Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !

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 ,
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

Cub Driver wrote:

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

I don't know where you get that from. VFR in France (as in whole Europe)
is not only possible but delightful.

Most European nations are, by American standards, very congested.

This is in fact one reason. First, distances are much smaller. Second,
for most missions, you are much faster using public transportation or
the car. And third, maybe, Europeans, even pilots, seem to care much
more about noise and pollution. BTW, this is another reason why Thielert
developed the Diesel, not only cost. We just see no point in burning 10
gallons an hour when we can get away with 3 using a modern engine.

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?

Being Swiss myself, I can tell you that flying here is not scary at all.
Quite the opposite, flying in the Alps is one of the most wonderful
things to do, and a landing at a French altiport is just plain fun.
Airspce structure is rather complicated, but you get used to it rather
quickly. It requires good preparation of the flight, though.

And for the languages... well, ATC speaks English, and they carefully
stick to pre-defines phrases, which even pilots with a limited knowledge
of English can learn by heart (which in fact is what many do). On the
ground, though, things are a bit different, but I've never had problems
to understand people, as long as both parties really want.

Stefan

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

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.


Its all VFR and very little IFR for private pilots, but then hey if we
really want to go somewhere, then there is excellent public transport.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

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.

Really? I fly everywhere VFR.

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.

Cough...ok, I've been missing quite a lot recently...

Paul

Jay Honeck wrote:
BTW: With France's population of 60 million (compared to the US
population of 295 million), statistically France should be expected to
have around 42,000 aircraft and 3,800 airports, all things being equal.


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

Of course, this comparison doesn't take into account France's tiny (by
comparison) land-mass (which means they don't have room for as many
airports), but it nevertheless highlights what a horrendous impact
outrageous over-taxation can have on aviation.


It proves no such thing. American enumeracy at work.
The land mass of France, as far as I can determine from a quick sweep,
is one 18th that of the US. Is their number of pilots and/or airports an
eighteenth of those in this country?

Taxation? How did such a silly premise get started?

It proves no such thing. American enumeracy at work.
The land mass of France, as far as I can determine from a quick sweep, is
one 18th that of the US. Is their number of pilots and/or airports an
eighteenth of those in this country?

Since when do potential pilots decide to become pilots based on the
available *land mass*? What kind of logic is THAT?

In my world, aviation enthusiasts become pilots because they can't resist
the call.

Unless, of course, they can't find the money to pay for it...

Taxation? How did such a silly premise get started?

Excessive taxation (or, if you will, social engineering) controls EVERYTHING
in society. When you tax something by 300%, you very effectively limit its
use.

As a fellow Iowan you can relate to this example: What is going to happen
to cigarette smoking in Iowa if (when?) the legislature double the tax on a
pack of smokes, as they are debating this very week? Predictions range
from a 13% to 26% drop in smoking.

Works the same with avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:49:20 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in AbO9e.5855$WI3.1063@attbi_s71::

What is going to happen
to cigarette smoking in Iowa if (when?) the legislature double the tax on a
pack of smokes

Iowa smokers will purchase out of state.

Jay Honeck wrote:

As a fellow Iowan you can relate to this example: What is going to happen
to cigarette smoking in Iowa if (when?) the legislature double the tax on a
pack of smokes, as they are debating this very week? Predictions range
from a 13% to 26% drop in smoking.

Knowing a couple of smokers myself, my prediction is they will just
mumble somewhat, then rise their tobacco budget and continue to smoke.

Stefan