Rotting Planes. Sad.

172andyou said:
In 2007 there were 590,000 pilots. In 2017 there are 584,000 pilots, and there are over 50% more student pilots today than 10 years ago. Predicting the demise of GA based on your airport might not be wise.

The idea that a $4,000 ADS-B mandate would turn the value of a 172 into "chump change" is absurd.
Click to expand...
There are always bright spots in every endeavor.

If all you ever did was fly on sunny Saturdays, or only attended Oshkosh and Sun N Fun, you would be forgiven for assuming that general aviation was booming. The facts, sadly, do not support this:

From Wikipedia:

"As of the end of 2015, in the US, there were an estimated 590,039 active certificated pilots. This number has been declining gradually over the past several decades, down from a high of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. There were 702,659 in 1990 and 625,581 in 2000."

That is a 30% decline in pilots during a period when our population grew 28%. A very bad trend, indeed.

Now, if you examine the basics, like average pilot age, avgas sales, aircraft sales, and number of operations, the situation becomes even more bleak. There are many thousands of airplanes that never move, and many thousands of PINOs -- pilots in name only.

We will always have pockets of active GA. Booming Texas areas (Austin and Houston), for example, have thriving GA populations that tend to mask the overall decline. Unfortunately, these don't make up for the massive reduction in actual GA flying overall. Get 200 miles from Austin, and most of the airports are veritable ghost towns.

The bright spots are the experimental homebuilt community, which have attracted many of the remaining active GA pilots (myself included), and unpiloted aviation -- drones -- which are set to outnumber GA pilots as soon as next year.

As for the current uptick in training, that's a reflection of the looming commercial pilot shortage. Will these pilots become active GA pilots on their days off, or just fly for hire? Time will tell.

Bottom line: GA is unhealthy, and continues its decline. Sadly, the only thing keeping our beloved hobby alive are massive federal subsidies -- a situation that cannot last forever.

In the meantime, I will continue to roam the largely empty skies in my RV-8A, enjoying the hell out of GA while I can.
 
I have to wonder how many nice airplanes are sitting in hangars that never fly, probably a lot of them, thousands
 
Jay Honeck said:
That is a 30% decline in pilots during a period when our population grew 28%. A very bad trend, indeed.

As for the current uptick in training, that's a reflection of the looming commercial pilot shortage. Will these pilots become active GA pilots on their days off, or just fly for hire? Time will tell.

Bottom line: GA is unhealthy, and continues its decline. Sadly, the only thing keeping our beloved hobby alive are massive federal subsidies -- a situation that cannot last forever.
Click to expand...

You make a lot more sense when you get away from exaggerated predictions. Yes, I agree that the industry is shrinking. Yes, I agree that I don't see a turn around in the immediate future.

I *suspect* (meaning I can't get all the data I need to really argue the case) that things will bottom out in the next 5-10 years as the bubble ages out and then remain flat from there.

The wildcard would be if autonomous drones became available and got people interested in aviation again as a result of having access to affordable flying Ubers or if they jumpstarted the industry and got prices back to the level they were in the 70's (adjusted for inflation, of course).

But your initial comment was that in three years 172's will be worth "chump change". That's just fear mongering that's unsupportable by the facts.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Bottom line: GA is unhealthy, and continues its decline. Sadly, the only thing keeping our beloved hobby alive are massive federal subsidies -- a situation that cannot last forever.
Click to expand...

Is GA truly that unhealthy or are we just seeing the steep drop off the cliff economically as the Boomers retire, and then a period from Gen X and Millennials where birthdate is much lower occurs... until we hit the already seen bigger boom of the Gen Y generation?

Going by birthdate numbers, even your 28% growth rate in population is stunted. It should have been roughly 9 million more people.

It should be noted that "Generations" kinda suck for statistics, since some of them were defined as 20+ years and others (like Gen X) are significantly shorter than that, leading to goofy headlines that compare them in inappropriate ways, because one group is significantly smaller than the other.

But anyway. I don't think any of us who grew up post-Boomers really expected the economy to do well once they hit retirement age. It's just numerically impossible. Considering that, and that Boomers didn't retire like their parents did, things are doing surprisingly well, but they are starting to die at a much faster clip than heretofore.

That's going to accelerate, even with modern medicine, and it explains both the popularity and the necessity of BasicMed, if one thinks about it a little bit from the macro lens.

Gen X is losing parents now. Millenials are at that stage where they're hearing of a few dead friends from aggressive early cancers and car wrecks... and the Boomers who took early retirements are starting to attend water aerobics classes at the local pool. And Gen Y is walking out of commencement speeches whenever a politician they don't like, shows up to speak.

They're going to mortgage themselves to above their eyeballs to buy electric cars and overpriced houses, probably. They're already indebted to half of what I paid for my first condo for their "education" if they did it the standard American way with massive student loans.

It is looking to be a serious building shortage for a long time time come, in housing, compared to expected future birth rate.

Judging by the sales numbers, there will be plenty of ratted out Cirruses to fly in 10-20 years. If the plastic holds up, structurally.
 
Once I am back working think I want an experimental that will be affordable to own and upgrade like a newer Vans RV 7a. I can build a backup avionics EFD for $100 with my 3D printer and electronics.
 
strangebird said:
I have to wonder how many nice airplanes are sitting in hangars that never fly, probably a lot of them, thousands
Click to expand...
This was our lunch flight today.

Another ghost airport, in a country that's now chock-full of them. The FBO was clean, neat, and obviously untouched since our last visit 6 months ago. Our hotel brochures were exactly where we left them, untouched. The magazines were from the late 20th century.

They did update the coffee to a single serving, on-demand Keurig machine, so they are trying...
487a4a4b8e561411ee0f7dcd77026c6e.jpg
 
This is the view from my hangar. That poor old Apache rots away a little more every day...
c3ab2b7bb0c4c0397876829b098a451c.jpg
 
One thing that might at least slow the decline, and maybe get some of those old aircraft flying again is the FAA doing what they were supposed to and create the primary non commercial category. Allowing these old airframes to operate under experimental rules would make it economically feasible to restore them to flying condition. At the very least if it was allowable for an owner to take a short training course so they could legally do their own maintenance like LSA owners can it would slow the number of aircraft added to the ranks of derelicts. The idea that it takes the equivalent of 2 years work experience ( A&P ) to safely maintain a 50+ year old airplane is patently absurd, and directly contributing to the decline and demise of privately owned piston single GA.There is such a shortage of A&Ps in my area that getting work done is very difficult at best, and heaven help you if you need fabric work done. Almost no one investing the time and money to get an A&P is interested in wrenching on an old Cessna, there isn't any money in it. They are going to work for the airlines or FedEx.This the big reason that the Experimentals are really the only growing segment in single engine GA.
 
Oh, I didn't realize - it looks like a nose dragger in that lighting. . .
 
I didn't know that was an option. . .is the control feel and response in an RV as good as people say?
 
wanttaja said:
All "A" model RVs are nosedraggers. It's an RV-8, eh?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

A sinister looking RV-8, eh, I came across at an airport I flew into this morning. Must be the 40th Anniversary Darth Vader special edition? Seriously nice craftsmanship on the build however!

IMG_0256.JPG
 
Sundancer said:
I didn't know that was an option. . .is the control feel and response in an RV as good as people say?
Click to expand...
If you've ever stepped out of a panel van and hopped into a Mazda Miata, that's the difference between a Cessna/Piper/Beech and an RV-8.

It flies like that dream you had when you were a kid. Nimble, but not twitchy. Quick, but stable at very low speeds as well.

Do not go for a ride in one. That damned ride cost me close to $90,000... lol
 
Jay Honeck said:
If you've ever stepped out of a panel van and hopped into a Mazda Miata, that's the difference between a Cessna/Piper/Beech and an RV-8.

It flies like that dream you had when you were a kid. Nimble, but not twitchy. Quick, but stable at very low speeds as well.

Do not go for a ride in one. That damned ride cost me close to $90,000... lol
Click to expand...

And it flies almost as nicely as an RV-4...but with more room. :D

I did a boatload of rolls yesterday in my 4. Pull nose up 25-30 degrees and shove the stick to either side and feel the aileron stall bump as she rotates nicely around a point.
 
catmandu said:
We have a Grumman that is sitting in the weeds at the airport, has been for the past five years. I remember the owner being very active and proud on our local email list for several years prior, especially for the new paint job he put on it. That one makes me sad. I believe the airport is pursuing a lien for unpaid tie down fees.
Click to expand...

At least the landscaping crew whacked the grass this year:

JpJEVVFl.jpg
 
catmandu said:
At least the landscaping crew whacked the grass this year:

JpJEVVFl.jpg
Click to expand...

I watched small trees grow up around a 185 on amphibs. 10-12 years ago he must have spent 250k on restoring the thing and putting it on floats and then he just let it sit there to rot.
 
I hate these, sell them cheap before they get into this condition or keep ownership but let someone fly it. Hell when I am gone for more than three months I let someone drive my car instead of just sitting there.
 
I will note that there were a dozen or more ramp queens at KAKR in the 1960s-1970s. I think that a minority of private pilots fly the majority of hours.
 
kaiser said:
What would it take to make one of these airworthy/safe?
Click to expand...

The flippant answer is "money". Odds are that after five years of sitting, the engine needs a complete overhaul, and the structure is full of corrosion. Together the plane is likely un-airworthy, and not economic to repair. Cheaper to buy a currently in-annual version of the same make and model.

Maybe. It is only five years on the ground. Ten years and it is very likely junk. At five years there is a slim chance the restoration could be economic.

Sad to see, for sure!

-Skip
 
kaiser said:
What would it take to make one of these airworthy/safe?
Click to expand...

I'm not as pessimistic as Skip. There are lots of 5-10 year old planes that can be economically salvaged.

But he is 200% on point in laying out what one should *assume* will be the case. In the absence of a lot of data to the contrary, you would have to assume a new engine, some new avionics, new wiring (mice!), new seals and boots, etc, etc, etc.
 
It is a sad state of affairs for sure. Our local homedrome has a bunch just sitting there. One with a broken window that I think birds go in and out.
How does it get like this? Think someone who owned just died and family doesn’t know what to do?
 
Talking with a friend, about this last week. He said a local airport manager chalked the tires of 17 tie-downs last May.
Only 8 of those planes have moved.
Pretty sad.
 
Livermore Airport also has some derelict planes sitting out on the tarmac. At least they had some. I didn't see them at the most recent Livermore Airport Days event.

So sad.
 
172andyou said:
I'm not as pessimistic as Skip. There are lots of 5-10 year old planes that can be economically salvaged.

But he is 200% on point in laying out what one should *assume* will be the case. In the absence of a lot of data to the contrary, you would have to assume a new engine, some new avionics, new wiring (mice!), new seals and boots, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
I suppose what I can’t get out of my head is assuming acquiring the plane for next to nothing, putting 40-60 into it for reman’d engine and glass avionics, I’m better off than the mid time abused engine on old avionics? Corrosion is the big wild card I guess.

... famous last words I know ;)

* also full disclosure- I come from the car world and am still new to aviation
 
kaiser said:
I suppose what I can’t get out of my head is assuming acquiring the plane for next to nothing, putting 40-60 into it for reman’d engine and glass avionics, I’m better off than the mid time abused engine on old avionics? Corrosion is the big wild card I guess.

... famous last words I know ;)

* also full disclosure- I come from the car world and am still new to aviation
Click to expand...

I think that's right. If you can inspect the fuselage and determine it to be in acceptable condition, and you can put in new avionics and engines and still come up with a price less than that of a similar airplane that is air worthy, then it can be worth doing.

Most of the time, though, the plane has been sitting because the owner has an overly hyped opinion of what it's worth. So that math doesn't work. You, correctly, are assuming everything would need to be scrapped. The typical owner is assuming, usually incorrectly, that a trip to the wash rack and an oil change, and the plane is ready go. So that owner will never sell for the price of the fuselage.

Welcome to aviation. ;)
 
172andyou said:
I think that's right. If you can inspect the fuselage and determine it to be in acceptable condition, and you can put in new avionics and engines and still come up with a price less than that of a similar airplane that is air worthy, then it can be worth doing.

Most of the time, though, the plane has been sitting because the owner has an overly hyped opinion of what it's worth. So that math doesn't work. You, correctly, are assuming everything would need to be scrapped. The typical owner is assuming, usually incorrectly, that a trip to the wash rack and an oil change, and the plane is ready go. So that owner will never sell for the price of the fuselage.

Welcome to aviation. ;)
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: I've talked to a few owners of ramp queens. Most of them wanted close to what a currently flying model was going for.

Sometimes its a case of the owner that used to fly it died and when the family finally gets around to selling they take a look at trade a plane and think that's what its worth.
 
3DF3C618-D14F-4975-895F-CE68A3CA21DD.jpeg
Here’s two that have seen better days. One in front has a big hole in window- not sure how that even happens. Paint actually half decent. In the two years I’ve been flying at this field never once moved.
 
Grum.Man said:
I will bet 90% of derelict airplanes had some major repair needed that the owner couldn't afford..
Click to expand...

It was probably the owners that had a defect (medical condition) that needed repaired.
 
It's sad, and there's not enough room here to thoroughly explain what I'm about to say, but if you do your research, and then think about it long enough, you'll likely come to the same conclusion as I have. The all around decline of GA can be directly attributed to Regulation. Regulation has forced a mighty cost on this activity. If we could get the unelected regulators to back off and get reasonable, or go away, GA might someday grow again, but in the present climate, the ramp rats and hangar queens will eventually meet the scrap man.
 
denverpilot said:
Is GA truly that unhealthy or are we just seeing the steep drop off the cliff economically as the Boomers retire, and then a period from Gen X and Millennials where birthdate is much lower occurs... until we hit the already seen bigger boom of the Gen Y generation?
Click to expand...

You make a good point but a counter point to also consider is the average WWII trained pilot was 21-22 years old and would only be in their late 50's or early 60's by the peak in the 1980's and many of them would still be counted as part of the pilot rolls. That's a huge potential population of pilots in the post-war era who learned to fly on the government's dime that would have steadily declined beyond 1980 independent of any differences in the size of the generations from Boomers to Gen X to Millenials (there were over 16M men and women serving in WWII, obviously not all of them became pilots, not all of them survived and not all of them continued to be pilots after the war but even a conversion rate of 1% would yield 160k pilots).

We're really only just starting to see the fall off of Boomers hit now which is a significant cause of the airline pilot shortage and even then, many of them are still "active pilots" in their retirement, they're just no longer able to fly for an airline. Many have retired to general aviation as "just for fun" or CFI's or even still continue to work in charter or cargo services. It'll be another decade or more before we see the real impact on total pilot numbers of the boomers retiring which if your supposition is correct, means the numbers are likely to get much worse.

We lost 200,000 pilots between 1980 and 2000 which fits would place a 21 year old pilot at the time of WWII breaking out in Europe in 1939 at 62 in 1980 and 82 in 2000 while the 21 year old pilot at the end of WWII in 1945 would be at 56 in 1980 and 76 in 2000. From 2000 to 2017 we more or less plateaued but that is likely due to the boomers still being counted as part of the active pilot rolls.

Given a lower percentage number of pilots but a higher overall population of the boomer generation I'd guess we'll probably see another decline in the next 20 years as the boomers continue to age out (the tail end of the boomer generation was born in 1964 and is only 55 today while the beginning of the boomer generation was born in 1944 and is 75). In 2016 the average age of a pilot by region was: 43.7 in Europe, 45.7 in Middle-East & Africa, 45.8 in Asia and 48 in the US. So we're probably looking at another 100k or more drop over the next 20 years.

I dont know that I see a population group capable of replacing these pilots. Accurate statistics for the total number of births during the baby boomer generation are difficult to come by but it is estimated as of 2017 there are 73.47M people in the US born between 1946 and 1964. Without considering deaths, particularly in the population of early boomers, or year-to-year changes in birth rate, that puts the Baby Boom Generation at about 3.87M births per year.

Gen X is estimated at 65.71M between 1965 and 1980 which is 4.10M births per year.
Millenials/Gen Y is estimated at 71.86M between 1981 and 1996 which is 4.49M births per year.
Generation Z is etimated at 86.43 between 1997 and 2017 which is 4.11M births per year.

Gen Y is already into adulthood with a large population well into their 30's. This could be good for GA since GA typically is enjoyed by established individuals with disposable income but is it enough to replace 100k pilots? Especially given the lowering inventory and rising costs of planes?
Gen Z is the future, only just entering adulthood now and given the pilot shortage there is likely to be a significant portion that consider aviation as a career but how many airline pilots do you know that still participate in GA for the fun of it (yes, some do and many continue on as CFI's but a large portion dont).
 
Last edited:
This one is parked next to me at KRHV. It's sad to slowly watch it decay. It looks like it'd be fine if they replaced the tires and cleaned it off, but who knows.
 

Attachments

  • 2018-04-20 18.55.30.jpg
    2018-04-20 18.55.30.jpg
    191.9 KB · Views: 195
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top