Commute by Plane?

[comanchepilot]

for many years if you lived in kansas city and wanted to visit california, U-haul would give you a truck for free to drive there. The loaded U-haul's only went 1-way.

I remember hearing that - looks like demand for housing here has picked back up however - construction everywhere again.

As never moving from Calif - if Iowa suddenly decided to make the Quad Cities a technology mecca with free money and free land to build you'd have a decision to make - better schools, much less random violence, lower crime, few homeless . . . . lots to do outside.

 

[schmookeeg]

OP works for a tech company. As such, showing up with a Nixon-era Cessna is not going to earn him anywhere NEAR as many cool kid points as showing up with one of the Rutan numbers like a Long-EZ, or something he can pretend that he built himself like an RV. ("I 3D printed it, lulz")

I say that being a total Beechcraft nut and having disdain for any airplane who refers to its parked mode as "grazing". None of my tech coworkers are impressed with my airplanes. They are impressed with my ipad and its aviation apps. Xavion was a big hit before the owner went full retard with the pricing model. Nerds like math, and aviation is a giant calculus problem. Work that angle. If they perceive that you fly the equivalent of a 67 Chevy Nova, the conversation is gonna turn sour.

I did the commute thing for a few years, and am about to restart it. The 100% bonus idea is amusing, but probably not reality -- especially if you just poured our a half day's worth of brain juice to do an IFR TEC route in the Bay. That said, you *will* be in a very good mood all day, because you started it by doing something awesome. After slaying the "I cheated death" dragon first thing every morning, code problems seem trivial by comparison, and THAT attitude is what will have follow-on benefits.

I'd get the license at a local flying club, and start doing the "best airplane for me" game. My first one took me a year or two to iron out, and I still got the answer wrong. If you are remotely analytical, this game is going to be HELL for you. Aviation is an emotional game, not a logical one.

Have fun with it. That's the whole idea, right? Even if you spend *more* time flying than driving (and I did in the LAX area when IFR) -- you did something 99% of the others would wet themselves even considering. The benefits aren't really tangible, but they ARE real.

$0.02

- Mike

 

[MAKG1]

Cost of two navs is next to nothing.

To fly into Palo Alto realistically under IFR requires an IFR GPS. There is a VOR approach but it is NEVER used due to interference with SJC traffic.

 

[Mason]

Nope it's not me. Great discussion as I'm considering similar process in buying an airpark home either in the foothills or Arizona and commuting to customer meetings when required. Definitely get your instrument rated as you will need it to keep a schedule. I'm working on mine right now.

As for planes how big of a guy are you? I'd look at a Cessna 172 or Piper Archer. A cessna 152 or Piper 140 are less expensive but I'd rather pay a few bucks more to have an IFR capable cross country traveling machine.

Ben? Ben?

 

[Mason]

As never moving from Calif - if Iowa suddenly decided to make the Quad Cities a technology mecca with free money and free land to build you'd have a decision to make - better schools, much less random violence, lower crime, few homeless . . . . lots to do outside.

I lived and worked in Iowa for a total of 15 years in two locations and still have family there and make the occasional visit. Fine place to raise a family, about half the cost of living, much better schools. However, there is THIS.

 

[clarkmueller]

Right on, this is exactly what I was thinking. I believed something like this was possible because as with all things in life, routine breeds both familiarity, and the desire to heavily optimize associated processes because saving 30 seconds here or there, over a large number of repetitions, yields very large aggregate time savings.

Regarding the fog at destination airport PAO, this is just purely anecdotal, but over the last 4 years I've noticed that the south bay doesn't seem nearly as afflicted by marine layer as the northern peninsula (and SFO.) It may have something to do with the fact that prevailing winds don't blow Golden Gate fog down south, and also because the bay is incredibly shallow and presumably much warmer down by Palo Alto; I believe it's only a few feet deep.

I have only a minimal level of familiarity with CCR, but I have flown out of PAO a lot, and I live in San Jose. You are correct that the south bay is less afflicted by fog and that it burns off earlier than it does elsewhere, but it's not uncommon for SQL and PAO to be fogged in enough to require an instrument approach for a lot of the morning.

One thing I don't see mentioned here is that even if you're instrument rated, the routing that Norcal is likely to give you from CCR when you need to go IFR is anything but direct. I don't know what the IFR departure from CCR is usually like, but the approach into PAO will have you flying down all the way to San Jose and Los Gatos (DOCAL) before they turn you inbound. That's a lot more than your estimated 25 minutes of flying time in a 152, even if you can go VFR a lot of the time.

 

[JHW]

...I'd look at a Cessna 172 or Piper Archer. A cessna 152 or Piper 140 are less expensive but I'd rather pay a few bucks more to have an IFR capable cross country traveling machine.

So Ben - in your vast experience a 172 is an "IFR cross country travelling machine" and a cherokee 140 is not? Perhaps you could expand on the critical differences between two 150hp 4-seaters that go the same speed ?

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I used to know an airline pilot who owned a cessna 180 that he flew from his home in Gettysburg to national airport in washington. He did this for about two years but found that after a couple of close calls flying home in weather, it wasn't worth the risk. He had over 10 thousand hours . Plus the fact that he got stranded many times due to heavy rain, snow, aircraft engine problems, on and on.

 

[Henning]

I disagree. I had a 140 for 4 years. The Cherokee 140 has a 150 HP O-320, not an O-235 (that would be the Cherokee 235). It uses marginally more fuel (in the scheme of things with aviation). In standard cruise it will do 8 GPH (compared to 6 or 7 for a 150) and you can always pull it back and burn less, since the 150 is considerably slower, anyway. The stall speed difference is minimal (42 vs 48 KIAS), but they both land pretty slow. The increase in functionality is tremendous. You can actually haul two people and luggage, plus it has much better range and speed for cross countries. Granted, the 150 will do the commute, but the OP is bound to want to use his new aviation skills to do other things.

A Cherokee 235 has an O-540 with 235hp. The Tomahawk (another reasonable choice, but harder to sell if one wants to upgrade to a longer range mission) and Cessna 152 used a Lycoming O-235 (cubic inches) with 115hp. There is an easy 10hp upgrade called Sparrowhawk IIRC giving you 125hp. There is also a Lycoming 0-320 150hp conversion for the 150/152 (unless you operate solo in the mountains, not worth it IMO).


I don't think there is anything wrong with a Cherokee 140, it's just that for his particular mission and route of flight, he will be better served with the 152. The main factor is that he will be over crowded and/or hostile terrain the whole route, and the Cherokee has an extra 500lbs of empty weight and 8kts higher Vso. That is kinetic energy he does not want to have when the engine ****s and he has to stick it somewhere small.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, flying the bay area airspace IFR with two navs, no gps an no dme sounds like a barrel of fun.

I did it for 7 years IFR and VFR, it's not tough, and with a 796 along for situational awareness and he's in fine shape for what he is going to do. They will never give him direct IFR anyway so he will always be on airways with ILSs at both ends.

 

[Henning]

You are in reality closer to 1:35 - 1:45 door to door, and 2 hours with a headwind. I commuted weekly, meaning I left Monday morning, and came back Friday night for a few years in my Tiger. I didn't do this all year round due to weather conditions in the northeast, and I had a much longer commute than you, about 285 miles each way (driving miles) around NYC. It was an hour and 20 min or so flight vs. a 5 1/2 - 6 hour drive each way.

You do need your own plane, but don't try to justify it for commuting from a financial perspective, or even perhaps time.

He'll save time. I did similar in the Bay Area and SoCal. I did it in a Travelair so I was faster, but the distance is short enough in a straight line that it doesn't make more than a few minutes difference. The flying distance of his route is probably less than half the driving distance, and the drive is not uncommon to be 3 hrs during rush hour. Trains will still take an hour.

He really is in a perfect situation to commute by plane, and a 152 will do it as in expensively as possible.

 

[Henning]

If I was doing what he wants and I wanted a traveling machine for long cross countries, I'd have two planes and still have the 152 for my commuter. I was considering getting a 152 for local flying, but decided to get out of California instead.

 

[Blueangel]

That could work. I know a guy at KPAO who uses his Cessna 150 to commute from Pine Mountain to Palo Alto and his Baron for longer trips.

 

[mercurial]

One thing I don't see mentioned here is that even if you're instrument rated, the routing that Norcal is likely to give you from CCR when you need to go IFR is anything but direct.

Now that's unfortunate, that's a pretty concrete drawback. In your experience, what % of the time is PAO IFR at around 9:30-10 AM? Is there a reason to believe that a Moffet approach might be similarly circular?

 

[Henning]

Now that's unfortunate, that's a pretty concrete drawback. In your experience, what % of the time is PAO IFR at around 9:30-10 AM? Is there a reason to believe that a Moffet approach might be similarly circular?

The routing you will get will add 15 minutes at most, more commonly 10 at 152 speeds. Most of the time though what you will do is get a pop up clearance to get above 2700' and into clear sky, cancel IFR, then proceed VFR direct on your own Nav, remaining clear of the Bravo airspace for SFO, and Charlie for Oakland, but I don't think that one would impact your route from CCR, and then San Jose. As you approach the the Initial Approach Fix for the approach you want (this is information you get during your preflight briefing and confirm on ATIS) you call up ATC and ask for the approach you want to get you down through the cloud layer. After your first week or two doing it, they will have your routine, just don't do anything stupid and cooperate with ATC when they have a need, and they will let you do what you want 99% of the time and give you excellent service, they always gave me excellent service. Once they get to know you, and you show yourself competent and cooperative (friendly helps as well) they start trusting you and will give you clearances to clip through the B because they know they can get you out of the way if they need.

The good thing about commuting with a plane is you become and stay a pretty **** hot pilot. If you drive during rush hour, you will save a minimum of 2 hrs on that trip.

 

[Henning]

I find a lot of the sentiment in this thread very discouraging in the light of wanting to grow and maintain the security of GA's future. I mean seriously, this guy is THE PRIME CANDIDATE FOR A GA SUCCESS STORY! He has an attainable and affordable mission for GA. He can commute in a 152 faster and cheaper than in a Porsche for his given commute.

 

[mtuomi]

I find a lot of the sentiment in this thread very discouraging in the light of wanting to grow and maintain the security of GA's future. I mean seriously, this guy is THE PRIME CANDIDATE FOR A GA SUCCESS STORY! He has an attainable and affordable mission for GA. He can commute in a 152 faster and cheaper than in a Porsche for his given commute.

The 5-step-manifesto of many members here seems to be;

1: No, you cannot afford a plane
2: No, you should not try that unless you get 500 hours dual beforehand
3: If you have a flu, you must consult dr. Chien immediately
4: If you drop your wallet where you keep your certificate, you must consult an aviation attorney immediately.
5: No, you most definitely cannot afford a MEP plane.

 

[Henning]

The funny thing is you can almost always afford anything you want if you aren't greedy. This would be less expensive, faster, and more practical than a Porsche for this commute, and it will be a rare day that he won't be able to make it. Plenty of people make this commute in a new Porsche.

 

[StinkBug]

I agree that this is very doable. It's not gonna be the cheapest thing in the world though, and his initial estimates on time dont seem realistic to me. If you compare to commuting in a brand new porsche then yeah, you can say it's gonna save money, but if you compare to commuting in a 10 year old toyota it's a whole other story.

If you can afford it, great. but we shouldn't lie to people about saving tons of time and money commuting by plane simply to encourage people to grow GA unless it's true. In this case it's close, but I wouldn't call it a huge savings unless you're counting stress.

 

[vdehart]

I would consider fatigue after a long day of work as being a factor. You need to be able to devote your full attention to the flight home whereas a little bit of daydreaming in bumper to bumper traffic won't get you killed (usually..). Sometimes my brain is such a mess after a long day at work that I could not possibly imagine being able to safely pilot an aircraft

 

[weilke]

The 5-step-manifesto of many members here seems to be;

1: No, you cannot afford a plane
2: No, you should not try that unless you get 500 hours dual beforehand
3: If you have a flu, you must consult dr. Chien immediately
4: If you drop your wallet where you keep your certificate, you must consult an aviation attorney immediately.
5: No, you most definitely cannot afford a MEP plane.

Also some seem to confuse this mission with a shuttle launch that ends with a landing at O'Hare during a push. 20min to get from a 2400ft GA strip to your tiedown may happen if it involves the plane being pulled by a turtle. It is your tiedown, your lines are already at the right length with a carbine and a cinch, you dont need a tug to push a 152 into a paved spot. Takes 2minutes to swap your plane for the car that is sitting on the tiedown. It is a weekday morning, there is no saturday morning conga-line of marginally competent vfr heros to contend with. You need 1000ft to take off or land, oonce they know you, tower will give you intersection takeoffs with direct departures in direction of your trip.

 

[MAKG1]

Now that's unfortunate, that's a pretty concrete drawback. In your experience, what % of the time is PAO IFR at around 9:30-10 AM? Is there a reason to believe that a Moffet approach might be similarly circular?

You're expecting landing rights at Google Moffett?

Moffett has IAPs to the west (Woodside), but that doesn't help much.

No matter what, SJC is going to be a factor for instrument approaches. Not a big deal, but there are some extra ATC concerns for flying VFR over the top.

PAO generally clears around 10 in summer, EVERY day. In winter, it can remain much longer, but isn't regular.

 

[sixpacker]

It could be interesting to see if you have any coworkers living nearby you who would be interested in "planepooling" and helping contribute towards the expenses.

 

[mtuomi]

It could be interesting to see if you have any coworkers living nearby you who would be interested in "planepooling" and helping contribute towards the expenses.

I wonder if they have planepool lanes in California for HOPs (high occupancy plane)

 

[sixpacker]

The funny thing is you can almost always afford anything you want if you aren't greedy. This would be less expensive, faster, and more practical than a Porsche for this commute, and it will be a rare day that he won't be able to make it. Plenty of people make this commute in a new Porsche.

Yes, but unfortunately a plane can cost a whole lot more than a new porsche to keep properly maintained. And it is not as reliable either. A better analogy would be an old porsche that is as expensive as a new porsche.

 

[Dav8or]

Just curious as to how things work now. Back when I was flying IFR all the time (2006 an before) you used to be able to get a tower en-route clearance between Concord and Palo Alto. It made it real easy. You basically get vectors from departure to the approach. The routing would only be a little worse than going VFR. VFR will always be faster though.

I think the OP's commute could be done by air and be somewhat practical. It's just going to cost more and take longer than he is hoping.

It will cost more because I think for his commute, and IR is a must. This means getting two tickets, the PPL and IR. I don't think you could get that done in the Bay Area for under $10,000. Although a lot of that is aircraft rental, so if you bought your own plane and trained in it, the cost should be lower.

In addition, the airplane needs to be basic IFR capable. To keep operating costs down, I agree with the idea of the certified two seat trainer type. So, 150/152, Tomahawk, Skipper, or Yankee. My personal preference would be the Tomahawk with the Sparrowhawk conversion. These types of planes are rarely ever found on the market as true IFR machines, so I would expect to have to add a used KX-155, CDI with glide slope, marker beacons and of course some sort of portable GPS.

It will take longer to commute than is hoped because preflight, taxi, fueling tie down and waiting for clearances always take longer than one hopes. Of course since he would be doing this very frequently, it would become routine and more efficient with time. A benefit of a simple plane is a fast preflight inspection.

I think he should go for it, but just be realistic about it. I personally would not get into flying just to get out of freeway traffic. I would do it because flying is fun and rewarding and using to commute is just a fringe benefit.

 

[mercurial]

Yes, but unfortunately a plane can cost a whole lot more than a new porsche to keep properly maintained. And it is not as reliable either. A better analogy would be an old porsche that is as expensive as a new porsche.

What about the fact that your new Porsche depreciates like a rock? It loses value every second, even while it's sitting in the garage. No bueno.

Sixpacker, I thought about that idea, and it's possible. The headache of having to coordinate might make it not worth it; it would be immensely irritating to have to wait at the field for 30 minutes because my colleague was stuck in traffic.

 

[weilke]

Yes, but unfortunately a plane can cost a whole lot more than a new porsche to keep properly maintained. And it is not as reliable either. A better analogy would be an old porsche that is as expensive as a new porsche.

I have an old Porsche. Parts for the plane are cheaper. The only difference is that I can do my own wrenching.

 

[benzhow]

I seem to have a different perspective. I don't have 2 hour commutes. It would be hell. I say yes, go for it! If you broke even on the 2 hour travel time, it will be worth it. I'd much rather be flying and farting around with airplanes than stuck in traffic. It's fun to me.

 

[ClimbnSink]

First get your private license (don't worry about instrument or jet-seaplane ratings nonsense, all in time.) Do it cause flying is fun and airplane licenses never expire. Once you have your ticket then play around with what might work. If you have the scratch buying a C-152 first isn't a bad idea. Spent a few months flying out of CCR my recollection is it was nice most of the time but January was solid fog the whole month. But even if you end up driving some of the time that is still way better then driving all the time with no relief or fun. Go flying then figure the details.

 

[Dav8or]

First get your private license (don't worry about instrument or jet-seaplane ratings nonsense, all in time.) Do it cause flying is fun and airplane licenses never expire. Once you have your ticket then play around with what might work.

I agree with this. I would only recommend pursuing this plan if you really want to fly. If you think flying yourself would be fun regardless of the commute, then go for it. If you don't give a hoot about flying and the only reason is to save some time on your commute, then skip it.

The best way to find out how you feel about it is to go down to the local flight school and take an intro ride in their two seat trainer. I believe at the end of the ride, you will know which way you want to go.

The intro rides are usually subsidized by the flight school and so they are at a discount rate. Usually last about a half hour and you will be flying the plane for most of that time. All the time is loggable and counts towards your PPL. Even if you decide it's not for you, it's a great story to tell at parties and you'll never forget it. One of the best (about I'm guessing) $60 you'll ever spend.

 

[Henning]

I agree that this is very doable. It's not gonna be the cheapest thing in the world though, and his initial estimates on time dont seem realistic to me. If you compare to commuting in a brand new porsche then yeah, you can say it's gonna save money, but if you compare to commuting in a 10 year old toyota it's a whole other story.

If you can afford it, great. but we shouldn't lie to people about saving tons of time and money commuting by plane simply to encourage people to grow GA unless it's true. In this case it's close, but I wouldn't call it a huge savings unless you're counting stress.

He will save tons of time, 2 hrs per direction if he is traveling during high traffic hours which are many.

 

[Henning]

Yes, but unfortunately a plane can cost a whole lot more than a new porsche to keep properly maintained. And it is not as reliable either. A better analogy would be an old porsche that is as expensive as a new porsche.

Not really, a Porsche is none to cheap to keep rolling.

 

[mtuomi]

I have an old Porsche. Parts for the plane are cheaper. The only difference is that I can do my own wrenching.

Which one have you got? I used to look after a few 930 and a 964, and I was often surprised how cheap the parts were. Wrenching was the killer with them, I still have nightmares about valve adjustment on 964...

 

[weilke]

Which one have you got?

964 Targa

 

[comanchepilot]

Porsches are NOT designed to be daily drivers in heavy traffic . . . they're not. They have the same issues with time as airplane engines. A couple thousand hours of sitting in traffic wearing highly tuned cams and what not and you are going to need a new engine or lots of maintenance.

It is most definitely not a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or even an Acura, Infinity or whatever the other one is. It is not a Chevy.

When that engine sits there and idles along with 5 million of your closest friends . . . it is wearing into razor thin tolerances to put out the power in the limited cubic inches which it does . . . . moving timing out of alignment and wearing valves down for NO good reason.

If you're not going to take the train [and its NOT 3 hours each way from Concord to the Googleplex] then fly. OR move closer . . . . in which case you'll rapidly run out of money to fly.

 

[Henning]

Porsches are NOT designed to be daily drivers in heavy traffic . . . they're not. They have the same issues with time as airplane engines. A couple thousand hours of sitting in traffic wearing highly tuned cams and what not and you are going to need a new engine or lots of maintenance.

It is most definitely not a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or even an Acura, Infinity or whatever the other one is. It is not a Chevy.

When that engine sits there and idles along with 5 million of your closest friends . . . it is wearing into razor thin tolerances to put out the power in the limited cubic inches which it does . . . . moving timing out of alignment and wearing valves down for NO good reason.

If you're not going to take the train [and its NOT 3 hours each way from Concord to the Googleplex] then fly. OR move closer . . . . in which case you'll rapidly run out of money to fly.

It's a solid 2 hrs on the train.

 

[Tom-D]

There is no reason I can see why he can't buy a 15k c150 and train commute in and see a positive return in 3 years.

 

[mercurial]

If you're not going to take the train [and its NOT 3 hours each way from Concord to the Googleplex] then fly. OR move closer . . . . in which case you'll rapidly run out of money to fly.

If you want to make a friendly wager, I'll try it out. :wink2:

Here's the math:

Home to Lafayette BART: 15 minutes
Waiting on the platform: 10 minutes
BART to SF Embarcadero: 35 minutes
Muni to Caltrain station: 20 minutes
Wait for Caltrain: 10 minutes
Express Caltrain to Mountain View: 50 minutes
Wait for Caltrain shuttle: 10 minutes
Caltrain Shuttle to main campus: 15 minutes

2:45. That's if everything runs on schedule, you hit a Caltrain express train, and you don't hit traffic anywhere or otherwise screw up the times.

Costs:
BART: $14 (includes parking)
MUNI: $4.50
Caltrain: $14.50

$34 a day to spend 6 hours a day sitting on public transit!! In reality, I would never consider this as an option because we run private buses, which have leather seats/wifi and take the 2 hours I have been complaining about. Flying would be 6 gallons of fuel, plus engine incurred wear and PAO tie-down fees would be $41 (not taking into account fixed costs.) Right now my gas/depreciation on my Lexus to get to the bus stop is around $18 a day, so net net flying would cost me around $23 per day extra.

 

[MAKG1]

$41/day? You're counting fuel only. The rule of thumb is that total costs are about three times that. In addition to fixed costs, you have repairs and maintenance, which a VERY significant.