End of VFR?

[carusoam]

The Hemispherical rule keeps you safe from 50% of the airplanes aloft...

The Mooney rule, staying above 10,000' keeps you away from 90% of the lower powered brand C and P.

Combining the two rules improves the result.

Fly high, fast and safe, fly a Mooney at altitude!

-a-

[aviatoreb]

The Hemispherical rule keeps you safe from 50% of the airplanes aloft...

The Mooney rule, staying above 10,000' keeps you away from 90% of the lower powered brand C and P.

Combining the two rules improves the result.

Fly high, fast and safe, fly a Mooney at altitude!

-a-

 

Flying above 12500 in the required O2 levels really puts you above almost all the traffic.

 

Of course - eventually you need to come down and mix it up with the traffic.

[RobertoTohme]

If you want to see what a "police state" for aviation is, just look at Mexico...  For any flight plan (VFR or IFR) you need a paper plan, and collect stamps and pay the fees from airport operations (a.k.a. the airpot owning company) and the commandant (after providing copies of all aircraft and pilot documents) if it's a domestic flight; if you're returning here add on top of that stamps from customs, immigration and whatever the name is for the food and animals inspector (all separate entities), BEFORE "dispatch" can authorize your plan....  Of course, you can use a handler but it just adds to the expense to cut a little on the aggravation.

 

Please let's not let that happen here by any means....

[M016576]

If you want to see what a "police state" for aviation is, just look at Mexico...  For any flight plan (VFR or IFR) you need a paper plan, and collect stamps and pay the fees from airport operations (a.k.a. the airpot owning company) and the commandant (after providing copies of all aircraft and pilot documents) if it's a domestic flight; if you're returning here add on top of that stamps from customs, immigration and whatever the name is for the food and animals inspector (all separate entities), BEFORE "dispatch" can authorize your plan....  Of course, you can use a handler but it just adds to the expense to cut a little on the aggravation.

 

Please let's not let that happen here by any means....

Lets hope it never comes down to that.

[jetdriven]

.

[BigTex]

Flew with your friend yesterday... that "old man" still has the right stuff!

[jetdriven]

Yeah he does. And he flies jets too.

[flyboy0681]

 

Am I the only one who doesnt worry and believes life will go on much as it has for the past 40 years?

 

Thank you for that reply. A lot of my posts here go against the grain of what others perceive as massive government intrusion, paranoia and the sky is falling mentality. In the end, it's all for naught and nothing ever comes to pass.

 

If Mooneyspace were around in 1982 I'm sure there would be many screaming that they would be required to install costly microwave landing system equipment. If Mooneyspace were around in 1986 I'm sure many would be yelling that they would need to install costly TCAS systems, the list goes on. The reality is that the FAA moves rather slowly and while we will be required to have ADS-B, we were given ample time - even though the equipment early on wasn't necessarily ready for prime time nor cheap - but that's changing (anybody buy a flat screen TV in 2003?). The only long term threat that I'm concerned about at this time is the longevity of 100LL.

 

 

As the great American Alfred E. Newman once said, "what, me worry?".

[201er]

Why do we worry? Not because of specific one time rumors... but because of the long term trend. If you look in retrospect, some things were not implemented while others were. But the simple fact is that there is a trend of flying liberty eroding with time. It definitely isn't becoming freer. That's why you should be worried about what the future holds.

[jetdriven]

I like that they now clear me direct to a fix 300 miles away with a VFR GPS. Thats a little new freedom.

[Marauder]

Thank you for that reply. A lot of my posts here go against the grain of what others perceive as massive government intrusion, paranoia and the sky is falling mentality. In the end, it's all for naught and nothing ever comes to pass.

 

If Mooneyspace were around in 1982 I'm sure there would be many screaming that they would be required to install costly microwave landing system equipment. If Mooneyspace were around in 1986 I'm sure many would be yelling that they would need to install costly TCAS systems, the list goes on. The reality is that the FAA moves rather slowly and while we will be required to have ADS-B, we were given ample time - even though the equipment early on wasn't necessarily ready for prime time nor cheap - but that's changing (anybody buy a flat screen TV in 2003?). The only long term threat that I'm concerned about at this time is the longevity of 100LL.

 

 

As the great American Alfred E. Newman once said, "what, me worry?".

 

And don't forget the mandate in the 90s' where we all needed to move to Mode S transponders...

[flyboy0681]

Why do we worry? Not because of specific one time rumors... but because of the long term trend. If you look in retrospect, some things were not implemented while others were. But the simple fact is that there is a trend of flying liberty eroding with time. It definitely isn't becoming freer. That's why you should be worried about what the future holds.

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot, and I fully understand the concept of trends, but other than an occasional TFR, where has our liberty eroded? I still have some sectional charts from the mid 1980's and the TCA's look identical to today's Class B, that is, they haven't grown to consume a greater chunk of airspace. Just about the only major change to airspace took place around DC, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand why it was done. Then again, it doesn't affect a whole lot of us GA pilots.

 

And as jetdriven just mentioned, GPS has given us a whole new range of freedom, freedom unimaginable years ago. An ILS type approach into a small country airport without the costly equipment? Certainly you can't be serious.

[flyboy0681]

And don't forget the mandate in the 90s' where we all needed to move to Mode S transponders...

 

Noted.

[sreid]

I like that they now clear me direct to a fix 300 miles away with a VFR GPS. Thats a little new freedom.

 

Pilots were doing that 15 years ago (probably earlier, too) with VFR LORAN. Not new.

[John Pleisse]

Am I the only one who doesnt worry and believes life will go on much as it has for the past 40 years?

 

 

Great analysis and pretty accurate. And you didn't even include the environmental heritics of the late 1970's, too.

 

This is different. The fleet is aging, the average PP is now over 53 with no bottom end replenishment, key manufacturers have been sold to China, LSA is a bust, national debt exceeds Regan's power grab by double, Cirrus has affected everything (values, insurance, training, some positive, but not like Cessna of the 70's) and never in history has a Congressional Transportation Committee virtually shut down Wichita in one fell swoop (just now coming back).

 

It's fragile and well intended social policy will ruin it. I think user fees are enough to tip the scale. Avgas, maybe. Pray it doesn't happen. Don't mean to be a downer.

[flyboy0681]

...and never in history has a Congressional Transportation Committee virtually shut down Wichita in one fell swoop (just now coming back).

 

 

Unless you don't count the defunding of the Boeing SST by congress in 1971, which led to this image...

[John Pleisse]

Unless you don't count the defunding of the Boeing SST by congress in 1971, which led to this image...

 

 

Yeah, but look at them now!!! Busted the unions and in South Carolina and thriving. Besides...they pay user fees..... and we......

[1964-M20E]

GA is in a precarious position. 

 

Reasons:

1. Fewer pilots like someone said above
2. actual cost
3. Perceived cost, people generally assume flying is prohibitively expensive and it can be unless you are willing to work at it
4. Being a pilot has lost some of its status especially in commercial IMHO. I can still get some interest and raised eyebrows when I mention I’m a pilot.
5. video games: Why should I go actually fly when I can fly any aircraft I want on the computer?
6. radio controlled planes just as good right, put a camera on it and watch the video screen while you fly
7. more people have flow commercial today than in the past so flying is not as big of a deal.  Commercial flights were for important reasons now just for fun some people commute weekly on commercial flights.

 

If I could magically produce any 4 seat plane equivalent to a 172 to a 201 from C to M for $100k to $200k and run on automotive pump gasoline with avionics, replacement parts and maintenance equal to what you would pay for your automobile I think you would still have a problem due to items 2 through 7.

 

My son, soon to be 18, has no interest in learning to fly, maybe someday he will.  I would have been ecstatic if my dad had a plane when I was 15.

 

Bottom line we do need to share the passion we need more pilots which equals more demand for planes and services which will mean more production and less cost and we need to get the FAA out of certifying small airplanes so new technologies will be pursued for greater reliability, ease of use and  lower cost achieved.

 

My $0.02

[PTK]

I read the article. Personally I think it's pure, unadulterated paranoia.

 

Instead of being pessimistic and reluctant to change, why not rejoice and embrace it? Change is good. Especially in GA. Look at all the technology we have at our disposal making our participation in the sky so much safer and efficient as it is slowly implemented. 

 

And if VFR flight is affected I don't see this as a negative. File an IFR plan and take full advantage of all the positives the system has to offer. And it's all very positive. Even on VFR most of us do get flight following anyway. Why not embrace the changes coming so we can have a unified airspace system which is in everyone's interests. As I've said before in some previous post, I think pilot training should, after some basic skills, begin with instruments. The opposite of what we have now which views instrument training as a burden. 

 

I see the system moving in that direction. Maximize IFR and minimize VFR. And if it means less pilots partaking, so be it. It's a choice.

[pinerunner]

I learned my lesson and will stay away from what is sure to become more political rants.

Too late! You're in!

 

Dave

[201er]

There's no surer way to kill GA than to prohibit VFR.

[PTK]

There's no surer way to kill GA than to prohibit VFR.

I don't see how and we're not talking about prohibition of VFR!

 

On the contrary, the skies will become safer.

 

How many times while on a VFR hop do you need to hear ATC tell you "...I don't know, I'm not talking to him."  And that's only on what ATC sees. 

 

I never hear this when IFR.

[sreid]

 

And if VFR flight is affected I don't see this as a negative. File an IFR plan and take full advantage of all the positives the system has to offer. And it's all very positive. Even on VFR most of us do get flight following anyway. Why not embrace the changes coming so we can have a unified airspace system which is in everyone's interests. As I've said before in some previous post, I think pilot training should, after some basic skills, begin with instruments. The opposite of what we have now which views instrument training as a burden. 

 

 

Our VFR system is a great freedom to be able to hop in an airplane, not talk to anyone, and go where you want anytime you want. Just because you don't want that freedom, doesn't mean that others don't cherish it. It is a large incremental expense to maintain an airplane to IFR standards; are all the guys who don't want to do that supposed to just stop flying, because they don't want to "take full advantage of all the positives"? Exactly what positives are those, when the weather is VFR? I would argue that in VFR weather, it's actually a negative to be on an IFR clearance, subject to delays and routings that just aren't

necessary in VFR conditions. I can easily save 10 minutes even on a short flight if I don't have to deal with ATC.

Steve

[Bennett]

I love VFR. I've flown across the country more than once VFR. My favorite flights have been VFR. I talk to ground, then Tower, and head for the coast. Half the time I haven't even decided on a destination, or even north or south. I find the freedom to chose my altitude ( hemispheric rules/suggestions followed) my course, my relative speed, etc exhilarating. I may stay up for a hour, or three or four. With ADS-B in/outI have an aid in watching for traffic, XM weather helps in direction and destination selection, and the moving maps show all the Special Use airspace. This type of flying is my relaxation. I've had many hours of hard IFR, and while I enjoy the challenge, I'd rather not talk to anybody. If I feel the need, there is always flight following, and flight watch. One of the best things about the LSA movement is that it is all essentially VFR unless flown by an instrument rated pilot with an aircraft certified for IFR (very few). The ability to choose VFR or IFR is indeed priceless

[PMcClure]

I recall my first flight after getting my IR. I took off from an uncontrolled field and flew how and where ever I wanted. That was one of my most enjoyable flights ever. VFR is freedom to fly. 

 

Most of my practice is VFR and a lot of "airplane rides" are VFR. I enjoy the "mission accomplished" and utility of IFR flying and use flight following or file IFR on almost all XC flights. But don't want to think about loss of VFR flight. I would fight it's end, then fly anyway or sell my plane. 

 

Reading the article, i don't see how the author can conclude that there is an agenda against VFR flying. There are always going to be pressures on personal freedom but I don't see VFR disappearing anytime soon.