The Death of GA? Or, a New Birth Opportunity?

[AccessFlight]

Hello Pilots of America!

I need your help.

My UID is AccessFlight and I'm not yet a pilot - however, I plan to change all of that in the near future. Though not yet a pilot, I have been in and around aviation and aerospace all my life practically. Since age 8, I knew that I wanted to be a pilot, but at age 45, I still have not me that challenge for a whole host of various reasons - but I've always been very close to aviation down through the years in many different ways. So, General Aviation is not new to me - I'm just not a pilot at this time - though my goals are Private through Jet Type Rating at some point in the near future.

The reason for my post is very clear and summed up in one word: Revolution.

It is my belief that it is now time for a Social Revolution in GA across America and I want to foster that revolution right here and right now. What kind of revolution? It is simple: Growing the GA Pilot Community one human being at a time - socially.

How? Well, that's what I want to talk about.

All the experts say that GA is dying a slow death. There is no doubt that the increased costs of flying have placed GA in at least a holding pattern in terms of growth - and many conclude that the increased costs over the years are one of the primary culprits in the slow death of GA across the country. I am told that in Europe, GA costs its participants 3-4 times what it costs to maintain a flying routine here in the United States.

I am also told that traditional flight training is another area of culpability associated with the degradation of the pilot population in the U.S. and that GA Student Pilot completion rates are the Number #1 causation (catastrophe) connected to the lack of both pilot retention and growth within the GA Pilot Community.

Fortunately, I'm not here to talk about failures and failings - there's enough of that going on already. I'm here to talk about how to change directions and usher in a new Revolutionary Era in General Aviation by extending and expanding the pilot base and by retaining GA pilots and thus growing the entire community and its associated industry. You could say that I'm a man on a mission and that mission is total Revolution with the GA Community.

It is revolution or die. And, the death of GA is not what I want to see happen here in the United States of America.

Ok- with that understood, here's what I need. Every industry and every major community in the world has a list of key players who are seen and respected as "Pillars of the Community." Those are the names I want. I want to know who YOU think they are and why. The names that I know are as follows (in no particular order):

AOPA - Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (Flight Training Magazine)
EAA - Experimental Aircraft Association
NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
Cessna Aircraft Company
Piper Aircraft Incorporated
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation
Lancair International Incorporated
Garmin Aviation Ltd.
Avidyne Corporation
Continental Motors Inc.
Textron/Lycoming/Avco Corporation
Jeppesen/Boeing Co.
Sportsman's Market, Inc. - Sporty's
Flying Magazine - Bonnier Corporation
Pilot Magazine, LLC.
Add Your "Pillar" Here

Please add any additional names that I have missed to the list. When you add a name to this list, the question I want you to ask yourself is: What would GA look like without this entities involvement and does this entity truly add something of value to the foundation of the community and the industry? If you don't perceive one of the above to be a "Pillar of the community," please say why you feel that way.

History is of no value at all, if we fail to learn from what it teaches. Looking-up the word "revolution" in the dictionary, I found the following:

rev·o·lu·tion [rev-uh-loo-shuh n] - a Noun
- overthrow
- repudiation
- radical change
- pervasive change
- sudden change
- complete change
- resetting of a starting point
- turning from

Why is GA perceived to be failing in the eyes of many? Why is the GA pilot base said to be shrinking? Why did I (personally) not finish my private pilot flight training when I was 19 years old, after having paid for and taken three (3) lessons at my local airport? Why are more GA airports closing every single year? Why is at least one (1) GA airport not being built or planned somewhere in the U.S. every other year?

In my opinion, the answer is because there has been no 'overthrow' in the mindset that removes the tie-down from GA and prevents it from being shackled to the ground. There has been no 'repudiation' of the old ways of doing things, that causes GA to lag behind a healthy growth curve. There has been no 'radical change' put forth that makes GA appealing to the general public. There has been very little systemic 'pervasive change' in the methodologies used to attract new talent into the world of GA.

There has been no 'sudden change' in the direction and/or the momentum of GA that would draw it favorably to the average person without a pilots license, but with the desire to learn how to fly. There has been no sustained 'complete' change in the way the GA Community goes about winning the hearts and minds of those not yet in the Community. There has been very little creative and outside the box thinking when it comes to 'resetting the starting point' for how GA grows its pilot base and there has been no genuine 'turning from' the old ways of making GA more accessible and affordable to the broader public.

How does GA go about attracting new pilots and retaining them? It organizes an air show or some other kind of event at the local airport, invites all of the "Pillars of the Community" to attend where everybody pitches a tent (literally) and then waits for the general public to arrive at its doorstep with a desire to want to learn how to fly. That's so yesterday. No wonder that GA has not grown in over 30 plus years.

There's a much better way and a much brighter future ahead for GA.

My goal is to organize a National General Aviation Collaborative (NGAC) that approaches the concept of growing the pilot community in ways that we've never seen before in the United States of America and it includes six (6) changes in the way GA currently approaches the general public:

1) A new paradigm for introducing GA to the general public.
2) Stimulating the natural desire to want to fly within the general public having that propensity.
3) Clearly articulating the next steps required for making flight an attainable lifestyle choice for the general public.
4) Providing broad spectrum and highly diverse access to aircraft, instructors and flexible training facilities.
5) Offering new flexible flight training financing with ease of access and comfortable terms.
6) Providing a new, warm and inviting atmosphere (Esprit de corps) for new pilots to plug-into, as they begin to explore their new GA lifestyle with Community based "infrastructures" (destinations) throughout the United States.

I'm talking about building something that quite frankly has never been done before in GA. Not just for GA's survival, but for the actual new growth and new development of the entire GA Community and to the benefit of all involved, no matter what level of involvement. I'm talking about a much needed Revolution in the way we think about growing and maintaining our GA Community. I'm talking about building a real Nation Wide Community, maybe for the first time in our country's history.

It is my belief that this cannot and will not be done absent the grass roots growth and retainment of the entire GA Pilot population. My strategy for increasing the size of that population is step number one.

Please add to the list of "Pillars" above.

Thanks!

 

[Sac Arrow]

Could you state your question in 20 words or less?

 

[AccessFlight]

Could you state your question in 20 words or less?

I apologize, but Revolution may not lend itself to 20 words or less.

If you can add to the list of "Pillars" that would be greatly appreciated. If you have a genuine heart for seeing GA grow, that would be appreciated even more.

Thank you!

 

[John221us]

I think I see why you have trouble achieving your goals. As the old proverb goes; How do you eat an elephant... One bite at a time. Go get your PPL and gain some insight into what it takes to join the GA community (I truly wish you succeed). GA has many issues contributing to its decline. We certainly need another advocate, but first take the time to understand it in a little more depth. Writing a treatise like this will not gain you much support.

 

[MAKG1]

I apologize, but Revolution may not lend itself to 20 words or less.

Clearly articulating a goal is the first step toward it.

I don't see anything in your post beyond a whole bunch of buzzwords. "Revolution" means nothing outside of marketing circles.

 

[dell30rb]

1) A new paradigm for introducing GA to the general public.
2) Stimulating the natural desire to want to fly within the general public having that propensity.
3) Clearly articulating the next steps required for making flight an attainable lifestyle choice for the general public.
4) Providing broad spectrum and highly diverse access to aircraft, instructors and flexible training facilities.
5) Offering new flexible flight training financing with ease of access and comfortable terms.
6) Providing a new, warm and inviting atmosphere (Esprit de corps) for new pilots to plug-into, as they begin to explore their new GA lifestyle with Community based "infrastructures" (destinations) throughout the United States.

1) I agree that seeing poorly done stories on the local news about small plane crashes is not a good way to introduce people to GA

2) Natural desire to fly is for birds. For many people, the only natural desire is one to stay on the ground. Our hobby/recreation/sport/transportation is a nightmare to most.

3) Work your ass off and stay sober. 30% of the population is out

4) Maybe Oprah would like to go into the business of flight school ownership. Why don't you ask her.

5) We already have that, its called credit cards and you can easily and comfortably rack debt up to your eyeballs!

6) Put a starbucks in every FBO, that oughtta do it. We call 'infrastructures' airports. There are a lot of them.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Okay. I'll bite.

My goal is to organize a National General Aviation Collaborative (NGAC) that approaches the concept of growing the pilot community in ways that we've never seen before in the United States of America and it includes six (6) changes in the way GA currently approaches the general public:

Translation:

My goal is to form a business entity (preferably for profit, but nonprofit will do) named the National General Aviation Collaborative (NGAC) and I would like direct and indirect financial support from the members of POA. I've assembled a list of vague and nebulous goals which I believe will be marketable to the aviation community.

 

[jspilot]

I'll only encourage the "revolution" mentioned if the goal is clear. Who are we overthrowing? Why are we overthrowing? What happens when we overthrow? I'm reminded of the old axiom, " Be careful what you wish for. It just might come true."

Certainly status quo is not exactly great for GA but is it all that horrible? I'm not independently wealthy( a common stereotype of pilots) had no real exposure to general aviation( first in my family to even ride in a small plane, let alone become a licensed pilot of one) and I still got my license. Why? Because I was drown to flying and figured I'd give it a shot. I loved it so I kept going to learn more. I still love it so I keep going. My point is, it is really simpler then the original poster is making it. If someone loves what they are doing they keep doing it, if not they stop. If a person has no desire to learn something, he or she will not try to learn it.

For instance, I teach history to 7th graders. Some love the topic and can't get enough( the licensed pilots amongst the GA world if you will). Other students like history and want to learn but don't have the passion( the student pilots who quit during training) and some just got through my class and do what they have to do to get by( the vast majority of the traveling public who only fly commercially). I don't expect every student to love history just because I do, nor should the general aviation pilots want everyone to love flying just because we do. My point is, people pursue what they are interested in and what sparks that interest is often hard to pin down. I'd think the best way to grow aviation is to keep the people who love general aviation flying and allow those who are interessted the opportunity to begin training( which already exists.) The rest is up to the individual person involved.

 

[Non Compos Mentis]

For decades, flying was glamorous.

People looked up to pilots as heros, and passengers dressed in their Sunday best to ride on a commercial airliner, served by fashionably-dressed stewardesses.

Flying was exotic. Special.

But flying has lost its luster to the general public. Graceful airliners that once were looked upon with awe have now become nothing more than another crowded Greyhound bus-
The "Aluminum tube of Infidels" is now something to be merely tolerated while getting to our destination. And those little airplanes are noisy.

Becoming a pilot requires a tremendous supply of money and dedication. Not money or dedication, but both money and dedication.

Attracting high acheivers with disposable income is what it will take to keep flight schools busy.

Tell us specifically how you plan to attract people with disposable income and lots of time for a new adventure, and you will have us listening intently.

 

[AccessFlight]

I think I see why you have trouble achieving your goals. As the old proverb goes; How do you eat an elephant... One bite at a time. Go get your PPL and gain some insight into what it takes to join the GA community (I truly wish you succeed). GA has many issues contributing to its decline. We certainly need another advocate, but first take the time to understand it in a little more depth. Writing a treatise like this will not gain you much support.

I've been involved in GA for years. Not everybody involved in GA is a licensed pilot. This is one of the paradigm shifts in "thought" that many within the Licensed Pilot segment of GA are going to have to wrap their head around, in order for things to change. GA is composed of many non-licensed individuals working around the country and indeed the world.

If the requirement to get "support" for such a "treatise" is a Pilots License, then yes - GA is doomed to fail in the long run. But, if you are capable of thinking outside the box and realizing exactly why GA is failing, then no such license is required to discuss the matter intelligently. There are a lot of people who know a lot about "GA" as an Industry that have never sat in front of an FAA DPE for an oral examine.


Military Career Incentive Flying:

When I was in collage, I once qualified and earned a Pilot Slot to the USAF UPT as a POC Cadet, but did not get the chance to enter active duty for personal family reasons. During that time, I also qualified for four (4) advanced field assignments given to the top four (4) Cadets in the detachment (based on GPA and Cadet TQR). As a result I had the coveted opportunity to fly a C-5B Galaxy (total time roughly 2.25 hours) along with four (4) other Cadets who qualified on four (4) different flights in two (2) legs/segments and to two (2) different UPT bases over the course of two (2) years.

During that same time, I logged a total 3 hours in the T-37 Tweet and 2.5 hours in the T-38 Talon, with an IP in the back seat of course. Most significantly, I have logged 1.75 hours in an F-15D. One flight was out of Columbus (brought in specifically for our field experience 'incentive' program) and the other out of Castle (also brought in for a specific 'incentive' program).

Actual Civilian Flight Training:

The rest at that time was an aggregate of 3.5 flight hours of flight training for the Private Pilots License, split between an assortment of aircraft (Tiger Grumman, C-172, C-152 and the PA-28R).

Ad-Hoc Civilian Flight Experience:

Roughly 30 mins per leg (KOAK-KBUR-KOAK) of flight time from the right seat in a PA-32 while working my way through school with a well known 135 carrier. The President of the company approved all the flights - about seven (7) in total. I've also got 1.25 hours in a Cessna Caravan 208 operated by a very well known 135 carrier that will remain nameless.

I've worked with two (2) FBOs, one (1) Part 135 carrier and a major commercial refueling operation which put me in close contact on a daily basis with the 747/757/737/727, DC-10, L-1011, MD-80, MD-11, BAC-146, DC-9, Lear, Gulfstream, Hawker, Falcon, Mitsubishi (MU-2) aircraft - just on the turbine side alone. I've got a small amount of BE-18 time and a smaller amount of DC-3 time as well. I also have about .75 hours in a Citaborea. I've also studied the history of Aviation and Aerospace Science from a slightly different angle (perspective) than a non-engineering trained pilot might.

Aviation and Aerospace are not new territories for me. My interest is more about what motivates people to want to fly and how the GA Community could do a much better job of connecting with the non-flying public, to grow its own industry. Learning to fly is one thing, understanding the motives behind why people want to fly and how to tap into their desire to fly - is quite a horse of another color. Would having all of my ratings help? Sure, absolutely. But, I don't have to be an Astronaut to figure out what motivates someone to want to fly. That's what this is about.

The ratings, aircraft ownership, the flying, etc. - all of that is on its way and will develop in due time for me personally. Right now, I'm thinking about a strategy for growing an industry and that includes a whole lot more than just knowing how to shoot an instrument approach to minimums, or knowing the difference between the DH and the MAP, or RNAV with Baro VNAV -vs- VOR/TAC, or how to fly a prescribed CDA for noise abatement.

If you have a source to add to the "Pillars" list, that would keep the thread on glide-slope and it would guarantee that we don't have to call a missed approach.

Thank you!

 

[AccessFlight]

1) I agree that seeing poorly done stories on the local news about small plane crashes is not a good way to introduce people to GA

2) Natural desire to fly is for birds. For many people, the only natural desire is one to stay on the ground. Our hobby/recreation/sport/transportation is a nightmare to most.

3) Work your ass off and stay sober. 30% of the population is out

4) Maybe Oprah would like to go into the business of flight school ownership. Why don't you ask her.

5) We already have that, its called credit cards and you can easily and comfortably rack debt up to your eyeballs!

6) Put a starbucks in every FBO, that oughtta do it. We call 'infrastructures' airports. There are a lot of them.

How does this translate to growing a dying industry that must expand its base and how does a non-pilot ever relate to such a poorly crafted solution set?

 

[AccessFlight]

Okay. I'll bite.



Translation:

My goal is to form a business entity (preferably for profit, but nonprofit will do) named the National General Aviation Collaborative (NGAC) and I would like direct and indirect financial support from the members of POA. I've assembled a list of vague and nebulous goals which I believe will be marketable to the aviation community.

When you see an "AD" for something, please let us know.

I thought the post was pretty clear: Add a name to the list of "Pillars" within the community that you think are essential to the growth and development of GA.

I don't see a sales message in that and the note at the bottom of the thread highlights that fact.

 

[SCCutler]

It's cool, Access, we're just trying to narrow down the goal here... finding, if you will, the first place we're going to bite on that there elephant.

And it's surely a big one!

More later, I have to go and earn some more living.

 

[Sac Arrow]

When you see an "AD" for something, please let us know.

I thought the post was pretty clear: Add a name to the list of "Pillars" within the community that you think are essential to the growth and development of GA.

I don't see a sales message in that and the note at the bottom of the thread highlights that fact.

I apologize if I read your message wrong. "My goal is to organize a National General Aviation Collaborative (NGAC)..." to me implies the beginning of some sort of GA advocacy organization that competes with organizations like AOPA, EAA, etc... And no I don't think that would be a bad thing if were so, but the first question that enters my my mind is, is this guy doing this to offer the aviation community an advocacy service, or it it for the sole purpose of creating funded staff positions with an aviation twist? It just came across that way to me, and perhaps to a few others too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more GA support.

(who's "us?")

 

[ebykowsky]

You guys are giving this guy a bit of a hard time. It seems like he really wants to revitalize the GA industry, and while one person may not be able to do it alone, I do think that we at least owe him the time of day. Also, the mission statement is clear enough, albeit not very succinct. As for the OP's original question: I'm not sure if you would count it, but events such as Oshkosh come to mind. I realize it's a part of EAA, but this event as well as EAA's Fun n Sun do a great job of bringing GA together. I also think that charity GA organizations like cloud nine, angel flight, etc. could be considered, as they promote GA and put GA pilots and planes to use, instead of just for punching holes in the clouds and running for $100 hamburgers. Hope all goes well!

 

[ClimbnSink]

37 years of wanting and no ticky, yet you are are going to move the ball down the field? Problem is there are too many rules and bureaucrats, and the anti-bureaucrats(AOPA et al) are just b'crats playing on a different team. None of this will ever go away. Go fly what you can while you can.

 

[John221us]

I've been involved in GA for years. Not everybody involved in GA is a licensed pilot. This is one of the paradigm shifts in "thought" that many within the Licensed Pilot segment of GA are going to have to wrap their head around, in order for things to change. GA is composed of many non-licensed individuals working around the country and indeed the world.

If the requirement to get "support" for such a "treatise" is a Pilots License, then yes - GA is doomed to fail in the long run. But, if you are capable of thinking outside the box and realizing exactly why GA is failing, then no such license is required to discuss the matter intelligently. There are a lot of people who know a lot about "GA" as an Industry that have never sat in front of an FAA DPE for an oral examine.

My comment wasn't in reference to your commitment to GA, but rather your broad, undefined goals and generalistic statements of action. In brief; you seem out of touch. I was mearly suggesting that your already stated goal of acheiving your PPL might help you better understand some of the challenges that face GA (it is not a ticket to enter the community).

A broad statement that GA is declining and that we should all rise together and change things is not going to generate more than a nod of support, no matter how grandiouse you make it sound. What is needed is specific calls to action for specific issues. Issues include many topics, all discussed in great detail on this very board, such as the need for a 3rd class medical (or not), the cost of training, the time commitment, fear of small planes and the media's treatment of general aviation in general.

 

[poadeleted21]

OP, could you be a little more vague? I almost used my imagination and had a clue what you were talking about. Instead of writing a wall of text filled with buzzwords, why not lay out the business plan for us?

Instead of thinking outside the box, you might want to jump in it, it's called "reality" and those of us who've spent the time, effort and money to make a go at it, know that most people don't have the time, will, desire, capabilities or resource$ to jump into aviation.

Unless you have a plan for free G650s and a AmEx black card for when we get there, I'm having trouble getting excited about "the revolution" or "the pillars"

TL;DR? My BS detector is reaching the levels it did about "that guy who's ticked off at POA"

 

[AccessFlight]

I'll only encourage the "revolution" mentioned if the goal is clear. Who are we overthrowing? Why are we overthrowing? What happens when we overthrow? I'm reminded of the old axiom, " Be careful what you wish for. It just might come true."

Old mindsets and rusticated attitudes that prevent GA growth. That's what you are overthrowing. Old mindsets that require blinders which prevent seeing the reality in GA that something different must be done in order to grow the community. These are the mental strongholds that must be overthrown before any creative thought process can take place to rectify the problem.

I loved it so I kept going to learn more. I still love it so I keep going. My point is, it is really simpler then the original poster is making it. If someone loves what they are doing they keep doing it, if not they stop. If a person has no desire to learn something, he or she will not try to learn it.

It's great that you love flying and I wish you continued growth in your love of flying. However, if growing GA was that simple - there would be no crisis in the industry today. The question is how does GA go about growing its ranks, so that it can do more than just survive?

The path to GA is going to be different for everyone. That's the real issue - the path. Right now, GA waits for new talent to come knocking on its door and it has always been that way in GA, ever since I can remember. Stage an event somewhere and hope that people come - that's been the solution up until now and that has got to change.

I'm talking about going after the general public - aggressively and assertively. Bringing GA to them, instead of asking the general public to come to GA. And, this gets into how one is initially introduced to GA. There's never going to be a 100% conversion rate for anything, but how much brighter would GA look right now, if it had a mere 100,000 new pilots? How about 1 million new pilots? Is that even possible? Not the way GA is presenting itself to the general public right now, it isn't.

Just take a look at the responses to this thread and that tells you just how much "revolution" is necessary in the mindset of those already in GA, before it will ever get to a point where it realizes just how inefficient it has been in inspiring the non-flying public to get involved.

For instance, I teach history to 7th graders. Some love the topic and can't get enough( the licensed pilots amongst the GA world if you will). Other students like history and want to learn but don't have the passion( the student pilots who quit during training) and some just got through my class and do what they have to do to get by( the vast majority of the traveling public who only fly commercially).

Might this have something to do with the way in which History is being presented to the students? (the way in which the non-flying public is being presented the world of GA?)

I don't expect every student to love history just because I do, nor should the general aviation pilots want everyone to love flying just because we do.

Asking all members of the non-flying public is an absolute solution and this thread is not dealing in such requests as they are unreasonable. Approaching the general public in a different way, might trigger a natural response that wants to fly, or wants to learn to fly.

If you have not been exposed to something, then you cannot possibly know whether or not you will like it, love it, or hate it. GA, is too busy preaching to the choir and not at all busy with making new converts through simply making it self known to those who don't even know you exist or who know you exist but don't have the slightest clue what you are all about.

My point is, people pursue what they are interested in and what sparks that interest is often hard to pin down.

When does their interest ever get sparked? That's the real issue, here. How does there interest get sparked? That's a critical psychological component that drives human behavior, yet GA wonders off in the garden of sublimeness never realizing the opportunities it misses by never being in the right position at the right time, to capture the imagination of the non-flying public.

Interest? What interest! What interest is there when one doesn't even know that you exist, or how much their life would be changed for the positive through engaging your community?

I'd think the best way to grow aviation is to keep the people who love general aviation flying and allow those who are interessted the opportunity to begin training( which already exists.) The rest is up to the individual person involved.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. This is the calculus that GA currently uses and look where it has brought GA over the years - to a point of near collapse, according to many "experts." I don't think this is the model for the future - in fact, I'm certain of it.

If GA continues its "inbreeding only" method for stoking the fires - we are in some for surprising negative results downrange. I appreciate your passion for GA and for flying. I appreciate that you had a path to GA that you were able to make work for you. But, I believe that you did it in a system that is not optimal for growth and development. If the industry is dying (and many proclaim that to be true) and the status quo has failed to even keep pace with historical trends, then that should put the writing on the wall for everyone involved with GA at every level, no mater how big or how small.

I guess (after reading some of these posts) the issue is: Who cares whether GA dies or not? Maybe that would have been a better title for the thread.

I'm an eternal optimist, but I am also a realist, which means that I'm practical underneath and buoyant on top. I see GA as dying (realist) but I also see a huge opportunity for GA to wake-up to a new realization that ultimately makes it a much healthier Community in the long run. But, I see none of that ever happening in the old paradigm.

Revolution is necessary for survival. GA will either adapt, or it will die. I don't want to see that happen. Therefore, there needs to be a brand new approach to introducing GA to the non-flying public, so that the true measure of its enthusiasm for flight can be taken. That's simply not happening right now and I believe I can put together a strategy to change that reality for the betterment of everyone involved.

Old habits die hard and old attitudes die even harder. This industry is built on tradition (which is not a bad thing) and some of that is going to have to break new ground in its approach to the general public.

 

[AccessFlight]

Corrected typo on the "MU-2" reference. Not MU-12. I won't worry about too many typos, hereinafter - but that one was rather egregious.

 

[AccessFlight]

For decades, flying was glamorous.
People looked up to pilots as heros, and passengers dressed in their Sunday best to ride on a commercial airliner, served by fashionably-dressed stewardesses.

I remember that time. TWA out of Oakland and SFO. There were called "Stewardesses" back then and they were also all Female Corps. I remember like it was yesterday, my first flight to Springfield, Ohio, to visit my Grandmother. The lead "Stewardess" (I don't mean to be politically incorrect at all) asked me, if I was interested in seeing the flight deck. Of course, at the age of eight (8) the nice lady did not have to ask me twice.

Long before the days of 911, back when being stripped searched and physically fondled before a commercial flight was not a guarantee, an eight (8) year old little kid could make his way inside the cockpit, sit down in the Captains seat and pretend that he was Captain for a day. I remember asking a boat load of questions as the panel was lit up like a Christmas Tree.

I miss those days of commercial aviation, no doubt. And, I can't help but wonder how many inspirational moments like I had, are not being experienced by many eight (8) year old little kids today. A brief walk down memory lane.

Tell us specifically how you plan to attract people with disposable income and lots of time for a new adventure, and you will have us listening intently.

To be honest with you, I want AOPA to hire me, so I can drive such a program - but they just hired a new Director to handle what they call the Center to Advance the Pilot Community - CAPC. The problem with CAPC, is that it was born out of a study that AOPA commissioned that focused them on why student pilots were failing to finish their training. While I agree that this is a very worthy endeavor and that it will help to reduce the drop-out rate among student pilots, it does nothing to change the paradigm for how GA introduces itself to the rest of the world and that's what my focus is all about.

The six (6) steps that I outline above is how I would approach the matter. The most important function would be how GA goes about attracting new talent. Right now, GA pitches a tent at a local airport and asks people to drop-by. Maybe, it is a Fly-In, Airshow, Static Display, Regional or National Convention. But, the point is that GA is always asking the public to "stop by ans say hello." I think that has to change.

GA, needs to go on the offensive. In fact, an all out offensive. Full scale warfare for the Hearts & Minds of those who have embedded and hidden desires to fly. I'm talking about launching a ground offensive that has never been campaigned before. A literal ground offensive. Literally, getting out on the road and exposing GA to Americans in ways that captures the imagination and cultivates the opportunity to develop new relationships with the public.

For those with the propensity towards flying, but who never realized that they had such a propensity because they were never properly introduced, or for those who always believed (assumed) that the road towards a Pilots License was simply unattainable because of the technical nature of flying - those people become the prime candidates for conversion and assimilation into the Community.

Second, a new foundation for financing flight training will have a new market and a new opportunity. However, the structure of financing will have to change and those doing the financing will have to shift to more of a volume based model to meet their financial goals. This will make financing much easier and far less painful for the new student. You should not have to write a check for a couple hundred dollars for each flying lesson. That is painful for a lot of people and it is completely unnecessary.

Reducing flight training expense to a simple $35/mo proposition (just an example of a low payment system), or whatever level is comfortable for the student, will do more to "retain" students than any physical changes in the way the curriculum is now being prescribed. The costs can remain the same (flight instructors have to eat too), but the availability of adequate funding needs to change in order to support higher retention levels after initial training has begun. Many people drop-out simply because they run out of cash on hand. Flight training, given its costs, should not be a Cash On Hand financing model. There are sources that do flight training financing right now, but the terms and conditions are all wrong - making monthly payments too large for many.

Those are two (2) of the six (6) steps that need to be taken in the Revolution, with the absolute key being the way in which GA approaches the public about the potential lifestyle change. GA, is going to have to demystify and simplify the entire process (from A - Z) for obtaining a Private Pilots License and an Instrument Rating.

This is not being done today on any strategic, coherent, concerted, coordinated and/or nationwide basis and that is the problem I see with GA. There is no realistic Collaborative Strategy in place right now for growing the industry and/or the community.

I believe I can make that happen by providing the leadership, focus and vision. But, I cannot do it alone. I need a consortium of the wise, a coalition of the willing and a collaborative mindset across the board in GA. That's why I'm asking for any names that the Community feels I may have left out of the OP, for those entities that it feels are the true "Pillars" of the GA Community.

If nobody takes this seriously enough to build a Collaborative, then this industry, this Community, is done.

Revolution is therefore, necessary. There is no question as to whether or not massive change is needed.

 

[iflyforfun]

If you have a source to add to the "Pillars" list, that would keep the thread on glide-slope and it would guarantee that we don't have to call a missed approach.

Thank you!

Okay, so everybody is taking shots. Aviation is full of grumpy old men ... just ask my wife.

Van's Aircraft - I could be wrong, but I think they are the biggest manufacturer of aircraft (qty) in the world, must be at least in the top 3

Dynon - bringing amazing new in-flight awareness to aviation at a FRACTION of the cost anything before

MGL Avionics - pretty much the same, just not as well known

Trutrak Autopilots - amazing autopilots for what is effectively chump change in the certified world

Trio Autopilots - same

If you see a trend above, I believe that experimental aircraft are harnessing the vitality of GA the way the Big 3 did back in the '60s and '70s.

 

[poadeleted21]

Flight training, given its costs, should not be a Cash On Hand financing model.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made if you want to fly the cattle cars or corporate jets, but for the 50 hour per year wonder pilots burning holes in the sky to their next hamburger mission? I couldn't with a good conscience encourage someone to go into debt, especially with "easy" financing.

 

[jspilot]

Accessflight, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post in a thoughtful and respectful way. I truly wish you good fortune in your pursuit. Your comment about the way history is presented to students got me thinking, I don't take it personally by the way because I know I'm good at teaching because kids usually love my class. You are right though that the way information is presented to people makes a difference. So I'll throw out an idea for you to think about that may help the way training is presented.

The traditional model that I experienced requires the perspective GA participant to go to the airport for training including the ground school portion. Why do you need to go to the airport to learn ground school material? You don't really. Here's my suggestion, why not make ground school lessons available to people without having to leave the comforts of their house? The flight school I went to allowed some students to use Skype to interact with the instructor and cover ground material without having to commute to the airport. I would bet that several more people would be interessted in starting to learn about flying if the time commitment was lessened up front. That person may just have that interest sparked and then they might continue their training further.

I'll leave it to the CFI's in the group to discus if this would actually work or negatively impact the quality of training but incorporating technology that already exists into the training atmosphere seems like a logical idea.

 

[AccessFlight]

Greg, John, Rusty - I don't either of you get it, so I'm not going to bother wasting anymore of my time explaining it. If you think Class III Medicals, The "Bureaucracy" and Time to get a License are what stands in the way of GA's growth, then I doubt you have the vision necessary to read the OP in its proper context. If you conclude that the OP is somehow "vague," then chances are you won't find the causation behind GA's current failings and most important, how to replace them with success.

The OP was fairly clear - it stated the problem and asked for simple listing of any key "Pillars" in the GA community that was not listed on the OP. How you should give those key "Pillars" was also made clear, stating that if you felt the entity was not fundamental supporting GA, then don't bother listing it.

GA, is not going to change (grow and develop) for the better unless some very old attitudes about it changes as well. Each member can think about starting with their own attitude - if you want this ship to remain afloat.

The notion of "Thiefdoms" and "Functional Islands" are going to have to fall and the real "Community" in the GA Community, is going to have to take precedent in the minds of those involved. Superior attitudes and looking down your nose at non-pilots is also going to have to change as well. Nobody, wants to associate with arrogant people - so that "attitude" needs to vanish. There are a a lot of skills that need to be developed as a pilot, but there are far more skills that need to be developed in other disciplines in life as well. So, the "Community" need not put forth an 'air' of superiority because it thinks itself to be doing something extraordinarily special.

Ego replacement with something that is warm, inviting, caring, hospitable, encouraging to newbies and genuinely enlightening about the industry, will do a lot more to attract those with the discretionary dollars who can help to build a stronger GA. This is part of the point being made, here. GA, is not going to survive through more inbreeding. Those days have long since been gone. GA, needs to grow through "acquisition." Acquisition, of new bloodlines and new alliances the culminate in a significantly larger pilot population that is active on an annual basis in the lifestyle of flying light aircraft.

If you don't understand what's being said here, I feel that in the very future, without some very significant changes in the attitudes of those currently in GA, that you will come to understand in ways that are painful to your own lifestyle as a GA Pilot. It is not my hope that such a day is visited upon anyone in the community. Attitudes must change. Failing that - you fail yourselves.

Good luck to you three!

 

[Velocity173]

The primary hurtle to everything you're talking about is money. It costs way too much to get a PPL. Buying and maintaining a plane costs way too much these days as well. There is no economic sense in owning an aircraft. Until you find a way to get costs down, which I'd say is impossible in this economy, there isn't going to be any revolution in GA.

I disagree with this "inbreeding" you talk of. A lot of us in the flying community best to recruit new people into GA. GA doesn't have an advertising problem, the word is out there. I can undertsand maybe before the internet, but now you can find any information you want on GA online. Fact is, there is no "natural desire to fly" in everyone. You have three basic types after their first flight. You have the person who dislikes it and doesn't see any purpose for it other than airline travel. You have the person who likes it, but once they find out how much it costs and the extensive training involved they say forget it. Finally you have those who love it and will do almost anything financially to keep doing it. Those are the people who keep GA alive.

I think a lot of people now just have way too many distractions to take up GA flying and aircraft ownership. I'm single and I still have a hard time making room in the schedule to fly and maintain my aircraft. Flying is competing against so many other hobbies/obligations in one's life. Trying to convince a possible future pilot to put down the flight simulator and spend a fortune to go out and do the real thing, is a challenge to say the least. Yes we need a paradigm shift, but that shift is up to the individual. It's outside our control.

 

[poadeleted21]

Greg, John, Rusty - I don't either of you get it, so I'm not going to bother wasting anymore of my time explaining it. If you think Class III Medicals, The "Bureaucracy" and Time to get a License are what stands in the way of GA's growth, then I doubt you have the vision necessary to read the OP in its proper context. If you conclude that the OP is somehow "vague," then chances are you won't find the causation behind GA's current failings and most important, how to replace them with success.

The OP was fairly clear - it stated the problem and asked for simple listing of any key "Pillars" in the GA community that was not listed on the OP. How you should give those key "Pillars" was also made clear, stating that if you felt the entity was not fundamental supporting GA, then don't bother listing it.

GA, is not going to change (grow and develop) for the better unless some very old attitudes about it changes as well. Each member can think about starting with their own attitude - if you want this ship to remain afloat.

The notion of "Thiefdoms" and "Functional Islands" are going to have to fall and the real "Community" in the GA Community, is going to have to take precedent in the minds of those involved. Superior attitudes and looking down your nose at non-pilots is also going to have to change as well. Nobody, wants to associate with arrogant people - so that "attitude" needs to vanish. There are a a lot of skills that need to be developed as a pilot, but there are far more skills that need to be developed in other disciplines in life as well. So, the "Community" need not put forth an 'air' of superiority because it thinks itself to be doing something extraordinarily special.

Ego replacement with something that is warm, inviting, caring, hospitable, encouraging to newbies and genuinely enlightening about the industry, will do a lot more to attract those with the discretionary dollars who can help to build a stronger GA. This is part of the point being made, here. GA, is not going to survive through more inbreeding. Those days have long since been gone. GA, needs to grow through "acquisition." Acquisition, of new bloodlines and new alliances the culminate in a significantly larger pilot population that is active on an annual basis in the lifestyle of flying light aircraft.

If you don't understand what's being said here, I feel that in the very future, without some very significant changes in the attitudes of those currently in GA, that you will come to understand in ways that are painful to your own lifestyle as a GA Pilot. It is not my hope that such a day is visited upon anyone in the community. Attitudes must change. Failing that - you fail yourselves.

Good luck to you three!

JFC, can you talk in plain English and not like a junior college marketing major drop out turned wannabe cult leader?

I love how a non pilot has shown up to tell us what our problems are and to save us.
Get your ticket, lay down the change to operate a plane for a few years then come back and tell me that it's attitude that's the problem with "it".

WTF is "it" anyway?

I understand 100% what's being said... NOTHING.

 

[AccessFlight]

Van's Aircraft - I could be wrong, but I think they are the biggest manufacturer of aircraft (qty) in the world, must be at least in the top 3

Dynon - bringing amazing new in-flight awareness to aviation at a FRACTION of the cost anything before

MGL Avionics - pretty much the same, just not as well known

Trutrak Autopilots - amazing autopilots for what is effectively chump change in the certified world

Trio Autopilots - same

If you see a trend above, I believe that experimental aircraft are harnessing the vitality of GA the way the Big 3 did back in the '60s and '70s.

Thank you very much!

I left out names like Dynon and Trutrak because I was going for the group of 500lb gorillas within the GA community. Having said that, I think you are right about Vans. While purely in the Experimental category, they represent GA very well across a wide spectrum of kit-built aircraft customers and pilots. No less significant a part of GA than any of the Certified entities. I included Lancair, because they not only have a large Experimental Kit-Built presence in GA, but they have also been innovators in the community as well, by pushing the use of composite materials and demonstrating its viability as a standard structural platform for new light aircraft design. So, in my mind, that's what I was thinking about in terms of defining the 500lb gorillas in GA.

There are others that I would have loved to include as well, but did not for various reasons:

ATG, Aviation Technology Group (Javelin Jet)
Viper Aircraft (ViperJet)
Eclipse Aerospace (Eclipse 500)
Express Aircraft Technology (Express)


I will add a few I forgot earlier:

Mooney Aviation Company, Inc.
Glasair Aviation, LLC.
American Honda Motor, Corporation (HondaJet)


Mooney, has been a vital component of GA, serving the High-Performance Single Engine niche for a very long time, even though more advanced aircraft like the Columbia have come along and supplanted Mooney in the SEL Hi-Perf climb and cruise categories, the company represented SEL speed and performance over a long period of time and has earned (in my opinion) the right be considered and indispensable component of GA history.

Glasair, while never reaching the shear sales numbers and customer loyalty that its arch rival Lancair racked up over the years, still managed to produce two of the most capable kit aircraft ever developed. While maybe not a true 500lb gorilla, Glasair is still a "Pillar" in the Experimental Kit-Built Category and has proven to have survivability down through the years by producing an aircraft that has both good cruise and decent aerobatic capabilities.

Honda, with is HondaJet, has proven once again that Engineering Research matters a great deal in the world of Aviation. What Honda has accomplished is nothing short of brilliant and anyone with a degree in engineering understands that fact. Honda's approach to R&D on the HondaJet was second to none and to be admired among all aircraft manufacturers. This was a company that had never produced a single aircraft in its history, and yet went on to not only develop their own aircraft concept, but they developed and manufactured their own powerplant (HF-118/HF-120) as well. Though the first customer aircraft has yet to be flown, I can't imagine HondaJet not being considered a 500lb gorilla in the GA community, given what they have accomplished and the way they went about making their mark in Aviation.

If you can think of any others that I missed, please add them to the list.

Thanks again!

 

[ClimbnSink]

AccessFlight I'm convinced where do I send my money?

 

[AccessFlight]

Perhaps there's an argument to be made if you want to fly the cattle cars or corporate jets, but for the 50 hour per year wonder pilots burning holes in the sky to their next hamburger mission? I couldn't with a good conscience encourage someone to go into debt, especially with "easy" financing.

But, is that really a "good candidate" for expanding the GA base in the first place? That individual is going to have to ask themselves whether or not the 50 hours per year is worth the expenditure. 4.1 hours of flight time per month, may indeed be considered a "worthwhile investment" for someone's needs. I don't want to be the one to place a judgment call on that level of flight time.

There are a number of potentialities to consider with such an individual:

- Are most of their flights under 150-200 nm in distance
- When they fly, is time en route a significant factor for them
- Do they intend on being a mostly fair weather VFR pilot
- Is there a tall mountain range between them and their routine destination
- What type of airports and airspace do they routinely encounter
- Do they live in a perpetual HDA environment, or do they routinely fly into one

There are a host of considerations for even the 4.1 hour per month pilot that could make the investment, especially in an Instrument Rating, a worthwhile investment.

If they want to simply relax, go up, have some fun in the local airspace over the nearby lake or valley floor, or pop over the hill down to a friend or family members neck of the woods on a clear Saturday morning without a lot of high performance requirements, then maybe the LSA route is optimal for them.

We just don't know until we start focusing on WHY people might want to fly and HOW GA can be of benefit to those not already in the game.

I love aviation. I love aircraft. I love GA. I want to see this thing thrive once again.

 

[Non Compos Mentis]

My local FBO did something you would probably think is a good idea to attract new blood a few years ago-

They brought a new Cessna 152 and 172 inside the local shopping mall for a week, and had an instructor there to answer questions and pass out literature on the joys of flying.

Great idea, right?

The results: Zero new students.

Quite a bit in up-front costs, absolutely dismal return on investment. Gotta pay mechanics to remove wings, and re-install (twice), gotta rent floor space, gotta ship the wingless airplanes from and to the airport, yada yada......

Lotsa great ideas out there, but it's kinda like advertising 101:

"Half of every advertising dollar is wasted. The problem is, nobody knows which half."

I wish you well in you endevors. If you are successful, we all win.

 

[poadeleted21]

But, is that really a "good candidate" for expanding the GA base in the first place? That individual is going to have to ask themselves whether or not the 50 hours per year is worth the expenditure. 4.1 hours of flight time per month, may indeed be considered a "worthwhile investment" for someone's needs. I don't want to be the one to place a judgment call on that level of flight time.

There are a number of potentialities to consider with such an individual:

- Are most of their flights under 150-200 nm in distance
- When they fly, is time en route a significant factor for them
- Do they intend on being a mostly fair weather VFR pilot
- Is there a tall mountain range between them and their routine destination
- What type of airports and airspace do they routinely encounter
- Do they live in a perpetual HDA environment, or do they routinely fly into one

There are a host of considerations for even the 4.1 hour per month pilot that could make the investment, especially in an Instrument Rating, a worthwhile investment.

If they want to simply relax, go up, have some fun in the local airspace over the nearby lake or valley floor, or pop over the hill down to a friend or family members neck of the woods on a clear Saturday morning without a lot of high performance requirements, then maybe the LSA route is optimal for them.

We just don't know until we start focusing on WHY people might want to fly and HOW GA can be of benefit to those not already in the game.

I love aviation. I love aircraft. I love GA. I want to see this thing thrive once again.

I'm not sure how much "utility" an IR is going to have with 4.1 per month logged, that's going to be at the bottom end of just staying current. Not going to do you much good at all with that LSA certificate. LSA isn't "money saving" other than maybe on fuel costs, the older tube and rag planes that qualify are going for a good amount in comparison to their non-LSA brethren for acquisition costs and the "new" LSA planes price tags are up there.

You gotta guy who has to finance 5K for his ticket, he's not going to be spending 10-20K per year just putting gas in plane for 200 hours per year while making payments on the 5K loan. 150 bucks or so a week is what it costs to get your ticket in less than a year, if you can't pull that out of your pocket every Saturday how do you expect to fly AND make payments on the loan after you get your ticket?

Here's the problem with GA.

1. It takes an iota of dedication and a thimble full of work. There's 50% of the population gone right there. If it can't be bought on the internet with a credit card, most folks don't want it.

2. It's not cheap, even Part 103 is outside the reach/rationale of a lot of folks, 5K or so for a shop rag that sits around unused most of the time only for one member of the household to enjoy that has zero utility isn't a great sell.

3. Some folks don't want to fly, and no matter how much fan boying you do, you're not going to get them in a plane and certainly not get them jazzed up enough to commit several thousand dollars a year to a hobby.

4. It's not practical unless you spend even more money and dedicate more time, and even then, the practicality is arguable.

The biggest things that I think could be a positive for General Aviation is get rid of the medical requirement for part 91. That's were the eager pilots with the means to do it are getting turned around at the door.

 

[AccessFlight]

Your comment about the way history is presented to students got me thinking, I don't take it personally by the way because I know I'm good at teaching because kids usually love my class.

No, no, no. I did not mean it as a slight on you or Teachers. In fact, one of the most influential human beings in my life, was my very first History Professor. Professor West, used to challenge me to conduct my own research beyond mere classroom texts. He was a master in the art of getting students to think for themselves and independent of consensus. He provided leadership and guidance at a time in my life when I was figuring out how to truly think independent of the crowd, by analyzing facts as they were found - not as I pre-arranged them in my mind. He was quite possibly one of the most influential "Teachers" in my entire life, and I've had some very influential Professors & Teachers along the way.

You are right though that the way information is presented to people makes a difference.

Yes, indeed. It makes a HUGE difference and only a Teacher would really understand the rubber meets the road pedestrian nature of that fact. When the Student is ready, the Teacher appears - but if the framework for delivery of knowledge is not quite tailored to the receptors in the brain of the student, not much gets through.

Not all human beings filter the world in the same way - thus, we don't all learn optimally through the same dynamic processes. Some people need to see, some need to hear, some need to touch and others need to contemplate internally before they lock-down new knowledge as that which they can recall at will. Most of our School Systems don't deal with this and most of our Flight Training regimes follow the same suit. Thus, what people actually "learn," even though sitting in the exact same environment, could be and often times is, amazingly different.

There are other influences as well, that determine who learns what, how fast, to what depth and to what level of breadth. Parenting (or, the lack thereof), peer-to-pear group influences, physical environment in which the student lives/learns, perceived social status and the families affluence plays a role to some degree for many.

I don't envy Teachers, I respect them. You have an enormous responsibility and in many cases you have to deal with an inadequate system in which you constantly are at war with bureaucrats trying to make things better for those young minds you have been charged with enlightening. Therefore, I don't insult Teachers, I support them.

The traditional model that I experienced requires the perspective GA participant to go to the airport for training including the ground school portion. Why do you need to go to the airport to learn ground school material? You don't really. Here's my suggestion, why not make ground school lessons available to people without having to leave the comforts of their house? The flight school I went to allowed some students to use Skype to interact with the instructor and cover ground material without having to commute to the airport. I would bet that several more people would be interessted in starting to learn about flying if the time commitment was lessened up front. That person may just have that interest sparked and then they might continue their training further.

No doubt, this is an excellent idea! I used to work in the enterprise technology industry and you are correct, the technology for Remote Access Learning is here, now and already in use by Colleges and Universities. Corporate meetings take place all the time on secure web servers using both video and telephony technologies pegged to the IP network.

I have no clue as to why we do not have a National Online Ground School Network. This is thinking outside the box. We have the ability to develop the interactive learning tools necessary that can be driven from a web server, out to countless numbers of students at one time. The possibilities for attracting more people by giving them a readily accessible platform for learning are endless. We already have CBT type Ground School programs for people who want to move at their own pace. However, there is nothing like being part of a Class Room environment and engaging each other in an interactive learning experience, which you cannot get from a pure CBT model.

An excellent concept!

I'll leave it to the CFI's in the group to discus if this would actually work or negatively impact the quality of training but incorporating technology that already exists into the training atmosphere seems like a logical idea.

I'll leave it to the CFIs as well to fill in the details about the actual logistics of knowledge transfer using such tools and platforms. However, if MIT, Stanford and Harvard can do it (just to name a few), along with many Corporations around the world, if Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space can do it (I worked with them on an enterprise technology project years ago using the Web) then GA can certain figure out how to make it work. But, again, I'm like you. I'll wait to hear from a CFI on its viability as a conduit for knowledge transfer.

Thanks for staying on topic and remaining civil.

 

[hindsight2020]

It's the money, OP. I take up young faces on Young Eagles flight, and I'm 31 years old, i.e. not a grumpy old unapproachable white man. In all honesty what we are doing there is basic community service, providing an exposure to kids that would otherwise not really encounter the experience. My expectations that these kids might become actively involved in general aviation is not all that great.

Once you encounter the cost barrier things simply change. No amount of vague references to paradigm shifts is going to change things. As much as there is a recalcitrant segment of the GA population that isn't all that approachable, the reality is that the only paradigm shift worth tackling is the COST equation. My ability to operate an aircraft recreationally is a direct and pure function of my disposable income. No buck, no Buck Rogers I'm afraid.

Someone mentioned LSAs. This is nothing new. The problem was that LSAs evolved into a conduit for people spending a heck of a lot of money maintaining and operating certified spam cans, to now be legally able to dump equally insane amounts of cash into the operation of lesser capable aircraft due to medical certification issues. That was NOT the spirit of what LSAs should have been. Thus, LSAs became just as overpriced (relative to the US individual median income) as their experimental counterparts or certified airplanes alike.

You want a game changer? Make a C-162 cost 20K new and the training required to operate it VFR only cost 3 grand. That's the revitalization of GA in a nutshell. I do enough community service via my Young Eagles charity (it's my airplane, my gas expense, my liability if I crash, and I do it out of the goodness of my heart) to know motivation at THAT abstract level the OP likes to talk about is not the problem. It's the fixed and operating costs, period dot.

I'm all ears as to how one gets to that cost level. The rest is just speaking in abstractions that merely do circles around the elephant in the room: cost. Cost is not however a relative abstraction, it is fact.

 

[cirrusmx]

I've been involved in GA for years. Not everybody involved in GA is a licensed pilot. This is one of the paradigm shifts in "thought" that many within the Licensed Pilot segment of GA are going to have to wrap their head around, in order for things to change. GA is composed of many non-licensed individuals working around the country and indeed the world.

If the requirement to get "support" for such a "treatise" is a Pilots License, then yes - GA is doomed to fail in the long run. But, if you are capable of thinking outside the box and realizing exactly why GA is failing, then no such license is required to discuss the matter intelligently. There are a lot of people who know a lot about "GA" as an Industry that have never sat in front of an FAA DPE for an oral examine.


Military Career Incentive Flying:[/

When I was in collage, I once qualified and earned a Pilot Slot to the USAF UPT as a POC Cadet, but did not get the chance to enter active duty for personal family reasons. During that time, I also qualified for four (4) advanced field assignments given to the top four (4) Cadets in the detachment (based on GPA and Cadet TQR). As a result I had the coveted opportunity to fly a C-5B Galaxy (total time roughly 2.25 hours) along with four (4) other Cadets who qualified on four (4) different flights in two (2) legs/segments and to two (2) different UPT bases over the course of two (2) years.

During that same time, I logged a total 3 hours in the T-37 Tweet and 2.5 hours in the T-38 Talon, with an IP in the back seat of course. Most significantly, I have logged 1.75 hours in an F-15D. One flight was out of Columbus (brought in specifically for our field experience 'incentive' program) and the other out of Castle (also brought in for a specific 'incentive' program).

Actual Civilian Flight Training:

The rest at that time was an aggregate of 3.5 flight hours of flight training for the Private Pilots License, split between an assortment of aircraft (Tiger Grumman, C-172, C-152 and the PA-28R).

Ad-Hoc Civilian Flight Experience:

Roughly 30 mins per leg (KOAK-KBUR-KOAK) of flight time from the right seat in a PA-32 while working my way through school with a well known 135 carrier. The President of the company approved all the flights - about seven (7) in total. I've also got 1.25 hours in a Cessna Caravan 208 operated by a very well known 135 carrier that will remain nameless.

I've worked with two (2) FBOs, one (1) Part 135 carrier and a major commercial refueling operation which put me in close contact on a daily basis with the 747/757/737/727, DC-10, L-1011, MD-80, MD-11, BAC-146, DC-9, Lear, Gulfstream, Hawker, Falcon, Mitsubishi (MU-2) aircraft - just on the turbine side alone. I've got a small amount of BE-18 time and a smaller amount of DC-3 time as well. I also have about .75 hours in a Citaborea. I've also studied the history of Aviation and Aerospace Science from a slightly different angle (perspective) than a non-engineering trained pilot might.

Aviation and Aerospace are not new territories for me. My interest is more about what motivates people to want to fly and how the GA Community could do a much better job of connecting with the non-flying public, to grow its own industry. Learning to fly is one thing, understanding the motives behind why people want to fly and how to tap into their desire to fly - is quite a horse of another color. Would having all of my ratings help? Sure, absolutely. But, I don't have to be an Astronaut to figure out what motivates someone to want to fly. That's what this is about.

The ratings, aircraft ownership, the flying, etc. - all of that is on its way and will develop in due time for me personally. Right now, I'm thinking about a strategy for growing an industry and that includes a whole lot more than just knowing how to shoot an instrument approach to minimums, or knowing the difference between the DH and the MAP, or RNAV with Baro VNAV -vs- VOR/TAC, or how to fly a prescribed CDA for noise abatement.

If you have a source to add to the "Pillars" list, that would keep the thread on glide-slope and it would guarantee that we don't have to call a missed approach.

Thank you!

what did you smoke? can i have some???
dude stop thinking about pillars, revolutions, dreams, erc. just get your license and fly away. thats probably more than you can do to promote GA. burn some gas, take people for rides, start an aciation business, instead of posting wacky **** in the boards.

 

[Velocity173]

what did you smoke? can i have some???
dude stop thinking about pillars, revolutions, dreams, erc. just get your license and fly away. thats probably more than you can do to promote GA. burn some gas, take people for rides, start an aciation business, instead of posting wacky **** in the boards.

 

[cirrusmx]

No, no, no. I did not mean it as a slight on you or Teachers. In fact, one of the most influential human beings in my life, was my very first History Professor. Professor West, used to challenge me to conduct my own research beyond mere classroom texts. He was a master in the art of getting students to think for themselves and independent of consensus. He provided leadership and guidance at a time in my life when I was figuring out how to truly think independent of the crowd, by analyzing facts as they were found - not as I pre-arranged them in my mind. He was quite possibly one of the most influential "Teachers" in my entire life, and I've had some very influential Professors & Teachers along the way.



Yes, indeed. It makes a HUGE difference and only a Teacher would really understand the rubber meets the road pedestrian nature of that fact. When the Student is ready, the Teacher appears - but if the framework for delivery of knowledge is not quite tailored to the receptors in the brain of the student, not much gets through.

Not all human beings filter the world in the same way - thus, we don't all learn optimally through the same dynamic processes. Some people need to see, some need to hear, some need to touch and others need to contemplate internally before they lock-down new knowledge as that which they can recall at will. Most of our School Systems don't deal with this and most of our Flight Training regimes follow the same suit. Thus, what people actually "learn," even though sitting in the exact same environment, could be and often times is, amazingly different.

There are other influences as well, that determine who learns what, how fast, to what depth and to what level of breadth. Parenting (or, the lack thereof), peer-to-pear group influences, physical environment in which the student lives/learns, perceived social status and the families affluence plays a role to some degree for many.

I don't envy Teachers, I respect them. You have an enormous responsibility and in many cases you have to deal with an inadequate system in which you constantly are at war with bureaucrats trying to make things better for those young minds you have been charged with enlightening. Therefore, I don't insult Teachers, I support them.




No doubt, this is an excellent idea! I used to work in the enterprise technology industry and you are correct, the technology for Remote Access Learning is here, now and already in use by Colleges and Universities. Corporate meetings take place all the time on secure web servers using both video and telephony technologies pegged to the IP network.

I have no clue as to why we do not have a National Online Ground School Network. This is thinking outside the box. We have the ability to develop the interactive learning tools necessary that can be driven from a web server, out to countless numbers of students at one time. The possibilities for attracting more people by giving them a readily accessible platform for learning are endless. We already have CBT type Ground School programs for people who want to move at their own pace. However, there is nothing like being part of a Class Room environment and engaging each other in an interactive learning experience, which you cannot get from a pure CBT model.

An excellent concept!




I'll leave it to the CFIs as well to fill in the details about the actual logistics of knowledge transfer using such tools and platforms. However, if MIT, Stanford and Harvard can do it (just to name a few), along with many Corporations around the world, if Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space can do it (I worked with them on an enterprise technology project years ago using the Web) then GA can certain figure out how to make it work. But, again, I'm like you. I'll wait to hear from a CFI on its viability as a conduit for knowledge transfer.

Thanks for staying on topic and remaining civil.

try king schools. ground school in twenty cds for approx 300 dollars. pretty much the cheapest aspect of flying.

books and learning resources are not killing ga. AIRPLANE AND GAS COSTS ARE!!!

 

[AccessFlight]

The primary hurtle to everything you're talking about is money. It costs way too much to get a PPL. Buying and maintaining a plane costs way too much these days as well. There is no economic sense in owning an aircraft. Until you find a way to get costs down, which I'd say is impossible in this economy, there isn't going to be any revolution in GA.

I agree, the cost is too high - but that by itself does not have to prevent a better GA than what we have today. Higher costs of ownership and training can be mitigated with appropriately designed financing vehicles that make the issues of affordability a thing of the past. Longer term financing alone could solve the majority of the problem for many people, putting their minds at ease when it comes to getting through basic training.

The largest component of cost in GA comes directly from Part 23. Part 23 has killed new aircraft concepts even before they had a chance to get off the ground and it is a major cause of death among many new aircraft concepts that made it out of initial R&D and actually into prototype development. Often times funding for new projects that do get started end up falling through the floor as the costs associated with keeping up and maintaining Part 23 requirements begins to take its toll and investors begin to realize the depths to which they will have to go, in order to bring the project to full certification status.

I have had this conversation with several aircraft designers, engineers and aerospace science professors, as well as some certified aircraft companies. Part 23 costs end up being eaten by the owner/operator down range, one way or another. Part 23, has killed innovation and slammed the door on genuine competition that would help to reduce acquisition costs. Part 23, also forces some good projects into permanent Experimental Category status. Had it not been for Cessna and its entrenched certification process, Columbia would still be an 'Advanced Version Lancair IV'.

So, if we are truly serious about reducing costs in GA, then Part 23 will have to be re-engineered itself, but nobody at the FAA is willing to have that conversation, so the focus for growing GA will have to remain elsewhere. Part 23, is a whole topic unto itself, no doubt.

I disagree with this "inbreeding" you talk of. A lot of us in the flying community best to recruit new people into GA. GA doesn't have an advertising problem, the word is out there. I can undertsand maybe before the internet, but now you can find any information you want on GA online. Fact is, there is no "natural desire to fly" in everyone. You have three basic types after their first flight. You have the person who dislikes it and doesn't see any purpose for it other than airline travel. You have the person who likes it, but once they find out how much it costs and the extensive training involved they say forget it. Finally you have those who love it and will do almost anything financially to keep doing it. Those are the people who keep GA alive.

GA, as a massive problem not because it lacks a Madison Avenue surrogate, but because it lacks a cohesive, consistent nationwide voice that calls the public to take action and becuase it sits back and waits for the public to come to it, instead of taking the bull by the horns and bringing GA to the doorstep of the American Public. That's why it is in trouble today, fighting for its very existence.

Commercial Aviation brings its message to the American People thousands of times each year. When was the last time you saw a commercial for Cessna, or much more importantly, for any local or national Flight School and/or Flight Academy? Far, few and in between, that's when. There is no strategic, concerted effort and no national wave of interest pouring over the masses. There is no designed articulation of the lifestyle benefits enjoyed by those in GA, nor is there any conceptual translation of those benefits into the lives of those who are currently unaware the GA even exists.

No one doubts the existence, purpose, place and/or mission/function of Commercial Aviation. Nobody, misunderstands the general mission and purpose of Military Aviation. Even today, people have some idea of what the Space Program is all about. Yet, dare I say it, who among them can explain what General Aviation looks like, how it benefits them and how they can benefit from its existence?. GA, has an awareness problem - a problem at the conscious level of thought within the average American and this is where GA is failing, miserably.

All of that changes with a change in the paradigm for how GA communicates with the vast public pool of potential new candidates. The entire world does not have to get involved, but a small fraction of the nation's population that already has an untapped propensity, can and will make a massive difference to the survival and success of GA into the future.

I think a lot of people now just have way too many distractions to take up GA flying and aircraft ownership. I'm single and I still have a hard time making room in the schedule to fly and maintain my aircraft. Flying is competing against so many other hobbies/obligations in one's life. Trying to convince a possible future pilot to put down the flight simulator and spend a fortune to go out and do the real thing, is a challenge to say the least. Yes we need a paradigm shift, but that shift is up to the individual. It's outside our control.

No time to fly. Too many obligations at home. Too complicated a life. Tight schedules. Competition with other hobbies. Professional demands getting in the way. None of that prevents you from still being a member of the community and that is a great point.

I agree, life can get filled with a lot of things to do at times and life does throw some curve balls at other times - even unpredictable knuckle balls. Everybody has a schedule to keep, jobs, careers, hobbies, other interests and other calendars to meet - that's all a natural part of life. However, this is precisely part of the point I am making, here. If GA had a new paradigm for how people engaged it, then it would fit the lifestyle choice of the individual while at the same time, fulfilling the desire to be actively engaged in flight as often as possible - based on the individual.

Aside from remaining current in the aircraft for which you are checked out and fly most often, there is no set requirement for the amount you fly or don't fly. Whether you do or do not, is completely up to you. People don't have own an aircraft to be engaged - that's an optimal situation for many.

I'm talking about how people are currently being introduced to General Aviation and the level of commitment that such an introduction instills in the individual. If a person has little to no interest in GA, after being properly introduced, then they simply don't make a good candidate for growing the community. That is the case in any endeavor, or any community. We are not talking about those people.

We are talking about the people who have un-tapped desires for flying that no one has helped them bring to the surface and/or where they (for whatever reason) felt as if their own efforts to learn to fly would not be enough to get them very far, so they don't even bother trying - not knowing that obtaining their dream or goal was actually in reach, if they were connected to the right system or gateway of education for such a purpose.

That is the kind of "candidate" that GA is not going after properly. And, that is what I'd like to see changed, forever.

Thanks for your input!

 

[AccessFlight]

JFC, can you talk in plain English and not like a junior college marketing major drop out turned wannabe cult leader?

I love how a non pilot has shown up to tell us what our problems are and to save us.
Get your ticket, lay down the change to operate a plane for a few years then come back and tell me that it's attitude that's the problem with "it".

WTF is "it" anyway?

I understand 100% what's being said... NOTHING.

What is a JFC?

FWIW, I hold three (3) technical degrees from Stanford, MIT and Berkeley. I'm not a writer by profession and/or hobby. I'm an engineer, mathematician and physicist - I'm also a private fund manager of a closed-end proprietary fund and a "wannabe" budding philanthropist. I've worked in enterprise technology for over a decade and I've worked in several technology business start-ups out of Silicon Valley. My degree in engineering is aerodynamics and my personal hobby has been the study of Aviation & Aerospace and their impact on economies world wide.

I apologize for not having thousands of posts on an internet forum to impress you with.

What do you do, what's your educational background (what qualifies you) and what ideas do you have for building a better GA? If you don't mind explaining it to me in a way that I can understand.

Don't be too technical though, because I'm not all that bright. I'm just a non-experienced non-pilot without much understanding of anything related to aviation, whatsoever. So, slow down when you explain things - that way I can keep-up with you.

Your attitude is precisely what real Nubes out there don't need as their very first contact when being introduced to what GA has to offer. Because, if yours is the kind of attitude they run into first - God help us all.

Unreal.

 

[infotango]

I'm finding it very hard to understand what you are saying.
I'm not writing this to be rude, but I think that you would have better luck communicating with us if you used direct language, rather than hiding your ideas behind a bunch of big words and marketing speak. As it is now I really can't understand what the point of your posts is other than the fact that you too have picked up on the fact that GA is dying.

Your message is lost in your language.

As for some of the hostility you are encountering here, I wouldn't take it too personally. Pilots tend to be a plain spoken bunch, and we've all heard pie-in-the-sky claims from just about every new kid on the block in aviation. So many corporations and organizations have come and gone in this industry. All of them have promised to totally change everything.

We are all somewhat skeptical of bringing new non-enthusiast people into aviation, because it just doesn't work. Flying is expensive at best and deadly at worst. We have all known people who have perished in plane crashes. Flying is not something for the general public. It never has been and it never will be. The risk and expense is just too great, and the vast majority of people will never be able to stomach the cost, or the danger they put themselves in. You need to be passionate about this. It's how the military screens its pilots, and it's how GA works too.

I wish you luck in your mission, and I really wish you could explain what you are trying to do in less than twenty works so my simple brain could process it all.