GA is priceless

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The problem is a
lot of people would then not drive and cars would then be built in the
quantities that GA planes are and a Ford Fiesta would cost $500,000.

A large part of society would also grind to a halt, because in many
parts of the United States, you need a car to be a part of society (in
particular, you need a car and license in order to have a job).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

If that's the price we must pay to save all of our GA infrastructure,
yes.

Fortunately, we don't need to pay that price. Our GA infrastructure
would be crushed under that weight of users, anyway.

Be careful what you wish for.

I would like to think that there's a happy medium here somewhere, but
given the choice between no GA, and lots of GA, I'll take the risk with
a pattern that's full, thank you.

See above. A world in which everyone flew an aircraft would be
nothing like the world you know now.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

True, but irrelevant, since no one claims otherwise.

You said "the incredible utility and convenience of GA," but GA is
neither convenient nor useful, specifically because of issues like
weather that make it impossible to depend on GA.

This is why commercial aviation has invested so much over the decades
in making all-weather flying possible, safe, and practical.

Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.

Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
time (or even within a span of several days).

Mary and I have flown our family coast to coast, all VFR, for over 12
years. The key is to be flexible in your planning, don't push the
limits of your aircraft and ability, and view the journey as the
adventure -- not the destination.

Naturally ... but that is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that GA
cannot be depended upon for transportation. Cars and buses and
commercial airlines can be seen as modes of transportation; GA is
still largely a fair-weather hobby. If GA allows you to actually
travel in a useful way, that's just a happy (and occasional)
coincidence.

GA is much like motorcyle riding. You don't want to do it when the
weather sucks, but when the weather is nice, there is simply no better
way to go.

Yes. But I was taught not to depend on motorcycles for
transportation, for exactly this reason.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

Sadly, the reason GA flying is priced so high is because so few people
actually want to do it.

In part, but there are also other obstacles. It's extremely hard to
get a pilot's license as compared to a driver's license, for example
(independent of the extremely high cost).

Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Which is more comfortable across country?

And STILL there isn't a plane in every garage. Why?

Too expensive, too difficult, too inconvenient. This limits flying to
the real enthusiasts.

But Mary and I work on converting each and every one of those "pilot
wannabees" who step into our lobby. I'll set them in the Kiwi, get 'em
shooting an approach into Madeline Island at sunset, and watch the
gears start turning...

Until clocks, calendars, and wallets lock those gears in place again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

Oh, I know. Until the personal flight vehicle (AKA: "Flying Car") we
were all promised in the 1960s is developed, flying will never be as
popular as driving.

There won't be any flying cars with the current state of technology.
The only way to make flying safe for large numbers of people would be
to automate it, which isn't likely any time soon.

But it sure could be a lot more popular, if even half the guys who
bought boats (that go no where) would divert that time and money into
an airplane (that can take them *anywhere*)...

Most of our planet is covered by water and is thus navigable by boats.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Jose writes:

Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Most times the weather cooperates, but until you get to the Pilatus
turboprop level or higher, weather will control your flying.

Exactly. So it's not very useful or convenient. You cannot depend on
your aircraft to get you somewhere on a specific date at a specific
time (or even within a span of several days).

I have seen the St Louis Arch, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon
(twice), Devil's Tower twice, Mt Rushmore, Death Valley, Saguaro Natl
Monument, White Sands, Carlsbad Caverns and more in the last four
years while flying only VFR.

Sounds pretty useful to me. Can you claim to have driven to a
similar number of sites (same distances) in the same period?

Ron Lee

Even if they make straight in approaches at non-towered airports?

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in approach.

Overhead approach is far better -- it lets you see other traffic in the
pattern, and, done right, gets you on the ground fastest.

Both approaches are fine, unless the pattern is full.

Jose is referring to my vocal disdain for the (usually corporate)
pilots who come blasting into a full pattern from all angles, landing
on any runway, from any point in the pattern, without regard for
procedure or protocol, putting everyone at risk in order to save a few
gallons of Jet-A/Avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Oh, wait -- you *can* buy an airplane for about what a new car costs.
Our old Warrior, which faithfully carried my family from coast to coast
from '98 to '02, cost less than our hotel's courtesy van.

Which is more comfortable across country?

Actually, if you're talking cross-country, I'll take the Warrior.
True, it's not as spacious inside, but it's plenty comfortable, and
it'll get you across the country in hours, rather than days.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"