To the point made: "The owners were more likely to get into trouble, however, because within their group was a subset of pilots that utilized their airplanes for transportation but did not put in the time to maintain their skills. They continued to operate as though they were as skilled as the day they received their instrument tickets without doing the requisite proficiency flying. This type of mission/attitude was uncommon in the renter group.

As an aside, I am curious how many hours a year most owners are flying?

The break even point where it used to make sense to shift from renting to owning was 170hrs/year. "

Ownership issues aside, I frankly don't see myself flying 170 hrs a year but I don't think I'm incapable of being a safe, proficient instrument pilot on the 100 hrs. or so a year I have budgeted. It all depends upon one's approach.

A golfer friend of mine only plays 18 every Saturday but he's quite serious about it and he maintains a 6 handicap by spending an hour a week on the driving range and about the same on the putting green before his tee time. Every month or so he "binges" and plays 36 two days in a row.

I take a similar approach with my admittedly finite flying opportunities. I don't generally do hamburger runs and I do fly a lot of dual night proficiency hops taking turns as safety pilot because maintaining that proficiency is more rewarding for us than just tooling around. Once a week I practice landings for a half hour or so, once a month I fly manuevers and a round robin to another airport and every few months I plan and fly a short cross country after first using my XPlane simulator over the same route.

Would I prefer to fly more frequently? Sure! I just can't take the time or spend much more on my hobby. Could it be that, with the luxury of having an airplane at one's personal disposal, the owners you refer to are more tempted to believe that personal aviation can be relegated to tbe back of the recreational pursuit closet along with the skis, snorkeling gear and mountain bikes?

Steve

Steve,

If your PA-28 cost you half as much to acquire, or had you purchased it for the same price but it was a new airplane, do you think you would be flying more or less?

Mike, a friend of mine who is a Commercial pilot has a Cherokee 140. That’s what she can afford. She has flown it down to Africa, countless trips around Europe. This summer, she ferried a Maule up to Svalbard and is planning a trip to Greenland next summer. She has commuted with the 140 to her job as a Caravan pilot up in Northern Norway.

Working in a TWR (and at a centre before that), I can state that her (English) aviation phraseology is nothing short of excellent.

My experience sitting on the other side of the fence is that pilots that fly a lot are in general good pilots regardless of the wallet (One could of course argue that people with thick wallets can afford to fly more).

Where does the phrase "doctor killer" come from? Not from pilots buying low priced planes, that’s for sure.

And lastly, for most pilots, I think that operating costs kills the deal just as often as the price of the plane.

I think money is a poor barometer of pilot performance.

The accident statistics are filled with wealthy people (JFK Jr., the NY Yankees pitcher who flew into the building, Thurman Munson and Steve Fossett immediately come to mind) and I'm sure the stats are filled with those less financially endowed as well.

There's also wealthy pilots like Arnold Palmer about whom we've read good things.

I haven't seen any data that says one group or another was more or less likely to end up in the accident data.

When I started flying I was not well off financially. I'm doing much better now, although not wealthy either.

If anything my skills were sharper when I was younger because I spent more of my limited flying time doing stalls, steep turns, short/soft field work, etc.

Now I fly to go somewhere (family travel mostly). Am I unsafe? Absolutely not. Just had a BFR and the CFII said several nice things about my flying.

BWTHDIK?

My guess is that safety is an attitude. Some guys don't perceive the risks, or falsely believe they can handle anything that might arise.

Would accidents increase if aviation were more affordable? Yes, I think they would. But I don't think the number per 100,000 hours flown would change dramatically. We'd just have more pilots flying therefore more hours flown and more accidents.

I agree. It's called being aware of one's limitations. We all have them and these limitations are not static, they can vary from day to day depending upon currency, proficiency, state of mind etc. etc.

BTW: You live in Santa Barbara and own a Bonanza - you're wealthy - deal with it.

Hmmm...

I define "wealthy" people as being those who don't need to work because they are "wealthy".

Alas that's not me. Plus I only own half a Bonanza. My partner (co-owner) owns the rest.

Hmmm...

I define "wealthy" people as being those who don't need to work because they are "wealthy".

Alas that's not me. Plus I only own half a Bonanza. My partner (co-owner) owns the rest.

Coming from a guy in San Diego .... Interesting. LaJolla by chance?

From Provo, Utah, you both look rich.

Frankly, I hope you both are rich ... Really.

If I only had twice as much money, I would then consider myself rich.

-MO

Funny how 'twice as much' would usually do that.

Rich=Jet and Yacht.

If you have neither you're not rich. You just work hard.

Just my opinion.

Jason....funny how my "wealth" seems to be in direct proportion to my "work"



(i.e., I agree with you...)

Caution: Severe Thread Drift.

I represent a lot of people who would absolutely kill to be in the position most anyone who reads BT is in. Anyone flying a plane regularly or especially owning one would qualify as "rich" by basically any objective standard. One of the most cruel flaws of human nature is that we tend to to look up at who has more and wish we had it too instead of looking at those who have less and feel more thankful for what we do have. I am not saying I am immune to this either. After all, I don't even have a plane (or a share of a plane), and therefore look up at all of you who do. I really get to call most of you "rich" if plane ownership is the test!

With that said, I have to remind myself that having the ability to decide to fulfill the dream of getting a pilot's license alone and not having to take a loan to do it is being truly blessed to the vast majority of people. Determining who is "rich" depends almost exclusively on who is doing the measuring.

BTW Yves - I'm out on the bigger boat, house, plane (rental yard!) and most other big ticket items, but I'll put my Wife up against most all for hotness!

No.

We do have a distant ocean view from the back yard past Santa Barbara airport and UCSB. However our best view is across the canyon (a wildnerness type park) and towards the mountains. Here's an old picture. The power lines above have since been buried underground. I need to get some better photos.

I know what "rich" is.

I work for that guy every day. He could afford to write a check for any biz jet made but instead he chooses to drive down to LA or Burbank and fly economy class on Southwest.

I'm sticking with my definition of "wealth". If you have to go to work every day you're not wealthy. Period. If you can afford to maintain your desired lifestyle with having to work you are.