GA "needs"

J

jeremyk13

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
52
Display Name
Display name:
jeremyk13
Hi everyone. Sorry if this has been posted before, but my searches have come up empty so far.

I am a low hours private pilot, and do not have the experience to phrase this question in a more elegant fashion. As a thought exercise, what are the current "needs" in general aviation? What are some shortcomings in need of attention? What about potential luxuries that aren't actual needs, but you would consider to be great to have?

I know it's a very open question, but I look forward to the discussions that may follow.
 
not really sure where you're going with this, but GA "needs" to be more cost effective for more people to get involved. and for me to get more involved.
 
Just like most anything

Less government meddling

Less taxes

Toss the 2020 ADSB mandate in the garbage

Toss the TSA and airport prison fences in the garbage


Don't try to "fix" our existing aviation system which works REALLY well.

That would be a great start.
 
James331 said:
Just like most anything

Less government meddling

Less taxes

Toss the 2020 ADSB mandate in the garbage

Toss the TSA and airport prison fences in the garbage


Don't try to "fix" our existing aviation system which works REALLY well.

That would be a great start.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it all up. Would be nice if operation and insurance costs were lower, but that is what it is.
 
Diversity and youth. At most of the aviation events you see a bunch of old white guys. I think we can do better.

I say this as a getting older white guy. :)
 
Dave Theisen said:
Diversity and youth. At most of the aviation events you see a bunch of old white guys. I think we can do better.

I say this as a getting older white guy. :)
Click to expand...
yep.
I am on the wrong side of 40, and am the youngest guy at our EAA chapter.

the decline in pilot population over the past 20 odd years hasn't been stopped yet.

it cost me about $4,000 to get ppl in '94. that was a decent chunk of change in '94. the costs I here now for a ppl would almost buy a new car. the rate of aviation inflation far out paced wage growth. $160/hr 172 rentals don't help grow GA, that for sure.
 
jordane93 said:
More recurrent training other than a BFR.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, BFR is more then fine, don't think making folks do more recurrent would do jack diddly to the guys who run out of gas or the other stuff like that.

Also if you want to mimic the working 121/135, it's more like a check ride every 6months.


This is getting back to, quit trying to "fix" what works.

BFR and normal 666 IFR is more than sufficient for pt91
 
James331 said:
I wouldn't go that far, BFR is more then fine, don't think making folks do more recurrent would do jack diddly to the guys who run out of gas or the other stuff like that.

Also if you want to mimic the working 121/135, it's more like a check ride every 6months.


This is getting back to, quit trying to "fix" what works.

BFR and normal 666 IFR is more than sufficient for pt91
Click to expand...
Meh. Some of the BFRs I've given were scary and I didn't sign them off. Maybe something every year intstead of 2 years.
 
I'm relatively new, but this is what I see. Currently we are using regulation to try to make GA safer. The result is more expense which causes pilots to fly less and stifles innovation, both of which make things less safe. We need to focus on making it cheaper to fly and also to develop aircraft and aviation equipment, which should result in more flying and more innovation, both of which should lower accident rates.

I did my training in a 1960 172. Perfectly safe for basic VFR flight, but ridiculous that it was so low tech in terms of situational awareness, navigation, and communications. To retrofit would be ludicrous in cost, not because the equipment is expensive to develop and manufacture, but because of the regulation that drives up the cost of the certifications. Meanwhile, the well equipped aircraft I fly now costs a ton (to me) to maintain, driving per hour costs up. So I fly less resulting in a rustier pilot sharing the skies with you. Not the desired result...
 
I agree with much that's been said, however, one of the biggest issues I've seen is that GA is not friendly to outsiders (other than pilots). When I got out of the military and wanted to finish my ppl. I walked into three flight schools with money in pocket and logbook in hand before anyone asked "May I help you?"...:eek::eek::eek: Who knows how many student opportunities have been missed when this is their first encounter...:dunno:
 
Last edited:
My biggest worry is the ongoing costs that will come up. I have been told by many people that unless I can use a plane for legitimate business purposes or fly a massive number of hours per year, that it will always be a better deal to just rent instead of buy.

I see too many planes that are just sitting and are no longer worth even trying to fix because of the cost of parts that have an FAA approved stamp which seems to up the price by a couple of orders of magnitude.
 
Blindrage said:
My biggest worry is the ongoing costs that will come up. I have been told by many people that unless I can use a plane for legitimate business purposes or fly a massive number of hours per year, that it will always be a better deal to just rent instead of buy.

I see too many planes that are just sitting and are no longer worth even trying to fix because of the cost of parts that have an FAA approved stamp which seems to up the price by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

That's naysayer talk, these are the same people, where if you used their accounting logic, you couldn't even afford to drive you car, or walk in your shoes.

I don't fly my plane much per year, and even if I wasn't depreciating it for my taxes, it doesn't cost that much, and it's a 6 seat, 300hp, IFR amphibian.

It's really just a matter of being smart about it, pricing stuff yourself and turning wrenches yourself.

The only planes I don't get buying, are boring standard issue trainer like 172s, normal (non patroller/aerobat) 150/2s, fixed gear PA28s and the like.

The planes that I've owned/own I would never be able to rent, plus if you're smart about it the dang things even hedge inflation :)
 
Ok, I've got the answer. Make flying free for everyone. If you crash for any reason other than, say getting struck by a bolt lightening, or maybe your liver explodes in flight, other than for either of those two reasons, your entire savings and inheritance, your 401k and any of your kids college funds goes into the GA fund, that pays for the rest of our flying. Maybe that'll wisen people up. Pulling the chute doesn't count.
 
Did GA become less useful as a result of airline deregulation?
 
jordane93 said:
Meh. Some of the BFRs I've given were scary and I didn't sign them off. Maybe something every year intstead of 2 years.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the guys who suck would still find a CFI willing to pencil whip it for them. You need to change the BFR standard rather than the frequency.
 
GeorgeC said:
Did GA become less useful as a result of airline deregulation?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. It's been a long-ass time since deregulation. It certainly lowered the cost of airfrare, but routes have come and gone since then. Where I live today (Norfolk, VA) is far better and cheaper served by GA than 121 service and it's been 38 years since deregulation. Other cities are much different though.
 
Blindrage said:
My biggest worry is the ongoing costs that will come up. I have been told by many people that unless I can use a plane for legitimate business purposes or fly a massive number of hours per year, that it will always be a better deal to just rent instead of buy...
Click to expand...
The trouble with what those people are telling you is that they are assigning zero value to the freedom to fly where you want when you want, without having to plan far enough in advance to make sure someone else doesn't reserve the plane you want, and without having to worry about daily minimums, returning the plane on time, and other FBO rules. The value to you of that freedom is something only you can determine.
 
jordane93 said:
Meh. Some of the BFRs I've given were scary and I didn't sign them off. Maybe something every year intstead of 2 years.
Click to expand...

So you didn't sign them off?

So they were not legal to fly till you trained them up to spec?

Sounds like it works to me
 
So make recurrent training every year, they'll just get it pencil whipped every year vs every two years.


No matter how many regs you change or add, you'll never be able to rid yourself of the folks who do dumb chit, part of living in the human condition.
 
Need to move Light Sport up to 2000 pound GW and 150knots level flight. I'd like to see aviation EASIER to get into rather than HARDER.
 
Assumption: In order to bring the cost of entry down, rental fees would have to come down.

How much are rental costs driven by maintenance/inspections vs operating expenses or insurance? How receptive are flight schools to planes that have less proven history but lower operating costs?
 
jordane93 said:
More recurrent training other than a BFR.
Click to expand...

The problem with requiring more frequent recurrent training is that the same guys that are sub par performers will remain sub par performers even with the new regulations. There seems to be a serious culture problem among pilots that motivates them to do the least amount of recurrent training as possible, and they accept sub par performance from themselves. No amount of forced training will change this mentality. It spills over into aircraft ownership as well, as evidenced by the competitions that seem to take place where people brag to others about how little they spend on maintaining or improving their airplane.

What needs to be done right from the beginning of initial training is to have instructors that encourage students to continually challenge themselves and try to improve their skills, and emphasize that the training and honing of skills doesn't stop once the checkride is done. The additional training should be voluntary, not mandatory, because not everyone needs more recurrent training forced on them. The catch is, getting the people who need the additional training or practice to recognize that they need it. The smart guys are the ones who seek it out without being forced. Unfortunately, I haven't run into many of those guys.
 
FormerHangie said:
Newer equipment. You're not going to attract new pilots with aircraft that are older than they are.
Click to expand...

The people who think model year = quality are the same one who are balling planes up, I'm cool with them sticking to spending their money on electric cars and iPhones.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Diversity and youth. At most of the aviation events you see a bunch of old white guys. I think we can do better.

I say this as a getting older white guy. :)
Click to expand...
Diversity? How do you suppose we promote that in GA?
 
James331 said:
The people who think model year = quality are the same one who are balling planes up, I'm cool with them sticking to spending their money on electric cars and iPhones.
Click to expand...

1: Evidence for the statement you just made?
2: I thought this thread was about expanding general aviation, not restricting it to only those who are interested in flying a 30 year old aircraft that's a slightly updated version of a 1955 design that's powered by an engine that uses 1940s technology.
 
James331 said:
So you didn't sign them off?

So they were not legal to fly till you trained them up to spec?

Sounds like it works to me
Click to expand...
How so? They could have needed training for the past year but got lucky.
More training is good.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Need to move Light Sport up to 2000 pound GW and 150knots level flight. I'd like to see aviation EASIER to get into rather than HARDER.
Click to expand...
BINGO....
Lowering the Barriers (Costs, etc.) to entry is the single best thing that could be done for GA.
The "Fun Flyer" isn't planning on flying jets for a living, he just wants to be able to put-put around on a Sunday Evening.
 
FormerHangie said:
Newer equipment. You're not going to attract new pilots with aircraft that are older than they are.
Click to expand...
"Newer Equipment" is a function of demand, driven by both economics and culture.

While there is no doubt that the pilot population is aging out, there isn't a lot of new entry because the economic conditions of the last 30 years have destroyed America's Middle Class.
 
GA needs a time machine, to tap new blood from an earlier time; people who wanted a challenge, to master something difficult, and sometimes dangerous; people drawn to the thrill of flying, the exhiliration and sense of self-mastery
that comes with learning to do it well. . .

The new blood we have includes too many dillitantes, systems managers, the risk averse, and handle-pullers. We can absorb some of those, but not nearly as many as we have. The experimental and acro arenas still have a lot of heart, and the sailplane folks, too. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much to attract the physically precocious, the youngster seeking exhiliration and freedom. . .

We pay way too much attention to safety, and not nearly enough to the art of flying. . .safety as currently espoused and promulgated is a crock, and a bloated Fed job generator. Any CFI can give you a lifetime's worth of safety brief in five minutes - stay out of IMC, manage your fuel, keep the AOA below the stall. And look outside. The 5% of guys who don't aren't moved by the safety noise anyway. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top