Stop Making Sense

Well, at least he told us he intended to stop making sense with the subject
line.


"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Light aircraft are not a business tool. There is _no such thing_ as a
rational purchase of a light airplane. It's a heinously expensive toy
that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what. Don't go 95%
broke buying an unfulfilling spam can. Buy what you want, which if you
have anything but air you-know-where is probably aerobatic and may well
have a big round oil-puking engine.

Wichita nearly killed itself with BULL**** and FRAUD selling their
product as non-toys at a time in the Reagan 80s where F** The Worker
was the mantra and the stock market skyrocketed. Ferraris and Cigarette
boats sold like hotcakes. Light aircraft didn't because, well, Wichita
was run by idiots, losers, fundamentalist idiot morons and drunks.
Still is.


Beech could make a lot of money selling a recip T-34. They won't
because, one, they are spoiled rotten with the New T-6, a misnomer and
a buttf*** par excellence for Joe and Jane Taxpayer, and two, they are
corporate-stupid.


And if you are in Sedgwick County like I was, know this: I hope the
Ollies finally get forced in the light airplane business and run your
asses out of business like they were doing with Hardly-Ableson.

Blanche wrote:
my my my....is someone is not happy about college football outcomes?

Must be a USC fan.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
It's a heinously expensive toy
that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what.

Not if you buy something resaleable. The value of all my
planes has increased enough to cover all the money
I put into them except for fuel.

[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

wrote in message
ups.com...

It seems to me that more people would get interested in flight
training if the trainers were something like an updated Chipmunk.
(Looks and feels like a military trainer, delightful handling and can
do basic aerobatics if the student wants to.) It would have to have
a nose wheel to make the insurance companies and instructors
happy, but that wouldn't be too big a loss.

You are in luck, they made exactly that plane years ago. I guess it never
caught on: http://tinyurl.com/9dgx7

Vaughn

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"

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

I found that the IFR ticket was the best thing for peace of mind. I
now don't fly in weather that I am allowed to, rather than the other
way around. Climbing thru stratus to smooth air, decent thru same to
land, seeing the beauty of sun on a cloud deck below ...

Took off from SRQ a month ago with a 500 ft ceiling that was about 200
ft thick. The sight of TV towers poking thru when we got on top was
something that the IFR ticket allowed.

Chuck
Jay Honeck wrote:
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"

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

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"