Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vtj9e.2896$WI3.2616@attbi_s71...
Jay, what you don't understand is that you are the fat slob in the
floral shirt making an ass of himself and his countrymen by insulting
entire countries in a public place. The rest of us are the 300 other
Americans who don't want to be grouped with you.

Sure, "Bob." Whatever.

You are starting to make the same sound as one hand clapping.

If "BOB" was following the news, he's see that entire countries (primarily
European) engage in that (making asses of themselves) towards the US.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

The number of pilots in France can be roughly determined by the ststistical
base of the FNA, to which all pilots, so far as I know, must belong.

They list 47000 pilots, plus another 13000 glider pilots. As many of the
glider pilots may also be included in the first figure (redundancy) and the
discussion is not particularly centered on gliding, I propose we simply ignore
the 13000 figure for the purposes of this discussion, and consider the number
to be 47000. Divided into the overall population figure of almost 60M, this
yields 1 pilot for 1275 pop. The US figure, I believe is about 800000 pilots,
for nearly 300M population - or 1 pilot per 375 pop - 3 1/2 times as many.
Approximately 50% of US pilots are instrument rated, compared with 15% of
French pilots. If you exclude airline pilots, the percentage of IR rated PPL's
in France is anecdotal.

This last statistic is demonstrably related to the acquisition cost of IR
training in France. A PPL with a few hundred hours will expect to pay close to
20K/EUR for an IR rating - which is 2X the cost at Flight Safety Academy,
and several times the average cost paid by US PPL's. Most pilots see in this a
volontary distinction between "private" pilots (relegated almost to
"recreational" status) and "professional" pilots (meaning mostly ATP, employed
as airline pilots - the corporate and ait taxi sectors being also anecdotal).

There has been considerable attention paid of late to the matter of
eliminating this traditional prejudice. With the advent of JAR-FCL licensing
standards, strongly influenced by FAA regulations, there is much demand for a
more "useful" IR program - more accessible to private pilots. Time will tell
what success this initiative will have - for now, the number of licenses
issued in France (all categories) continues to decline every year, and the
costs associated, including fuel costs are indisputably related to this
decline.

The number of airports is not an issue. I have not done a simple calculation
of total land area for number of airports, but the truth is that every major
and almost every minor urban center is served by one or more airports, open to
public use. You can go anywhere you want in France, and find an airport close
to your destination - much as in the US. If you want to go IFR, you still have
many options, and I would even wager that the IFR Airport coverage of the
territory is as good as it is in the US. Too bad there are no IR rated
pilots!!

The balance of power between pilot lobbies and anti-airport lobbies is much
less favorable (to pilots) in France than in the US. The AOPA is present but
of limited effectiveness, while the FNA, who is supposed to fill this role, is
so ineffective that pilots often wonder which side they are on. The
anti-airport lobbies are vociferous and omnipresent - though they focus most
of their energies on major airports and scheduled transport (They have just
obtained a 20K/EUR fine, automatically levied on all planes landing between
midnight and 5:00 at Paris CDG, continental Europe's busiest airport,
regardless of the cause. The fine may also be accompanied by seizure and
impounding of the aircraft). Citizens' attempts to have local airports closed
down have met with little success - not because of any energetic response from
users, mind you, but because French law rather strongly defends their right to
operate, particularly when the airport was there before the neighbors, which
is almost always the case. They have succeeded however in imposing fines and
restriction of operating priviledges for pilots who inadvertently fly over
this or that village in proximity to airports, and one can see police with
rangefinder binoculars enforcing these rules.

With fuel at USD $7.50/gal, and a wet rental rate of EUR195 (USD $255) for a
C-172R, there is little doubt that the pricing and taxing structure is
disuasive. With the entire territory much smaller, and ground transportation
much more effective than in the US, flying is of less utility as well. This
could change with the continued development of the European Union, as it is
now possible to fly toGermany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Holland etc without
border formalities or customs checks. (This has been theoretically possible
for a few years, however until very recently police continued to impose border
checks and customs inspections for small aircraft. This has now been proven
illegal and should make the 500nm travel radius much more attractive).

One final irony - The progression of European regulation seems to continue
the practice of "pay-per-use". Landing fees, airway fees and fuel surtaxes pay
for the system which, in the US, is subsidized from the general fund. This
really makes the US system more "socialist", as all of the people have to pay
for services used by 0.27% of the population.


G Faris

Since they have 6300 and 481, respectively, I'd say their avgas prices
have done a remarkably good job of killing aviation in France.

There are other reasons, of course, one being that (in effect, for
most purposes) there is no VFR flight.

Most European nations are, by American standards, very congested. It's
probably not a coincidence that the only European posting here
regularly flies on the Isle of Man.

The multiplicity of languages must also be a considerable problem.
It's one thing to travel in Switzerland by road, but doing it in a
lightplane must be a bit scary. French and German (never mind
Italian!) are just not that similar. Add to that the tradition that
ATC should speak in English, and that altitude is expressed in feet
when you are accustomed to meters. Even if you trust yourself to be
perfectly bi- or tri-lingual, how can you be sure that the gent you're
talking to is equally blessed?

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

In article , Cub Driver wrote:
There are other reasons, of course, one being that (in effect, for
most purposes) there is no VFR flight.

Really? I thought much of France's lower airspace was class G airspace
(just like it is around here - it's class G up to FL245). I don't think
I've filed a flight plan in well over a year. I suspect for most rural
living French people the situation is the same.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , G Farris wrote:
French pilots. If you exclude airline pilots, the percentage of IR rated PPL's
in France is anecdotal.

And that is the thing that IS dunderheaded - is the JAA requirements for
an IR which makes it prohibitive for a typical private pilot. The UK has
a workaround (the IMC rating).

Fortunately, I read there are some voices of sanity in the European
authorities - EASA have said they want to reduce the regulatory burden
and want to see GA as 'vibrant as it is in the US'. It remains to be
seen whether that's just talk though. On the opposite end we have the
airlines convincing our CAA that they are subsidising GA - they do this
by only taking into accout cheques that GA people write to the CAA, and
totally ignore fuel taxes. GA pays fuel duty and VAT. Airlines do not
pay any fuel tax at all - certainly not VAT (which even Jet-A burning GA
pilots have to pay).

One final irony - The progression of European regulation seems to continue
the practice of "pay-per-use". Landing fees, airway fees and fuel surtaxes pay
for the system which, in the US, is subsidized from the general fund. This
really makes the US system more "socialist", as all of the people have to pay
for services used by 0.27% of the population.

And that's what always got me about the way many US conservatives argue
the issue. Now I think the US system *is* the best; 'user pays per use'
is woefully inefficient when the fuel duty quite handsomely pays
already. However, I always get a chuckle when US Republican supporters
argue how healthcare shouldn't be subsidised, but argue vigorously that
their airport and GA activities should have Federal subsidy.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article ,
Bob Fry wrote:

It's actually rather intelligent. Smallish land area, larger
population, means it's ideal for high-speed transit: airlines and fast
trains. Add some good highways, which they have, and voila, a pretty
decent place to live.

that stuff is neither necessary nor sufficient for a decent place to live.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

George Patterson wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:


Actually, the University of Iowa is routinely ranked in the top ten in
the country, and it's generally considered number one in the U.S. for
literature and writing.


Source? The latest rankings I find rank the doctoral program at #57, the
business school at #32, and the engineering school at #59. It's not even
on the charts in the liberal arts field.

He said top ten in the "country", not the "city." :-) You have to
exclude all of those high falutin' urban schools.


Matt

In article ,
says...

In article , Cub Driver wrote:
There are other reasons, of course, one being that (in effect, for
most purposes) there is no VFR flight.

Really? I thought much of France's lower airspace was class G airspace
(just like it is around here - it's class G up to FL245). I don't think
I've filed a flight plan in well over a year. I suspect for most rural
living French people the situation is the same.




Correct. I'm not quite sure what Dan intended by "there s no VFR flight" , but
in a technical sense this is untrue. VFR is quite common and easily undertaken
in France. Since very few non-commercial pilots are IR rated, this is
fortunate. Most fly VFR, without a flight plan, up to FL115, where it becomes
Class D, and in practical terms, off-limits to VFR.

G Faris

Hmm, the meter/feet thing is not a problem at all.
It is just a number on maps etc. and the one on the altimeter.
If the one on the altimeter is larger than the one on the map you are
save as long you do not bust some restricted airspace.

It is only explaining to non-pilots what speed, altitude you are flying
that needs some calculations.
Roughly: 3ft= 1 meter and km/h = kts x 2 -20%
I give up trying to explain things like TAS vs GS, MSL vs AGL and the
like.

To be honest, there is one slight problem with this imperial/metric
thing.
Having a metric plane with a lot of US/UK made parts on it.
You need a very keen eye to grap the right spanner the first time.

Anyway, most pilots here fly VFR and just for fun.
There is hardly any need to take a light plane to go anywhere for
business.
Where I live it is faster just to go by car since every major compagny
or seals rep. is within a couple of hours.
Some examples from where I live to:
-Rotterdam 30 min.
-Amsterdam 1 hrs
-Antwerp 30 min
-Brussels 1 hrs
-Ruhr area 1 hrs to 1.5 hrs
-Luxembourg 3 hrs
-Hamburg 3.5 hrs
-Paris 4 hrs
-London 5 hrs
-Stuttgart 5 hrs
-Munich 7 hrs
-Lyon 7 hrs
The same counts for the most of North Western Europe

So, I only need a plane for fun.
-Kees

you also have a population of 250 or 300 million. Do you want to say that
every
other nation with a smaller population is also irrelevant? Man, you are so
ignorant.

Did you even READ my post, Martin? Man, you are SO ignorant.

;-)

Apparently not, so I will sum up.

It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is out
of whack in France. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should have
the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

In other words, France has about the same number of airports as
Wisconsin and Illinois -- making French aviation hardly a topic worthy
of continued discussion.
(...)
So, I guess the bottom line is that aviation in France is simply
irrelevant, dead or not.


#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg