AOPA flight planner chuckle

My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks. I was editing my profile on AOPA flight planner,
deleting the old aircraft. When I highlight a plane and "delete" in
the aircraft list, the dialog that pops up asks:

The aircraft "Piper - PA28-161 - N81917" will be permantly destroyed.
Continue?

I think that's a little harsh. We want to sell them, not destroy them!

"Permanently destroyed"? Makes you wonder: How does that differ from
"temporarily destroyed"?
wrote in message
oups.com...
My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks. I was editing my profile on AOPA flight planner,
deleting the old aircraft. When I highlight a plane and "delete" in
the aircraft list, the dialog that pops up asks:

The aircraft "Piper - PA28-161 - N81917" will be permantly destroyed.
Continue?

I think that's a little harsh. We want to sell them, not destroy them!

My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks.

Mind telling me why, here or by email?

vuince norris

We just sold a Skyhawk and went to a Warrior, could not imagine
going back...

But, the Skyhawk can be spun for spin training, and probably better
for sight seeing flights.. (pax like to look down)

Probably easier to load pax with limited mobility....

But for a good airplane, the Warrior has more comfort and features
to offer than a Skyhawk (IMHO)

So I would be interested as well, in why you are switching the whole
fleet......

Dave


On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:12:44 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks.

Mind telling me why, here or by email?

vuince norris

Probably easier to load pax with limited mobility....

From personal experience with my father who was in a wheelchair...
The easiest aircraft to get him in and out of was a Cherokee Six.
With the back door, all I has to do was stand him up and have him sit on
the door sill. Then I just lifted his legs up and turned him to face
forward.
The Cessna's are hard because they are so seat is so high and the
landing gear gets in the way of where they have to stand to position the
pax to get them in.
On a low wing like the Warrior/Archer/Dakota, you can slide them up the
wing and turn the pax to seat them in either the front or back seat.

Thanks for this John!

Now that I think about it,(and I had not, really) your comments make
sense...

I was thinking of myself having to get in first, rather than helping
the pax get situated and me being the last in...

But the Cessna seat IS a long way up there...

Dave






On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:23:32 GMT, john smith wrote:

Probably easier to load pax with limited mobility....

From personal experience with my father who was in a wheelchair...
The easiest aircraft to get him in and out of was a Cherokee Six.
With the back door, all I has to do was stand him up and have him sit on
the door sill. Then I just lifted his legs up and turned him to face
forward.
The Cessna's are hard because they are so seat is so high and the
landing gear gets in the way of where they have to stand to position the
pax to get them in.
On a low wing like the Warrior/Archer/Dakota, you can slide them up the
wing and turn the pax to seat them in either the front or back seat.

vincent p. norris wrote:
My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks.

Mind telling me why, here or by email?

Fleet renewal and market conditions. Our fleet of 4 Warriors was
getting close to or over 20 years old and 10,000 TTAF. We wanted to fly
newer planes that would need less maintanence (a cost and availability
statement), so we decided we wanted to buy planes that are about 5
years old with about 2000 hours on them, with their first engine
overhaul behind them. There aren't very many Warriors or Archers for
sale in that vintage and condition, but there are a lot of Skyhawks,
making for better choice and prices.

Definitely nothing wrong with Warriors per se. We all liked them,
including me. Great planes, as are Skyhawks. It's just that Piper
wasn't making very many of them in the model years that we wanted to
buy. It's nice to fly newer planes where everything works, and as far
as I can see from the schedule and membership increases since the
Skyhawks arrived, they've been a hit.

My flying club is undergoing a fleet restructure, replacing Warriors
with Skyhawks.

Mind telling me why, here or by email?

Fleet renewal and market conditions. Our fleet of 4 Warriors was
getting close to or over 20 years old and 10,000 TTAF. We wanted to fly
newer planes that would need less maintanence (a cost and availability
statement), so we decided we wanted to buy planes that are about 5
years old with about 2000 hours on them, with their first engine
overhaul behind them. There aren't very many Warriors or Archers for
sale in that vintage and condition, but there are a lot of Skyhawks,
making for better choice and prices.

Thanks. Those are sensible reasons.

Definitely nothing wrong with Warriors per se. We all liked them,
including me. Great planes, as are Skyhawks....

I just returned from my first cross-county (to Manteo NC for the
Wright Brothers' anniversary) in a Cessna 172, after flying Cherokees
and Warriors since 1975. It is certainly a fine airplane, probably
more stable than a Piper, but I had trouble (with my arthritis)
bending my knees enough to get my feet through the door, even with the
seat all the way back.

vince norris

vincent p. norris wrote:

I just returned from my first cross-county (to Manteo NC for the
Wright Brothers' anniversary) in a Cessna 172, after flying Cherokees
and Warriors since 1975. It is certainly a fine airplane, probably
more stable than a Piper, but I had trouble (with my arthritis)
bending my knees enough to get my feet through the door, even with the
seat all the way back.

That's interesting, I find the opposite to be true for me, I much
prefer stepping up into the 172 like a natural stair climbing motion,
rather than clambering over the wing, lowering myself into the cockpit,
and sliding over to the left side. It's especially awkward to do while
the baggage door is strapped open.

Also my dad has arthritis and in the Warrior I can't help him get in,
because I have to get into the plane first. So with no one to help him
in or out he would basically hang off the door of the Warrior to
support himself, which couldn't have been good for it.

I do miss being able to put my flight bag onto the wing while I
preflight, and being able to easily open the cowl for preflight checks.
And I'm still working on remembering to turn to face final before
stopping for my runup, so I can check final before taking the runway
without the wing blocking the view.

Both planes have their good points and bad points. I'm happy flying
either one. For me the biggest good point of the 172s is that they are
significantly newer and better equipped than the old Warriors were (yes
I know that difference is not intrinsic to the model types, except
there are alot fewer new Warriors than 172's out there

Also my dad has arthritis and in the Warrior I can't help him get in,
because I have to get into the plane first. So with no one to help him
in or out he would basically hang off the door of the Warrior to
support himself, which couldn't have been good for it.

That kind of abuse on a Warrior door will lead to many, many hours spent
trying to get the door to close properly again.

Don't ask me how I know...

;-)

Rule #1 (ahead of ALL other rules, except "Don't walk into the spinny thing
out front") in our plane is "Do NOT touch the door while entering/departing
the plane."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"