GA Transportation Myth

Greg Bockelman said:
Well, what does it say about you when you are the ONLY one doing something a certain way and EVERYONE else is doing it differently/ :D
Click to expand...

Well... as for "Line up and wait" vs. "Position and hold," I am not all that fired up about changing- I think "Position and hold " makes more sense. But it's not like it would take any meaningful time and effort to change, now is it?

Last weekend, I heard a guy query the approach controller a sto whether he was clear of the TCA yet or not.

Ted DuPuis said:
Clearly that we're doing it right, and everyone else is screwed up. :D
Click to expand...

Chuckle.

I still can't grasp why we're not using the metric system -- when I was in first grade (1965), they promised us we'd be metric by 1970 and taught us accordingly.
 
SCCutler said:
Last weekend, I heard a guy query the approach controller as to whether he was clear of the TCA yet or not.

Chuckle.
Click to expand...

Control Zone, Airport Traffic Area, TRSA, TCA, Positive Control Airspace.

Is there anything else??? I mean really, what is with this Class A, Class B, etc. nonsense??? LOL

I still can't grasp why we're not using the metric system -- when I was in first grade (1965), they promised us we'd be metric by 1970 and taught us accordingly.
Click to expand...

Ditto, and it really makes more sense.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Is there anything else???
Click to expand...
The weather. Remember when METARs were called SAs... or something and the coding was different?

I think people would eventually get used to "line up and wait". It's coming closer anyway. It had found it's way into Canada and Mexico in the past few years.

Of course there are still people who call Centennial Airport "Arapahoe County"... 25 years later. :mad2:
 
Until metric time and compasses catch on, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing in use in the whole world as far as I know.

Anything else is just hypicritical.
Click to expand...

No idea what you mean.

"Oh metric measurements are so easy
Click to expand...

Well, it is.

... oh, well, we don't want metric time"
Click to expand...

Maybe that is because it doesn't exist.


(Hmm.... Original post quoted subsequently deleted?)
 
SCCutler said:
Chuckle.

I still can't grasp why we're not using the metric system -- when I was in first grade (1965), they promised us we'd be metric by 1970 and taught us accordingly.
Click to expand...

Interesting how things have changed. When I was in first grade (1991) we were just taught math, I don't recall a whole lot about the metric system or standard. We were always taught how much better the metric system was, though.

Fast forward to my college years (2002-2006) when we were taught problems in both metric and standard. We constantly talked about how much more sense the metric system made and how we couldn't understand why standard was still in use, but it was. My textbooks came with lookup tables in metric and standard, and we had to do practice problems in both.

Then I took a job working for a company that still measures pressure in inches of mercury and inches of water.

Go figure - I still like metric, but I must admit that inches of mercury are pretty simple units to work with as a pilot.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Go figure - I still like metric, but I must admit that inches of mercury are pretty simple units to work with as a pilot.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and metric time isn't fun either. I couldn't imagine a metric compass. ;-) That's what gets me about those hypocrites who switch to metric ... except for a few things. It should be all or nothing.
 
ghayes said:
Yeah, and metric time isn't fun either. I couldn't imagine a metric compass. ;-)
Click to expand...

Smiley notwithstanding, who uses metric time? And is there even such a thing as a metric compass? Who is being hypocritical?

It is hard to use something that either does not exist or has no real accepted standard.
 
Somebody tried to implement a 400 deg compass system a while back, with the logic that 100 deg quadrants (metrics) would be much simpler to work with. I assume it was not met with great enthusiasm.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Fast forward to my college years (2002-2006) when we were taught problems in both metric and standard. We constantly talked about how much more sense the metric system made and how we couldn't understand why standard was still in use, but it was.
Click to expand...

Any system that uses slugs has to be looked at with a critical eye.


Trapper John
 
wabower said:
Somebody tried to implement a 400 deg compass system a while back, with the logic that 100 deg quadrants (metrics) would be much simpler to work with. I assume it was not met with great enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

Yep, the grad. Didn't catch on, but my old HP-11c would convert to/from grads to degrees and radians.


Trapper John
 
SCCutler said:
...I still can't grasp why we're not using the metric system -- when I was in first grade (1965), they promised us we'd be metric by 1970 and taught us accordingly.
Click to expand...

It was because the opponents got everybody caught up in the how many 2.54 centimeters and 0.946352 liters izzit??!!! What dy'a mean it's easy???!!! nonsense.

Then as now you can count on the stoopid of the public.

I would always say, "Quick! Tell me the boiling point of water! How many pounds to the gallon?" :nono:
 
wabower said:
Somebody tried to implement a 400 deg compass system a while back, with the logic that 100 deg quadrants (metrics) would be much simpler to work with. I assume it was not met with great enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

Trapper John said:
Yep, the grad. Didn't catch on, but my old HP-11c would convert to/from grads to degrees and radians.
Click to expand...
Hitler pushed the 400 degree circle because 360 degrees came from the Sumarians who he said were Jews.

(Not a Godwin.)
 
mikea said:
It was because the opponents got everybody caught up in the how many 2.54 centimeters and 0.946352 liters izzit??!!! What dy'a mean it's easy???!!! nonsense.

Then as now you can count on the stoopid of the public.

I would always say, "Quick! Tell me the boiling point of water! How many pounds to the gallon?" :nono:
Click to expand...


Bah...

Metric boosters always touted all the wonderful "advantages" of the system.

Yet Fahrenheit provides more gradations between freezing and boiling, anyone can look at a cup or teaspoon and know pretty close what the quantity would be.

A mile is about a 20 minute walk (12 minutes for Infantry Road Marches), a yard is a big step, and a foot hangs off the end of my leg.

Since the mertic system didn't have handy, obvious, everyday equivalents, people using a system that worked had to compare it to what already worked.

This is one funny discussion by people who still measure speed in knots.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Exactly. So the number isn't as arbitrary as some people want to make it seem. IIRC, there was some debate when the limit was made whether or not to make it such that the Cessna 150/152s would be covered.
Click to expand...

Okaaaay...but where does the European number come from? It's arbitrary! And why should the USA, which has different needs, culture, and distances, follow a European standard? I'm sure the Euro manufacturers would be happy to sell us planes up to whatever MGW we would adopt.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The person who says that is not only ignorant for thinking he can go anywhere anytime, but also ignorant for thinking the airlines can go anywhere, anytime.
Click to expand...


+1

That was exactly my thought as I read Trapper's post.
 
SCCutler said:
Well... as for "Line up and wait" vs. "Position and hold," I am not all that fired up about changing- I think "Position and hold " makes more sense. But it's not like it would take any meaningful time and effort to change, now is it?
Click to expand...

"Line up and wait" sounds like something the TSA would say.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing (metric time and compass) in use in the whole world as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've been dealing with "metric time" for years but only WRT times less than one second. There's milliseconds (ms), microseconds (us), nanoseconds, picoseconds, and femtoseconds. There was a time in my career when 1 ms was easy but I had to sweat the us. Things are so much faster now that anything more than a few ns is easy and occasionally I have to worry about femtoseconds with many picoseconds being the typical issue for anything except high speed transmissions where the length (and width) of a circuit trace has to precise to the mm or less in order for things to work reliably.
 
bullwinkle said:
Okaaaay...but where does the European number come from? It's arbitrary!
Click to expand...

I suspect that someone (or more likely a committee of someones) looked at all the existing overweight "ultralights" in existence at the time and concluded that 600 kg came closer than 500 or 700 at including most of them without including many "regular airplanes". Call that "arbitrary" if you want.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like my world Lance. Typically deal with margins in the picosecond range these days. Femtoseconds too ocasionally.
gismo said:
Actually, I've been dealing with "metric time" for years but only WRT times less than one second. There's milliseconds (ms), microseconds (us), nanoseconds, picoseconds, and femtoseconds. There was a time in my career when 1 ms was easy but I had to sweat the us. Things are so much faster now that anything more than a few ns is easy and occasionally I have to worry about femtoseconds with many picoseconds being the typical issue for anything except high speed transmissions where the length (and width) of a circuit trace has to precise to the mm or less in order for things to work reliably.
Click to expand...
 
AdamB said:
Sounds like my world Lance. Typically deal with margins in the picosecond range these days. Femtoseconds too ocasionally.
Click to expand...

You kids with your high tech advanced stuff with minute fractions of a second! Give me inches of mercury and revs per minute (less than 3000, please) any day!

Now get off my lawn! :D
 
gismo said:
I suspect that someone (or more likely a committee of someones) looked at all the existing overweight "ultralights" in existence at the time and concluded that 600 kg came closer than 500 or 700 at including most of them without including many "regular airplanes". Call that "arbitrary" if you want.
Click to expand...

Wilco. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Actually, Wahtor Skeer is absolutely correct. The "alphabets" (AOPA, EAA, etc) sold the FAA on the idea of LSA and Light Sport Pilots by emphasizing the SAFETY aspect of bringing the "cheating" ultralight people under the FAA 'umbrella.' The new category was in no way designed to make flying easier, less expensive, or more available to new pilots; it was designed for one thing and one thing only, and that is to INCREASE SAFETY by requiring licensing of pilots and registration of aircraft.
 
Your and my airplane cannot be justified on cost or convenience most of the time - don't even try... OTOH, try running the numbers on a 30 or 40 foot boat - whooowee baby, that smarts!

So I fly because I will fly no matter what... However, my airplane has it's moments... A couple of weeks ago flew the family from mid Michigan to my daughters cottage on Catawba Island on Lake Erie... No sooner got there and she wanted us to go see their ski condo in New York State that they had just remodeled and doubled the size... So we saddled up the Fat Boy Apache until he groaned and went to the mountains of New York and landed on a curving dirt strip down in a valley between two mountain peaks.. Spent the day doing whatever and flew back... The next day we flew to inspect some property at the Kentucky border... Again at a small, local airstrip... Came back with a load of tools, fishing rods and guns...
In both cases there was no possibility of getting a commercial airline destination near to the local area of these places...
Next day loaded up a grandchild and went to Indiana to deliver the munchkin, then flew back to Michigan... For this 3 day weekend the GA plane filled the bill perfectly for scheduling, and cost - couldn't have done it by commercial air...

Next week I am flying to Houston to get my new pickup truck... For that mission the self loading cattle carrier is the logical choice... Mooo, mooo....

denny-o
 
skyjunkie said:
Actually, Wahtor Skeer is absolutely correct. The "alphabets" (AOPA, EAA, etc) sold the FAA on the idea of LSA and Light Sport Pilots by emphasizing the SAFETY aspect of bringing the "cheating" ultralight people under the FAA 'umbrella.' The new category was in no way designed to make flying easier, less expensive, or more available to new pilots; it was designed for one thing and one thing only, and that is to INCREASE SAFETY by requiring licensing of pilots and registration of aircraft.
Click to expand...

That has some truth to it, the big problem was people buying two place "Fat Ultralights" and giving rides with little to no training. If you want to kill yourself, that is OK with the FAA, just don't take someone with you.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, what does it say about you when you are the ONLY one doing something a certain way and EVERYONE else is doing it differently/ :D
Click to expand...

Depends on how you look at it. The USA is one country among many, but there are more general aviation pilots and aircraft in the USA than in the rest of the world combined. When the USA adopts an ICAO standard the majority have to change to conform to the minority.
 
Last edited:
If you think ICAO is bad, take a quick look at the rogue's gallery of third world countries who have adopted the Cape Town Treaty for International Registration. Shows how much influence the USA has in the world these days.

roncachamp said:
Depends on how you look at it. The USA is one country among many, but there more general aviation pilots and aircraft in the USA than the rest of the world combined. When the USA adopts an ICAO standard the majority have to change to conform to the minority.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. O said:
Your and my airplane cannot be justified on cost or convenience most of the time - don't even try...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but yes it can.

My C182A is the cheapest and quickest way to go on most missions.

My plane is a corporate asset, my truck (a 2008 Dodge, 3/4 ton, Cummins) is also a corporate asset. Since they are both business vehicles, all costs are documented in detail. In the typical year I will fly 200-250 hours (which is roughly 30,000 to 35,000 miles). I will also put upwards of 30,000 miles on my Dodge (and 15,000 on my '02 Chevy which is also a corporate asset).

I won't bore you with the math but my plane is cheaper to operate per mile than my Dodge! And that's before taking into account the difference in distance since most flying is straight line. The C182 is also cheaper than airlines IF I can't plan my business trips over 2 weeks ahead. If I can plan ahead then the airlines are almost always cheaper but not quicker.

And as far a time is concerned, the C182A wins in this category also.

I just finished spending 3 months building in Clintonville, WI (CLT) I live in Marble Hill, MO (0T3). Again, I won't bore you with the math.

Drive = 9.5 hours
Fly commercial = 7.5
N5057D = 5.1
I didn't cancel one flight all summer and I flew out every Sunday evening and home every Thursday evening or Friday afternoon.

I used to live in Harrison, AR (KHRO) and spent 18 months building near Hazlehurst, GA (KAZE).

Drive = 12 hours (if I made it through Atlanta unscathed...a big if)
Fly Commercial = 8.5
N5077D = 7
I didn't have to cancel often but when I did, I'd obviously drive because a) it was last minute and the cost of an airline ticket would be outrageous and b) I'd rather drive for 12 hours than be "in the commercial system" for 8.5.

And, actually, the cheapest form of last minute round trip transportation (if total time is no more than 3 to 4 days) is to rent a small car, unlimited mileage, and go! I'd sure get some looks though when I'd drop a car off 3 or 4 days later after putting 2000 to 2500 miles on it. More than once I was asked "did you even shut it off?" :no: :wink2:

My reality: If the trip is 1/2 way across the US or less. GA is the best way to go. But, I don't live near nor do I typically work near a major commercial airport. That math would be totally different.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
That is the key statement right there.
Click to expand...

Or more specifically, if the routes traveled aren't served by nonstop airline flights departing from and arriving at airports within an hour's driving, GA is usually faster especially if the trip length is equal or less than 600 nm or the range of the GA aircraft whichever is less. WRT cost, I've found that even with the higher per mile cost of a light twin, my flights are usually less expensive than "full fare" (e.g. short notice) airline flight but I typically need at least two pax to compete cost wise with the discounted fares.
 
I was amazed when we ran the comps for some guys in Little Rock. That's a pretty decent airport with what I thought would be reasonably good service to the rest of the country. As it turned out, the service is there, but a very small percentage is non-stop. Almost any plane works pretty well from there. The King Air they bought is a slam-dunk.

gismo said:
Or more specifically, if the routes traveled aren't served by nonstop airline flights departing from and arriving at airports within an hour's driving, GA is usually faster especially if the trip length is equal or less than 600 nm or the range of the GA aircraft whichever is less. WRT cost, I've found that even with the higher per mile cost of a light twin, my flights are usually less expensive than "full fare" (e.g. short notice) airline flight but I typically need at least two pax to compete cost wise with the discounted fares.
Click to expand...
 
...and as soon as you take a passenger or two, GA really starts to pull away.
 
gismo said:
Or more specifically, if the routes traveled aren't served by nonstop airline flights departing from and arriving at airports within an hour's driving, GA is usually faster especially if the trip length is equal or less than 600 nm or the range of the GA aircraft whichever is less. WRT cost, I've found that even with the higher per mile cost of a light twin, my flights are usually less expensive than "full fare" (e.g. short notice) airline flight but I typically need at least two pax to compete cost wise with the discounted fares.
Click to expand...

+1.

I'm looking at going to Boston for the day this week. Meeting start time is set, it could end in 30 minutes or 90 minutes. Or it could get canceled. DCA-BOS is about $550 RT on our corporate deal, and I'd need to book a specific return time. So I could end up sitting around BOS for the return for 30 minutes or 2.5 hours (or longer, depending on how late the commercial flight is.... last week that was 45 minutes).

Cost-wise (given my full operating costs) is a wash, for fuel-only (reimbursed) it's less expensive to take GA. Time-wise is a wash, or shorter with GA since I don't have to wait for the (invariably late) commercial flight.

OTOH, if I could book specific times 7-14 days ago, I could do it commercially for $250 RT (cheaper if I'm willing to drive the 1:15 each way to BWI) for a non-refundable fare, which beats GA. Time-wise GA still wins.

On the other hand, GA can't even touch the $400 RT fares from IAD-LAX.
 
Everskyward said:
That is the key statement right there.
Click to expand...

There is also a huge difference between the cost effectiveness of using an aircraft for personal trips vs. business trips. The frequency and duration of flights, how far in advance one can plan, and the total number of hours flown per year are typically completely different and all make for disparate and unique cost structures for each type of flying.

So, just as with so many things in Aviation...

...it depends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top