Common instruments on small aircraft

Judah writes:

So?

Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
relevant.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to the
nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time.

And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
some cases.

Many airports even offer crew cars at no cost for
pilots for a few hours' ride in the area.

Cool.

You could also rent a car.

That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

At AIY, the cabs used to listen to the CTAF and
be waiting for you when you landed.

Sounds very convenient? I presume they had enough business to justify
that.

Nonsense. GA Flying is much more convenient and practical than Airline
transportation for getting to places that are either not near a major
airport, or are anywhere from 150-600 NM away. I will fly this evening to
Winchester, VA from New York. To drive there would take me about 5 hours,
not including stops. To fly there commercially, I would have to fly to the
nearest airport about 90 minutes away, get to my airport 60 minutes before
departure, and fly about 60 minutes, totalling about 3.5 hrs. Flying GA, I
will get there in about 90 minutes (maybe 1:45 because of strong headwinds
tonight). I will land at Winchester Regional airport, where a rental car
will be waiting for me because I called in advance. I will then drive about
5 minutes to my destination. The cost for me to fly myself to Winchester
will be cheaper than a last-minute round trip ticket to Dulles, and the
rental car cost at Winchester is about 60% of the rental car cost at
Dulles. So not only will I save over an hour (or 3 hours if you compare
with driving), I will save money and enjoy the experience.

So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge and
experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making claims
about things that you have no idea about.

Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

So?

Unless one is coincidentally interested in the handful of museums
close to airstrips, the fact that a few might be close is not terribly
relevant.

Or, if the place you want to see if 400 miles away, you could fly to
the nearest airport, rent a car for the last 5 miles, and get there in
substantially less time.

And dramatically higher cost, higher even than a commercial flight in
some cases.

That depends on way too many factors for such a generic claim. It also
largely depends on how you value your own time.

In my case it is frequently not cheaper to fly privately than it is to fly
commercially, especially when ALL related costs are considered. For
example, it costs me $30 per day to park at LGA... When flying GA, I don't
pay to park at the gate across from my tiedown area, even if I park there
for a week. I need to add that to my total cost in an apples-to-apples
comparison. Interestingly enough, comparing my time in a Commercial vs. GA
scenario varies, because if I am on a commercial flight at a decent hour, I
can usually work on the plane, which makes up for some of the lost time
waiting in lines, etc. But the biggest savings comes when I am flying to a
destination that is not serviced by a major airport, but which has a small
airport very nearby. Then I save time by flying to an airport 10 or 15
minutes away from my destination, instead of flying commercially to a major
metro 60-120 minutes away.

You could also rent a car.

That doesn't count, either, because you're using a car.

Doesn't count in what way? A claim that flying is a useful method of
transportation?

Then I could say the same thing about your example. Driving to the Louvre
doesn't count, because you have to walk past the front lawn and up the
stairs to get to the ticket counter. So even though you drove most of the
way, the example is invalid because you also had to walk. I also presume
that you don't have Metro stops at every specific location that you want to
visit, and must find a way to get from the final stop to your ultimate
destination... Sometimes it might even include a taxi.

So there are exceptional circumstances in which it might be practical.
I don't know if that makes GA cost-effective overall, however.

In my experience, there is a "sweet spot" where GA will be more cost
effective than commercial flying. It varies by the type of plane flown, the
cost, and the location where you live, and my sweet spot has gotten bigger
as I've grown into faster planes at better rates. In my case, I will
frequently save time and money flying GA to airports that are from 150 -
600 miles from my home. Shorter than 150 miles, it becomes more practical
to drive, because the time savings is not very significant. Longer than 600
miles or so, it generally becomes more practical to fly commercially
because the costs for cross-country Airline flights tend to be
disproportionately low.

You have a very narrow perception of reality, because your knowledge
and experience are very limited in this regard. You should avoid making
claims about things that you have no idea about.

Since you've favored me with irrelevant personal advice, I'll return
the favor: Stick to the subject, as I do.

I enjoy discussions stemming from questions that you ask in the interest of
learning more about piloting aircraft. I am glad to share my experiences
witn you and the rest of this group. I've even stopped trying to convince
you to go take a discovery flight, since you have made it clear that you
will not. But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
based on opinions that have been founded in something other than fact, you
can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider that quite on topic.

Judah writes:

Doesn't count in what way? A claim that flying is a useful method of
transportation?

Yes.

Then I could say the same thing about your example. Driving to the Louvre
doesn't count, because you have to walk past the front lawn and up the
stairs to get to the ticket counter.

I walk to the Louvre.

The walk to the Louvre from the museum's parking lot is extremely
short. The walk from the nearest airport is about 20 miles.

In my experience, there is a "sweet spot" where GA will be more cost
effective than commercial flying. It varies by the type of plane flown, the
cost, and the location where you live, and my sweet spot has gotten bigger
as I've grown into faster planes at better rates. In my case, I will
frequently save time and money flying GA to airports that are from 150 -
600 miles from my home.

That does seem to be a useful range for GA. Of course, it doesn't
come remotely close to justifying GA for transportation, but if one
already has a license and an aircraft, why not?

But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
based on opinions that have been founded in something other than
fact, you can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider
that quite on topic.

Looking at general aviation objectively, it's extremely difficult to
see any real transportation value to it, except for certain specific
circumstances (heavy, short-range business travel, and some other
purposes).

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

The walk to the Louvre from the museum's parking lot is extremely
short.

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

Seriously, though. I can't walk to any museums from my house. Yet I find
walking to be a valid mode of transportation.

That does seem to be a useful range for GA. Of course, it doesn't
come remotely close to justifying GA for transportation, but if one
already has a license and an aircraft, why not?

It justifies it for me. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

But when you make a claim with anti-GA undercurrents that is
based on opinions that have been founded in something other than
fact, you can expect me to respond harshly, and I would consider
that quite on topic.

Looking at general aviation objectively, it's extremely difficult to
see any real transportation value to it, except for certain specific
circumstances (heavy, short-range business travel, and some other
purposes).

I don't believe either of us are looking at it objectively. But it serves my
purposes quite well, and I appreciate the value that it offers me.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

One man's trash is another man's treasure...

Judah writes:

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Judah writes:

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no
value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in
the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.


Some of us value our time. I understand that you don't, else you would earn
more than $637 per hour. But in my case GA allows me to leave the office and
see 4 customers in a day instead of 2 or 3 if I were to drive.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Some of us value our time. I understand that you don't, else you would earn
more than $637 per hour.

Things can change unexpectedly and suddenly in life, and they don't
always change in a positive way. Live for today and be happy.

But in my case GA allows me to leave the office and
see 4 customers in a day instead of 2 or 3 if I were to drive.

Sounds like a very exceptional case.

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

I have used my airplane to travel to jobsites for many years. It has
several advantages.

1) By the time you wait in line to get on an airliner, and have extra
stops and plane changes, especially with today's security issues, I can
usually get their quicker.

2) I can often get there cheaper, especially if it's a last minute
trip, or when I consider fees for changing tickets for my unpredictable
return trip, or fees for extra luggage for the test equipment I
sometimes need to carry.

3) Easy to change plans or add a new destination, which I have done on
numerous occasions.

4) It makes me a happy camper.

It's certainly not impractical.
--
Gene Seibel KB0NNN
http://pad39a.com/gene/broadcast.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

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

On 25 Oct 2006 10:51:07 -0700, "Gene Seibel" wrote:

I have used my airplane to travel to jobsites for many years. It has
several advantages.

1) By the time you wait in line to get on an airliner, and have extra
stops and plane changes, especially with today's security issues, I can
usually get their quicker.


BEFORE today's security issues I could normally beat the airlines out
to about the distance of Denver/Boulder/Orlando which is max nonstop
for the Deb.

2) I can often get there cheaper, especially if it's a last minute
trip, or when I consider fees for changing tickets for my unpredictable
return trip, or fees for extra luggage for the test equipment I
sometimes need to carry.

On a last minute trip with a non discount airfare the Deb would be
cheaper. With Joyce and I it was cheaper than a pair of discount
airfares.


3) Easy to change plans or add a new destination, which I have done on
numerous occasions.

If the mood hits you can change.


4) It makes me a happy camper.

I love mine too.

It's certainly not impractical.

But the weather is much more of a factor than it is flying commercial.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

How do you maintain separation from other ground-craft? GCT?

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no
value. Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of
people in the world, because there are many people, both pilots and
otherwise, that use General Aviation as a form of transportation. If
there is no value in it, they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

Why do you think that? Why would people fly if it did not provide some
benefit?