what_next wrote:
The bleed air in turbine driven aircraft is (or can be) toxic not because it is taken from the engine compressors
Quite a few recent incidents regarding fumes and rather nasty stuff in cabins are most probably a consequence of sloppy cleaning of the aircon ducts and the actual bleed systems. I also recall a few cases where the APU was the source of the contamination.
Obviously this is a very sore subject with the whole industry. And while we are on the subject of “faith” and “paid science”, unfortunately especcially the cases where such incients happened and caused rather dramatic health problems are very often treated as hoaxes or wrong by the industry in a very misguided attempt to hush the issue up. Clearly most of them one way or the other are caused by the origin of the air, which is bleed air. However, almost all cases I have looked at closer appear to be the consequence of residue of materials which don’t belong into those air ducts rather than a systematic problem with the fact that the air comes out of bleed air. So it would be beneficial for all of the industry if it stopped balking this subject and get those airlines who have an abundance of these cases to finally improve their quality in maintenance and clean the bloody things as they are supposed to, as well as taking reports by crews seriously.
There you have it, black on white – face to face meetings are 34x times more effective in business closure compared to emails. Entrepreneurs of Europe – get a plane and start flying! You could do 34x times better! 
Nice find Adam. Unfortunately this doesn’t mean that one’s business will earn 34 times as much, which would easily make a capable aircraft affordable. But still, the study supports your original argument.
Still on topic somewhat: I was at a party yesterday where I met lots of friends from med school again, all of them qualified doctors nowadays. They knew I finished my PPL recently and congratulated me. Then someone asked if I were going to use it “for work”. Apparently they thought it would also qualify me to pilot rescue helicopters…but still the interesting question remains: What could a physician use their PPL for that is related to their work? Going to conferences and seminars would be my first idea. Otherwise something like the Royal Flying Doctor in Australia maybe, but in Europe a PPL-H would be more appropriate for that…
It’s always been true that if you want a “life on the road” then you will beat the majority of your competitors.
It is more true today than ever before because email has degraded the quality of communication so much, and most people think that sending an email is sufficient. Also with most product data being on company websites, you have lost most marketing intelligence because you never find out about the people who don’t buy your stuff.
In the old days companies had travelling salesmen but (a) it was gradually realised these were usually not cost effective and (b) most of the customers became less receptive to being bribed with a big lunch.
The other side of this argument is that electronic comms and the internet have made it easier to choose between (a) making money and “living out of a suitcase” and (b) having a nice life. Young people prefer the former and gradually move to the latter as they get old
It is very true that a bizjet is a super tool for getting business. I know one such case personally; he flies everywhere all the time in a high-end CJ. And probably a high-end turboprop (e.g. a TBM and up) would have the same despatch rate.
MedEwok16-Jul-17 05:58 #182
Then someone asked if I were going to use it “for work”. Apparently they thought it would also qualify me to pilot rescue helicopters…but still the interesting question remains: What could a physician use their PPL for that is related to their work? Going to conferences and seminars would be my first idea. Otherwise something like the Royal Flying Doctor in Australia maybe, but in Europe a PPL-H would be more appropriate for that
Indeed. I have used mine for attending conferences, particularly when I was president of our professional body. I have also used it for visiting other universities/medical schools as external examiner. And, unfortunately, always at my own expense, even though the cost is generally less than that of a comparable rail fare. But such opportunities are infrequent.
MedEwok wrote:
Then someone asked if I were going to use it “for work”. Apparently they thought it would also qualify me to pilot rescue helicopters…but still the interesting question remains: What could a physician use their PPL for that is related to their work? Going to conferences and seminars would be my first idea.
Going to such events or other business trips within Europe yes, definitly. Otherwise there is not that much you can do with a PPL.
Rescue work is usually a clearly divided business. The doc and rescue assistant sit in the back while the flight crew work up front and are very rarely medically qualified. And you need a lot more then a PPL/H for that, you need a CPL with turbine rating and all that. I belive in Germany most rescue units are flown by air force crews or at least were. In other countries air rescue is private business but again, you need a LOT of flying hours and a lot of luck to get into a job like that. Air Rescue is high school of helicopter work.
There used to be a well done series on German TV (ZDF) which dramatized the life or a Hamburg based UH1 crew. It was done with consent and active help of the Luftwaffe and used their equipment. Most of it is on Youtube. While it’s clearly a dramatized story, it gives a pretty good insight in what it used to be at the time. It’s called “Die Rettungsflieger”. Incidently their radio call is “Medevac”.
On one of the other forums, there’s a guy who wants to buy a VLJ (not sure if he’s genuine or forum bait, but that’s beside the point). Cue the immediate Euro-raining on parade:
“Why on earth would you buy? It’s stupid. Just charter”
“You need to fly at least 1000hrs per year to make it worth it”
“You can not safely fly a jet until you have 20000hrs at least, forget it”
“You’re irresponsible if you fly yourself, you need to have a professional pilot crew along at all times”
“Only way to make it work is to AOG it”
“It will ruin you”
“Unless the jet costs less than 5% of your fortune, you should never buy”
I mean, honestly – and we wonder why GA is in decline? With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Lord.
Yea I saw that (and replied to you there) and they reached their goal too. The OP of that thread now will cease and desist.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years when it comes to ownership in Europe. The way people are told off by all the wise disgruntled men in those forums (and one of them in that thread is very prominently against ownership in general here too) why do we wonder why GA is collapsing and the only people who buy planes are those who stay far and away from the fora?
In the old days it was the old and disgruntled folks at the airport coffeeshop, but this is worse. MUCH worse.
Tell him to come to EuroGA
Peter wrote:
Tell him to come to EuroGA
What for? Do you think it’s different here? If so, read the thread and you’ll see why I think not.
