Is this the death of GA

[[email protected]]

I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
$2.30).

I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
sailboating instead.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).
>
> I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
> amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
> sailboating instead.

Isn't a graduate degree supposed to provide enough additional income to
compensate?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
>> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
>> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
>> $2.30).
>>
>> I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
>> amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
>> sailboating instead.
>
> Isn't a graduate degree supposed to provide enough additional income to
> compensate?
>


Says the beggar.



Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 9:41*am, " >
wrote:
> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).
>
> I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
> amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
> sailboating instead.

Don't think so, from the looks of all these new ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cLCMRNagq0&feature=related

Check out 3:29, Looks like a New Cri Cri. At 4:11 Looks lik a New
AeroCar.

Wil

[Steve Foley]

> wrote in message
...
>I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).
>
> I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
> amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
> sailboating instead.

If it was cheap and easy, everyone would be doing to.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Feb 23, 9:41*am, " >
wrote:
> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).

Have you tried the www.100ll.com site to find the cheapest avgas
price in your area? Full service FBO at large airports typically
charges a lot more than self-serve pumps at smaller airports. For
example, I had just checked the site for avgas price at KBUF in
comparison to the little next door airport KBQR in Buffalo, NY. KBUF
full service 100LL is $4.93 vs. $4.09 at KBQR.
Avgas has risen in the last few years, but the same goes with auto
gas. In my area, we are paying $4.05 for avgas and $3.65 or so for
premium gasoline so the price difference is quite small. I recalled
that for several times last year, avgas prices were lower than auto
gas prices.
I was just browsing an aviation forum today and was amused to read
a post stating that flying was an expensive addiction but it was still
cheaper than drug, alcohol or a mistress ;-)
For us, the biggest flying expenses have always been maintenance
and upkeep. We had just received a $900 bill from our A&P for fixing
a broken flap bracket and replacing the flap cable. It was $64 for
the parts and over $800 for labor. This was with my husband doing all
the grunt work!
Flying expense is a big part of our living budget, but it has been
an indispensable part ever since we stepped in a small cockpit, pulled
up the yokes and transformed ourselves into inhabitants of the sky. So
I will continue to skimp and save, drive my 15-year old car to the
ground, bake my own bread, don't eat out, wear my threadbare socks
until they become too 'holy' etc., saving a dollar here and a dollar
there to maintain my sky membership.

Hai Longworth

[Denny]

So
> I will continue to skimp and save, drive my 15-year old car to the
> ground, bake my own bread, don't eat out, wear my threadbare socks
> until they become too 'holy' etc., saving a dollar here and a dollar
> there to maintain my sky membership.
>
> Hai Longworth

Where were you when I was young and single... Jeez, some guys have all
the luck...

denny

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> If it was cheap and easy, everyone would be doing to.

If it's difficult and expensive, it may dwindle until the general public
begins to wonder why they put up with it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> If it was cheap and easy, everyone would be doing to.
>
> If it's difficult and expensive, it may dwindle until the general public
> begins to wonder why they put up with it.


Yeh, right. So, you're an idiot with no sense of humor and you're lame.

We get it.





Bertie

[terry]

On Feb 24, 5:39*am, Longworth > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:41*am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> > ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> > avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> > $2.30).
>
> * *Have you tried thewww.100ll.comsite to find the cheapest avgas
> price in your area? *Full service FBO at large airports typically
> charges a lot more than self-serve pumps at smaller airports. For
> example, I had just checked the site for avgas price at KBUF in
> comparison to the little next door airport KBQR in Buffalo, NY. *KBUF
> full service 100LL is $4.93 vs. $4.09 at KBQR.
> * *Avgas has risen in the last few years, but the same goes with auto
> gas. *In my area, we are paying $4.05 for avgas and $3.65 or so for
> premium gasoline so the price difference is quite small. *I recalled
> that for several times last year, avgas prices were lower than auto
> gas prices.
> * *I was just browsing an aviation forum today and was amused to read
> a post stating that flying was an expensive addiction but it was still
> cheaper than drug, alcohol or a mistress ;-)
> * * For us, the biggest flying expenses have always been maintenance
> and upkeep. *We had just received a $900 bill from our A&P for fixing
> a broken flap bracket and replacing the flap cable. *It was $64 for
> the parts and over $800 for labor. *This was with my husband doing all
> the grunt work!
> * * Flying expense is a big part of our living budget, but it has been
> an indispensable part ever since we stepped in a small cockpit, pulled
> up the yokes and transformed ourselves into inhabitants of the sky. So
> I will continue to skimp and save, drive my 15-year old car to the
> ground, bake my own bread, don't eat out, wear my threadbare socks
> until they become too 'holy' *etc., saving a dollar here and a dollar
> there to maintain my sky membership.
>
what about feeding the kids every other day.... helps with the obestiy
epdiemic at the same time! :<(
Terry

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Feb 23, 1:39*pm, Longworth > wrote:
> * *Have you tried thewww.100ll.comsite to find the cheapest avgas
> price in your area? *Full service FBO at large airports typically
> charges a lot more than self-serve pumps at smaller airports. For
> example, I had just checked the site for avgas price at KBUF in
> comparison to the little next door airport KBQR in Buffalo, NY. *KBUF
> full service 100LL is $4.93 vs. $4.09 at KBQR.

I had just reread my posting and found a typo. KBUF's 100LL price
is $5.93 and not $4.93 which is almost $2 more/gal than KBQR. The
latter has been our half-way fuel stop before entering Canada's
airspace on our way to Michigan. We make the NY-MI trips several times
a year.
Buffalo Lanscater is a great little airport. We were usually there
during weekends when the FBO were not open but had ran into a number
of very friendly local pilots during our fuel/lunch breaks.

Hai Longworth

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Feb 23, 2:32*pm, terry > wrote:
> what about feeding the kids every other day.... helps with the obestiy
> epdiemic at the same time! :<(

Terry,
When my kid was young, we always worried about her being
underweight, not eating enough. The pediatrician had to assure that
kids would eat whatever amount that they needed.
Even if my kid had munched all day, there was no way that she
would get fat eating whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. The
empty calories in soft drinks and twinkies are the key ingredients of
obesity.
Back to the topic of aviation cost, I truly believe it that if
one is committed to flying, one would find a way to do it. People
don't keep track of their small expenses but they do add up. For
example, brewing your own coffee or heading to Dunkin Donut instead of
Starbuck can easily add up to at least one hour of flying a month.
Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
(always less value per unit)

Aviation has never been "cheap."

$5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. ( http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)

So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in today's
dollars.

Which is about right.

When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
(wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).

He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)

Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.



Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
> everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
> (always less value per unit)
>
> Aviation has never been "cheap."
>
> $5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. (
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)
>
> So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in today's
> dollars.
>
> Which is about right.
>
> When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
> (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).


Then he was paying over twice what he would have at an FBO.

In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15





Bertie

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>

Wow... only three years after the battle of Hastings.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:fI%vj.4819$7d1.1067
@news01.roc.ny:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>
>
> Wow... only three years after the battle of Hastings.
>

Ooops 1969

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
>
>
> > It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
> > everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
> > (always less value per unit)
>
> > Aviation has never been "cheap."
>
> > $5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. (
> >http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)
>
> > So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in today's
> > dollars.
>
> > Which is about right.
>
> > When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
> > (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).
>
> Then he was paying over twice what he would have at an FBO.
>
> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>
> Bertie

True.

But, this was in Jersey (Caldwell) where everything is always far more
expensive for the dubious privilege of experiencing it in New Jersey.

Everybody hates New Jersey -- but somebody has to live there.

Dan

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:39:04 -0800 (PST), Longworth
> wrote:

>On Feb 23, 9:41*am, " >
>wrote:
>> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
>> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
>> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
>> $2.30).
>
> Have you tried the www.100ll.com site to find the cheapest avgas
>price in your area?

It sounds like he's buying gas at Westchester or Teterboro. <G>

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
>In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>

How much would Caesar have paid to rent?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:b73e40b0-849e-4e59-9b72-

>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
>> > everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
>> > (always less value per unit)
>>
>> > Aviation has never been "cheap."
>>
>> > $5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. (
>> >http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)
>>
>> > So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in
>> > today's dollars.
>>
>> > Which is about right.
>>
>> > When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/
>> > hour (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month
>> > dues).
>>
>> Then he was paying over twice what he would have at an FBO.
>>
>> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>
>> Bertie
>
> True.
>
> But, this was in Jersey (Caldwell) where everything is always far more
> expensive for the dubious privilege of experiencing it in New Jersey.
>
> Everybody hates New Jersey -- but somebody has to live there.

This was also in New Jersey... A cherokee wouldn't have hit 25 an hour
until the late seventies at least.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>
>
> How much would Caesar have paid to rent?
>

Groan!


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
> (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).
>
> He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
> V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)
>
> Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.

So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be about the
same for him.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
>> (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).
>>
>> He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
>> V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)
>>
>> Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.
>
> So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be
> about the same for him.
>


What's it to you? You don't fly.


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:20:44 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>B A R R Y > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>>
>>
>> How much would Caesar have paid to rent?
>>
>
>Groan!
>
>
>bertie


I thought we were working backward!

[muff528]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>
>
> How much would Caesar have paid to rent?

Wouldn't Caesar have been over 1100 years old in 1069. The Holy Roman Empire
Aviation Administration probably would have pulled his ticket by then. Or
maybe you mean Augustus. He WAS a few years younger. :-)

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:21 GMT, "muff528" >
wrote:

>
>"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>>
>>
>> How much would Caesar have paid to rent?
>
>Wouldn't Caesar have been over 1100 years old in 1069. The Holy Roman Empire
>Aviation Administration probably would have pulled his ticket by then. Or
>maybe you mean Augustus. He WAS a few years younger. :-)


Of course! Since I thought Bertie was working backward in time...

Cro-magnon man would get paid to rent!

[Gene Seibel]

On Feb 23, 8:41*am, " >
wrote:
> I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).
>
> I know the price of gas has gone up but man, those increases have been
> amplified in aviation. It looks like I am going to have to take up
> sailboating instead.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 4:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:b73e40b0-849e-4e59-9b72-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
> >> > everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
> >> > (always less value per unit)
>
> >> > Aviation has never been "cheap."
>
> >> > $5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. (
> >> >http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)
>
> >> > So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in
> >> > today's dollars.
>
> >> > Which is about right.
>
> >> > When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/
> >> > hour (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month
> >> > dues).
>
> >> Then he was paying over twice what he would have at an FBO.
>
> >> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > True.
>
> > But, this was in Jersey (Caldwell) where everything is always far more
> > expensive for the dubious privilege of experiencing it in New Jersey.
>
> > Everybody hates New Jersey -- but somebody has to live there.
>
> This was also in New Jersey... A cherokee wouldn't have hit 25 an hour
> until the late seventies at least.
>
> Bertie

Hmm..

Probably the case -- I don't think I paid attention to anything more
than $10 until '73 or so...

I'll amend and say when he told me how much it cost I remember $25/
hour.

that was 74ish..?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 23, 4:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:6188c88e-8824-4ce1-ab15-e7e3822d91c9
@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 3:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>> >> innews:b73e40b0-849e-4e59-9b72-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > It's true that aviation costs have increased, but the price of
>> >> > everything has increased as the value of money changes over time
>> >> > (always less value per unit)
>>
>> >> > Aviation has never been "cheap."
>>
>> >> > $5.00 2008 dollars equals 81 cents in 1967 dollars. (
>> >> >http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)
>>
>> >> > So $25/ hour rental for an airplane in 1975 should be $104 in
>> >> > today's dollars.
>>
>> >> > Which is about right.
>>
>> >> > When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/
>> >> > hour (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month
>> >> > dues).
>>
>> >> Then he was paying over twice what he would have at an FBO.
>>
>> >> In 1069 a Cessna 150 was 8-10 an hour and a cherokee was 12-15
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > True.
>>
>> > But, this was in Jersey (Caldwell) where everything is always far
>> > more expensive for the dubious privilege of experiencing it in New
>> > Jersey.
>>
>> > Everybody hates New Jersey -- but somebody has to live there.
>>
>> This was also in New Jersey... A cherokee wouldn't have hit 25 an
>> hour until the late seventies at least.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hmm..
>
> Probably the case -- I don't think I paid attention to anything more
> than $10 until '73 or so...
>
> I'll amend and say when he told me how much it cost I remember $25/
> hour.
>
> that was 74ish..?
>

Nah, much later for a Cherokee 140,. and that was at an FBO. remember,
gas was only a bit over 60 cents a gallon in 74. Even in 78 I remember
flying a Citabria for under 20 an hour and that has the same engine. I
was paying $14 an hour for a 172, club rates, in 1976. That was wet
BTW. I think Monthly dues were about the same. If you were in the NYC
area it was probably a few bucks more, but only a few.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> Ooops 1969

That's the year I was born :)

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 5:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > that was 74ish..?
>
> Nah, much later for a Cherokee 140,. and that was at an FBO. remember,
> gas was only a bit over 60 cents a gallon in 74. Even in 78 I remember
> flying a Citabria for under 20 an hour and that has the same engine. I
> was paying $14 an hour for a 172, club rates, in 1976. That was wet
> BTW. I think Monthly dues were about the same. If you were in the NYC
> area it was probably a few bucks more, but only a few.
>
> Bertie

$20/hour in 76 would be $76/hour today. $14 = $53.

Any 172s here in Western Pennsylvania run around $90/hour at an FBO.

Based on this (albeit tiny) data, we can assume the costs of aviation
have exceeded net inflation.

I would expect the additional costs would be due to the faster-than-
inflation rise in the cost of insurance + and the cost of replacement
parts (most parts have insurance costs embedded in them as well).

An interesting study would be the liability insurance burden of the
cost of an airplane built in 1974 and one built in 2008.

But there has to be a cost reduction factor as well, due to increased
efficiency in all aspects of production.

Any economists or industry savvy CPAs care to chime in?

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> Ooops 1969
>
> That's the year I was born :)

So you're to blame for the rising cost!

Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Longworth > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:32*pm, terry > wrote:
>
> > what about feeding the kids every other day.... helps with the obestiy
> > epdiemic at the same time! :<(
>
> * *Terry,
> * * When my kid was young, *we always worried about her being
> underweight, not eating enough. *The pediatrician had to assure that
> kids would eat whatever amount that they needed.
> * * *Even if my kid had munched all day, there was no way that she
> would get fat eating whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. *The
> empty calories in soft drinks and twinkies are the key ingredients of
> obesity.
> * * *Back to the topic of aviation cost, *I truly believe it that if
> one is committed to flying, one would find a way to do it. *People
> don't keep track of their small expenses but they do add up. *For
> example, brewing your own coffee or heading to Dunkin Donut instead of
> Starbuck can easily add up to at least one hour of flying a month.
> Hai Longworth

I agree Hai, people always seam to not 'watch every penny' as much
when it comes to their hobbies. They/we always find ways to cut back
elsewhere. I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
high end monitors and joysticks...etc.

Wil

[Mxsmanic]

William Hung writes:

> I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
> compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
> high end monitors and joysticks...etc.

That is impossible without money.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:fffc515b-81e9-
:

> On Feb 23, 5:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > that was 74ish..?
>>
>> Nah, much later for a Cherokee 140,. and that was at an FBO.
remember,
>> gas was only a bit over 60 cents a gallon in 74. Even in 78 I
remember
>> flying a Citabria for under 20 an hour and that has the same engine.
I
>> was paying $14 an hour for a 172, club rates, in 1976. That was wet
>> BTW. I think Monthly dues were about the same. If you were in the NYC
>> area it was probably a few bucks more, but only a few.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> $20/hour in 76 would be $76/hour today. $14 = $53.
>
> Any 172s here in Western Pennsylvania run around $90/hour at an FBO.
>
> Based on this (albeit tiny) data, we can assume the costs of aviation
> have exceeded net inflation.

Definitely.
>
> I would expect the additional costs would be due to the faster-than-
> inflation rise in the cost of insurance + and the cost of replacement
> parts (most parts have insurance costs embedded in them as well).
>
> An interesting study would be the liability insurance burden of the
> cost of an airplane built in 1974 and one built in 2008.
>
> But there has to be a cost reduction factor as well, due to increased
> efficiency in all aspects of production.

Well, we're still flying the same airplanes for the most part!

I think theyre mor expensive to buy new as well..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
>> compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
>> high end monitors and joysticks...etc.
>
> That is impossible without money.
>

Finally, something you know something about. Not having money.


Bertie

[terry]

On Feb 24, 6:56*am, Longworth > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:32*pm, terry > wrote:
>
> > what about feeding the kids every other day.... helps with the obestiy
> > epdiemic at the same time! :<(
>
> * *Terry,
> * * When my kid was young, *we always worried about her being
> underweight, not eating enough. *The pediatrician had to assure that
> kids would eat whatever amount that they needed.
> * * *Even if my kid had munched all day, there was no way that she
> would get fat eating whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. *The
> empty calories in soft drinks and twinkies are the key ingredients of
> obesity.
> * * *Back to the topic of aviation cost, *I truly believe it that if
> one is committed to flying, one would find a way to do it. *People
> don't keep track of their small expenses but they do add up. *For
> example, brewing your own coffee or heading to Dunkin Donut instead of
> Starbuck can easily add up to at least one hour of flying a month.
> Hai Longworth

I am sure you look after your kids just fine Hai, and so do I.
It was just my warped sense of humor at play. I know what you mean
about finding a way.
I fly about 40 to 50 hrs a year max which cost me just over $100 a
week. I have friends who think that is expensive but think nothing
of ****ing the same amount up against the wall after a night at the
bar.! Would be great if you could do both actually.
Terry

Terry

[Steve Foley]

"William Hung" > wrote in message
...

>I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
>compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
>high end monitors and joysticks...etc.

MX cries poverty and begs for money, but he's probably on a first-name basis
with every McDonald's employee between his apartment and the school he
teaches at.

I'm sure even if he had all that junk he wouldn't admit it. It wouldn't fit
his image.

[Steve Foley]

"terry" > wrote in message
...

>I fly about 40 to 50 hrs a year max which cost me just over $100 a
>week. I have friends who think that is expensive but think nothing
>of ****ing the same amount up against the wall after a night at the
>bar.! Would be great if you could do both actually.
>Terry

You can, but the correct order of operations is very important <g>

(it also helps to have a brother who's a bartender)

[William Hung]

On Feb 23, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:
> > I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
> > compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
> > high end monitors and joysticks...etc.
>
> That is impossible without money.

Got to have the best to sim reallity. Anyways, you're a smart fella,
surely you have found ways to make money on the side. You must have
splurged once or twice, how else can you enjoy simming? You must have
found ways of making money to supplement your English teaching
income. I mean you are of above average intellect aren't you?

Wil

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> So you're to blame for the rising cost!

Damn. That must be it. I assumed it was something to do with the moon
landings (the day I was born as it happens).

:)

Andy

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:

> > I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
> > compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
> > high end monitors and joysticks...etc.

> That is impossible without money.

So get a real job.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> So you're to blame for the rising cost!
>
> Damn. That must be it. I assumed it was something to do with the moon
> landings (the day I was born as it happens).

Wow! So your parents are probably one of a tiny handful who missed it!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 6:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > An interesting study would be the liability insurance burden of the
> > cost of an airplane built in 1974 and one built in 2008.
>
> > But there has to be a cost reduction factor as well, due to increased
> > efficiency in all aspects of production.
>
> Well, we're still flying the same airplanes for the most part!
>
> I think theyre mor expensive to buy new as well..
>
> Bertie

True! The majority of SEL available to rent in 2008 are pre 1980
vintage.

Though I can't complain about that, as I fly a 1947 Straight 35 (V
tail) from time to time.

How much is a new 172 today? $250k? It would have to cost $60k in 1975
to be equivalent.

With the focus of liability suits towards the deepest pockets, I'm
sure a huge chuck of any new a/c price is cash for the war chest.

Dan

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> Wow! So your parents are probably one of a tiny handful who missed it!

Well, my mum did. In those days, my dad was probably at home!

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:9f6a9de2-527a-
:

> On Feb 23, 6:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > An interesting study would be the liability insurance burden of the
>> > cost of an airplane built in 1974 and one built in 2008.
>>
>> > But there has to be a cost reduction factor as well, due to
increased
>> > efficiency in all aspects of production.
>>
>> Well, we're still flying the same airplanes for the most part!
>>
>> I think theyre mor expensive to buy new as well..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> True! The majority of SEL available to rent in 2008 are pre 1980
> vintage.
>
> Though I can't complain about that, as I fly a 1947 Straight 35 (V
> tail) from time to time.
>
> How much is a new 172 today? $250k? It would have to cost $60k in 1975
> to be equivalent.

I don't think they were even near that much. Probably about half that.
Maybe a bit more.
>
> With the focus of liability suits towards the deepest pockets, I'm
> sure a huge chuck of any new a/c price is cash for the war chest.

Yeah, more than likely.


Bertie
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> Wow! So your parents are probably one of a tiny handful who missed it!
>
> Well, my mum did. In those days, my dad was probably at home!

Was pretty cool


Bertie

[Lee McGee]

Tough to find which post in this long thread to correctly reply to, my
apologies.

But I do have some thoughts...

Disposable income aside, I believe that this is the death of old-school GA,
and it is the birth of 21st century GA.

Airplanes that burn 8 GPH, 14 GPH and especially old twins burning 28GPH
(or more) are going to probably be dead except for the well-off hobbyists
who love then and can still afford to fly them. I was just at an AOPA town
hall the other night and one of the older pilots (aren't we mostly all old?)
in the room remarked that his biggest problem in GA was paying $400 to
refill the tanks of his B55 Baron after a flight!

I think that operating cost is the big issue for our older airplanes, newer
airplanes such as Cirrus, Diamonds, etc are going to look more and more
appealing, these are the future. Now - envision these with REALLY
efficient new technology engines, not Lycomings or Continentals... and
environmentally sound low-carbon engines, and this is the future of GA.

Usually I fly alone or with one other person. I rent these days. The
model year 2000 Diamond DA-20 I rent goes 150mph at 5.5 GPH. This would
be an OK airplane to own in the 21st century. You can buy them used <
$100k.

Get used to it. Our old airplanes might still be worth a little more year
after year, but they aren't worth a fraction of the price of new, capable,
more efficient modern GA airplanes.

Thanks, and this just an opinion,

I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)

Lee McGee


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> When my father flew in the late 60s and early 70s, he paid $25/ hour
>> (wet) for a Cherokee 140 as a member of a club ($25/month dues).
>>
>> He also bought a new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 for $1900. (2 doors, 302
>> V-8, foam green with Landau vinyl roof -- sweet)
>>
>> Of course he was proud to earn $200+/week.
>
> So if he earned $104,000 a year today, the cost of aviation would be about
> the
> same for him.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 9:01 pm, "Lee McGee" > wrote:
>
> I think that operating cost is the big issue for our older airplanes, newer
> airplanes such as Cirrus, Diamonds, etc are going to look more and more
> appealing, these are the future. Now - envision these with REALLY
> efficient new technology engines, not Lycomings or Continentals... and
> environmentally sound low-carbon engines, and this is the future of GA.

>
> I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)

I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."

Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.

Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 8:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Was pretty cool
>
> Bertie

Yeah. That walking on the moon thing.

cool.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-24, > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:01 pm, "Lee McGee" > wrote:
>> I drive a Prius. This probably puts my comments in perspective. :-)
> I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."
> Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
> Vanilli.

What he said.

Wanna drive a Prius? Good for you. I personally couldn't have one, since it
doesn't meet my mission requirements due to a terminal and severe lack of
storage space - the one I had as a rental had barely enough room for my two
carryon-sized suitcases and a briefcase.

With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea, not
because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less expensive to
operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one reason I'm even
looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "HL" == Longworth > writes:
HL> For
HL> us, the biggest flying expenses have always been maintenance
HL> and upkeep.

A big reason why I'm embarking on building an RV-9A. Brand-new
airplane and I'll own the repairman's certificate.

--
"He has Van Gogh's ear for music."
-Billy Wilder

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Fry > wrote:
>>>>>> "HL" == Longworth > writes:
> HL> For
> HL> us, the biggest flying expenses have always been maintenance
> HL> and upkeep.
>
> A big reason why I'm embarking on building an RV-9A. Brand-new
> airplane and I'll own the repairman's certificate.

And for cheaper flying you can throttle back and get good miles per dollar
(well you can do that in any plane, but the RV series are pretty efficient
airframes).

I bought the RV-9A plans set but just haven't been able to commit to it.
(Still a bathroom and kitchen remodel to do first anyway!) The only other
low-wing homebuilt that I keep considering is the Arion Lightning.

And now today I heard Randy Schlitter say the Rans S-19 was designed for a
1475 lb gross. So if one didn't need to stay within the 1320 lb LSA limits,
its heavier than expected weight of 820 lbs need not be held against it. Of
course it still couldn't keep up with the RV-9A or Lightning, so it would
be an inferior cross country plane to those two on a speed basis.

But yeah, I think the future of GA is in smaller planes and of course
homebuilts.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 24, 12:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:
> > I bet even MX splurches on hit sim equipment such as a
> > compfortable chair, memories, high end graphics card, sound system,
> > high end monitors and joysticks...etc.
>
> That is impossible without money.

Try getting off your butt and do some work!

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

William Hung writes:

> Got to have the best to sim reallity.

Not really. All types of simulation simulate reality, with varying degrees of
success. Part of the simulation is the simulator, part of the simulation is a
willingness to use one's imagination and suspend disbelief to enhance realism.
Pilots don't profit very much from simulator training if they continually say
to themselves that it's not real.

> Anyways, you're a smart fella, surely you have found ways to make money
> on the side.

It's a difficult task where I live, as there are many barriers to
entrepreneurs, and I'm not much of a salesman, as you might well imagine.
Additionally, I insist on doing everything legally, which hugely diminishes
the amount of money one can make with a given activity in a given amount of
time, even if things go well.

> You must have splurged once or twice, how else can you enjoy simming?

I've spent hardly anything on flight simulation over the years. One nice
thing about flight simulation is that it costs almost nothing compared to most
hobbies, and I can fly for thousands of hours and it's nearly free. The money
I've spent on flight simulation wouldn't even pay for one hour in a small
aircraft in the real world, and I've been into flight simulation since it was
a jumble of white lines on a screen.

> You must have found ways of making money to supplement your English teaching
> income.

None that aren't very random and seasonal.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So get a real job.

I have one, but not all real jobs are lucrative. Sometimes they don't even
pay the bills, much less the (very modest) cost of fancy flight simulation,
and still less the cost of flying for real.

[Mxsmanic]

Owner writes:

> About $235k stock and over $250k if you add a/c :)

What types of instruments and avionics are included in the stock airplane?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Maynard writes:

> With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea, not
> because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
> our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less expensive to
> operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one reason I'm even
> looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
> having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.

So why are the vast majority of small aircraft powered by engines that were
designed during the Second World War at the latest?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > So get a real job.

> I have one, but not all real jobs are lucrative. Sometimes they don't even
> pay the bills, much less the (very modest) cost of fancy flight simulation,
> and still less the cost of flying for real.

Yes, it is difficult to find a good paying job when one has no skills,
either marketable or social.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Feb 24, 4:37*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:
> > Got to have the best to sim reallity.
>
> Not really. *All types of simulation simulate reality, with varying degrees of
> success. *Part of the simulation is the simulator, part of the simulation is a
> willingness to use one's imagination and suspend disbelief to enhance realism.
> Pilots don't profit very much from simulator training if they continually say
> to themselves that it's not real.
>
> > Anyways, you're a smart fella, surely you have found ways to make money
> > on the side.
>
> It's a difficult task where I live, as there are many barriers to
> entrepreneurs, and I'm not much of a salesman, as you might well imagine.
> Additionally, I insist on doing everything legally, which hugely diminishes
> the amount of money one can make with a given activity in a given amount of
> time, even if things go well.

If you lived in Bombay, I might nearly be able to empathise. But you
live in Paris in a wealthy Western economy. And who says you have to
stay there, are you in prison? And why do you have to be an
entrepreneur or a salesman? Most people who fly airplanes are not
entrepreneurs or salesman. We just get off our butts and work, and
thats perfectly legal in every country I have visited, including
France.
Terry

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> If you lived in Bombay, I might nearly be able to empathise. But you
> live in Paris in a wealthy Western economy.

What does that have to do with it?

> And who says you have to stay there, are you in prison?

You have to live in a place you like, or you will be unhappy.

> And why do you have to be an entrepreneur or a salesman?

Because it's extremely difficult to find a job working for someone else.

> Most people who fly airplanes are not entrepreneurs or salesman.

A surprising number of them seem to be self-employed.

> We just get off our butts and work ...

So do entrepreneurs and salespeople.

[Mxsmanic]

Owner writes:

> See the stock & optional equipment here:
>
> http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in favor of
more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments), for safety
reasons.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Owner" > wrote in news:47c0dadf$0$6131
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> " > wrote in news:9f6a9de2-527a-
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 6:38 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > An interesting study would be the liability insurance burden of
the
>>>> > cost of an airplane built in 1974 and one built in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> > But there has to be a cost reduction factor as well, due to
>> increased
>>>> > efficiency in all aspects of production.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we're still flying the same airplanes for the most part!
>>>>
>>>> I think theyre mor expensive to buy new as well..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> True! The majority of SEL available to rent in 2008 are pre 1980
>>> vintage.
>>>
>>> Though I can't complain about that, as I fly a 1947 Straight 35 (V
>>> tail) from time to time.
>>>
>>> How much is a new 172 today? $250k? It would have to cost $60k in
1975
>>> to be equivalent.
>>
>> I don't think they were even near that much. Probably about half
that.
>> Maybe a bit more.
>
> About $235k stock and over $250k if you add a/c :)



Were. As in 1975


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Owner writes:
>
>> About $235k stock and over $250k if you add a/c :)
>
> What types of instruments and avionics are included in the stock
> airplane?
>

What does it matter? You'll never fly one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Owner writes:
>
>> See the stock & optional equipment here:
>>
>> http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in
> favor of more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments),
> for safety reasons.
>


Good grief.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:f1b09b79-0a98-45cc-
:

> On Feb 23, 8:29 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Was pretty cool
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah. That walking on the moon thing.
>
> cool.
>

It still takes my breath away. I'd happily place my right arm on the table.
But of course, it takes more than that..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> Got to have the best to sim reallity.
>
> Not really. All types of simulation simulate reality, with varying
> degrees of success. Part of the simulation is the simulator, part of
> the simulation is a willingness to use one's imagination and suspend
> disbelief to enhance realism. Pilots don't profit very much from
> simulator training if they continually say to themselves that it's not
> real.

Lewis Carrol lives

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> Got to have the best to sim reallity.
>
> Not really. All types of simulation simulate reality, with varying
> degrees of success. Part of the simulation is the simulator, part of
> the simulation is a willingness to use one's imagination and suspend
> disbelief to enhance realism. Pilots don't profit very much from
> simulator training if they continually say to themselves that it's not
> real.

The BSD is a perfect simulation of your brain hard at work.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> If you lived in Bombay, I might nearly be able to empathise. But you
>> live in Paris in a wealthy Western economy.
>
> What does that have to do with it?
>
>> And who says you have to stay there, are you in prison?
>
> You have to live in a place you like, or you will be unhappy.
>
>> And why do you have to be an entrepreneur or a salesman?
>
> Because it's extremely difficult to find a job working for someone else.


No, it isn't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> So get a real job.
>
> I have one, but not all real jobs are lucrative. Sometimes they don't
> even pay the bills, much less the (very modest) cost of fancy flight
> simulation, and still less the cost of flying for real.


If you had a real job, you could fly.

And flying in France is relatively cheap.

therefore, you are both an idiot and a liar.

Bertie
>

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Owner writes:
>
>> See the stock & optional equipment here:
>>
>> http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in
> favor of more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments),
> for safety reasons.
>

As usual, you don't know **** from shinola.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Maynard writes:
>
>> With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea,
>> not because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of
>> that out of our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less
>> expensive to operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one
>> reason I'm even looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my
>> lingering misgivings about having an engine my local mechanic can't
>> fix.
>
> So why are the vast majority of small aircraft powered by engines that
> were designed during the Second World War at the latest?
>

They aren['t


Bertie

[terry]

On Feb 24, 7:07*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > If you lived in Bombay, I might nearly be able to empathise. But you
> > live in Paris in a wealthy Western economy.
>
> What does that have to do with it?
Too obvious to answer

> > And who says you have to stay there, are you in prison?
>
> You have to live in a place you like, or you will be unhappy

you like a place where no one is willing to give you meaningful,
fairly paid employment?
I think that would make most people extremely unhappy.

> > And why do you have to be an entrepreneur or a salesman?
>
> Because it's extremely difficult to find a job working for someone else.
Extremely difficult? Most people work for someone else. The
unemployment rate in Western Countries is rarely greater than 10%
usually much lower, which means the vast majority of people find
employment. And people are generally unemployed temporarily as they go
in and out of jobs. Permanent unemployement is a sign of a problem
that you really need to deal with.

> > Most people who fly airplanes are not entrepreneurs or salesman.
>
> A surprising number of them seem to be self-employed.
many airplane owners are self employed because owning a business ,
requires taking a lot of risk , and usually considerable skills in a
particular area, a wealthy person is thus more likely to a business
owner than an employee. But most people who fly, like myself , do not
own an airplane and simply rent with disposable income from working
for other people or companies.

> > We just get off our butts and work .
>
> So do entrepreneurs and salespeople.
so do garbage collectors and doctors, whats your point? As you clearly
stated you are not cut out to be an entreprenuer or salesman, neither
am I, but so what, I am not cut out for hundreds of occupations, but
you dont need to be , you only have to find one. That could be
English Teaching. People make perfectly good, if not exceptional
incomes from teaching, certainly enough to be able to learn to fly and
live a comfortable life without begging. I think the bottom line is
you dont really want to participate in the real world do you?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 3:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > Yeah. That walking on the moon thing.
>
> > cool.
>
> It still takes my breath away. I'd happily place my right arm on the table.
> But of course, it takes more than that..
>
> Bertie

I was in Quebec City and we were all at my Grandmother's house. All
the English was in HUGE subtitles and all the dialogue was in
"recreated" French, complete with the beeps.

I didn't actually hear Armstrong say "one small step for man.." until
years later.

My Father was a bartender at the Ramp Restaurant just off Route 22
near Newark Airport. It was a pilot hangout -- including Buzz Aldrin
(after Apollo 11).

Apparently at that time Buzz was a very regular customer.

Dan

[kontiki]

wrote:
>>
> I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."
>
> Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
> Vanilli.
>
> And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
> care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.
>
> Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.
>
>
Well stated Sir. This 'carbon footprint' BS is simply the excuse for
some massive new tax scams and personal freedom restrictions that this
country has ever seen since FDR.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 7:43 am, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."
>
> > Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
> > Vanilli.
>
> > And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
> > care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.
>
> > Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.
>
> Well stated Sir. This 'carbon footprint' BS is simply the excuse for
> some massive new tax scams and personal freedom restrictions that this
> country has ever seen since FDR.

Roger that.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
> traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> $2.30).

Two words: Car gas.

Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in a
state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying can
still be affordable.

We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through our
home-made fuel truck (see it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm ) into our airplanes, at a
savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.

Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one of
very few win-win situations in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 9:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Airbus writes:
> > What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
> > traditional instruments?
>
> Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
> too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

Hold on...

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

How do you know how much testing and of what type?

"Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

Holy cow -- I just saw who posted that response.

Oy.

To the real pilots with G1000 experience:

My only beef with the G1000 equipped 182 is the lack of a TC. I like
those things. Personal preference.

The system would be nigh perfect if it had synthetic topography and
obstacle display.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> > ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> > avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> > $2.30).
>
> Two words: Car gas.
>
> Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in a
> state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying can
> still be affordable.
>
> We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through our
> home-made fuel truck (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our airplanes, at a
> savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.
>
> Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
> AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one of
> very few win-win situations in aviation.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Pretty cool!

Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.

I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
>> traditional instruments?
>
> Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much
> complexity, too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of
> digital systems.
>

If you flew, you would know if that was safe or not..


But you don't

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4
>> >years
>> > ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
>> > avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
>> > $2.30).
>>
>> Two words: Car gas.
>>
>> Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live
>> in a state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and
>> flying can still be affordable.
>>
>> We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas
>> through our home-made fuel truck (see it
>> here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our
>> airplanes, at a savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per
>> gallon.
>>
>> Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less
>> expensive. AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded
>> fuel. It's one of very few win-win situations in aviation.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Pretty cool!
>
> Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.
>
> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
> to lose an airplane AND a building.

Damned safety nuts.


Bertie

[Allen[_1_]]

--

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > >I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
> > > ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
> > > avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
> > > $2.30).
> >
> > Two words: Car gas.
> >
> > Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in
a
> > state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying
can
> > still be affordable.
> >
> > We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through
our
> > home-made fuel truck (see it
here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our airplanes,
at a
> > savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.
> >
> > Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
> > AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one
of
> > very few win-win situations in aviation.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Pretty cool!
>
> Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.
>
> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
> to lose an airplane AND a building.
>
> Dan

That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
assume it is for the reason you state.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 9:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
> > to lose an airplane AND a building.
>
> Damned safety nuts.
>
> Bertie

yeah..They mess up all the fun!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend on
vacuum?

> How do you know how much testing and of what type?
>
> "Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

I know that the number of possible paths in complex software expands
exponentially with complexity, and that it is impossible to test them all.
Therefore many paths go untested, and if a bug should exist on an untested
path, and if that path should be executed in operation ... on that path lies
danger.

Even NASA missed things occasionally in testing, and Garmin doesn't have the
time, the budget, or the mindset of NASA. And the computers NASA used were
orders of magnitude simpler than what Garmin is using.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know nothing
> about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the Baron.

If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?
>
> Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend
> on vacuum?


you're an idiot and you don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know
>> nothing about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the
>> Baron.
>
> If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people
> who aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation,


Nobody said that non pilots shouldn't talk about airplanes. Just assholes
like you.


bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know nothing
> > about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the Baron.

> If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
> aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
> aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

Nobody minds a non-specialist talking about a specialization.

What people mind is authoritative statements which are incorrect from
non-specialists and endless, non sequitur babble from just about everyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 9:49 pm, Airbus > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
> >aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
> >aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?
>
> In your case, yes.
> The fact that someone of your ilk is entitled to hold and express an opinion on
> a subject so far beyond your grasp is really an artifact of our society's
> attachment to free speech. It's something akin to granting voting rights to a
> child born brain dead who manages to survive on life support to age 18.
>
> The fact that you are entitled to expound in public forum insulting and
> uninformed blather on the matter without any laws being broken is an excellent
> illustration of the high intellectual price we pay for freedom of speech.

Bravo!

Well said.

(I'm exercising my free speech, BTW)

Dan

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Owner writes:
>
>> See the stock & optional equipment here:
>>
>> http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml
>
>Thanks.
>
>Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in favor of
>more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments), for safety
>reasons.


OK, let's hear this one.
What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Let's hear the fine points, from the expert, about what's unsafe in the G-1000
system.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Airbus > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people
>>who aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that
>>people who aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized
>>avionics?
>
> In your case, yes.
> The fact that someone of your ilk is entitled to hold and express an
> opinion on a subject so far beyond your grasp is really an artifact of
> our society's attachment to free speech. It's something akin to
> granting voting rights to a child born brain dead who manages to
> survive on life support to age 18.
>
> The fact that you are entitled to expound in public forum insulting
> and uninformed blather on the matter without any laws being broken is
> an excellent illustration of the high intellectual price we pay for
> freedom of speech.
>
>

I disagree. He's great enetertainment aside form anything else and he's a
positive bon to the intellectual pool as a sort of "this is what could
happen to you" sort of way.

He's a cautionary tale..



Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
>> traditional instruments?
>
> Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much
> complexity, too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of
> digital systems.

You don't know **** from shinola when it comes to aircraft, aircraft
instruments, flying, or anything connected with reality.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know
>> nothing about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the
>> Baron.
>
> If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people
> who aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that
> people who aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized
> avionics?

You're not competent to talk about anything. You don't know **** from
shinola.

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
>> traditional instruments?
>
>Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
>too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.


I used to think you were intelligent, but mentally ill.
Now I believe you are really an imbecile. Down-dirty-dumb.
You are so clueless it's historic.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
>> to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>
> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
> hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
> assume it is for the reason you state.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.

Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was fully
fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss those
days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:9Gpwj.48454$9j6.9828@attbi_s22:

>>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't
>>> want to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>>
>> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of
>> the hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door
>> threshold. I assume it is for the reason you state.
>
> Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always
> has.


He must be some sort of sky god.


>
> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from
> a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the
> door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the
> plane was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month.
> God, I miss those days...
>
> I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!


You'd bitch about it if it were free.


Bertie

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
>aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
>aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

In your case, yes.
The fact that someone of your ilk is entitled to hold and express an opinion on
a subject so far beyond your grasp is really an artifact of our society's
attachment to free speech. It's something akin to granting voting rights to a
child born brain dead who manages to survive on life support to age 18.

The fact that you are entitled to expound in public forum insulting and
uninformed blather on the matter without any laws being broken is an excellent
illustration of the high intellectual price we pay for freedom of speech.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-25, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

Yeah. I remember bitching because it cost $8 to fill the tank on my first
car, a 1967 Cadillac Calais, with premium gas.

Where's my cane?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
>>> to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>>
>> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
>> hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
>> assume it is for the reason you state.
>
> Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.
>
> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
> flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the
> door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane
> was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I
> miss those days...
>
> I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a maintenance
hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due to a fueling
accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the fuel spreading
across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went up almost
instantly. Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the airport fire
department literally next door, the hangar was a total loss.

This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.

Matt

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.

Yep, there's always an example of some catastrophe that happened somewhere
that should make every civilized convenience illegal.

Iowa City is the oldest airport west of the Mississippi still in its
original location. The FBO has fueled aircraft in T-hangars (with the big
door open, of course) since before World War II, by my estimation, without
mishap. It's called "service", and yes, it's a pain in the butt to go to
the hangars, raise the door, and fuel the planes -- but thank God our FBO
hasn't yet used "safety" and "liability" as an excuse to be lazy, as so many
other businesses have.

Is there a slight risk to fueling in an unheated, outdoor hangar with the
big door open? I don't know -- but if you use a grounding strap/cord, and
you use approved fueling techniques and equipment, and you pump the fuel
from a professional-grade tank/pump, can you even *measure* a risk that
small? Has any aircraft self-immolated while being properly fueled? Has
any car?

I grow weary of this country wringing its hands over crap like this, while
the real issues of the day aren't even discussed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 24, 11:00*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.
>
> Yep, there's always an example of some catastrophe that happened somewhere
> that should make every civilized convenience illegal.
>
> Iowa City is the oldest airport west of the Mississippi still in its
> original location. *The FBO has fueled aircraft in T-hangars (with the big
> door open, of course) since before World War II, by my estimation, without
> mishap. * It's called "service", and yes, it's a pain in the butt to go to
> the hangars, raise the door, and fuel the planes -- but thank God our FBO
> hasn't yet used "safety" and "liability" as an excuse to be lazy, as so many
> other businesses have.
>
> Is there a slight risk to fueling in an unheated, outdoor hangar with the
> big door open? * I don't know -- but if you use a grounding strap/cord, and
> you use approved fueling techniques and equipment, and you pump the fuel
> from a professional-grade tank/pump, can you even *measure* a risk that
> small? * Has any aircraft self-immolated while being properly fueled? * Has
> any car?
>
> I grow weary of this country wringing its hands over crap like this, while
> the real issues of the day aren't even discussed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My guess
is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:p3rwj.48557$9j6.45072@attbi_s22:

>> This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.
>
> Yep, there's always an example of some catastrophe that happened
> somewhere that should make every civilized convenience illegal.

If any more evidence were requited that you are a complete idiot, this is
it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Is there a slight risk to fueling in an unheated, outdoor hangar with the
> big door open? I don't know -- but if you use a grounding strap/cord, and
> you use approved fueling techniques and equipment, and you pump the fuel
> from a professional-grade tank/pump, can you even *measure* a risk that
> small? Has any aircraft self-immolated while being properly fueled? Has
> any car?
>
> I grow weary of this country wringing its hands over crap like this, while
> the real issues of the day aren't even discussed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Risk is defined as probability x potential loss. So, despite there
being very little risk that my rifle will go off when I'm cleaning it,
I still never point it at anyone or anything that would be harmed.

The probability is low (I'm cleaning it, and thus have cleared it,
removed the bolt, etc), but the potential damage is death. Thus it's
risky.

So I don't skateboard -- the probability that I will fall and bust my
assets is near 100%, though the potential damage ranges from minor to
catastrophic (that falling on the railing with legs spread
thing !!!!).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I hadn't thought through this
refueling-in-the-hangar thing much, but some of the replies make
sense. While the probability may be low (as evidenced by your
experience), the potential damage is very high -- lost airplanes (T-
Hangars are by definition multiple), buildings, equipment, tools,
cases of oil, Swimsuit Edition calendars -- the works.

And while it's true that "society" has become a bit too "worried"
about everything, perhaps we reasonable people (pilots) should make
every attempt to reduce the perception of risk. If a String of T-
hangars lights up the Iowa sky, think of the gleeful doom the local
news will engender.

"If you look behind me, Carlita, you will see the flames rising 200
FEET into the air, spreading a witches brew of toxic materials -- the
airport manager won't talk to me on camera, but we learned that the
each of the several dozen Cessnas parked inside are worth at least
$500,000, and each has about 800 gallons of HIGHLY FLAMMABLE JET fuel
on board. Whoa! Did you hear that? We'll move our cameras a bit..."

"Wow.. Scary stuff Jim -- we'll keep you updated with all the latest
from the scene..."



Dan

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:
total loss.
>
> This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.
>
> Matt

Not only common sense but its written into the local fire codes
in virtually every city or town.

Fueling an aircraft in a hangar is irresponsible and dangerous.

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
> "If you look behind me, Carlita, you will see the flames rising 200
> FEET into the air, spreading a witches brew of toxic materials -- the
> airport manager won't talk to me on camera, but we learned that the
> each of the several dozen Cessnas parked inside are worth at least
> $500,000, and each has about 800 gallons of HIGHLY FLAMMABLE JET fuel
> on board. Whoa! Did you hear that? We'll move our cameras a bit..."
>
> "Wow.. Scary stuff Jim -- we'll keep you updated with all the latest
> from the scene..."
>

Not to mention the fact that the hangars probably won't ever be
rebuilt because of the lawsuits. The insurance Co. will refuse
to pay the loss because the airport encouraged fueling policies
that were known to be dangerous and contrary to fire codes.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
> flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
> Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was fully
> fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss those
> days...

How does it work now?

[Mxsmanic]

William Hung writes:

> That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
> worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My guess
> is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.

What percentage of refuelings of this type have ended in fire?

Insurance companies always want zero risk, for maximum profit. They don't
care how much it costs their clients.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Hung writes:
> > That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
> > worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My guess
> > is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.
>
> What percentage of refuelings of this type have ended in fire?
>
> Insurance companies always want zero risk, for maximum profit. They don't
> care how much it costs their clients.

Not exactly.

"Insurance companies" are businesses which must provide a service at a
price some portion of the population is willing to pay. It's called
the intersection of Supply and Demand.

In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
drives free economies.

But given your ABC Nightly News Level understanding of business, I'm
thinking this is a waste of effort.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return
>> from a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up
>> on the door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down,
>> the plane was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the
>> month. God, I miss those days...
>
> How does it work now?
>

Oh it;s just like getting a top up on your mobile.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> William Hung writes:
>
>> That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
>> worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My
>> guess is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.
>
> What percentage of refuelings of this type have ended in fire?
>
> Insurance companies always want zero risk, for maximum profit. They
> don't care how much it costs their clients.
>

Ah, so you're singing form the same song sheet as Jay...


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
>>>> to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>>>
>>> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
>>> hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
>>> assume it is for the reason you state.
>>
>> Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.
>>
>> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
>> flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
>> Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was
>> fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss
>> those days...
>>
>> I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!
>
> ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a maintenance
> hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due to a fueling
> accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the fuel spreading
> across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went up almost instantly.
> Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the airport fire department
> literally next door, the hangar was a total loss.

What was the fuel doing on the floor, and what ignited it?

>
> This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.
>

I believe this is one rule that is grounded in common nonsense, and/or
simple negative fantasy. If your refueling procedure allows ANY chance of
fire, or even significant spill, that procedure needs to be changed
immediately.

Even aircraft tied down on a flight line are MUCH too close to each other to
afford a fire.

If we have any concerns of aircraft stored indoors, then we need to be
completely defueling them prior to storage or maintenance, just like the
airlines do. It would be just as easy to argue leaving fuel in an aircraft
while stored indoors is an unacceptable hazard as well. Then if a fire does
get started in the hanger, the aircraft is much less likely to contribute to
the problem.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't
>>>>> want to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of
>>>> the hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door
>>>> threshold. I assume it is for the reason you state.
>>>
>>> Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always
>>> has.
>>>
>>> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return
>>> from a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up
>>> on the door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down,
>>> the plane was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the
>>> month. God, I miss those days...
>>>
>>> I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!
>>
>> ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a
>> maintenance hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due
>> to a fueling accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the
>> fuel spreading across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went
>> up almost instantly. Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the
>> airport fire department literally next door, the hangar was a total
>> loss.
>
> What was the fuel doing on the floor, and what ignited it?
>
>>
>> This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.
>>
>
> I believe this is one rule that is grounded in common nonsense, and/or
> simple negative fantasy. If your refueling procedure allows ANY chance
> of fire, or even significant spill, that procedure needs to be changed
> immediately.
>
> Even aircraft tied down on a flight line are MUCH too close to each
> other to afford a fire.
>
> If we have any concerns of aircraft stored indoors, then we need to be
> completely defueling them prior to storage or maintenance, just like
> the airlines do. It would be just as easy to argue leaving fuel in an
> aircraft while stored indoors is an unacceptable hazard as well. Then
> if a fire does get started in the hanger, the aircraft is much less
> likely to contribute to the problem.
>

There are a lot of factors in play during refueling that are not with
fuel at rest. One is the static charge induced by merely moving the fuel
down the hose, the vapor produced by pumping and the possible
concentration to a good ignition mixture in an enclosed space.


Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
> drives free economies.

How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
>> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
>> drives free economies.
>
> How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Another subject in which you don't know **** from Shinola.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 3:39 pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
> >> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
> >> drives free economies.
>
> > How much competition is there for this type of insurance?
>
> Another subject in which you don't know **** from Shinola.

There ya go...

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 2:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
> > remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
> > drives free economies.
>
> How much competition is there for this type of insurance?

Google Results = 1,850,000 for Aviation Insurance

I'll let you educate yourself and stay busy. If you read one page each
second we won't have to reply to you for twenty-one (21) and one half
(1/2) days.

That would be a Very Good Thing.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
>> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
>> drives free economies.
>
> How much competition is there for this type of insurance?
>

None, nbody wants to do it since you blew the whistle. Thanks a bunch
****face.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 4:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
> >> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine that
> >> drives free economies.
>
> > How much competition is there for this type of insurance?
>
> None, nbody wants to do it since you blew the whistle. Thanks a bunch
> ****face.
>
> Bertie

Stop making me laugh out loud -- makes it look like I'm not working!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>There are a lot of factors in play during refueling that are not with
>>fuel at rest. One is the static charge induced by merely moving the
>>fuel down the hose, the vapor produced by pumping and the possible
>>concentration to a good ignition mixture in an enclosed space.
>
> And let's not forget the Dip**** Factor
>
> http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/RiSigowner/?action=view&current=S
> hell_-_191107.flv
>
Ah, one "episode" and the PC "safety nannies" decide that it's "unsafe" to
smoke around gas.

If it were unsafe people would be blown up doing it all the time.

Am I right?




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 4:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> In Capitalism there is a tension between "maximizing profit" and
>> >> remaining competitive. This is a Good Thing, and it is the engine
>> >> that drives free economies.
>>
>> > How much competition is there for this type of insurance?
>>
>> None, nbody wants to do it since you blew the whistle. Thanks a bunch
>> ****face.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Stop making me laugh out loud -- makes it look like I'm not working!
>

Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill for a
whole day by sending him this...

http://www.419eater.com/

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > Stop making me laugh out loud -- makes it look like I'm not working!
>
> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill for a
> whole day by sending him this...
>
> http://www.419eater.com/
>
> Bertie

Ohhhh..yeah...

That is soooo wrong on sooo many levels.

But, man I wanna hook one of those. That's why I post on here.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote
>
> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill for a
> whole day by sending him this...
>
> http://www.419eater.com/
>
> Bertie


Weel, well... lookie what I had in my inbox:

PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO. to me

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
THE HONORABLE, GOVERNOR OF CBN.
TINUBU SQUARE, LAGOS- NIGERIA.

Our Ref: CBN/OHG/OXD1/2008
Your Ref:
TELEX: CENBANK.
PAYMENT FILE: CBN/BEN/08



Attn: Sir/Madam,

PAYMENT NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS.

Definitely, I know that this letter will be a surprising one to you.
Firstly, I will like to introduce myself formally as Prof. Charles
Soludo, The Executive Governor of The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
You are been officially contacted by me today because your Inheritance
Funds were Re-deposited into the "Federal Suspense Account" of CBN
last week, because you did not forward your Claim as the Right
beneficiary. Well known to all. The Central Bank of Nigeria is the
mother Bank of all commercial Banks here in Nigeria. Really these men
were unexpected by me because their visit was impromptu. I had to ask
them why they came to see me in person and they said that they were
here to collect the Inheritance Bill Sum of (US$20,000,000) which
rightfully belongs to you, on your behalf. At this development I asked
them who authorized them to come down to Nigeria for the Collection of
this Payment and they told me that you asked them to come and collect
this Funds on your Behalf.

They actually tendered some Vital Documents which proved that you
actually sent them for the Collection of these Funds. Honestly, it
really baffles me that you took such decision without my consent. Here
is the Document which they tendered to this Bank today:

1. LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION.
2. HIGH COURT INJUNCTION.
3. ORDER TO RELEASE.

Actually, these Documents which they tendered to this Noble Bank is a
clear Proof that you sent them to Collect this Funds for you. Finally,
I told them to come back tomorrow morning and they promised to come
back. As the Governor of this Noble Bank, I was supposed to Release
this Funds to them but I refused to do so because I wanted to hear
from you first. Due to the Nature of my job, I will not want to make
any mistake in Releasing this Funds to anyone except you whom is the
Recognized Bonafide Beneficiary to this Funds. Kindly clearify us on
this issue before we make this Payment to these foreigners whom came
on your behalf.

You can reach me on my direct email address enclosed


OFFICIALLY SIGNED.
PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO.
GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.

Hot Dog!!!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 10:17 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > " > wrote
>
> > Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
> > I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill for a
> > whole day by sending him this...
>
> >http://www.419eater.com/
>
> > Bertie
>
> Weel, well... lookie what I had in my inbox:
>
> PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO. to me
>
> CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
> OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
> THE HONORABLE, GOVERNOR OF CBN.
> TINUBU SQUARE, LAGOS- NIGERIA.
>
> Our Ref: CBN/OHG/OXD1/2008
> Your Ref:
> TELEX: CENBANK.
> PAYMENT FILE: CBN/BEN/08
>
>
>
> Attn: Sir/Madam,
>
> PAYMENT NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS.
>
> Definitely, I know that this letter will be a surprising one to you.
> Firstly, I will like to introduce myself formally as Prof. Charles
> Soludo, The Executive Governor of The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
> You are been officially contacted by me today because your Inheritance
> Funds were Re-deposited into the "Federal Suspense Account" of CBN
> last week, because you did not forward your Claim as the Right
> beneficiary. Well known to all. The Central Bank of Nigeria is the
> mother Bank of all commercial Banks here in Nigeria. Really these men
> were unexpected by me because their visit was impromptu. I had to ask
> them why they came to see me in person and they said that they were
> here to collect the Inheritance Bill Sum of (US$20,000,000) which
> rightfully belongs to you, on your behalf. At this development I asked
> them who authorized them to come down to Nigeria for the Collection of
> this Payment and they told me that you asked them to come and collect
> this Funds on your Behalf.
>
> They actually tendered some Vital Documents which proved that you
> actually sent them for the Collection of these Funds. Honestly, it
> really baffles me that you took such decision without my consent. Here
> is the Document which they tendered to this Bank today:
>
> 1. LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION.
> 2. HIGH COURT INJUNCTION.
> 3. ORDER TO RELEASE.
>
> Actually, these Documents which they tendered to this Noble Bank is a
> clear Proof that you sent them to Collect this Funds for you. Finally,
> I told them to come back tomorrow morning and they promised to come
> back. As the Governor of this Noble Bank, I was supposed to Release
> this Funds to them but I refused to do so because I wanted to hear
> from you first. Due to the Nature of my job, I will not want to make
> any mistake in Releasing this Funds to anyone except you whom is the
> Recognized Bonafide Beneficiary to this Funds. Kindly clearify us on
> this issue before we make this Payment to these foreigners whom came
> on your behalf.
>
> You can reach me on my direct email address enclosed
>
>
> OFFICIALLY SIGNED.
> PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO.
> GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.
>
> Hot Dog!!!

It's about time!!!

What do I do next???

THANKS!!

Your friend,
Danill Ruck Willmaccochentuzall

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > Stop making me laugh out loud -- makes it look like I'm not
>> > working!
>>
>> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
>> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill
>> for a whole day by sending him this...
>>
>> http://www.419eater.com/
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Ohhhh..yeah...
>
> That is soooo wrong on sooo many levels.
>
> But, man I wanna hook one of those. That's why I post on here.
>

THe guy is a genius..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>>
>> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
>> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill
>> for a whole day by sending him this...
>>
>> http://www.419eater.com/
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Weel, well... lookie what I had in my inbox:
>
> PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO. to me
>
> CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
> OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
> THE HONORABLE, GOVERNOR OF CBN.
> TINUBU SQUARE, LAGOS- NIGERIA.
>
> Our Ref: CBN/OHG/OXD1/2008
> Your Ref:
> TELEX: CENBANK.
> PAYMENT FILE: CBN/BEN/08
>
>
>
> Attn: Sir/Madam,
>
> PAYMENT NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS.
>
> Definitely, I know that this letter will be a surprising one to you.
> Firstly, I will like to introduce myself formally as Prof. Charles
> Soludo, The Executive Governor of The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
> You are been officially contacted by me today because your Inheritance
> Funds were Re-deposited into the "Federal Suspense Account" of CBN
> last week, because you did not forward your Claim as the Right
> beneficiary. Well known to all. The Central Bank of Nigeria is the
> mother Bank of all commercial Banks here in Nigeria. Really these men
> were unexpected by me because their visit was impromptu. I had to ask
> them why they came to see me in person and they said that they were
> here to collect the Inheritance Bill Sum of (US$20,000,000) which
> rightfully belongs to you, on your behalf. At this development I asked
> them who authorized them to come down to Nigeria for the Collection of
> this Payment and they told me that you asked them to come and collect
> this Funds on your Behalf.
>
> They actually tendered some Vital Documents which proved that you
> actually sent them for the Collection of these Funds. Honestly, it
> really baffles me that you took such decision without my consent. Here
> is the Document which they tendered to this Bank today:
>
> 1. LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION.
> 2. HIGH COURT INJUNCTION.
> 3. ORDER TO RELEASE.
>
> Actually, these Documents which they tendered to this Noble Bank is a
> clear Proof that you sent them to Collect this Funds for you. Finally,
> I told them to come back tomorrow morning and they promised to come
> back. As the Governor of this Noble Bank, I was supposed to Release
> this Funds to them but I refused to do so because I wanted to hear
> from you first. Due to the Nature of my job, I will not want to make
> any mistake in Releasing this Funds to anyone except you whom is the
> Recognized Bonafide Beneficiary to this Funds. Kindly clearify us on
> this issue before we make this Payment to these foreigners whom came
> on your behalf.
>
> You can reach me on my direct email address enclosed
>
>
> OFFICIALLY SIGNED.
> PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO.
> GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.
>
> Hot Dog!!!
>

Good hunting!

I had one try to buy a car I had on a website, offering to pay me what I
was asking but he would send me a check for 2 grand over that. After it
cleared in my bank I was to send him the excess, you know the story. I
was tempted to string the ******* along, but I just called the cops
instead.

Bertie

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>William Hung writes:
>
>> That's a lot of ifs Jay. Is the convenience, in this case really
>> worth it? Is your insurance company aware of this practice? My guess
>> is no. I would have to go with Matt on this one, Jay.
>
>What percentage of refuelings of this type have ended in fire?
>
>Insurance companies always want zero risk, for maximum profit. They don't
>care how much it costs their clients.


In 1968, after ten joints and a few lines of white powder anyone could be
excused for saying things like that, totally dissociated from reality. . .

What's your excuse?

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article <9Gpwj.48454$9j6.9828@attbi_s22>, says...
>
>
>>> I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
>>> to lose an airplane AND a building.
>>>
>> That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
>> hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
>> assume it is for the reason you state.
>
>Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.
>
>Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
>flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
>Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was fully
>fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss those
>days...
>


Those days still exist in many places.
Often you will leave the FBO to find your prop aligned horizontally -
indicating the tanks are full. And yes, you can be certain to receive a bill.

I have always been astonished that we allow linemen and fuel salespeople to
usurp our responsibility as pilot in command. As a student, you cannot take
yourself, your instructor and full fuel in a C-152 without being significantly
over gross. Later, as a private pilot, the lineman has no way of knowing you
intend to take your entire family in the 172 to a destination just 200 nm away
- something you cannot do with full fuel, but which you can easily do with a
bit less dead weight. The further you progress up the ladder, the more
important this management becomes.

Fuel management is the ultimate responsibility of the PIC. You may have a
personal understanding with your FBO or whatever, and they may know your
personal habits - as long as you scrupulously check behind them this is fine.
But as a general rule, having trucks driving around an airport pouring their
expensive product into aircraft unable to carry the weight under some mission
statements is not compatible with sound management and safety practices.

[James Sleeman]

On Feb 24, 4:45 pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of that out of
> our driveway this winter!),

Neither advocating nor deprecating the idea of Global Warming, but
please, local and short term weather phenomena are not indicators of
long term global weather phenomena. It's like saying "they say there
are more cars on the roads, hogwash I didn't see much traffic today at
all!"

> looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
> having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.

There ain't nothing very special about a Rotax, it works in just the
same way as any other engine.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 25, 11:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
>
> >> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
> >> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete standstill
> >> for a whole day by sending him this...
>
> >>http://www.419eater.com/
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Weel, well... lookie what I had in my inbox:
>
> > PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO. to me
>
> > CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
> > OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
> > THE HONORABLE, GOVERNOR OF CBN.
> > TINUBU SQUARE, LAGOS- NIGERIA.
>
> > Our Ref: CBN/OHG/OXD1/2008
> > *Your Ref:
> > TELEX: CENBANK.
> > PAYMENT FILE: CBN/BEN/08
>
> >
>
> > Attn: Sir/Madam,
>
> > PAYMENT NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS.
>
> > Definitely, I know that this letter will be a surprising one to you.
> > Firstly, I will like to introduce myself formally as Prof. Charles
> > Soludo, The Executive Governor of The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
> > You are been officially contacted by me today because your Inheritance
> > Funds were Re-deposited into the "Federal Suspense Account" of CBN
> > last week, because you did not forward your Claim as the Right
> > beneficiary. Well known to all. The Central Bank of Nigeria is the
> > mother Bank of all commercial Banks here in Nigeria. Really these men
> > were unexpected by me because their visit was impromptu. I had to ask
> > them why they came to see me in person and they said that they were
> > here to collect the Inheritance Bill Sum of (US$20,000,000) which
> > rightfully belongs to you, on your behalf. At this development I asked
> > them who authorized them to come down to Nigeria for the Collection of
> > this Payment and they told me that you asked them to come and collect
> > this Funds on your Behalf.
>
> > They actually tendered some Vital Documents which proved that you
> > actually sent them for the Collection of these Funds. Honestly, it
> > really baffles me that you took such decision without my consent. Here
> > is the Document which they tendered to this Bank today:
>
> > 1. LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION.
> > 2. HIGH COURT INJUNCTION.
> > 3. ORDER TO RELEASE.
>
> > Actually, these Documents which they tendered to this Noble Bank is a
> > clear Proof that you sent them to Collect this Funds for you. Finally,
> > I told them to come back tomorrow morning and they promised to come
> > back. As the Governor of this Noble Bank, I was supposed to Release
> > this Funds to them but I refused to do so because I wanted to hear
> > from you first. Due to the Nature of my job, I will not want to make
> > any mistake in Releasing this Funds to anyone except you whom is the
> > Recognized Bonafide Beneficiary to this Funds. Kindly clearify us on
> > this issue before we make this Payment to these foreigners whom came
> > on your behalf.
>
> > You can reach me on my direct email address enclosed
> >
>
> > OFFICIALLY SIGNED.
> > PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO.
> > GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.
>
> > Hot Dog!!!
>
> Good hunting!
>
> I had one try to buy a car I had on a website, offering to pay me what I
> was asking but he would send me a check for 2 grand over that. After it
> cleared in my bank I was to send him the excess, you know the story. I
> was tempted to string the ******* along, but I just called the cops
> instead.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have had that happened to me too, but I ignored the fool. Wonder
what would happen if I had cashed his Cashier's Check and not refund
his extra amount.

Wil

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-26, James Sleeman > wrote:
>> looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my lingering misgivings about
>> having an engine my local mechanic can't fix.
> There ain't nothing very special about a Rotax, it works in just the
> same way as any other engine.

Except that it turns a lot faster, has a lot tighter tolerances, and
requires special tools and training...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
William > wrote:

> I have had that happened to me too, but I ignored the fool. Wonder
> what would happen if I had cashed his Cashier's Check and not refund
> his extra amount.

In a while you'd have received a letter from your bank informing you the
cheque was a forgery and they'd taken the money out of your account I
suspect.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 11:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:ea6538f7-43fa-49ae-ba
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>>
>> >> Sorry. I'm a bad bunyipo like that.
>> >> I brought my brother in law's place of work to a complete
>> >> standstill for a whole day by sending him this...
>>
>> >>http://www.419eater.com/
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Weel, well... lookie what I had in my inbox:
>>
>> > PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO. to me
>>
>> > CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
>> > OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
>> > THE HONORABLE, GOVERNOR OF CBN.
>> > TINUBU SQUARE, LAGOS- NIGERIA.
>>
>> > Our Ref: CBN/OHG/OXD1/2008
>> > *Your Ref:
>> > TELEX: CENBANK.
>> > PAYMENT FILE: CBN/BEN/08
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Attn: Sir/Madam,
>>
>> > PAYMENT NOTIFICATION OF YOUR FUNDS.
>>
>> > Definitely, I know that this letter will be a surprising one to
>> > you. Firstly, I will like to introduce myself formally as Prof.
>> > Charles Soludo, The Executive Governor of The Central Bank of
>> > Nigeria (CBN). You are been officially contacted by me today
>> > because your Inheritance Funds were Re-deposited into the "Federal
>> > Suspense Account" of CBN last week, because you did not forward
>> > your Claim as the Right beneficiary. Well known to all. The Central
>> > Bank of Nigeria is the mother Bank of all commercial Banks here in
>> > Nigeria. Really these men were unexpected by me because their visit
>> > was impromptu. I had to ask them why they came to see me in person
>> > and they said that they were here to collect the Inheritance Bill
>> > Sum of (US$20,000,000) which rightfully belongs to you, on your
>> > behalf. At this development I asked them who authorized them to
>> > come down to Nigeria for the Collection of this Payment and they
>> > told me that you asked them to come and collect this Funds on your
>> > Behalf.
>>
>> > They actually tendered some Vital Documents which proved that you
>> > actually sent them for the Collection of these Funds. Honestly, it
>> > really baffles me that you took such decision without my consent.
>> > Here is the Document which they tendered to this Bank today:
>>
>> > 1. LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION.
>> > 2. HIGH COURT INJUNCTION.
>> > 3. ORDER TO RELEASE.
>>
>> > Actually, these Documents which they tendered to this Noble Bank is
>> > a clear Proof that you sent them to Collect this Funds for you.
>> > Finally, I told them to come back tomorrow morning and they
>> > promised to come back. As the Governor of this Noble Bank, I was
>> > supposed to Release this Funds to them but I refused to do so
>> > because I wanted to hear from you first. Due to the Nature of my
>> > job, I will not want to make any mistake in Releasing this Funds to
>> > anyone except you whom is the Recognized Bonafide Beneficiary to
>> > this Funds. Kindly clearify us on this issue before we make this
>> > Payment to these foreigners whom came on your behalf.
>>
>> > You can reach me on my direct email address enclosed
>> >
>>
>> > OFFICIALLY SIGNED.
>> > PROF. CHARLES SOLUDO.
>> > GOVERNOR, CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.
>>
>> > Hot Dog!!!
>>
>> Good hunting!
>>
>> I had one try to buy a car I had on a website, offering to pay me
>> what I was asking but he would send me a check for 2 grand over that.
>> After it cleared in my bank I was to send him the excess, you know
>> the story. I was tempted to string the ******* along, but I just
>> called the cops instead.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I have had that happened to me too, but I ignored the fool. Wonder
> what would happen if I had cashed his Cashier's Check and not refund
> his extra amount.

You would have found it was actually no good. The trick, apparently, is
a flaw in the banking system. You get the guy's check. He insists you
send him no money or the item until the check clears. You look in on
your account after a few days and see your account is up by the amount
of the chck and you send off your check. A week or two later, the bank
calls and tells you the check had insufficient funds. You're screwed.



Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Fueling an aircraft in a hangar is irresponsible and dangerous.

Ya know, Kontiki, normally I agree with your posts -- but this is just plain
crap.

Have you ever WORKED on a plane, in a shop? Have you ever had to de-fuel a
plane to work on it? Where do you think this happens?

I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew the
quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug, and let the
fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly move another jug
under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar floor. This happens until
the tank is empty.

This goes on day after day, week after week, year after year, at hundreds of
airports across America. WITH THE DOOR CLOSED. God almighty, if we were
to believe your nonsense, the newspapers would be full of 5-alarm fires at
airports.

Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door open,
is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually flies in
an airplane. Those things crash, you know.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
>> flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
>> Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was
>> fully
>> fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss those
>> days...
>
> How does it work now?

If you want fuel at your hangar, you call the FBO. If they're not busy,
maybe they'll be there within the hour. Most people drag their planes to
the self-service pump to save a buck.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> But as a general rule, having trucks driving around an airport pouring
> their
> expensive product into aircraft unable to carry the weight under some
> mission
> statements is not compatible with sound management and safety practices.

I'm not catching your point. Why would an FBO do anything an owner didn't
authorize?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 10:54 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
> professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door open,
> is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually flies in
> an airplane. Those things crash, you know.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I lost my model friends in a freak gasoline fight accident, ok?!


Derek

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 10:58 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> I'm not catching your point. Why would an FBO do anything an owner didn't
> authorize?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

This one I learned the hard way early on -- I flew the fam down to
Ocean City for the day in a rented Cherokee Archer. Everyone was
anxious for the beach so I told the FBO desk lady, "Only to the tabs,
please!"

When we returned at 10 PM, guess what?

Right -- overflowing.

My (then) 150 lb son had to stay the rest of the week with friends who
were vacationing there. With him on board I would have been 30 lbs
over max allowable gross.

It wasn't too great a hardship for him, but could have been a major
inconvenience.

So now if I don't fuel it myself, I stand and observe and check the
levels as he/she is fueling and afterwards, and *I* secure the caps.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:gJfxj.52124$9j6.21234@attbi_s22:

>> Fueling an aircraft in a hangar is irresponsible and dangerous.
>
> Ya know, Kontiki, normally I agree with your posts -- but this is just
> plain crap.
>
> Have you ever WORKED on a plane, in a shop?


I have. you are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:MKfxj.52377$yE1.4000@attbi_s21:

>>> Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return
>>> from a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up
>>> on the door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down,
>>> the plane was fully
>>> fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss
>>> those days...
>>
>> How does it work now?
>
> If you want fuel at your hangar, you call the FBO.

If I want fuel in a lightplane, I put it in myself or I pull it out and
watch the lineman do it.



Period.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:OMfxj.52129$9j6.4081@attbi_s22:

>> But as a general rule, having trucks driving around an airport
>> pouring their
>> expensive product into aircraft unable to carry the weight under some
>> mission
>> statements is not compatible with sound management and safety
>> practices.
>
> I'm not catching your point. Why would an FBO do anything an owner
> didn't authorize?

Idiot.


Bertie

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
> professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door
> open, is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually
> flies in an airplane. Those things crash, you know.

Having spent a couple of years as an airport manager I am not
speaking out of ignorance. I'm surprised that you don't seem
to be able see the potential dangers. I strongly suggest that
you and the airport manager have a chat with you local fire
marshal, your fuel supplier and your insurance underwriter before
you continue that activity.

It is dangerous to even fuel a lawn mower in your garage because
of the enclosed space, and the risk of a devastating fire in
the even of a fuel spill.

Check with any authority on the subject and see if they don't
tell you the same thing.

Good luck.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew the
>quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug, and let the
>fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly move another jug
>under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar floor. This happens until
>the tank is empty.
>

Don't they bond the aircraft to the fuel container (electrically)? I met
an A&P/IA several years ago that lost his hangar and 3 of his customers'
airplanes by doing exactly what you described above. It was a dry winter day
and the flowing fuel formed a static charge. A faint blue ring around the
stream of gas that the IA noticed about 2 seconds before the hangar went up
in flames.

A simple bonding strap between the airplane and the container would have
avoided the whole mess.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200802/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
news:805fe25d28088@uwe:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>>I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew
>>the quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug,
>>and let the fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly
>>move another jug under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar
>>floor. This happens until the tank is empty.
>>
>
> Don't they bond the aircraft to the fuel container (electrically)?
> I met
> an A&P/IA several years ago that lost his hangar and 3 of his
> customers' airplanes by doing exactly what you described above. It
> was a dry winter day and the flowing fuel formed a static charge. A
> faint blue ring around the stream of gas that the IA noticed about 2
> seconds before the hangar went up in flames.
>
> A simple bonding strap between the airplane and the container would
> have
> avoided the whole mess.

Exactly, I have a freind who has some very wrinkly looking skin from
defueling an old mercedes in a garage...


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Have you ever WORKED on a plane, in a shop? Have you ever had to de-fuel
> a plane to work on it? Where do you think this happens?
>
> I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew the
> quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug, and let
> the fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly move another
> jug under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar floor. This happens
> until the tank is empty.
>
> This goes on day after day, week after week, year after year, at hundreds
> of airports across America. WITH THE DOOR CLOSED. God almighty, if we
> were to believe your nonsense, the newspapers would be full of 5-alarm
> fires at airports.

The difference in fueling or defueling an airplane in a hangar is how the
hangar is equipped.

It is against fire code to construct an aircraft or perform major
maintenance in a hangar that is not equipped with a sprinkler system. I
know this, because our local EAA chapter has been looking into constructing
a hangar, and to do more than final assembly will not be allowed without
sprinklers, which of course costs big money.

The risk of a fire from fueling an airplane or working on the fuel system is
the same in any hangar, but it is how the risk is managed if a fire results.
Putting a fire out when it first happens may mean the result is saving lives
and property.

To satisfy fire code, fueling and defueling should be done outside, where
there is no possibility of the potentially explosive vapors concentrating to
a dangerous level. If a fire does result, it will likely not be an
explosive event, and will leave those involved with the ability to get away
from the fire quickly, and will also likely not catch anything else on fire.

Isn't that what all fire codes are about? The tradeoffs between prevention,
protection, and suppression.

So while you do not feel that fueling in a hangar is a risk, it is to a fire
marshal, and his regulations say that if you choose to participate in this
risky behavior, you must prevent the possible result from getting out of
hand. That means install sprinklers, at minimum.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:54:18 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>
>It is against fire code to construct an aircraft or perform major
>maintenance in a hangar that is not equipped with a sprinkler system. I
>know this, because our local EAA chapter has been looking into constructing
>a hangar, and to do more than final assembly will not be allowed without
>sprinklers, which of course costs big money.

Is that a local code? Neither of the A&P's I use have sprinklers,
and they run legit businesses that do major repairs.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:54:52 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Fueling an aircraft in a hangar is irresponsible and dangerous.

Here even with our small airport it's not permitted.
Over at MBS they move planes outside to de fuel them. They did that
when I had the Deb weighed for a new W&B.

OTOH we can build plane in the hangars. If the hangar is properly
ventilated we can even paint in it...I only know of one so equipped
and it's prohibited in all others. More than likely due to the fact
you'd be painting planes three hangars either side of you. (they
aren't real tight)

>
>Ya know, Kontiki, normally I agree with your posts -- but this is just plain
>crap.
>
>Have you ever WORKED on a plane, in a shop? Have you ever had to de-fuel a
>plane to work on it? Where do you think this happens?
>
>I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew the
>quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug, and let the
>fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly move another jug
>under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar floor. This happens until
>the tank is empty.

It's done ,but in most places it's against the fire code.
The FBO changed a quick drain on one of the tanks on the Deb at
annual. He just unscrewed it and I stuck my finger in the dike until
he had the new one lined up and ready to go. He even remarked we
should be doing that outdoors, but he didn't want to move so many
planes to get it out and back in.

>
>This goes on day after day, week after week, year after year, at hundreds of
>airports across America. WITH THE DOOR CLOSED. God almighty, if we were
>to believe your nonsense, the newspapers would be full of 5-alarm fires at
>airports.
>
>Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
>professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door open,
>is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually flies in
>an airplane. Those things crash, you know.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob F.]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:54:52 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Fueling an aircraft in a hangar is irresponsible and dangerous.
>
> Here even with our small airport it's not permitted.
> Over at MBS they move planes outside to de fuel them. They did that
> when I had the Deb weighed for a new W&B.
>
> OTOH we can build plane in the hangars. If the hangar is properly
> ventilated we can even paint in it...I only know of one so equipped
> and it's prohibited in all others. More than likely due to the fact
> you'd be painting planes three hangars either side of you. (they
> aren't real tight)
>
>>
>>Ya know, Kontiki, normally I agree with your posts -- but this is just
>>plain
>>crap.
>>
>>Have you ever WORKED on a plane, in a shop? Have you ever had to de-fuel
>>a
>>plane to work on it? Where do you think this happens?
>>
>>I'll tell you where it happens -- in the shop hangar. They unscrew the
>>quick drain, stick a plastic funnel into a 5-gallon plastic jug, and let
>>the
>>fuel drain. Then, when that jug is full, they quickly move another jug
>>under the funnel, dumping gas all over the hangar floor. This happens
>>until
>>the tank is empty.
>
> It's done ,but in most places it's against the fire code.
> The FBO changed a quick drain on one of the tanks on the Deb at
> annual. He just unscrewed it and I stuck my finger in the dike until
> he had the new one lined up and ready to go. He even remarked we
> should be doing that outdoors, but he didn't want to move so many
> planes to get it out and back in.
>
>>
>>This goes on day after day, week after week, year after year, at hundreds
>>of
>>airports across America. WITH THE DOOR CLOSED. God almighty, if we were
>>to believe your nonsense, the newspapers would be full of 5-alarm fires at
>>airports.
>>
>>Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
>>professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door
>>open,
>>is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually flies in
>>an airplane. Those things crash, you know.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


In case you haven't noticed, the death of aviation has already occurred. It
happened with all the law suits, rising cost of gas prices and scab CFI's
that will fly for nothing. I've been in the industry for over 45 years.
They say there is a lot of money in aviation. I know that because I put a
lot of it in there! I am appalled that you can't make a decent living in
the industry. Oh yes, there are a few souls that have made it, but it's
like the lotto, not a planned definite process. I can't believe that I have
spent so much time and money in the industry and can't make it there. In
what other industry can you invest almost $100k in training and experience
achieve, what is called "the PhD of Aviation, the ATP", all the CFI's
offered by the FAA and still can't command more then minimum wags?? The
AOPA, FAA, NAFI and defunct organizations such as NPA, etc have all fallen
down on the job, BIG TIME. All useless to foster the community. I go into
a flight school and immediately get the feeling that "I don't want to be
here". You do not feel welcome! All these managers need serious marketing
and business education. And pilots need to start DEMANDING a living wage,
or just don't fly. Students need to expect to PAY for training, $100 per hr
for an instructor is not unreasonable. This about how much you would pay any
other professional. How much would you pay a plumber. Then think about how
much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.

--
BobF.
Lincoln actually got it right but was way ahead of his time when he said,
"You can have some of you computer working all of the time and all of your
computer working some of the time but..." It was he that said that, wasn't
it?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:54:18 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>It is against fire code to construct an aircraft or perform major
>>maintenance in a hangar that is not equipped with a sprinkler system. I
>>know this, because our local EAA chapter has been looking into
>>constructing
>>a hangar, and to do more than final assembly will not be allowed without
>>sprinklers, which of course costs big money.
>
> Is that a local code? Neither of the A&P's I use have sprinklers,
> and they run legit businesses that do major repairs.

As far as I know, NC fire code. Could be that an older building is
grandfathered in, but to build new, there was no doubt that there would have
to be sprinklers.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Don't they bond the aircraft to the fuel container (electrically)?

No.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:%kqxj.377$TT4.91
@attbi_s22:

>> Don't they bond the aircraft to the fuel container (electrically)?
>
> No.

Don't listen to em Jay. They're probably the same guys who cried about
cigarettes being bad for you and seatbelts "savign lives"

What a crock, huh?

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Having spent a couple of years as an airport manager I am not
> speaking out of ignorance. I'm surprised that you don't seem
> to be able see the potential dangers. I strongly suggest that
> you and the airport manager have a chat with you local fire
> marshal, your fuel supplier and your insurance underwriter before
> you continue that activity.

It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more aircraft
owners on our field alone. And at every other field I've ever been at. But
I know that takes the fun out of the discussion.

I'm not saying that the lawyers, insurance companies, professional
hand-wringers, and other lower forms of life won't find "risk" in fueling in
an open hangar. These are the same folks who install audible walk signals,
cancel school when it snows 2 inches, and make regulations that render an
aircraft "unairworthy" when an inherently inaccurate fuel gauge goes tits
up.

I'm saying that it's NOT unsafe, when done by competent people with
professional grade equipment. It's been done for decades, without mishap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Now, you're telling me that refueling an airplane from a
>> professionally-built fuel truck, properly grounded, with the big door
>> open, is DANGEROUS? I find it hard that anyone so risk averse actually
>> flies in an airplane. Those things crash, you know.
>
> Having spent a couple of years as an airport manager I am not
> speaking out of ignorance. I'm surprised that you don't seem
> to be able see the potential dangers. I strongly suggest that
> you and the airport manager have a chat with you local fire
> marshal, your fuel supplier and your insurance underwriter before
> you continue that activity.
>
> It is dangerous to even fuel a lawn mower in your garage because
> of the enclosed space, and the risk of a devastating fire in
> the even of a fuel spill.
>
> Check with any authority on the subject and see if they don't
> tell you the same thing.
>
> Good luck.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Is that a local code? Neither of the A&P's I use have sprinklers,
>> and they run legit businesses that do major repairs.
>
> As far as I know, NC fire code. Could be that an older building is
> grandfathered in, but to build new, there was no doubt that there would
> have to be sprinklers.

I've never even *seen* a sprinkler system in a maintenance hangar.

Not once, in Wisconsin or Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:dFqxj.53176$yE1.9605@attbi_s21:

>> Having spent a couple of years as an airport manager I am not
>> speaking out of ignorance. I'm surprised that you don't seem
>> to be able see the potential dangers. I strongly suggest that
>> you and the airport manager have a chat with you local fire
>> marshal, your fuel supplier and your insurance underwriter before
>> you continue that activity.
>
> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
> aircraft owners on our field alone. And at every other field I've
> ever been at. But I know that takes the fun out of the discussion.

So, you're a liar and an idiot.

And so is your FBO


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:XGqxj.53177$yE1.36379
@attbi_s21:

>>> Is that a local code? Neither of the A&P's I use have sprinklers,
>>> and they run legit businesses that do major repairs.
>>
>> As far as I know, NC fire code. Could be that an older building is
>> grandfathered in, but to build new, there was no doubt that there would
>> have to be sprinklers.
>
> I've never even *seen* a sprinkler system in a maintenance hangar.

So?

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> And pilots need to start DEMANDING a living wage, or just don't fly.
> Students need to expect to PAY for training, $100 per hr for an instructor
> is not unreasonable. This about how much you would pay any other
> professional. How much would you pay a plumber. Then think about how
> much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.

The part that will always cripple any effort to raise the pay of flight
instructors (and pilots in general) is that flying is *fun*.

The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer sucks. The
reason plumbers make a lot of money is because being a plumber sucks. The
reason flying doesn't pay a lot is because flying is fun, and there are
thousands of us who willingly pay to do it.

I don't see folks lining up to pay $120 per hour to solder pipes, or fill
out paperwork, but there are quite a few of us paying at least that to fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:VPqxj.53187$yE1.1436@attbi_s21:

>> And pilots need to start DEMANDING a living wage, or just don't fly.
>> Students need to expect to PAY for training, $100 per hr for an
>> instructor is not unreasonable. This about how much you would pay any
>> other professional. How much would you pay a plumber. Then think
>> about how much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.
>
> The part that will always cripple any effort to raise the pay of
> flight instructors (and pilots in general) is that flying is *fun*.
>
> The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer
> sucks. The reason plumbers make a lot of money is because being a
> plumber sucks. The reason flying doesn't pay a lot is because flying
> is fun, and there are thousands of us who willingly pay to do it.

Assholes, like you, for instance. Fortunately,you have nothing to teach
anyone.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more aircraft
> owners on our field alone. And at every other field I've ever been at. But
> I know that takes the fun out of the discussion.

> I'm not saying that the lawyers, insurance companies, professional
> hand-wringers, and other lower forms of life won't find "risk" in fueling in
> an open hangar. These are the same folks who install audible walk signals,
> cancel school when it snows 2 inches, and make regulations that render an
> aircraft "unairworthy" when an inherently inaccurate fuel gauge goes tits
> up.

> I'm saying that it's NOT unsafe, when done by competent people with
> professional grade equipment. It's been done for decades, without mishap.

To paraphrase every mom that ever lived, so if all your friends are
doing something stupid, its OK for you to do it too?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John[_13_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>> In case you haven't noticed, the death of aviation has already occurred.
>> It
> happened with all the law suits, rising cost of gas prices and scab CFI's
> that will fly for nothing. I've been in the industry for over 45 years.
> They say there is a lot of money in aviation. I know that because I put a
> lot of it in there! I am appalled that you can't make a decent living in
> the industry. Oh yes, there are a few souls that have made it, but it's
> like the lotto, not a planned definite process. I can't believe that I
> have spent so much time and money in the industry and can't make it there.
> In what other industry can you invest almost $100k in training and
> experience achieve, what is called "the PhD of Aviation, the ATP", all the
> CFI's offered by the FAA and still can't command more then minimum wags??
> The AOPA, FAA, NAFI and defunct organizations such as NPA, etc have all
> fallen down on the job, BIG TIME. All useless to foster the community. I
> go into a flight school and immediately get the feeling that "I don't want
> to be here". You do not feel welcome! All these managers need serious
> marketing and business education. And pilots need to start DEMANDING a
> living wage, or just don't fly. Students need to expect to PAY for
> training, $100 per hr for an instructor is not unreasonable. This about
> how much you would pay any other professional. How much would you pay a
> plumber. Then think about how much you pay a CFI and gripe about it!
> NUTS.
>
> --
> BobF.
> Lincoln actually got it right but was way ahead of his time when he said,
> "You can have some of you computer working all of the time and all of your
> computer working some of the time but..." It was he that said that,
> wasn't it?

While the ATP can cost a lot of money to obtain, a CFI is not the same. I
see ads for CFI training for 3000.00 That being said, I too agree that CFI
are way underpaid. I don't think that should be paid on the scale of a
lawyer or a plumber but rather on a teacher scale, somewhere between 40-100k
If the industry wants to attract qualified committed people, they need to
make the teachers pay something that they can live on or else they will have
the issues they have now where instructors are just building hours to move
on.

John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"John" > wrote in
news:EZrxj.6720$xg6.539@trnddc07:

>
> "Bob F." > wrote in message
> . ..
>>> In case you haven't noticed, the death of aviation has already
>>> occurred. It
>> happened with all the law suits, rising cost of gas prices and scab
>> CFI's that will fly for nothing. I've been in the industry for over
>> 45 years. They say there is a lot of money in aviation. I know that
>> because I put a lot of it in there! I am appalled that you can't
>> make a decent living in the industry. Oh yes, there are a few souls
>> that have made it, but it's like the lotto, not a planned definite
>> process. I can't believe that I have spent so much time and money in
>> the industry and can't make it there. In what other industry can you
>> invest almost $100k in training and experience achieve, what is
>> called "the PhD of Aviation, the ATP", all the CFI's offered by the
>> FAA and still can't command more then minimum wags?? The AOPA, FAA,
>> NAFI and defunct organizations such as NPA, etc have all fallen down
>> on the job, BIG TIME. All useless to foster the community. I go
>> into a flight school and immediately get the feeling that "I don't
>> want to be here". You do not feel welcome! All these managers need
>> serious marketing and business education. And pilots need to start
>> DEMANDING a living wage, or just don't fly. Students need to expect
>> to PAY for training, $100 per hr for an instructor is not
>> unreasonable. This about how much you would pay any other
>> professional. How much would you pay a plumber. Then think about
>> how much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.
>>
>> --
>> BobF.
>> Lincoln actually got it right but was way ahead of his time when he
>> said, "You can have some of you computer working all of the time and
>> all of your computer working some of the time but..." It was he that
>> said that, wasn't it?
>
> While the ATP can cost a lot of money to obtain,

It can, but needn't. I took the written (free, and maybe twenty bucks
for the study guide) and just booked and took th eflight test, which
consisted of about three hours rental of a twin. No instruction..
You can't use it til you have th ehours and if you've been flying for a
living it should be easy..





Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:51:32 GMT, "John" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>>> In case you haven't noticed, the death of aviation has already occurred.
>>> It
>> happened with all the law suits, rising cost of gas prices and scab CFI's
>> that will fly for nothing. I've been in the industry for over 45 years.
>> They say there is a lot of money in aviation. I know that because I put a
>> lot of it in there! I am appalled that you can't make a decent living in
>> the industry. Oh yes, there are a few souls that have made it, but it's
>> like the lotto, not a planned definite process. I can't believe that I
>> have spent so much time and money in the industry and can't make it there.
>> In what other industry can you invest almost $100k in training and
>> experience achieve, what is called "the PhD of Aviation, the ATP", all the
>> CFI's offered by the FAA and still can't command more then minimum wags??
>> The AOPA, FAA, NAFI and defunct organizations such as NPA, etc have all
>> fallen down on the job, BIG TIME. All useless to foster the community. I
>> go into a flight school and immediately get the feeling that "I don't want
>> to be here". You do not feel welcome! All these managers need serious
>> marketing and business education. And pilots need to start DEMANDING a
>> living wage, or just don't fly. Students need to expect to PAY for
>> training, $100 per hr for an instructor is not unreasonable. This about
>> how much you would pay any other professional. How much would you pay a
>> plumber. Then think about how much you pay a CFI and gripe about it!
>> NUTS.
>>
>> --
>> BobF.
>> Lincoln actually got it right but was way ahead of his time when he said,
>> "You can have some of you computer working all of the time and all of your
>> computer working some of the time but..." It was he that said that,
>> wasn't it?
>
>While the ATP can cost a lot of money to obtain, a CFI is not the same. I
>see ads for CFI training for 3000.00 That being said, I too agree that CFI
>are way underpaid. I don't think that should be paid on the scale of a
>lawyer or a plumber but rather on a teacher scale, somewhere between 40-100k

But if IIRC that teacher had to take 4 years of accredited college
at roughly $6,000 a term, plus one or two terms of student teaching
where they still have to pay. So they are looking at something like
$50,000 to $60,000 and over 4 years before they can do anything. Even
then wages depend on where they teach and are at the mercy of the
system until they get tenure and then they have to continue to take
classes and tests throughout their careers.

It cost me nearly that per term (plus 4 years of lost wages from a
very good paying job) and I graduated in Dec of 90. OK so graduating
from High school in 58 and college in 90 makes me a slow learner<:-))
At any rate the const must be more now.

>If the industry wants to attract qualified committed people, they need to
>make the teachers pay something that they can live on or else they will have
>the issues they have now where instructors are just building hours to move
>on.
>
>John
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[kontiki]

Bob F. wrote:
<snip>
> You do not feel welcome! All these managers need serious marketing and
> business education. And pilots need to start DEMANDING a living wage,
> or just don't fly. Students need to expect to PAY for training, $100
> per hr for an instructor is not unreasonable. This about how much you
> would pay any other professional. How much would you pay a plumber.
> Then think about how much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.
>

Very well stated sir. People willing to work for peanuts deserve
what they get while the rest of us moved on to more lucrative jobs.

[kontiki]

John wrote:

> While the ATP can cost a lot of money to obtain, a CFI is not the same.
> I see ads for CFI training for 3000.00 That being said, I too agree
> that CFI are way underpaid. I don't think that should be paid on the
> scale of a lawyer or a plumber but rather on a teacher scale, somewhere
> between 40-100k If the industry wants to attract qualified committed
> people, they need to make the teachers pay something that they can live
> on or else they will have the issues they have now where instructors are
> just building hours to move on.
>
> John

I have always felt that by simply raising the aeronautical experience
requirements to obtain a CFI to something more reasonable like 1000hrs
or even 500hrs would go a long way toward producing higher quality
CFIs. It would also put upward pressure on the salaries you'd have
to pay them. Whenever that time comes I may consider instructing again.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> Could be that an older building is
> grandfathered in, but to build new, there was no doubt that there would have
> to be sprinklers.


Good point.

The hangars I mentioned are at least 25 years old.

[The Visitor]

Jay Honeck wrote:
These are the same folks who install audible
> walk signals,


Those are for the visually impaired.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-02-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> an open hangar. These are the same folks who install audible walk signals,

What do you have against the partially sighted? It's cheap to make an
audible walk signal and makes life much, much easier for those with poor
eyesight.

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

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bob F. wrote:
> Students need to expect to PAY for training, $100 per hr
>for an instructor is not unreasonable. This about how much you would pay any
>other professional. How much would you pay a plumber. Then think about how
>much you pay a CFI and gripe about it! NUTS.
>
CFI is largely an entry level job for prospective airline pilots. I've
had lots of entry level jobs, but very few that paid $100/hr. What other
industry commands $100/hr. for someone with 300 hrs. of practical experience?

That said, when I get flight training, I usually get it from instructors
who are in the business of flight training and have thousands of hours and
decades of flight training experience. These guys make a good living from
flight training and I'm more than happy to pay a premium price for their
knowledge and experience.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200802/1

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> These are the same folks who install audible
>> walk signals,
>
>
> Those are for the visually impaired.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:CvCxj.53962$yE1.16097
@attbi_s21:

>> These are the same folks who install audible
>>> walk signals,
>>
>>
>> Those are for the visually impaired.
>
> Ya think?

And you, Jay, and you.. Don't get excited





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> John wrote:
>
>> While the ATP can cost a lot of money to obtain, a CFI is not the
>> same. I see ads for CFI training for 3000.00 That being said, I too
>> agree that CFI are way underpaid. I don't think that should be paid
>> on the scale of a lawyer or a plumber but rather on a teacher scale,
>> somewhere between 40-100k If the industry wants to attract qualified
>> committed people, they need to make the teachers pay something that
>> they can live on or else they will have the issues they have now
>> where instructors are just building hours to move on.
>>
>> John
>
> I have always felt that by simply raising the aeronautical experience
> requirements to obtain a CFI to something more reasonable like 1000hrs
> or even 500hrs would go a long way toward producing higher quality
> CFIs. It would also put upward pressure on the salaries you'd have
> to pay them. Whenever that time comes I may consider instructing
> again.

Very good idea. Dont know what it might do to the industry though!

Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer sucks.

No, the reason lawyers make a lot of money is that they write the laws, and
the laws are designed to protect their turf.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > took is hand off his dick and wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer
>> sucks.
>
> No, the reason lawyers make a lot of money is that they write the
> laws, and the laws are designed to protect their turf.
>

Another demonstration of Anthony not knowing **** from shinola!

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>> The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer
>>> sucks.
>>
>> No, the reason lawyers make a lot of money is that they write the
>> laws, and the laws are designed to protect their turf.
>
> Another demonstration of Anthony not knowing **** from shinola!

Well, he's at least partially right. Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
system in their favor.

It's really a question of which came first, not which one is right.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 28 Feb, 21:39, "Owner" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> > news:CvCxj.53962$yE1.16097
> > @attbi_s21:
>
> >>> These are the same folks who install audible
> >>>> walk signals,
>
> >>> Those are for the visually impaired.
>
> >> Ya think?
>
> > And you, Jay, and you.. Don't get excited
>
> > Bertie
>
> If I didn't know better I'd think you have a thing for Jay :P-

Oh but I do.


Bertie

[Stella Starr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
> aircraft owners on our field alone.

They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code of
Iowa City "the law."

13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:

The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil
service and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks or
dispensers:

A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall be
refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are running,
when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when aircraft is
in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.

There's no mention of older building being excepted or grandfathered out
of the fire code, in this public list of the city ordinances:

http://66.113.195.234/IA/Iowa%20City/index.htm

Like I'm always telling my students, you could look it up.
(they get so tired of hearing that!)

[The Visitor]

Ah, yeah.
We also lower the curbs at intersections for wheelchairs and scooters.
Or do you blame that on lawyers too?





Jay Honeck wrote:
>>These are the same folks who install audible
>>
>>>walk signals,
>>
>>
>>Those are for the visually impaired.
>
>
> Ya think?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Well, he's at least partially right. Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
> takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
> system in their favor.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for anyone
but a lawyer to practice law. It's protectionism at its best.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:

> > Well, he's at least partially right. Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
> > takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
> > system in their favor.

> It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for anyone
> but a lawyer to practice law. It's protectionism at its best.

You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?

Yes, exactly.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
>
> Yes, exactly.

So, is it your position that just anyone should be able to practice
medicine?

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
> >
> > Yes, exactly.
>
> So, is it your position that just anyone should be able to practice
> medicine?

Mixi's already operated on himself. I forget exactly what it was- a
partial lobotomy, a total testiculectomy, or maybe both.

--
(*) 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

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 29, 11:39*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > Well, he's at least partially right. * Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
> > takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
> > system in their favor.
>
> It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for anyone
> but a lawyer to practice law. *It's protectionism at its best.

Don't you mean worst?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 1, 4:35*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Jay Honeck writes:
> > > Well, he's at least partially right. * Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
> > > takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
> > > system in their favor.
> > It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for anyone
> > but a lawyer to practice law. *It's protectionism at its best.
>
> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
>

Not doctors, physicians.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 1, 6:58*am, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > writes:
>
> > >> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
>
> > > Yes, exactly.
>
> > So, is it your position that just anyone should be able to practice
> > medicine?
>
> Mixi's already operated on himself. I forget exactly what it was-

Aha! he got to you too...

:-)

Cheers

[[email protected]]

WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:35?am, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > Jay Honeck writes:
> > > > Well, he's at least partially right. ? Being a lawyer sucks, but since it
> > > > takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for them to game the
> > > > system in their favor.
> > > It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for anyone
> > > but a lawyer to practice law. ?It's protectionism at its best.
> >
> > You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
> >

> Not doctors, physicians.

I use the common vernacular, for who is more common than MX, and to
save MX the trouble of having to Google big words.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Feb 25, 4:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?
>
> > Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend
> > on vacuum?
>
> you're an idiot and you don't fly.
>
But he is a good vacuum source

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more aircraft
>> owners on our field alone.
>
> They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code of
> Iowa City "the law."
>
> 13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:
>
> The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil service
> and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks or dispensers:
>
> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall be
> refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are running,
> when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when aircraft is
> in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.

So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of the
building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the building is
missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a congested or an
enclosed space."

Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support our
actions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 4:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?
>>
>> > Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit
>> > depend on vacuum?
>>
>> you're an idiot and you don't fly.
>>
> But he is a good vacuum source
>

True. The hunt for zero pointy head is over.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:UI5yj.3302$TT4.1503@attbi_s22:

>>> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
>>> aircraft owners on our field alone.
>>
>> They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code
>> of Iowa City "the law."
>>
>> 13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:
>>
>> The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil
>> service and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks or
>> dispensers:
>>
>> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall
>> be refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are
>> running, when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when
>> aircraft is in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.
>
> So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of
> the building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the
> building is missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a
> congested or an enclosed space."
>
> Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support our
> actions.

We could alwasy ask the fire chief.....

http://www.icgov.org/fire/index.asp

Surely he could provide th edefinitve answer..



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So, is it your position that just anyone should be able to practice
> medicine?

Yes. I believe patients should have the option of choosing for themselves the
level and type of qualifications they require in a physician. The same
applies for lawyers, accountants, etc. The only time you need any type of
prequalification is when the end user doesn't have a chance to choose, e.g.,
ER medicine ... and aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Don't you mean worst?

It depends on one's point of view.

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 1, 10:24*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:
> > Don't you mean worst?
>
> It depends on one's point of view.

I see your POV is confused.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Don't you mean worst?
>
> It depends on one's point of view.

Yes, a distorted, ill informed point of view.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The reason lawyers make a lot of money is because being a lawyer
>> sucks.
>
> No, the reason lawyers make a lot of money is that they write the
> laws, and the laws are designed to protect their turf.
>

ANd the reason you make no money at all is because you are an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Well, he's at least partially right. Being a lawyer sucks, but
>> since it takes lawyers to comprehend our regulations, it's easy for
>> them to game the system in their favor.
>
> It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the law, it's just illegal for
> anyone but a lawyer to practice law.

No, it isn't, fjukktard.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You mean like only doctors being allowed to practice medicine?
>
> Yes, exactly.
>

Whoosh.

bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UI5yj.3302$TT4.1503@attbi_s22...
>>> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
>>> aircraft owners on our field alone.
>>
>> They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code of
>> Iowa City "the law."
>>
>> 13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:
>>
>> The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil
>> service and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks or
>> dispensers:
>>
>> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall be
>> refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are running,
>> when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when aircraft is
>> in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.
>
> So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of the
> building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the building is
> missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a congested or an
> enclosed space."
>
> Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support our
> actions.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I read it that way also. A hanger with an open bi-bold door is hardly a
closed hanger. They probably have a similar reg on fueling autos indoors. It
would certainly make sense, or the convenience stores up north would have
enclosed fueling bays.

I certainly don't agree with you on everything Jay, but I certainly do on
this one. I think this part of the thread has become a grand example of
modern conveniences lost to negative fantasies.

If we can't fuel an aircraft without the total assurance of complete safety,
then it should not be legal to fuel them in proximity of any other aircraft
or property, indoors or out. And in no way should an aircraft, with a fully
vented fuel system, be stored indoors without complete defueling.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:UI5yj.3302$TT4.1503@attbi_s22:
>
>>>> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
>>>> aircraft owners on our field alone.
>>>
>>> They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code
>>> of Iowa City "the law."
>>>
>>> 13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:
>>>
>>> The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil
>>> service and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks or
>>> dispensers:
>>>
>>> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall
>>> be refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are
>>> running, when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when
>>> aircraft is in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.
>>
>> So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of
>> the building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the
>> building is missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a
>> congested or an enclosed space."
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support our
>> actions.
>
> We could alwasy ask the fire chief.....
>
> http://www.icgov.org/fire/index.asp
>
> Surely he could provide th edefinitve answer..
>
>
>
> Bertie

Oh yeah, Bertie the Snitch.
You're an ass wipe.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote in news:Gyeyj.7451$QC.2210
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:UI5yj.3302$TT4.1503@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>>> It's not just me doing it -- it's our FBO. And a dozen or more
>>>>> aircraft owners on our field alone.
>>>>
>>>> They would appear to be breaking the law, if you consider city code
>>>> of Iowa City "the law."
>>>>
>>>> 13-4-3: REFUELING AND DEFUELING AIRCRAFT:
>>>>
>>>> The following general rules shall govern refueling, defueling, oil
>>>> service and sumping of aircraft and placing fuels in storage tanks
or
>>>> dispensers:
>>>>
>>>> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft
shall
>>>> be refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are
>>>> running, when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or
when
>>>> aircraft is in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.
>>>
>>> So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of
>>> the building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the
>>> building is missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a
>>> congested or an enclosed space."
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support
our
>>> actions.
>>
>> We could alwasy ask the fire chief.....
>>
>> http://www.icgov.org/fire/index.asp
>>
>> Surely he could provide th edefinitve answer..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh yeah, Bertie the Snitch.


Moi? Never.



> You're an ass wipe.
>
>
>

Wipe


Bertie

[Stella Starr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>
>> A.Aircraft Not To Be Running Or In Enclosed Space: No aircraft shall
>> be refueled, defueled or oil serviced while aircraft engines are
>> running, when aircraft is being warmed by application of heat or when
>> aircraft is in a closed hangar or a congested or an enclosed space.
>
> So, if I'm reading this right, having a 40-foot by 25 foot front of the
> building (AKA: a bi-fold door) open (as in, the front of the building is
> missing), we are not refueling in a "closed hangar, or a congested or an
> enclosed space."
>
> Thanks for clarifying this, Stella. I'm glad the statutes support our
> actions.

You may be right, dude.
One might give a call to the fire department to get confirmation, and
just verify that's the way THEY would interpret it.

At the airport where I learned to fly, they (both management AND other
pilots and hangar lessees) frowned strongly on fueling in the hangar,
and a fellow who regularly did it ...started closing his hangar door so
they couldn't see him doing it. Not an optimum outcome, I thought.