sort of thing I was obviously doing 'subconsciously'
when I moved into the circuit (unless my circuits were all completely the
wrong shape!).

Andy

[[email protected]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,

> In article >,
> > wrote:
> > Where this turning stuff practice comes in handy is in being able to
> > keep your pattern ground track where it is supposed to be when the winds
> > blow without having to think about it a lot.

> I guess so. That's the sort of thing I was obviously doing 'subconsciously'
> when I moved into the circuit (unless my circuits were all completely the
> wrong shape!).

If you want a totally impartial evaluation, get a GPS that stores your
track and do 3 or 4 trips around the pattern on a windy day.

The first time I did that I decided it was time to go out to the practice
area and do some refresher turning manuevers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> There's a really cool one called eights on pylons. In those, you have
>> to pick two pylons and do a figure of eight around them. The wind is
>> blowing frm one pylon to the other.
>> But in these the bank angle is constant as you make the round part of
>> the eights. So, you have to adjust your speed around the figure to
>> make the groundspeed constant all the way around. You aren;'t allowed
>> to touch the throttle though, which means you climb and dive around
>> the figure to do that.
>> That's a commercial manuever.
>
> Again, sounds like a good exercise in control, but I'm not sure I see
> the practical applications. I suppose any 'better' control can only be
> good. Trying to think of a similar manoevre you do on a driving test
> that has little real world application. Reversing around a corner
> perhaps (we do this in the UK)
>

No, nothing like that. This has definite benefits.
Tell you waht, you try them and the next time you fly with your
instructor after that see if he doesn't notice how much smoother you
are.
A better analogy woudl be juggling or riding a bike. If you can
introduce another ball into your routine the bits with the one bal less
will be that much easier and smoother.




>> Did you get it right though?
>
> Haven't tried it. Maybe I'll give it a go on the sim.
>
> (big grin implied there by the way!)

One thing it is definitely 100% useless for.
>
>> The theory is one thing. Doing them is another. Remember you have to
>> hold altitude, you have to keep your eye on the point and you have to
>> stay oriented. They aren't easy to do well.
>> This means you're not looking at your instruments much. You have to
>> constantly adjust your bank angle and this means you are constantly
>> adjusting the back pressure on your stick.
>> It's an introduction to a type of handling that is fluid and
>> intuitive, rather than stodgy and numbers based.
>> It also gives an essential awareness of how the airplane is behaving
>> in regard to it's track over the ground, which is indespensible when
>> you are manuevering low, as in a circuit, for instance. It also comes
>> in extremely handy when you're modeling ground track in your head
>> flying instruments.
>
> Like I said above, I guess any increase in your ability to control the
> plane and make adjustments based on the effect of wind can only be
> good. Perhaps I'll try to give it a go when I finally get to do some
> more flying.
>


Yeah good idea. Do them at about 1,000 ft agl. Ideally it should be
lower, but you might upset the neighbors and the CAA if you do.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> Where this turning stuff practice comes in handy is in being able to
>> keep your pattern ground track where it is supposed to be when the
>> winds blow without having to think about it a lot.
>
> I guess so. That's the sort of thing I was obviously doing
> 'subconsciously' when I moved into the circuit (unless my circuits
> were all completely the wrong shape!).
>

Well, yes, you would have been doing it in the circuit allright, but this
takes control to a higher level.

It's harder than you think and I'm willing to bet you'll see the benefits
in time
Remember, the circle has to be perfect, the fligh tco-ordinated, and the
altitude mustn't budge.



Bertie

[Dallas]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:31:31 GMT, nobody wrote:

> If they aren't smart enough to fly, they can go to Europe. I hear France
> accepts sub-standard Americans.

Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.

--
Dallas

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> If you want a totally impartial evaluation, get a GPS that stores your
> track and do 3 or 4 trips around the pattern on a windy day.
>
> The first time I did that I decided it was time to go out to the practice
> area and do some refresher turning manuevers.

That's exactly what I've just done, although more for recording my NavEx's.
Little bluetooth gadget coupled with some software running on my mobile
phone to log tracks.

Been a while since I last flew, so I might get my next instructor to get me
to do a few circuits and see how they go.

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> No, nothing like that. This has definite benefits.
> Tell you waht, you try them and the next time you fly with your
> instructor after that see if he doesn't notice how much smoother you
> are.

Ok. My next session will be regaining my solo currency, and then following
that I'm supposed to do a few sessions of Solo General Handling, so I'll try
and include a few of these in there somewhere.

>> Haven't tried it. Maybe I'll give it a go on the sim.
>>
>> (big grin implied there by the way!)
>
> One thing it is definitely 100% useless for.

Yep. That was definitely a tongue in cheek momeny there!

> Yeah good idea. Do them at about 1,000 ft agl. Ideally it should be
> lower, but you might upset the neighbors and the CAA if you do.

:)

Don't want to upset the CAA before I even get my license!

Andy

[John Mazor[_2_]]

> wrote in message ...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>
>> > I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.
>
>> I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing that isn't
>> a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires strong motivation.
>
> You mean things like cool clothes, guitars and amplifiers, surf boards,
> motorcycles, cars, video games, iPods, water skies, tickets to concerts,
> and any other number of things a teenager could be interested in that
> aren't a "necessity of life" for a teenager living with parents?
>
> But, you probably don't understand any of that down there in your bunker.

He has a begging list for that so he don't need no steenkin' job.

[Dallas]

On 1 Jan 2008 16:27:39 GMT, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> With my microlight I usually pay 2 to 4 EUR per landing at most rural
> airports, rarely more. 2 tonners like C172s pay somewhere between 4 and
> 10 at the same airports.

Interesting... (if not a bit terrifying to US pilots)

As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.


Disclaimer:
(But, I'm a new pilot... I don't know how fair that statement is.)

--
Dallas

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder writes:
>>
>>> I love how you equate getting a job as going to an extreme.
>>
>> I don't. However, getting a job just to pay for one specific thing that isn't
>> a necessity of life is quite an extreme, and requires strong motivation.
>
> You'd probably be MUCH better off had your parents made you get a job for one particular
> thing that you wanted when you were young.

The Mattell Junior Mechanic's Tool Set was a tad beyond his means and working long enough
to save up the $9.95 for it was wa-a-ay beyond the limits of his ambition.

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.

Why?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> No, nothing like that. This has definite benefits.
>> Tell you waht, you try them and the next time you fly with your
>> instructor after that see if he doesn't notice how much smoother you
>> are.
>
> Ok. My next session will be regaining my solo currency, and then
> following that I'm supposed to do a few sessions of Solo General
> Handling, so I'll try and include a few of these in there somewhere.

OK, jsut had lunch with a UK QFI as it happens.
We chatted abou tthis very thing since it was on my mind. He thinks they
sound like a great idea and he's going to try them next time he does
some lightplane flying.
So if your instructor shows you these next time out you'll know it was
down to me.
>
>>> Haven't tried it. Maybe I'll give it a go on the sim.
>>>
>>> (big grin implied there by the way!)
>>
>> One thing it is definitely 100% useless for.
>
> Yep. That was definitely a tongue in cheek momeny there!
>
>> Yeah good idea. Do them at about 1,000 ft agl. Ideally it should be
>> lower, but you might upset the neighbors and the CAA if you do.
>
>:)
>
> Don't want to upset the CAA before I even get my license!
>

He had a good idea for that. H e reckons one of the idsused airfields
that England is littered with is perfect for this.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dallas writes:

> > Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.

> Why?

If it is not in Microsoft Flight Simulator or on a Wiki page, you are
really clueless, aren't you?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:
>
>> Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.
>
> Why?
>

He'd like you.


Bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

> wrote in message ...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dallas writes:
>
>> > Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.
>
>> Why?
>
> If it is not in Microsoft Flight Simulator or on a Wiki page, you are
> really clueless, aren't you?

Scrath the Wiki page part - he was clueless on their definition of outer space.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dallas" <> wrote

> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
> fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> (But, I'm a new pilot... I don't know how fair that statement is.)

I don't think so, and here are my reasons.

Most airports that get federal funding, are there just like roads are there
to make access to transportation of an enhanced means such as flying
possible. If you call that subsidized, oh well, but I disagree with that.

Runways wear out because of weather and time, and because of loading cycles
of large planes landing on them. The single engine piston airplanes do not
contribute to stressing the pavement of the runways and taxiways, at all.

Control towers and instrument landing equipment is at larger airports to
serve the larger GA types, which are mostly business transportation, and
that is a cost of a region keeping good business in the area, and a good tax
base and employer giving jobs to the people of the area.

Charging an additional landing fee for using assets that would be there with
or without the "little guy" put-putting along in his C-150 (or larger) makes
no sense to me. It only places an unfair burden on an already expensive
hobby.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
> fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.

What subsidies?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dallas writes:
>
>> Yeah, just ask Jerry Lewis.
>
> Why?

It's a pilot thing, you wouldn't understand.

[dVaridel]

"Dylan Smith" wrote
>
> I have no idea, it's not useful to calculate the cost of a car per hour.
> What's your point?

Holden Commodore (GM Opal), 12 l/hr @ 100 km/hr
Piper Warrior II, 22 l/hr @ 160 km/hr,

No point but still fun :-)


David Varidel


"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on
my shoulders."
-- David Wright

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> OK, jsut had lunch with a UK QFI as it happens.
> We chatted abou tthis very thing since it was on my mind. He thinks they
> sound like a great idea and he's going to try them next time he does
> some lightplane flying.
> So if your instructor shows you these next time out you'll know it was
> down to me.

:)

I have several instructors because of the way our school works. If one of
them springs this on me then I'll have you to thank!

> He had a good idea for that. H e reckons one of the idsused airfields
> that England is littered with is perfect for this.

Yeah, we've got lots of them near us. Sad really. Oh well.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> OK, jsut had lunch with a UK QFI as it happens.
>> We chatted abou tthis very thing since it was on my mind. He thinks
>> they sound like a great idea and he's going to try them next time he
>> does some lightplane flying.
>> So if your instructor shows you these next time out you'll know it
>> was down to me.
>
>:)
>
> I have several instructors because of the way our school works. If one
> of them springs this on me then I'll have you to thank!
>
>> He had a good idea for that. H e reckons one of the idsused airfields
>> that England is littered with is perfect for this.
>
> Yeah, we've got lots of them near us. Sad really. Oh well.

I think a few are used for gliderports, and of course a few are used
commercially (Stansted, I think) and others are used for the RAF. There
were an awful lot of themm.

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

[]
> Europeans have a stronger sense of social stratification and inherited
> entitlement, so only the nobles are expected or permitted privileges such as
> flying their own aircraft.

Rubbish. My high school maths teacher had her own aircraft- a 4 seater
cessna. She flew me and another school friend from Dundee to Orkney once
so we could make it for a playing gig- plus a day trip to Shetland from
there.

Maybe you should get out of your miserable Parisien "chambre de bonne"
and talk with real people for a change? Maybe go to a local airfield?
You'd realise quite quickly that your suggestion above is risible, and
it might help you stop projecting your own pitiful financial
circumstances onto everyone else around you.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Tina writes:
>
> > Your statement would be a huge surprise to my 'commoner' UK friends
> > who own their own airplanes.
>
> The UK has some of the sharpest social stratification in Europe.

Which is irrelevant. Why not amuse this newsgroup with your knowledge of
the UK- in particular the various English 'tones' which visitors to the
country must learn? On the other hand, don't bother...

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> I think a few are used for gliderports, and of course a few are used
> commercially (Stansted, I think) and others are used for the RAF. There
> were an awful lot of themm.

The RAF seem to be scaling things down quite a bit recently. I know of at
least one RAF base that is now run as a civilian operation evenings and
weekends. Also, there's an airfield near where I'm based that is used
primarily for gliders these days (although they do accept powered traffic
too I understand). In fact, that's where I did my first few PFL practices :)

Andy

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:

> >> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
> >> would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
> >> existence.
> >
> > What subsidies?
>
> What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?

? I'm included in what people refer to as "GA" and I don't get revenue
from flying. I fly because I love flying.

It would seem that you are implying that any company doing business
in GA would require subsidies in order to not run at a loss. Is that what
you are trying to say?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Steve Foley]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
> fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.
>

I spent a lot if time trying to convince skylune that this was simply not
true.

I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
subsidies. He's making a profit.

4.3NM away is a class D airport with a 7000' runway and a 5000' crosswind
runway. The big airport spends over three million dollars a year salaries,
maintenance, repairs, etc. They have been trying to attract an airline, but
keep failing. The last air carrier that flew there lasted nine months.

Because there is no airline service there, claims are made that the three
million dollars is supporting GA.

I still cannot fathom how the politicians can continue paying twenty five
people to work at an airport that has no air carrier.

[Ron Natalie]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >,
>> Dallas > wrote:
>>
>>> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
>>> would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
>>> existence.
>> What subsidies?
>
> What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?
>
There isn't a single mode of transportation: airline, GA, rail, bus,
personal auto, in this country (and most) that doesn't operate with
some form of massive government subsidy.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-01-04, Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
>> subsidies. He's making a profit.
>
> How? What does he sell and how much does it cost?

When I lived in Houston, I was also based at a private field which far
from receiving subsidies - paid over $6000 in property taxes per month.

What they sold: Fuel and rent. They sold Jet-A and avgas, as well as
renting premesis (hangar space, workshops for mechanics, buildings for
a flight school, ground rent for the flying club, tiedowns). It was all
GA, no airline service at all. Most of the based aircraft were piston
powered: there was one jet - a small Lear, and one turboprop - a Jetprop
DLX Malibu conversion. Everything else was the typical GA piston fleet,
mostly singles and some light twins.

They were profitable (not wildly so - it had to be carefully managed to
remain in the black - but profitable, nonetheless). The
airfield never took a cent of public money through its lifetime.
Unfortunately, after 9-11, the middle Eastern owners decided that being
middle Eastern and in the airport business wasn't good, especially when
a property developer offered them top dollar for the land to put houses
on.

Hangarage was competitive with the subsidised airfields in Houston, as
was their fuel. (Having said that, hangarage was relatively expensive
all over the area: at the moment, if there WAS a hangar available, I
could get a hangar at Ronaldsway, an airport here with frequent airline
service, plus the flat rate annual fee for landings for slightly less than what
I was paying for hangarage in Houston at a pure GA airfield).

It is entirely possible for a GA airport to run without subsidy. Most of
the really expensive things you need such as control towers, ATC, and
fancy approaches, elaborate security, are needed for airlines; GA can
live quite happily without them.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Steve Foley]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
>> subsidies. He's making a profit.
>
> How? What does he sell and how much does it cost?

I pay a tie-down fee of $50/month, and I'm paying $4.50/gallon for fuel
(self-serve). The runway was paved in 1987. He's finished paying the
mortgage for that. There are twenty-five planes based there, so he's
collecting $1200/month in tie-down fees. He owns the land free and clear.
The place is pretty low maintenance. The tie-down areas are grass, except
where people have poured concrete pads. He's got a tractor to mow the lawn
with every other week or so in the summer. He also has an old highway plow
truck for the runway in the winter. Anyone with a plow on their truck shows
up to help out with the taxiways.

He's also an A&P/IA, and handles most of the aircraft maintenance/annuals on
the field. A few go elsewhere, but he's probably doing an average of two
annuals per month. A few people come in from elsewhere because they like his
work.

He recently gave up flight instruction. A guy who also instructed part time
retired from his full time job. He now does all of the instructing.

The runway is under 2000 feet long, so there is no commercial activity
(except flight instruction and the few photo flights). The pavement is not
thick enough to handle any large aircraft, so it didn't cost too much.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >,
>> Dallas > wrote:
>>
>>> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
>>> would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's
>>> existence.
>> What subsidies?
>
> What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?
>

Fuel Tax. Federal book keeping is way to fouled up to know.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it would be
>> fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.
>>
>
> I spent a lot if time trying to convince skylune that this was simply not
> true.
>
> I fly from a privately owned field. He does not qualify for gubmint
> subsidies. He's making a profit.
>
> 4.3NM away is a class D airport with a 7000' runway and a 5000' crosswind
> runway. The big airport spends over three million dollars a year salaries,
> maintenance, repairs, etc. They have been trying to attract an airline, but
> keep failing. The last air carrier that flew there lasted nine months.
>
> Because there is no airline service there, claims are made that the three
> million dollars is supporting GA.
>
> I still cannot fathom how the politicians can continue paying twenty five
> people to work at an airport that has no air carrier.
>
>

I can't either. ELD has scheduled service and only 2 employees. The
money the local government spends would be much better spent either
lobbying their congresscritter for EAS subsidy or just paying the 3
million a year to an airline.

[[email protected]]

Its not clear what the marginal cost of GA is in the US. Arguably it
is zero or negligible because all the infrastructure in place (control
towers, FSS etc) are there to serve the airlines and GA aircraft can
be refused many ATC services like flight following, access to class B
etc if the workload is too high. In other words, if all the GA traffic
in the US were to disappear overnight, the costs of running airports,
control towers etc is going to remain almost the same. I am not aware
of free services that exist solely for GA. Whatever costs are incurred
by GA are covered in part by a fuel surcharge.
There are landing fees for most passenger aircraft at larger airports.
Landing fees do not exist at smaller airports for GA traffic.

>
> No, I'm talking about airports only. If American airports don't ask for
> landing fees _and_ don't get subsidies, what the hell do they make
> money from? Their core business, namely offering a place where aircraft
> can land and take off, can't be it, cause it's free. They might make
> money from selling petrol (if they sell any), or from an associated
> restaurant, or from hangar rents. But you can do the same running a
> petrol station for cars, with a much lower investment, so it's not
> going to be very attractive businesswhise.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Royaume Uni douze points
>
> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> Bob Noel > wrote in
>> :
>>> In article >,
>>> Dallas > wrote:
>>>
>>>> As much as we hate government involvement in general, I think it
>>>> would be fair to say that the U.S. subsides GA to encourage it's existence.
>>> What subsidies?
>>
>> What revenues do they get? Do they run at a loss?
>>
> There isn't a single mode of transportation: airline, GA, rail, bus,
> personal auto, in this country (and most) that doesn't operate with
> some form of massive government subsidy.

It even extends down to bicycling and hiking trails and the sidewalk in front of your
house, for that matter. Infrastructure is one of those things that can't generally be
built, maintained, and paid for by individuals or private industry. So the political
battles are not over "whether to" but "who" and "what" and "how much".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:2719daaa-7016-48b4-a6ab-4fec6d60bd62
@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> Its not clear what the marginal cost of GA is in the US. Arguably it
> is zero



Well of course it is. All you need is air and a bit of grass!



Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:

> No, I'm talking about airports only. If American airports don't ask for
> landing fees _and_ don't get subsidies, what the hell do they make
> money from?

Ma$$port charges $120/month for a lousy tie-down. T-hangers are
now more than $600/month.

Ma$$port also has Transient parking fees, landing fees, and grabs
2% of gross revenues for the business dumb enough to stay at KBED.

If Ma$$port is losing money at KBED they only need to look in
the mirror for the cause.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)