Why fly?

[IO540]

Yup, but sometimes both the journey and the destination are the reward! I guess what I am really saying is that being VFR and having a basic aircraft doesn't mean that you can't make long and interesting trips, it just means that you have to be flexible.

Very very flexible, Ian

BTW I am not taking bose-x's bait here. He's just got himself into the front seat of somebody's Malibu (a cheap SE pressurised piston with a dodgy engine installation which based on the huge in-flight failure stats I would not dare cross the Alps with) and suddenly anything unpressurised is not good enough.

I have tried trips in IFR in the past, but you are then flying to arrive, not flying for fun.

I think Rod1 you were not playing the game the right way. The curious thing about flying IFR is that one flies more or less exactly as one would fly if there were no rules, no ATC, no CAS. The only thing one cannot do is go off somewhere and do a bit of sight-seeing off-route. IFR is generally a lot less hassle.

[S-Works]

Oooooh bitter!! It's a group actually but lets not mince words. At least we have a reliable auto pilot.....

You are just jealous that you have to sit down low trying to avoid all that nasty weather in that slow old thing of yours, rather than just breezing over the top....

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Usedtofly

If you HAVE to be somewhere ON TIME then the unfortunate fact is that private flight is not reliable enough. As for time, well, if you count the time to drive to the airfield, plan and check the a/c, fly, get taxi to final destination then flying will nearly ALWAYS TAKE LONGER!

Like Bose I'm afraid I have to disagree on both points. I think it's a misnomer by using (in your example) planning at the airfield - most of us will do it in the comfort of our homes the night before, so that comes out of the equation. Additionaly it's not a case of checking out (or even waiting) for a club hack - but an aircraft equipped for the task available when you want it.

I've used mine to be somewhere ON TIME - it works. In addition, for the criteria I suggested before, it doesn't take longer - it's quicker. An example for you:

I was in Nice in January, and flew out commercially. My return trip consisted of:

Check in - 2 hours before
Fog at Heathrow - 2 hours further delay
Flight - 2 hours
Waiting for stand at Heathrow - 1 hour (yes - really!)
Pick up Bags and get car - 1 hour
Drive to Nottingham - 2 hours

I could have done the same journey, door to door, in half the time using the TB20. It helps that I'm only 15 minutes from the airfield, plus I have an IFR alternate available 24 hours a day on the doorstep. Your experiences are possibly that you didn't find it reliable - for many of us that's not the case.

Originally Posted by bose-x

You are just jealous that you have to sit down low trying to avoid all that nasty weather in that slow old thing of yours, rather than just breezing over the top....

Well - if we're playing "altitude envy"......................... (Behave boys).

[S-Works]

Well - if we're playing "altitude envy"......................... (Behave boys).

Bah!, I knew you would come and wave your willy!!!!

[fireflybob]

It also helps if your departure airfield is hassle free and convenient. The smaller less sophisticated airfields are often much more convenient time wise - 2 minute walk from ground to air side and as Chilli says you can so much of the preparation in advance and if you are doing a regular run you soon get to know the ropes.

I know which I would rather do, even if the a/c is quite basic. Yes there is the weather factor but that can apply to driving too sometimes!

[usedtofly]

Dudes, I don't want this to be a slanging match

Do what you will, how you want. I still maintain that using a small piston a/c VFR is limiting and time consuming. To be of any real use you need an IR and preferably a turbine twin

It's a bit like motorbikes, they may be quicker than a car but by the time you finish bu*gering about putting all the body armour on at one end and taking it off at the other, a short journey is still quicker by car.

Now in the case of UK road transport the majority of people can get from door to door over a 200 mile journey in 3 hours (3.5 max).

So I maintain what I said before........flying somewhere in the UK less than 200 miles away is just an excuse to have fun

Right, I'm off my soapbox so leave me be

UTF

[IO540]

the majority of people can get from door to door over a 200 mile journey in 3 hours (3.5 max).

That's an average speed close to the speed limit. Possible at times, I agree. But there are huge swathes of the country where this cannot be achieved, even if you have a radar detector and a laser jammer.

However, going to France changes everything. Suddenly, driving is a real mess.

[PompeyPaul]

Anyway

I thought Jeremy Clarkson and "Top Gear" already proved that going by car is faster than flying

[Oldpilot55]

And let us not forget the congestion on the roads, particularly on a bank holiday..our motorways can be nightmares.

[IO540]

I thought Jeremy Clarkson and "Top Gear" already proved that going by car is faster than flying

That stupid programme was so blatently rigged it was a total joke.

Any IFR tourer capable of making the distance in one leg would have beaten the car by a factor of about two times, and that assumes perfect driving conditions.

On top of that, that trip (approx Cannes to SE UK, IIRC) was a really good example of a plane being very effective. You have the cross channel hassle with the car (driving to/from Dover etc).

Only a hardened pilot would pretend that for example UK to Crete is convenient or cost effective - unless one can do it in one leg and fast i.e. a TBM700/850 / King Air etc and one has the huge funding (~£500-£700 per hour). The Meridian turboprop is no good because it would need to refuel twice (say, Switzerland, and again in Corfu if not sooner) which means nobody would buy one for that mission if doing it regularly.

Similarly, flights within the southern UK are not justifiable on utility terms unless one is going between say Lydd and St Mawgan, both of which are awful to get to on the surface. But S. UK to Scotland is something else.

What makes or breaks the intra-UK transport case is a proximity (or not) of the airport to where you want to go. This is what gives GA in the USA the massive advantage - most towns have a nearby runway which is maintained by the town, like roads and pavements are maintained here.

I generally don't fly to any place to which I can drive faster. That policy keeps the trips more interesting, and I think this is a mistake many new PPLs make - they stick to the familiar area and before they know it, they have got fed up with the whole business.

[VeriLocation]

Did the Dublin business trip today in the GA spam can (DA40 )from Halfpenny Green, took 1 hour 20 minutes to Dublin Weston ( much cheaper / friendlier than Int'l ) , taxi to Dublin city centre ( 6 miles ) took 1 hour 20 minutes.....taxi back took 2 hours as driver got lost ! Sums up some of the issues discussed here but sat at FL07 with perfect viz and smooth as smooth was priceless. See recorded track and speeds in jpg below.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/parovo/SCtJLg9J...00/dublin2.JPG

[Whirlybird]

Flying to...go places? What a novel idea. A whole thread on it too!!!

I fly because I love flying. So do most of the pilots I know. Travel is also one of my hobbies/interests, but I prefer to let Ryanair or British Rail take the strain, if I don't drive; it's far cheaper and less hassle. And if it takes a little longer, which it rarely does, what's the rush?

[matt999]

Fun, business, fun, private, fun, more fun

I'm seeing that the reasons we fly are:-

1) pure fun, eg just enjoying the scenery/sunset etc and nothing else.

2) technical fun, eg flight planning, operation of the aircraft, using all that training.

3) business, eg meetings. Sometimes you get there quicker by plane, sometimes not, but the business side of things helps justify having fun on the way.

4) Private, eg visiting friends, relatives, taking the wife and family out for the day/week etc. and having fun on the way.

I am beginning to see the common thread running through this list.... fun

[sucksqueezeBANGstop]

I like to fly, cos of the sense of perspective it provides. It's a great way to shake off life's blues. Looking down on all the small houses, and small problems....

And for the freedom!

[Rod1]

On the face of it I am an ideal candidate to “utilise” an aircraft for work. I spend 3 weeks out of 4 in Europe, mostly Germany, Spain and Italy. But I do not see how it would work.

1st I am north mids based so 1 hour flying time from the cost.

Drive time to my aircraft is 20 min, it takes me 35min to EMA, so we have lost 15min so far.

To fly myself I would need 1 hour to plan/check notams sort out maps etc. (all dead time, it does not mater when I do this, it is time I have to spend to do the trip which I cannot use for anything else)

45 min to get the aircraft out, DI, and get her loaded and ready to go (all dead time)

Flight time to Italy must be 5 hours? (all dead time),

30 min to sort out parking / landing fees and get a taxi. (all dead time)

Total time (adjusted for 15 min saving) 7 hours 45 min, all dead time. Cost? £750ish?

To fly Squeasy jet (this is much more accurate than the above as I do it a lot)

1.5 hours before the flight, of which ½ and hour is dead (I can prepare for the meeting for the rest as I am sat in an acceptable work environment)

3 hour flight, of which 20 min is “dead”

45 min getting out and getting bags – all dead

Total time 5:15 of which 3:10 is productive and 2:05 is dead. Cost £60

So it costs more and wastes my time? I can understand you doing it because you can, but how can it make sense economically or from a time management point of view?

Rod1

[usedtofly]

Why do we fly?

Well actually, and I don't want to be too flippant here

Coz they pay me well to enjoy my work

Thinking about I probably wouldn't bother otherwise

Well you did ask........

UTF

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by "Rod1

Flight time to Italy must be 5 hours?

Which is the cut off point I use. On that basis I'd disagree that you're the ideal candidate - quite the reverse in fact.

Interesting point about time economy, utilising the travel time for work. Would this argument still be the same whilst sat in the terminal due to a 90 minute CFMU delay? (Let me know when your next trip is - I'll see what I can arrange )

[S-Works]

So it costs more and wastes my time? I can understand you doing it because you can, but how can it make sense economically or from a time management point of view?

Flying to Paris for a meeting:

Self Fly:

I have nearly 2 miles of WW2 tarmac 300yrds from my front door, time to aircraft if I walk 2 minutes. Preflight, 5 mins. Time to climb to 22,000ft cruise to Pontoise and land 55 mins. Taxi to Paris office 20 mins.

Total Time: 1:27 lets say 2hrs for dawdling time:

Commercial:

2:30hrs to Luton Airport, 2hrs before for check in, 1hr flight, 1hr trying to get out of the airport, 20 mins taxi ride.

Total Time: 6:20

To get the 8am flight involves me getting up at around 3:30am and will usually mean an overnight stop or getting home very late and then being knackered the next day.

The problem with the logic here is that you are trying to apply GA utility value to aircraft that were designed for a different purpose. With all due respect to Rod an MCR is not a utility GA aircraft, it is a fun Day VFR aircraft.

To get utility you have to look at the bigger end of the spam cans, TB's Cessna etc and that gives you a 50/50 chance of utility use. To improve that you go bigger, Malibu, 421 etc and that improves things even further and then beyond that TBM's and then into the light jets.

All GA and all able to be flown by private pilots. The big assumption here is that everyone in GA is grubbing around finding coppers to rub together to get airborne as cheaply as possible. GA represents a much larger scene, it is just a scale off cost.

[Rod1]

“With all due respect to Rod an MCR is not a utility GA aircraft, it is a fun Day VFR aircraft”

You are absolutely correct, but I have £50k tied up in her. If I sold her and found one other person with £50k I assume I could get a reasonable IFR machine for £100k. Having spent 1800 hours building an aircraft, and being a reasonably experienced IMCR pilot, I would expect to be able to get an IR if I really needed one.

I can accept that Paris may work, but Span and Italy look non starters. Berlin takes me about 4.5 hours by squseyjet (all in), of which about 2.5 hours are free to work. What would your numbers look like?

Rod1

[IO540]

Much depends on the distance to the airport (both the GA one and the big one) and on the distance one needs to travel to the ultimate destination at the far end.

For the highest business travel value, you would (in most cases) fly your GA plane to the same big airport - because that is where the customer will naturally expect to meet you, and the meeting may even be held there - and take the landing and handling charges on the chin.

But I think this is digressing from the original Q.

The key thing is to structure one's flying so that one gets a regular dose of value out of it. The "value" can be just the fun of being in the air, or it can be going places one cannot easily get to by road, with great views enroute.

I arrange to fly at least once a week, which prevents me getting fed up with it, while maintaining good currency. With some long trips also, this comes to ~150hrs/year which is pretty reasonable.

One also needs to be clear about a good match between one's mission requirement and the plane one has. There is a tendency for owner pilots to move up and up in mission capability and eventually they end up flying something which is very complex, expensive, and with endless issues, and they get sick of it. I've known people who did this and suddenly gave up flying totally, which seemed a shame having come all that way. Similarly at the bottom end: I think a lot of people get into a low end C150-like spamcan and are disappointed that they cannot realistically fly it to southern Spain.