General Aviation needs a PR makeover

MAKG1 said:
Value and usefulness are two different things.

There is little to no usefulness in recreation. If it were otherwise, it would be work.

And value is very, very subjective and easily dismissed. It's your target, not your source material.

Marinas aren't useful unless they are full of commercial fishing boats. Value MAY be another thing. If you don't own or use a boat, they are in the way, and have negative value.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "useful" is so restrictive as to be, well, a useless definition.
 
MAKG1 said:
You would have to try really hard to get a game console to kill you, no matter how bad you screw up.
Click to expand...

Certainly not directly. But after a 23 hour session playing "Gears of War", you decide in a delirious state of mind that you need some pizza so you head to the local Pizza Hut with an assault rifle. That can't end well...
 
We're trying some boater interfacing over at Seaplaneforumcom.com the last few months, we'll see....
 
Let's look at the recreational angle; boat vs plane

Nice runabout boat, $20k
Nice plane, $50k

Boat fuel burn, 4 gallons/hour wide open
Plane fuel burn, 10 gallons/hour

Boat annual inspection, $0
Plane annual inspection, $2500

Time and energy to learn boat, next to nothing
Time and energy to learn plane, year minimum

Cost to learn to boat, $0
Cost to learn to fly, $10k

Well, you see the point. The figures above are pretty typical but YMMV.
 
GA does need a makeover I agree.

However, the society has way too much other distractions to lure people away. Friends/family think it's "cool" that I do it - just like I think it's cool they bowl. (I don't have any athletic ability nor do I enjoy drinking beer "between rounds") But flying is a whole separate level. Bowling (for my example) takes $2-3k for merchandise and all the goodies. Great you get bored you can probably get a grand out of the stuff by selling. What happens when flying gets too expensive...you just *threw away* $10k investment. Not many can get sold on that one!
 
saracelica said:
GA does need a makeover I agree.

However, the society has way too much other distractions to lure people away. Friends/family think it's "cool" that I do it - just like I think it's cool they bowl. (I don't have any athletic ability nor do I enjoy drinking beer "between rounds") But flying is a whole separate level. Bowling (for my example) takes $2-3k for merchandise and all the goodies. Great you get bored you can probably get a grand out of the stuff by selling. What happens when flying gets too expensive...you just *threw away* $10k investment. Not many can get sold on that one!
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, point taken certainly, although, one could say the same of expensive vacations.
 
JGoodish said:
The utility model for the mass market has already been done: it's called the airline industry. It's pay-per-use, is highly accessible, reasonably fast, and relatively inexpensive.

The reality is that GA is neither affordable nor useful or valuable to most of the public.


JKG
Click to expand...

You are correct sir. The market has spoken, and Spirit and Southwest are what they're saying.

GA flying is for nutcases -- like me. :D
 
Bob Noel said:
Your definition of "useful" is so restrictive as to be, well, a useless definition.
Click to expand...

No, serving an actual need is a useful definition. Farming food is useful. Generating electricity is useful. Transporting people is (sometimes) useful. Punching holes in the air may be fun, but it's not useful. What purpose does it really serve?

A dichotomy that doesn't discriminate is pointless. Not everything is "useful."

And the first part about reinvigorating general aviation would be to be honest about it. Most of us do not fly because anyone depends up on it.
 
Try it with two price-points. Use aviation pricing for one group and boating prices for the other. Then you'll know. The local seaplane guy charges $275 for dual in an amphib Maule. I drove by his hangar a few weeks ago and saw no evidence that customers were beating down his door.

Dave Krall CFII said:
We're trying some boater interfacing over at Seaplaneforumcom.com the last few months, we'll see....
Click to expand...
 
pilot_dude said:
Let's look at the recreational angle; boat vs plane

Nice runabout boat, $20k
Nice plane, $50k

Boat fuel burn, 4 gallons/hour wide open
Plane fuel burn, 10 gallons/hour

Boat annual inspection, $0
Plane annual inspection, $2500

Time and energy to learn boat, next to nothing
Time and energy to learn plane, year minimum

Cost to learn to boat, $0
Cost to learn to fly, $10k

Well, you see the point. The figures above are pretty typical but YMMV.
Click to expand...

Except....

Boat at 20 mph, burns .2 gal/mile
Airplane at 150 mph, burns 0.07 gal/mile

Even given a fuel cost differential, the cost of boat operation adds up very quickly if you want to get from point A to point B.
 
If the user knows he will end up at the same place when the fun is over, does it really matter if it's a 50 mile breakfast run or a 20 mile sail?

Sac Arrow said:
Except....

Boat at 20 mph, burns .2 gal/mile
Airplane at 150 mph, burns 0.07 gal/mile

Even given a fuel cost differential, the cost of boat operation adds up very quickly if you want to get from point A to point B.
Click to expand...
 
pilot_dude said:
Let's look at the recreational angle; boat vs plane

Nice runabout boat, $20k
Nice plane, $50k

Boat fuel burn, 4 gallons/hour wide open
Plane fuel burn, 10 gallons/hour

Boat annual inspection, $0
Plane annual inspection, $2500

Time and energy to learn boat, next to nothing
Time and energy to learn plane, year minimum

Cost to learn to boat, $0
Cost to learn to fly, $10k

Well, you see the point. The figures above are pretty typical but YMMV.
Click to expand...

You forgot to tally up the bottom line:

Boating Coolness Factor = ho-hum
Aviation Coolness Factor= Priceless
(and if you're greedy and still want both go Amphib air)
 
Sac Arrow said:
Except....

Boat at 20 mph, burns .2 gal/mile
Airplane at 150 mph, burns 0.07 gal/mile

Even given a fuel cost differential, the cost of boat operation adds up very quickly if you want to get from point A to point B.
Click to expand...

Ugh there is the problem. When people want to get from point A to point B they drive, or buy a plane ticket. Forget transportation. America has already decided how we get around. Tell me how much fun I will have with this airplane license thing. Seriously someone here tell me how much fun I can have with a pilots license(normal nonaspergers individuals do not consider instrument flying fun, so scratch that one.)
People drive stupid distances to hike and paddle kayaks in nice places no one suggests they should paddle or hike to their destination.
 
Please submit an audited count of bikinis at both venues.

Dave Krall CFII said:
You forgot to tally up the bottom line:

Boating Coolness Factor = ho-hum
Aviation Coolness Factor= Priceless
(and if you're greedy and still want both go Amphib air)
Click to expand...
 
If you're looking for the "cool" factor in GA, check the cabins of the bizjets. Thats where you'll find those that match the young folks' definition of "hottie" as opposed to our crowd who are riding around in non-A/C greenhouses.
 
wabower said:
Try it with two price-points. Use aviation pricing for one group and boating prices for the other. Then you'll know. The local seaplane guy charges $275 for dual in an amphib Maule. I drove by his hangar a few weeks ago and saw no evidence that customers were beating down his door.
Click to expand...

We are not trying to sell them anything (yet) just stop swerving in front of us on the step, not throw empty cans....stuff like that.

It's actually been since '12, time flys.
 
Seems we keep going back to getting Joe Dope to buy off on the activity. Screw him and his beer drinking mentally unchallenging ATV-wheeling proclivities. Why can't owner-experimental happen? Just like I wouldn't need insurance if medical procedures didn't cost tens of thousands unadjusted, I wouldn't need the economies of scale of Joe Dope's participation, if operating a spam can cost the same as any other car.

Most single engine pistons are de facto flying crumple zones weighing nothing compared to the average SUV in the road. The effective damage done by ground vehicles is much larger in aggregate than by all C-172 falling out of the sky at the same time. So the safety argument doesn't fly when Joe Dope drives drunk every Saturday morning on his way home from the bar and thousands die on the road every year.

I ask again, why isn't owner experimental a possibility? Maybe a distinction could be made whereas airplanes with an experimental certificates couldn't land at Class C or Class B airfields. That way Joe Dope doesn't have to worry about his cavity searches and cattle cars he loves so much on his way to his carnival cruise ship being threatened by those boring and dangerous prop planes.

Regulatory limitations are keeping this thing expensive, not Joe Dope's lack of buy-in. Forget the economies of scale, let's just lobby for deregulation and let it float free for those who choose to pursue the activity in spite of the apparent lack of fun and social buy-in of the activity. What say you?
 
I'm all for deregulation, most pilots are not. Pilots love rules and being told what they can and can't do, just reference one of the tower closure threads.
 
Again you missed the point. Pilots don't want anybody telling them what to do, they want somebody telling those other crazy sumbitches what to do.
ClimbnSink said:
I'm all for deregulation, most pilots are not. Pilots love rules and being told what they can and can't do, just reference one of the tower closure threads.
Click to expand...
 
N2124v said:
Anything can kill you if you screw up. Cars, motorcycles, girlfriends, horses........

The bad information starts at local levels. When there is a negative story pilots need to get the correct facts to the news agency. We are all our brothers keepers....
Click to expand...

My point exactly. We know better, but that's the perception of those outside of aviation;that it's exceptionally more dangerous than driving I-95 during rush hour. Reversing this perception is the work. Statistically, aviation is one of the safest. The average Joe thinks otherwise.
 
Your position might be more credible if it didn't fly in the face of the information that is published by the GA industry itself.

As the guy asked his wife "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"


LandSickness said:
My point exactly. We know better, but that's the perception of those outside of aviation;that it's exceptionally more dangerous than driving I-95 during rush hour. Reversing this perception is the work. Statistically, aviation is one of the safest. The average Joe thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Your position might be more credible if it didn't fly in the face of the information that is published by the GA industry itself.

As the guy asked his wife "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Click to expand...

I know what this looks like, but it's not what you think.
 
"I came home unexpected, caught the two of you alone
You said he was a nudist who came in to use the phone . . ."

bartmc said:
I know what this looks like, but it's not what you think.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
No, serving an actual need is a useful definition. Farming food is useful. Generating electricity is useful. Transporting people is (sometimes) useful. Punching holes in the air may be fun, but it's not useful. What purpose does it really serve?

A dichotomy that doesn't discriminate is pointless. Not everything is "useful."

And the first part about reinvigorating general aviation would be to be honest about it. Most of us do not fly because anyone depends up on it.
Click to expand...

How "useful" is it to provide transportation? Is it really useful to transport people to Disneyworld? Is growing tobacco actually useful?

So, yes, let's be honest.

btw - What kind of world is it that denies the usefulness of achieving flight?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Ugh there is the problem. When people want to get from point A to point B they drive, or buy a plane ticket. Forget transportation. America has already decided how we get around. Tell me how much fun I will have with this airplane license thing. Seriously someone here tell me how much fun I can have with a pilots license(normal nonaspergers individuals do not consider instrument flying fun, so scratch that one.)
People drive stupid distances to hike and paddle kayaks in nice places no one suggests they should paddle or hike to their destination.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for that, but actually there is a void where GA fills the gap between driving and taking a commercial airliner.

I fly to a lot of places for both business and pleasure where I can neither drive there economically (at least in terms of time) or take Southwest. In business particularly, especially if you have a passenger or two, that can be a big deal. Yes the economics can work out there.
 
N2124V - I'm totally with you and on your side. I try as much as I can to promote the affordability of aviation, although it certainly is harder each year with Avgas prices. Last year I went up to the Backcountry Pilot's fly-in in Johnson Creek in the Idaho mountains. It was wonderful and all the 185's, Cubs, Maules were owned by "normal" people. Sure, some 185's had more money spent on them than you'd think possible, but most of the people were regular joes: farmers, sheriffs, working stiffs. Was very nice to see.

But otherwise I have to say I'm actually very positive on the future of aviation. With electrics (I have gone into this big subject on other forums ad nauseum, so won't do so here) everything will change. The propulsive side of aviation will become dirt cheap and have virtually limitless TBO. Today's brushless motors deliver more power to weight than turbine could ever do. Not tomorrow, today, off the shelf. Just look at the RC world - the electric flyers are crushing the gas fliers in every category. Batteries/power storage is still a huge problem, but when they lick that it will be game over for combustion.

Also, the new developments in avionics will reduce the cost of instrumentation considerably. Tomorrow you will have a portable unit that shows all you need to know. And it will be certified. The days are numbered for proprietary developers.

Add to this a pretty good chance of the medical getting scrapped for PPL and altogethre we might just have a new dawn for aviation.
 
Last edited:
GA can easily win even if it costs more than other modes of transportation. If you know that you need to visit 4 cities in 4 days to generate $24,000 in compensation, what's it worth to be able to do it as planned get back home rather than spending another night on the road for one appointment that ruins a whole day? If the airline cost was $1k and the GA cost was $1.5k, did it really matter?

I did it for 20+ years and know that story first-hand. If you travel between mid-market cities, GA is the all-time slam-dunk way to travel.

Sac Arrow said:
I was waiting for that, but actually there is a void where GA fills the gap between driving and taking a commercial airliner.

I fly to a lot of places for both business and pleasure where I can neither drive there economically (at least in terms of time) or take Southwest. In business particularly, especially if you have a passenger or two, that can be a big deal. Yes the economics can work out there.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
GA can easily win even if it costs more than other modes of transportation. If you know that you need to visit 4 cities in 4 days to generate $24,000 in compensation, what's it worth to be able to do it as planned get back home rather than spending another night on the road for one appointment that ruins a whole day? If the airline cost was $1k and the GA cost was $1.5k, did it really matter?

I did it for 20+ years and know that story first-hand. If you travel between mid-market cities, GA is the all-time slam-dunk way to travel.
Click to expand...

Well, my mom acts like she enjoys seeing me when I make the 2 hr flight on the weekend because the forecast was good. Otherwise it's a 8-9 hour drive one way through Atlanta traffic... no thanks. When the weather has been ****ty and I need to be there, I leave work at 4 on Friday, drive into the morning spend am exhausted day home then spend Sunday driving back... not optimal. If the forecast is good, I'm wheels up by 8 am on Saturday, on the ground by 9:30 (time change) and leave Sunday afternoon to return home. I don't give a **** what it costs, I don't even look.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I was waiting for that, but actually there is a void where GA fills the gap between driving and taking a commercial airliner.

I fly to a lot of places for both business and pleasure where I can neither drive there economically (at least in terms of time) or take Southwest. In business particularly, especially if you have a passenger or two, that can be a big deal. Yes the economics can work out there.
Click to expand...
If ga was predominately mid distance business travelers the last few ounces of fun would be crushed. And the country would look like 1945 Germany only the bomb craters would be made by Cirruses. Question for the old guys did ga boom on people seeking fun or traveling encyclopedia salesmen?
 
Travel was the primary driver starting in the mid 50's. But that's also the time that many airplanes capable of comfortable travel were being developed, and also a time when many qualified pilots had been trained by the military and could simply get in and go.

ClimbnSink said:
If ga was predominately mid distance business travelers the last few ounces of fun would be crushed. And the country would look like 1945 Germany only the bomb craters would be made by Cirruses. Question for the old guys did ga boom on people seeking fun or traveling encyclopedia salesmen?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Travel was the primary driver starting in the mid 50's. But that's also the time that many airplanes capable of comfortable travel were being developed, and also a time when many qualified pilots had been trained by the military and could simply get in and go.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that WWIII would save GA? :rofl:
 
Absolutely, if we can create 4-passenger GA drones. But wait, how will dad/mom get to Grandma's farm if he/she's sitting at a desk flying the drone? Never mind.

bartmc said:
So, what you're saying is that WWIII would save GA? :rofl:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Absolutely, if we can create 4-passenger GA drones. But wait, how will dad/mom get to Grandma's farm if he/she's sitting at a desk flying the drone? Never mind.
Click to expand...

Dad and mom sit up front in the drone, the kids sit in the back and fly it from their phones.
'Don't make me make you turn this thing around'
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Try it with two price-points. Use aviation pricing for one group and boating prices for the other. Then you'll know. The local seaplane guy charges $275 for dual in an amphib Maule. I drove by his hangar a few weeks ago and saw no evidence that customers were beating down his door.
Click to expand...

ClimbnSink said:
Dad and mom sit up front in the drone, the kids sit in the back and fly it from their phones.
Click to expand...

That would sell, finally a good idea in this thread.
 
MAKG1 said:
The most important part is, don't BS.

"Flying is affordable." No, it isn't. Joe Blow making $20/hour at a really well paying supermarket can't afford it. As soon as it becomes only for professionals, the argument is defeated.
Click to expand...

Flying IS affordable.

Three years ago, I owned a 1/3rd share of an Ercoupe that burned 4 gallons per hour of car gas, and was more fun to fly than anything.

My grand, total investment in that plane was the princely sum of $6000.

Same price as my motorcycle.

We have to stop thinking "Cirrus" for new pilots, and aim at the entry level, where planes ARE affordable, or GA is lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top