I fly mostly to visit interesting places I would otherwise never see, but flying itself is also enjoyable and adds to the experience. I can enjoy a road or train trip as well, but flying myself is just way more interesting and I feel a personal sense of accomplishment in doing it. I also enjoy sharing the uniqueness of this with others.
Some other reasons:
etc…
UdoR wrote:
Same here. I love flying, but also because you get to see places, not only because of the flying itself. Sure, it does not always have to be a multiple-day trip. I also love to watch the Alps from above, land in Valais, enjoy some good food, a nice walk through vineyards, and fly back. With a car, almost next to zero percent chance to go to Valais or Ticino, just for a day trip. Multiple-day trips do however give my flying a real meaning and added value. If I would only do 100$ burgers and local flights, I might do it only a few times a year and quit flying otherwise. Not so because flying is boring, but especially because it’s indeed ripping off my bank account, especially here in Switzerland.
I fly to get to places, but the flying part is serious fun. Maintenance, too, by the way. If not I would stop flying. Because there’s a lot of work involved in flying one should not forget. And it’s f*** expensive. Flying never pays out in terms of “time saved” alone.
That point of nomenclature is important, because from that it depends whether “small aviation” is taken seriously, and catered for, or not.Fully agreed.
I fly for fun, and being able to go somewhere in the plane is a bonus. If I really want to go somewhere it’s usually on a motorcycle. If I must go somewhere and the destination is the goal not the trip, it’s in a car. If the place is a very long way away, then an airliner precedes the ground transport.
So flying is a way to go up in the sky, float along in my very own flying machine, and maybe get somewhere at the end of the flight. I take occasional overnight trips but mostly it’s fun to go somewhere a considerable distance away and be back the same day. When I no longer have to work someday, I may take some flights where I just disappear for a few days, credit card in hand, heading off in some direction at 125 kts with only one day at a time being planned, getting home whenever it happens. I won’t be in the ATC system in any significant way, won’t announce my arrival or departure to anybody in advance and won’t plan to meet anybody in particular along the way. It will just be me, the sky and the earth. That would be fun, but flight planning an inflexible multi day round trip to a fixed destination by plane is not what I like to do – it reminds me too much of work, and of its frustrations, and I still have to work 
Re costs, my flying costs are largely built into the fixed costs of my life: I’m not planning to give up the hangar or its monthly cost any time before I croak, the hourly cost of flying is mostly fuel at $50/hr, the plane was bought with cash and is not worth a huge amount and the maintenance is mostly fun plus a manageable amount of money. Whether I actually fly or not has very little impact on my monthly cash flow and that’s the way I like it. Flying weekly and owning the plane is fun and keeps my mind and body occupied, but it’s not that big a deal otherwise.
Jujupilote wrote:
The problem with flying for the challenge is you always need a new challenge, otherwise you drop it.
Indeed. It’s the problem with everything really – unless – you are passionate about it, or it gives a cash inflow (work 
) And there are combinations. A bit of challenge, a bit of passion (which can come in many forms), a bit of cash inflow, a bit of utility. For most GA pilots the cash inflow bit is either negligible or hugely negative Hugely negative is the norm. The utility bit is only exceptionally of value compared with other means.
I think most “successful” GA pilots find a way to combine the passion and new challenges. Successful meaning you continue flying despite lack of utility and high negative cash flow.
Silvaire wrote:
If I really want to go somewhere it’s usually on a motorcycle. If I must go somewhere and the destination is the goal not the trip, it’s in a car. If the place is a very long way away, then an airliner precedes the ground transport.Sure, a car is way less weather-dependent and better for planning purposes. But there are so many places out here, where a car takes 3-4x of total travel time (compared to GA), and don’t offer a (serious) commercial airline or fast train connection as an alternative. This is where GA really comes into place for me. And yes, that can be even a nice day or half-day trip within my own country, which would take at least 3,5 hours by car or train, but only 45 min by GA plane.
Frans wrote:
But there are so many places out here, where a car takes 3-4x of total travel time (compared to GA), and don’t offer a (serious) commercial airline or fast train connection as an alternative. This is where GA really comes into place for me.
Totally agree with this. And it seems even more true in Europe than in the US. In the US it rarely seemed logical to fly somewhere, and the choice to fly was mostly because flying was more interesting. In Europe there seem to be many more destinations where the logistics make more sense to fly.
A lot depends on your objectives in traveling.
My typical European trips are for 2-3 weeks, intentionally traveling short distances every day. I ride a motorcycle specifically because I want to experience the entire route up close – for that reason flying would rarely be my choice. Something like a day trip across the (boring, congested) Brenner might be an exception for me, with the Italian lakes and culture beckoning on the far side of a short flight.
Although I live in a beautiful part of the US, it might be less true here that I want to see the entire route up close, depending on where I go. For example, deserts and large congested urban areas are nice to fly over versus taking the roads across them. That can make a say 400 mile trip to some destinations more attractive for flying, and the US planning and logistics are less hassle. But OTOH a car is a much better all weather device, requires no planning whatsoever, and point to point including ground transport its often faster than my 125 knot plane.
The kind of flying I generally find most interesting is flying maybe 250 miles out and then back the same day, seeing a lot of different geography and getting out in the big, wide world a bit. The one kind of place that’s much simpler to visit like that in a light aircraft is an island. Although I enjoy the overnight ferries to e.g. Corsica and Sardegna, and the main reason to go there for me is the roads and motorcycling, flying there would be fun too.
It is very easy to die with millions in the bank.
Point #4 is very important.
Europe is small and a TB20 can cover it all in one leg from a fairly central location. It’s funny that GA provision is so hard here.
The US is big; you need a decent bizjet just to reach the Grand Canyon from the east coast, for example. It’s funny that GA provision is so good there. If I lived in the US I would buy an old TBM.
It’s funny that GA provision is so good there. If I lived in the US I would buy an old TBM.
We’re all different, I’d be completely bored with something like that, and what I could do with it. You see nothing except the destination itself and there aren’t many destinations at which I like to stay stationary for more than one day. The trip is the destination for me.
As it is, I can get to the Grand Canyon in two hrs and see a lot on the way But Sedona is better for lunch.
Peter wrote:
Europe is small
Peter wrote:
US is big
Not sure what your references are… during the Tour I joined New-Orleans (pretty far South) to Chicago (pretty far North) in about 6 hours. Now try to fly say from Rome to say Tromsø?
Back to the theme, for me flying is elation. Distanced from terrestrial, ever changing sights, entering the flow. Would not call it fun, but rather a mythical experience. The magic of flight, the simpler the machine, the more accessible the sensations
