Flying Lessons

Thanks those are pretty good links. I forgot about Long Beach the
California Flight Center just from looking at their website warrants a
closer look. Thanks for the info Larry

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:20:09 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:39:34 GMT, Steve wrote
in ::

I'm going to go by Santa Monica tommorrow and make a trip to Torrance
later in the week.

Those are good choices. You might also consider Long Beach:
http://www.atpflightschool.com/
http://www.californiaflightcenter.com/

You'll find a list of flight schools at Santa Monica he
http://santa-monica.org/airport/n_flight_s.aspx

Here's a list of flight schools in California:
http://tinyurl.com/cwle7

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:09:07 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Steve" wrote)
[snips]
I'm going to add something that noone else has offered up yet....

Damn... i don't post often, but when i do... i get a bit long winded...

I for one thought it was a very informative post I plan on being
around a bit. So feel free to correct my thinking at will.


I'm seeing a green light from the tower. g

"My Keyboard!"
"My Keyboard!"

First lesson: Let's work on trimming those posts :-)

Thanks.

Also, not wanting to lose you here at r.a.p, but have you popped in over at
rec.aviation.student yet?

Yes, but I wanted to pick the experienced mind first.


Also also, hold out for the new HondaJet. It was way cool at OSH this year.

[Flying lessons - buying your own jet]
* BUY a Cessna 172/Piper Warrior
* Keep it in your own hanger, or rent space.
* Do this before Oct 1st.

Why do I need to do this before Oct 1

There are people here, and at rec.aviation.owning, who will help you out
with much (free) advise on buying a plane.

* Go through about 4 instructors (in *your* plane) men and women - you'll
eventually find a couple CFI's you like -- knock it out in 40-60 hrs.

* Fly and hour per day 4-5-6 days per week.
* Take some glider training for fun.

For some reason flying without an engine on purpose disturbs me.

* Take some fellow 172 pilots up for rides - they don't need to be a CFI.
They will be PIC (Pilot in Command) so make it clear before you go up what's
what ...CRM (Crew Recourse Management) ...just like the airlines crews.

*Get your PPL and your Instrument by Christmas.
Now you'll have a much better idea what you want to do next ...plus you'll
be a pilot!!

Almost forgot - get your medical out of the way first. If you've got "known"
issues here, you will still be able to fly under the new Sport Pilot Rule -
just not jets.


Montblack

On 20 Sep 2005 19:08:13 -0700, wrote:

Steve wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 08:50:27 -0700, wrote:

How flexible is that schedule? You could go to an ab-initio school that
feeds people into the regional airlines in 12-18 months and get all the

I'm not that flexible and that route appears to be cumbersome and
under a corporate thumb I don't do well in those types of situations.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that in that case a large portion of the
corporate thumb exists to keep cocky/inexperienced pilots from bending
airplanes and scaring passengers, or worse.


If you don't have quite that much time, you could pay to get a type
rating at FlightSafety and look for work flying right seat for check

Can I go this route without working for someone else. Maybe doing
charity work for something like the "Angel Flight" I saw mentioned
here??

Perhaps, but what you're looking to get is loggable turbojet time, and
the guys loaning their jets to Angel Flight are also supplying the
crews. It's the third-tier charter companies, freight dogs, etc. who
might have need of a cheap and willing SIC and if you hang around the
field and get to know the right people you might find yourself getting
some time here and there.

Let me see if I'm clear. What your saying is that if I fly SIC which
I'm gonna assume is second in charge. That I will pick up hours as a
pilot although I'm not actually flying the plane if I'm sitting in the
right seat. That's curious.




Also, you might want to consider whether you really need a turbojet
airplane... A Lancair Columbia will cruise over 200kts which makes

Can I fly one of these planes you mentioned from L.A. to New York in a
fairly resonable amount of time at night or during somewhat unclear
weather.

If JFK-LAX is your typical flight, I'd take myself over to NetJets and
buy a fractional share and let somebody else do the driving. That trip
is at least 8 hours flying time (and 1, more likely 2 fuel stops) even
in a Mustang or CitationJet, which is a 12-14 hour day before you hit
the ground in LA. I suspect most guys either take a co-pilot or spread
the flying out over two days. You need to go quite a ways up the food
chain to something like a Hawker 800XP before you can make that trip
non-stop, and until you can do that, American Airlines will get you
there faster even adding in the time to take your shoes off, yadda
yadda.

Where an owner-flown aircraft really shines is in the 300-1500nm trips
where you're going direct and non-stop between two places the airlines
don't go direct. Let's say you're spending the weekend at a beach house
in Maine up near Bangor, and on Monday you want to meet with a client
in Syracuse. If you're lucky you'll leave your house at 6am and be
there by noon on the airlines, who will fly you to Newark or Philly
first. There's not too many flights either so if there's any problems
or delays you may not get there until sometime closer to dinner.

I, on the other hand, arrive at the airport at 7, have some coffee,
preflight, maybe file a flight plan, take off around 8, and arrive a
little after 11 in my fire-breathing Cessna 172 (105 knots on a good
day). In a Cirrus or Lancair you'll get there by 10. The faster the
airplane, the bigger the ranges can get. What is your typical mission?
That will dictate the right plane for you.

Now, your question mentioned weather. Good question. I would not
consider a Columbia with anti-ice to be an all-weather airplane, but
it's pretty good. A turbine engine (something like a Meridian) will buy
you more leeway to climb up and above the weather faster. A very light
jet still isn't all-weather but the range of what it can't handle is
relatively limited. Really bad thunderstorms will ground the airlines
too, but they'll push right through ice that would ruin your day fast.

-cwk.

Steve wrote:

For some reason flying without an engine on purpose disturbs me.

I prefer that to flying without an engine accidentally.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

("Steve" wrote)
[snips]
Why do I need to do this before Oct 1


So you can be a pilot by Christmas, silly.

Actually, I (later) re-found this back up the thread: "Not really in a
hurry."

When I typed my response I had "How quickly can I..." in the back of my
mind. We've seen a fair number of those questions over the years. My oops.

There is a fresh thread (Cart before the horse....) over in
rec.aviation.student from a person who just bought a Cessna 172 and is now
looking to take lessons.


For some reason flying without an engine on purpose disturbs me.

Many report glider lessons made them a better pilot.


Montblack

Steve wrote:
snip
For some reason flying without an engine on purpose disturbs me.

Think of it this way: in a glider, most of the stuff that causes
emergencies has been left on the ground.

Tim Ward

On 21 Sep 2005 16:37:03 -0700, wrote in
. com::

Think of it this way: in a glider, most of the stuff that causes
emergencies has been left on the ground.

One could say the same thing of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. :-)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Think of it this way: in a glider, most of the stuff that causes
emergencies has been left on the ground.

One could say the same thing of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. :-)

True, but in the case of UAV, the "stuff" which you'd be referring to is
still "in the loop"...it just has less incentive to avoid causing an
emergency.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:31:05 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Think of it this way: in a glider, most of the stuff that causes
emergencies has been left on the ground.

One could say the same thing of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. :-)

True, but in the case of UAV, the "stuff" which you'd be referring to is
still "in the loop"...it just has less incentive to avoid causing an
emergency.

In either the case of the glider or the UAV, statistically the flight
is more likely to have an emergency, than when the emergency causing
"stuff' is aboard.

"LAUGH" Ok OK you guys I get the point about gliders I had never
thought of it that way.


On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:51:06 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:31:05 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
Think of it this way: in a glider, most of the stuff that causes
emergencies has been left on the ground.

One could say the same thing of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. :-)

True, but in the case of UAV, the "stuff" which you'd be referring to is
still "in the loop"...it just has less incentive to avoid causing an
emergency.

In either the case of the glider or the UAV, statistically the flight
is more likely to have an emergency, than when the emergency causing
"stuff' is aboard.