General Aviation 2023

For… really more “Encourage myself to actually make time to go fly” reasons:

General Aviation 2023 Thread!

I know there are least two private pilots who post here, and given the sort of people I hope this forum attracts, there may be more.

I spent my morning getting my BFR (biennial flight review, every 2 years you have to go up with an instructor and convince them you’re reasonably safe). It’s been a while since I flew in a Cessna 182, and the instructor was willing to humor me with “Hey, can I do my BFR in a 182?” request. I mostly fly 172s, because… well, honestly, a bit of laziness. Less complex systems, smaller engines, and you aren’t going fast enough to really have to plan that far ahead. The 180hp 172 the club has is “Enough of a 182” in performance (and fuel burn…), but it’s just a big motored 172.

Anyway, most of two hours beating up the sky later, learning the autopilot, and generally “flying, landing, slow flight, stalls, and the other usual stuff in a BFR,” I’m back current.

And, like most other years, my goal is to actually remain current. Which, practically, involves a good bit of “Sunday afternoon flying,” because I’ve gotten out of the habit of taking people flying after church on Sundays, and that’s just a solid way to spend the afternoon.

An interesting article on STOL design: Anatomy of a STOL Aircraft

I really need to get back up, but the cost is higher now and I’ve not flown in years and I need to find a way to rent plane nearby.

Flying clubs! Far better than rental places.

yeah my last place was technically a rental place but ran itself more like a club; renting flat fee for wet was kinda nice, actually was able to get gas cheaper than the home truck and they’d refund the difference

I fly with T-Craft - Our Fleet - T-Craft Aero Club is our fleet and current prices - wet. You can beat the club price on fuel, but it’s hard…

I usually fly 93F - it’s a 180hp 172 with a cruise prop, so gets up and goes for a 172, but I’m going to try and fly the 182s more, since they’re a good bit quicker, and for going places, there’s something to be said for the autopilot…

Spent an hour up today with kid[0], we went to the Warhawk Air Museum for a few hours, got lunch, then beat up the sky for a while, circled the house, did a bunch of steep turns, played with G forces, and had a grand old time up in the air!

I’ve some experience with autopilots (I took a flight up to Leadville) when i was in the area but it really turns it into plane driving and not flying; again, useful if going somewhere but it costs the same to fly it yourself

I still can’t get over those silly Cessnas having the wings in the wrong place; I’m a Warrior/Archer boy.

And I loved renting the larger more powerful archer - always available because nobody wanted it, and that extra power was quite nice.

I won’t disagree, it depends on what you want to do - go just beat up the sky? Yeah. Fly it yourself. Actually go somewhere? I’m pretty sold on the concept…

(1) You can see the ground better. (2) “Fuel on both.” :wink: But I’ve flown some low wing, they’re fine. There’s easily more difference between a 152 and 182 than between similarly powered Cessnas and Pipers, IMO.

The pipers land like butter, the lower wings give you so much ground effect that you can land without even thinking; even though they have a chocolate bar for a wing :smiley:

The only (technical) emergency I ever had was in a 182, the radio stack went out and I got to do a signal light landing.

I’ve heard that… I’ve also heard that given suitably high density altitude, they’ll fall right through it without warning.

Signal light landing? Oh, right, controlled fields… :wink:

A readable version of Deakin’s Pelican’s Perch articles. The avweb reformat ruined most of the image links in these (amazing, hugely valuable) articles.

Uncontrolled fields are great; but for people who are thinking of taking up flying, I can highly endorse doing it at a (smaller) towered airport; you’ll be a radio expert in no time.

Yeah, I really can’t argue. Ideally do some of both. People who learned to fly in Class C tend to be really uncomfortable at uncontrolled/CATF fields, people who learned uncontrolled/CATF/middle of nowhere tend to be uncomfortable in Class C or B.

Sounds to me like instructors should be going beyond minimum training standards on whatever kind of airfield the aircraft isn’t based at. I’m very pleased to have learned at a non-towered airport in the Seattle area, where my CFI had me interact with everybody, usually on every cross country- flight watch, flight service, seattle approach, whidby approach, and often the Payne/Tacoma/Olympia towers. But there’s enough small non-towered airports around there that even if you were based at Payne field, there’s lots of places to shoot touch-and-goes without a tower to coordinate traffic.

Meanwhile I’ve talked to several pilots from eastern Washington, and they are indeed frequently too intimidated by all the traffic and B/C/D airspace of the west side to want to fly there.

I’d say it’s most up to the CFI at a non-towered field to get their students places where there’s lots of ATC to talk to. Have someone walk you through it, help out when you totally get confused and keep you on track with ‘aviate, navigate, communicate’ while you get it figured out. Though I realize some parts of the country the nearest class C airspace can be some distance away.