|
|
not always clear. The controllers have to be there to protect the airlines. I'm not sure what the marginal cost of supporting us is. ...and I'm not sure that talking to us isn't good for protecting the airlines.On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Bill Hannahan wrote: Free? It costs the taxpayers about $25 bucks every time you key the mike.
Regards, Bill Hannahan
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com> wrote:
From: N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 8:11 AM
It's hard to believe that
most pilots don't use it at all, flight following...I can't figure that one
out...It's free and keeps you up to date and watches out for you...In southern
California it would be nuts not to use it with all the traffic here
Michael
n66mg
n7sz 94%
Ron,
That gives an interesting picture, but you should
remember that you must
either file IFR or request flight following to show
up on flight aware. I
don’t think many experimental pilots do
that. I would probably estimate
that at any given time that 90%+ of
the experimental planes aloft will not
show up.
Bill
B
-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List
[mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ron
Laughlin
Sent: Thursday,
July 14, 2011 4:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re:
Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
Hmmm, You might want to check
FlightAware's website from time to time
and see how many experimentals are
in the system at any given time. I
find only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at
the moment. There are a bunch
of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHawks,
etc.).
<http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/>
Ron
On
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
> Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age.
Experimentals are
> generally newer than production A/C, and those
thousands of hours
represent
> how many last year???? It's possible
for both observations to be true.
>
> Ted Noel
>
N540TF
>
> On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@aol.com
wrote:
>
> Randy writes:
>
> <>
certifieds...>>
>
> I don't see how that could be. One
year at Oshkosh there was a special
> display area for homebuilts with
over 1000 hours. There were just a
> handful. Bill
Hannahan's Lancair was one of them. On the other side
of
the
> runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified.
I'll bet that none had
> less than 1000 hours, and most had more than
2000 hours.
>
> Further, every experimental for sale in
Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems to
> have between 100 and maybe 500
hours. Virtually all spam cans have
> thousands.
>
>
As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes
more
> hours per year than spam can owners -- I have no
idea.
>
> - Rob Wolf
>
> p.s. I do not use the
term "spam can" as pejorative. I used to own one
and
> had a
lot of fun with it.
>
>
>
________________________________
>
> No virus found in this
message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 /
Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14/11
--
For archives
and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--
For
archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|
|