alioth wrote:
I may be a special case living on an island, but a light aircraft makes day trips practical that would otherwise be impossible
Silvaire wrote:
Of course there’s utility value in GA, but the overall value is a combination of utility and fun… and that combination is entirely valid.
No objections to that. When towing gliders I take the Cub, an Atec, a Cessna, whatever is available at the club and fly for 40-60+ min (depending on weather and plane) instead of 3+ hours in a car. Then park the plane, do pre-flight on the tow plane and tow gliders all day. Then back again with the Cub (or whatever). The flight to the site is pure transportation, towing gliders is “work” (aerial work in EASA terms). I could define this flying as pure “utility”, but it’s also pure fun.
A helicopter on the other hand, can be used for transportation exclusively because it is the most practical, sometimes only way to get to some places. There does not have to be a fun part involved.
Of course there’s utility value in GA, but the overall value is a combination of utility and fun… and that combination is entirely valid. How many people do you see riding motorcycles, I see a lot, and how many of them see their activity as purely for transport (virtually none)? That doesn’t make trips on motorcycles a bad thing, quite the opposite, its a great combination. I’ve been almost everywhere in central and southern Europe on a motorcycle, not a bus, train, car or airliner. Planes are intrinsically much the same in this regard. I can’t understand the resistance I sometimes see to combining transport and fun… as an objective not a byproduct.
Re helicopters, obviously they have utility where nothing else can operate. Otherwise, leaving aside long cross countries, I once took a 2 hr ‘standard’ local sightseeing loop with a friend in his Hughes 369, very varied geography up to maybe 6000 ft over mountains and low level on either side. It did it about as well as a 85 HP Cub or similar, with more fuss and hugely more cost. The fun was about the same IMO.
LeSving wrote:
There is no utility value in a SEP, other than the fact that you got a plane, you got a licence, why not use it for travelling.
I may be a special case living on an island, but a light aircraft makes day trips practical that would otherwise be impossible. For example, we recently went for a day trip to Oban. 1.5 hrs each way flying the plane…versus 12 hours each way driving/taking a ferry (and not much cheaper, given the eyewatering cost of taking the car on the ferry). Even airline/train or airline/rental car would be about 12 frustrating hours each way.
Looking at the accident reports, it’s almost exclusively mishaps during aerial work and landing/take off (at pre-planned sites). Weather does not seem to be a factor. Unintentional VFR into IMC is more of a fixed wing SEP territory IMO.
it can land safely at any time if the visibility should become impossible
Many many people would disagree, or at least heavily qualify that, if they weren’t dead…
A helicopter can operate in considerable less vis than a SEP, and it can land safely at any time if the visibility should become impossible. Two completely different concepts, incomparable.
Also. Helicopters fill a niche nothing else is able to fill. If it wasn’t for helicopters, you wouldn’t and couldn’t go. This is also very different from a SEP, where there are alternatives, but you chose not to use any of those, the main reason being you have a SEP, you have a license, let’s put them to use, get some “value” out of this investment somehow.
Now, if the situation is that a helicopter for some odd reason does not offer any real value, this doesn’t help a SEP increasing it’s utility value.
I kind of agree with Silvaire. Comparing utility value between SEP and other transportation isn’t constructive. It’s other things that are important. More a “way of life” kind of thing.
but then actually there are enough people out there that spend money on other purchases that could afford getting into GA but are just not aware of the opportunities that GA affords. Or think about people that spend money on golf or yachts…
Yes; if a tiny % of the Aston Martin / Ferrari / etc drivers I see go past every few seconds where I work (next to a big road) got into GA, the whole scene would be transformed. But anyone saying this gets beaten up for being “elitist” – usually by the same people who say they cannot afford to do much flying, not realising that if the infrastructure improves, everybody benefits.
There is no utility value in a SEP
Helicopter on the other hand offers real utility value
Depends on the situation. I have a customer, 8hrs’ drive or 1:10 flying. The problem of course is the wx, but a heli doesn’t help much with that. You can scud run “more legally” but most fatal accidents in the higher performance helis seem to be wx related. Helis are good for specific mission profiles however – mainly short range work.
require an IR to be plannable if utility is what one wants to get out of his/her GA aircraft.
For long distance you cannot beat airlines in a SEP. For short distance, you cannot beat car/train. There is no utility value in a SEP, other than the fact that you got a plane, you got a licence, why not use it for travelling. Much like a boat or a MC. You ride it because you like the ride, not because it is efficient, comfy or cheap.
Helicopter on the other hand offers real utility value. You can get to places where no other vehicle can, and weather is usually no big obstacle. PPL-H costs about the same as IR, and a helicopter cost less than a Cirrus.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
What you’ve described is true if you own your plane or have access to a non-club rental where the owner isn’t expecting you back on x day. You have to be able to divert/not go if weather intervenes. But I agree, there actually is real utility for leisure use (compare ferry times in the Cyclades to flying your plane!). But this is more advanced flying than most PPLs are up to, unless they have a mentor or experienced co-pilot along for the ride. That said, after a couple long trips, confidence should go way up.I think Peter is slightly exaggerating the skill set of newly minted FAA PPLs!
Agreed but then buying a used aircraft is not that expensive compared to an expensive sports car (Lamborghini, Aston Martin etc), especially factoring in money immediately lost as a result of depreciation when buying a new car. I mention that as we keep talking about how GA has become less affordable but then actually there are enough people out there that spend money on other purchases that could afford getting into GA but are just not aware of the opportunities that GA affords. Or think about people that spend money on golf or yachts…
Flying longer distances is a question of mindset but also requires an IR to be practical. Flying for 3 hours does not make too much of a difference vs flying for 1 hour but would require an IR to be plannable if utility is what one wants to get out of his/her GA aircraft.
Airborne_Again wrote:
There used to be scheduled services to Pulau Tioman (WMBT) both from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore (I actually flew with them myself 15 or so years ago) but surprisingly no more.
Cool, great to see that people in other parts of the world know about Pulau Tioman! It’s a superb spot for snorkelling and diving.
Yes, there were and they were grounded for safety reasons apparently. The fact that someone put Pulau Tioman into the list of 10 scariest airports (https://weburbanist.com/2010/07/11/enjoy-your-fright-the-worlds-10-scariest-airports/) for landings didn’t help. There is now an ad hoc charter service from Subang to Tioman (https://sassb.com.my/index.php/flight/sas-air) in a C206 but not a lot of people are aware of it. Offering flights from Singapore to Tioman sems like an obvious business opportunity…
