X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:01:14 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f42.google.com ([209.85.161.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPS id 5052723 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:39:08 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.42; envelope-from=ronlaughlin@gmail.com Received: by fxe23 with SMTP id 23so2194104fxe.1 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:38:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.3.1 with SMTP id 1mr5304108fal.125.1310733510745; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.1.132 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: ronlaughlin@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:38:30 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours From: Ron Laughlin X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Karen Farnsworth wrote: > Ron, > > Are you making an assumption that if an aircraft is not shown on FlightAware > that it is not flying? Perhaps the experimentals are flying without talking > to "Big Brother"? Hi Lynn, No, not at all. Randy's statements gave me the impression that he didn't think certified aircraft were not being flown much: "Still, the experimental world has a pulse, the certified ships seem to be sitting more..." I was just pointing out that FlightAware data shows that at least some certified aircraft are in fact being flown regularly. I have no idea what percentage of each group is more likely to file IFR. I think maybe usage has more to do with the age of the aircraft than certification status. Newer aircraft are probably more likely to be flown regularly than old ones. Again, just a guess. Ron