![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[stuff deleted]
Although some of what Bret said is pretty outrageous, I do believe that general aviation would be better off if flight training emphasized the "sport" aspect more and the "travel" aspect less. I agree completely. When I started out, I had the impression that light airplanes were much more capable than they really are. I think this is an important point. The flight schools are trying to stay afloat and emphasize the "utility" of flying light airplanes. Their instructors have their sights on flying big iron. Both do a disservice to students when they don't stress the limitations of these planes. Pilots tempt fate by challenging weather that is inappropriate for their skills and these airplanes perhaps in part because the school and the instructors don't do enough to stress these limits. Neither one wants to scare away students and be put out of business. It is a fine line. Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure, you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball. I have had lively discussions about the above view. Usually it is with those who are in denial and want to keep the dream alive of a "personal airliner" in their mind's eye. After all, if you cannot really look forward to USING these things, what would be the point in the time and expense to fly? The answer is: you better love flying for its own sake (which some call "sport flying"). Good Luck, Mike |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure, you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball. Well put, Mike. This sums up exactly how I feel about VFR flying, the IFR ticket, and aircraft ownership. At our level of aircraft ownership (Spam can), instrument flight adds little utility to flying. However, unlike you, we *are* willing to sit in an airport for hours (not days) to complete a cross-country flight. Because we happen to really enjoy airports, this relatively rare occurrence (it's happened only a hand-full of times in eleven years) has become an acceptable -- even a delightful -- part of our many cross-country journeys. In fact, I dare say that we have often had *more* fun at our unexpected stops (3 days in Nashville come to mind) than we've had at our intended destinations! Remember, with personal flying, it's the journey, not the destination, that is important. Once you understand that, getting there isn't so important, and the stress simply evaporates. Our way of getting around the conundrum of unreliable weather is to simply plan three separate flights for each planned vacation. We routinely do this, and don't decide until the morning of our departure which way we're going to fly. Our entire decision depends on the current weather and prog charts, and -- since we really don't care *which* vacation we take -- we usually end up flying with great weather! Remember, personal flying *is* an adventure. Trying to make your airplane into a "personal airliner" is, IMHO, a huge mistake, as it is not only doomed to fail, but simply not any fun. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Remember, with personal flying, it's the journey, not the
destination, that is important. Once you understand that, getting there isn't so important, and the stress simply evaporates. Exactly! Remember though, that when you accept the above as the reason for making the trip, you no longer are using the airplane as a "utility" for transportation. The fact that you are traveling is now incidental. You are really going out to enjoy what you encounter during the flight, and not just trying to get somewhere specifically. When we started out, we had the silly notion that the plane was going to be a faster car that could take us to specific places we wanted to go (farther away). As you said, you will be happier if you accept that the place you started out going to may not be where you end up. But the public contemplating flight does not handle "adventure" well. In this world where people are afraid of every little thing, the flight schools battle the "dangerous little airplane" syndrome. Their defense it often to sell the airplane as a safe tool for serious transportation. I think some of this stems from people who genuinely WANT to fly needing some sort of sane reason to justify the time and expense. When the plane is proposed as a transportation tool, these folks tend to focus on that. In doing so, they lose the real value (as you stated above) in merely FLYING. Mike |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() On 7-Jan-2006, "Jay Honeck" wrote: Well put, Mike. This sums up exactly how I feel about VFR flying, the IFR ticket, and aircraft ownership. At our level of aircraft ownership (Spam can), instrument flight adds little utility to flying. I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70 respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American Southwest where IFR weather is rare. Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather). -- -Elliott Drucker |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
capability (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70 respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the Northwest. The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days. Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:33:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70 respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the Northwest. The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days. The statistic was '20 days that had measurable rainfall.' It's not the same as '28,200 continuous minutes of rain.' About a quarter to a half of those 20 days had daylight periods of acceptable flying weather. Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm. Tsk, tsk. Rain IFR. It's raining right now, and I can see the foothills of the Cascade mountains, ~15 miles away. Sea-Tac airport is reporting 5500 broken, 11,000 overcast. I just got back from a flight. Other than a drop of rain that got on the INSIDE of my glasses prior to putting the goggles on, I had no problem with the rain. There's no question that cross-countries would be iffy without an IFR ticket/IFR equipment, but for those of us who like cutting holes in the sky (albeit soggy holes), it ain't that bad.... Ron Wanttaja |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:1rgwf.715860$xm3.110391@attbi_s21... I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70 respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the Northwest. The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days. Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration *without* any rain. There has to be a happy medium somewhere! Jay Beckman A Thirsty PP-ASEL Chandler, AZ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ulowf.8497$jR.4277@fed1read01,
Jay Beckman wrote: Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration *without* any rain. There has to be a happy medium somewhere! california? -- Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode, http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE. http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
We genuinely use our a/c for travel and unfortunately, don't use it as
much as we should for sheer joy of flight... but it took a long time to get here and YMMV. It was clear to me early in my flying life that spam can utility was limited and expensive. I chose to soar and that was an enormously satisfying experience. But time passed and we changed. We finally stopped soaring all together. We now live an airplane-travel-centric lifestyle. No $100 hamburgers but plenty of $200 trips. Always the 2 of us, almost always overnight, our playpen bounded by Key West, upstate NY, and Atlanta. It's a slow plane but adequately equipped, and parked in the backyard. The latter being the key to travel utility. IFR is mandatory but as much for comfort as for dispatch flexibility. Getting above the convection (or at least above cloud base where you can dodge it, is a key to SE US flight. We put many more miles on the plane than in any car. Until recently, we simply didn't travel 50+miles anywhere by car. It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting. wrote: I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70 respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American Southwest where IFR weather is rare. Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("Maule Driver" wrote)
It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting. Which kits do you have your eye on? Montblack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
DC10-30F from Centurion on a late evening stop through LUX | ellx | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | January 14th 05 12:24 AM |
need advice with composite for making glare shield | bubba | Home Built | 1 | July 7th 04 05:44 AM |
Making my landing gear | Lou Parker | Home Built | 8 | March 31st 04 10:34 PM |
Rotax 503 won't stop running | Tracy | Home Built | 2 | March 28th 04 04:56 PM |