Howie Keefe's idea get new pilot starts, revitalize GA

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
3Green
Home Airfield
KJWY - Mid-Way Regional
Interesting "Remarks" column in the March 2012 issue of IFR. Jeff Van West talks about some conversations he's had with Howie Keefe (creator of the spiral bound Air Charts). Here's the comments; thought it might be worth some discussion here, and even spearheading among your 40- to 50-something non-pilot peers:

I also think [Howie Keefe]'s spot on about an unseized opportunity for marketing GA and getting some new pilot starts. He calls it "Flight Begins at 40." Here's the idea: Forget the pro-pilot hopefuls who haven't had their Pollyanna visions of an airline career busted yet. The most likely demographic to start pilot training and end up buying an airplane--and feeding the economic lifeblood of GA--are professionals in their 40s who've always wanted to fly and now have the resources to do it. (Given that 40 is the new 30, and I know many a 40-year-old still mired in the raising of young children, the real age might be 50. But I digress.)

The system would be similar to the EAA's Young Eagles program. That program is now open to adults--high-five on that to EAA President Rod Hightower--but this new program would tie the volunteer pilots to targeted marketing to the 40- and 50-somethings who could go for a flight with someone just like them.

The potential pilot would see a peer (sorry, no 20-something CFIs allowed) using an airplane just they way they've thought about doing. It would be both an introduction and an opportunity for mentoring down the road. If it were underwritten, the coupons given out at boat shows and in golfing magazines would be for half the fuel of the flight in question. There's many a pilot-owner out there who'd gladly take up an enthusiastic adult for half-price on the gas.

Perhaps best of all is that in this case the planes don't have to be high-tech dream machines. Not that a glass panel is a bad thing, it's just that the flight is about the relationship, both between the pilot and the would-be pilot and the would-be pilot and the flying life. There's nothing so powerful as seeing someone just like you doing something you didn't think you could to break down a barrier that existed only in your mind.

Of course, this effort would require some soul-searching honesty on the part of those who marketed it. Not everyone who wants to can afford to fly. (Heck, I couldn't if I didn't get paid to do it most of the time.) But there are a lot more people who could do it--who actually might want to do it--if they ever got the vision of themselves taking the left-seat controls the same year they hit their 25th high school reunion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
i've never researched it but my distinct impression is that on average, disposable income spikes around that age when the house gets paid off and the kids are out of the house or out of college. then its time for the middle-aged people to figure out how they are going to blow their money before they die. most young people are so buried in school loan debt, and then car/house payments and diapers that finding a young person who can afford to fly regularly is the exception rather than the rule.
 
To revitalize GA there are a couple of simple thins that would help. Get the gov't to back off some. Contact student pilots that quit short and see how many can be lured back by simply asking and expand Young Eagles programs, then follow up with those kids year by year, till they get to age 16 and start lessons.
 
Florida Cracker said:
To revitalize GA there are a couple of simple thins that would help. Get the gov't to back off some. Contact student pilots that quit short and see how many can be lured back by simply asking and expand Young Eagles programs, then follow up with those kids year by year, till they get to age 16 and start lessons.
Click to expand...


One recommendation I heard recently is that we should have an "Old Eagles" program, not just a "Young" one. Along the same lines of promotion as the OPs suggestion.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Interesting "Remarks" column in the March 2012 issue of IFR. Jeff Van West talks about some conversations he's had with Howie Keefe (creator of the spiral bound Air Charts). Here's the comments; thought it might be worth some discussion here, and even spearheading among your 40- to 50-something non-pilot peers:
Click to expand...

Just finished flying Young Eagles this past Saturday. Because I've got a boring, off the shelf, from the manufacturer cherokee with 4 seats (and not a spiffy RV-6) I often get the parents in the back seat. It never fails that at least one asks what's involved & how much to learn to fly.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
One recommendation I heard recently is that we should have an "Old Eagles" program, not just a "Young" one. Along the same lines of promotion as the OPs suggestion.
Click to expand...

EAA just started this in the past few months. Not every chapter is involved yet, the program is still getting off the ground. Local name for it are "Bald Eagle" or "Grey Eagle". No idea what the EAA name will be for it.
 
murphey said:
EAA just started this in the past few months. Not every chapter is involved yet, the program is still getting off the ground. Local name for it are "Bald Eagle" or "Grey Eagle". No idea what the EAA name will be for it.
Click to expand...

I call it Old Buzzards.
 
Getting our hero in the oval office to reinstate the VA funding for pilot training in the GI bill would be big start.

that is what got the big pilot starts after WWII.
 
Getting the government to back off is never going to happen, that part of the equation is only going to continue getting worse.

How about somehow convincing schools and instructors that guys over forty are not cash cows put on this earth to become their financial nirvanas. I doubt that will ever happen either.

For a guy over forty to get his pilots license, he had better learn to jump through hoops, many of them flaming, with his government gleefully dreaming up more for him/her. The aspiring older pilot must be willing to run many, many, bureaucratic gauntlets on the road to, and continuing long after achieving his license to fly.

The aspiring older pilot must convince himself/herself, that it's only money, and all the fun of doing things over and over without seeming to go anywhere, is well worth whatever it costs. After all, flight schools are a business, aren't they?

Various groups or individuals can espouse anything they want about GA, but realities are not going to change as long as there is money to be had, and regulations to enforce, down to the smallest most insignificant detail.

When your an older person wanting to earn a pilots license, you had better be highly motivated, and have the cash to burn.

Aviation is about the money, and the rules. That is never going to change.

John
 
While I'm sure that is true for some/many schools out there not all CFIs treat students as cash cows. Some of us don't even charge much for our extra time spent with the person if at all.
 
John Baker said:
Getting the government to back off is never going to happen, that part of the equation is only going to continue getting worse.

How about somehow convincing schools and instructors that guys over forty are not cash cows put on this earth to become their financial nirvanas. I doubt that will ever happen either.

For a guy over forty to get his pilots license, he had better learn to jump through hoops, many of them flaming, with his government gleefully dreaming up more for him/her. The aspiring older pilot must be willing to run many, many, bureaucratic gauntlets on the road to, and continuing long after achieving his license to fly.

The aspiring older pilot must convince himself/herself, that it's only money, and all the fun of doing things over and over without seeming to go anywhere, is well worth whatever it costs. After all, flight schools are a business, aren't they?

Various groups or individuals can espouse anything they want about GA, but realities are not going to change as long as there is money to be had, and regulations to enforce, down to the smallest most insignificant detail.

When your an older person wanting to earn a pilots license, you had better be highly motivated, and have the cash to burn.

Aviation is about the money, and the rules. That is never going to change.

John
Click to expand...

You sure are pessimistic. It aint that bad.
 
dell30rb said:
You sure are pessimistic. It aint that bad.
Click to expand...

I started flying lessons at 61, yes, it is all that bad. Even now I am waiting for the FAA in OKC to approve my medical after the more than five thousand dollars in testing they require every year. If they approve it, I will get about eight months of flying before it starts again.

What I related is a very washed down version of what I actually endured to get a pilots license. Granted, not everyone who takes the step will go through what I did, but if they are over 55 many of them, probably most, will.

Was it worth it, logically thinking, no. For me, the issue was accomplishing something new. I would not do it again, nor would I recommend anyone else doing it.

Assuming someone is seriously going to do it, I would recommend that they purchase a package deal from a school that guarantees results or they get their money back.

If you are foolish enough to do it on a pay as you go plan, look over the schools syllabus for your course, then hold that school to the syllabus starting on page one. If they can not complete a lesson as outlined without additional training, STOP right there. Wat until you can afford a package deal or give it up. Whatever you do, do not continue with that school.

John
 
But, not everyone who is over 55 has trouble with their medical. My husband is 73 and can still get a second class with no special issuance.. He takes no meds and is in good health.
The money thing though... Yes, if you aren't getting appropriate instruction and are being strung along then change schools, CFIs.
 
We understand the effect of the GI bill in creating that flood of pilot starts, along with those who already had their license from their involvement as WWII aviators. The question is, what about the fleet? What made it affordable then and not now. Fuel is one glaring piece. These things were not meant to exist on a $6/gal economic model. Lyco and Conti don't want to let go of that baby though, so we putz along at 10gph. That needs to change.

LSAs attempted to address that but it became nothing more than a refugee for folks with failing medicals. The market followed and hiked the prices of these contraptions out of the original target (young, less affluent people) and into the tired old demographic that was previously the owner of the certified 10-15gph burning contraption. Relaxing the private pilot medical rules to allow a sport pilot approach would go a long way towards depressing the LSA price equilibrium, since now people have access to their old 15gph burning contraption if they desire the speed. That in turn would lower the acquisition price of the LSAs which would drive the market to flood just like cessna did with their 100 series. But now you have shiny composite car-interior like contraptions that cruise at 120kts very efficiently.

Once you;ve made the proposition of this ownership piece palatable, the training piece will follow. One thing is true. Tryin to maintain these 1960-70s relics while burning baby seals for fuel is not making headway, just shutting down the doors on American GA.
 
Airplanes were affordable back then because there wasn't anything else to buy.:rolleyes2:
 
i don't believe that airplanes were affordable back then. family life was different though, far fewer distractions available to an average vet returning from WWII than there are now and it seems to me that most people of that era had one hobby and stuck with it. No one had a motorcycle, boat, and airplane. Gas was probably just as expensive (or more) then, as it is now.

The price of a top of the line from the factory sailplane has tracked right with the price of a decent house from what I can tell. In 1950 that house (or Schweizer 1-23) would cost $5000 or so and now the house (or a Jonkers JS-1) will be pushing $200,000.

I think the biggest thing that has changed between now and then is many more options available to throw the disposable income, and people want to do it all.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Interesting "Remarks" column in the March 2012 issue of IFR. Jeff Van West talks about some conversations he's had with Howie Keefe (creator of the spiral bound Air Charts). Here's the comments; thought it might be worth some discussion here, and even spearheading among your 40- to 50-something non-pilot peers:
Click to expand...
I read that article and really think it is a great idea. Hubby and I started flying after going for a ride with an older pilot who let us fly.

I like the name "Grey Eagles" rather than "Bald Eagles" because my half of the population doesn't go very bald and I think we are a vast overlooked population.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I like the name "Grey Eagles" rather than "Bald Eagles" because my half of the population doesn't go very bald and I think we are a vast overlooked population.
Click to expand...
How about "Golden Eagles"? Some people don't want to be reminded that they are getting old. :rofl:

Besides, aren't they aiming for more middle-aged people?
 
AuntPeggy said:
I like the name "Grey Eagles" rather than "Bald Eagles" because my half of the population doesn't go very bald and I think we are a vast overlooked population.
Click to expand...

I hope you mean the "half" that doesn't have the bald genes, and not females... 'cause there's definitely bald females out there... and our society is pretty hard on them, sadly.

You don't see many balding females just up and grab the Bic one day and shave it all off to get it "over with", like us males can get away with.
 
The price of avgas could be helped very quickly if:
1) The FAA would get off its duff and approve one of the replacement fuels for 100LL. My sense is there is resistance from the oil companies - or somewhere - and they are slowing down the process.
2) We could get fuel without ETOH contamination.
3) The FAA would simplify rules for getting "mogas" STCs (provided #2 could happen). In our case, I'm sure our low-compression Pponk motor (a 275 hp STC for 182s - a pretty common upgrade) would run just fine on non-ETOH contaminated premium-octane auto gas.

The real problem with the lead is it prevents avgas from being transported via pipeline - it all has to go by truck - since the residual fuel/lead in the pipeline would contaminate every other stock that is carried in the line.

There are also a number of things that could be done to lower certification costs for parts and avionics, the requirement for annual inspections could be made biennial or 300 hours, whichever comes first, and additional tort reform beyond GARA would help too.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
That is one of the things that has always bugged me, why do avionics have to go through all this certification nonsense?

It's really a simple issue, if your radio doesn't work, ya just get it fixed, we all want our radio to work properly, we do not need the government to tell us to fix our radio.

The same goes for all the other geegaws and Kromen Revelators. I am not an IFR rated pilot, but I keep my airplane's IFR equipment working right and current. That is because I want all the stuff on my airplane to work right.

It is stuff we would all do anyway, except now, to do it, the price goes through the roof.

All this government certification does is multiply the cost of everything from six to ten times what it should cost, and for what? It just makes things unfordable to get fixed, so an INOP sticker goes on it instead.

John
 
At Howie's age just about everybody is a young eagle in his eyes.

I miss Howie. I'd spend an hour talking with him in the Air Chart Systems booth. We'd talk cartography, old stories of him putting together the initial charts on his pool table, the P-51 record setting flights, the old Dulles Transpo exhibition... his wife said I was one of the few people she's seen who talks as much about maps as Howie.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
The price of avgas could be helped very quickly if:
1) The FAA would get off its duff and approve one of the replacement fuels for 100LL. My sense is there is resistance from the oil companies - or somewhere - and they are slowing down the process.
2) We could get fuel without ETOH contamination.
3) The FAA would simplify rules for getting "mogas" STCs (provided #2 could happen). In our case, I'm sure our low-compression Pponk motor (a 275 hp STC for 182s - a pretty common upgrade) would run just fine on non-ETOH contaminated premium-octane auto gas.

The real problem with the lead is it prevents avgas from being transported via pipeline - it all has to go by truck - since the residual fuel/lead in the pipeline would contaminate every other stock that is carried in the line.

There are also a number of things that could be done to lower certification costs for parts and avionics, the requirement for annual inspections could be made biennial or 300 hours, whichever comes first, and additional tort reform beyond GARA would help too.

Jeff
Click to expand...

John Baker said:
That is one of the things that has always bugged me, why do avionics have to go through all this certification nonsense?

It's really a simple issue, if your radio doesn't work, ya just get it fixed, we all want our radio to work properly, we do not need the government to tell us to fix our radio.

The same goes for all the other geegaws and Kromen Revelators. I am not an IFR rated pilot, but I keep my airplane's IFR equipment working right and current. That is because I want all the stuff on my airplane to work right.

It is stuff we would all do anyway, except now, to do it, the price goes through the roof.

All this government certification does is multiply the cost of everything from six to ten times what it should cost, and for what? It just makes things unfordable to get fixed, so an INOP sticker goes on it instead.

John
Click to expand...
Both of you are right. There are too many unnecessary expenses in flying our bug-smashers. A few years ago, the FAA decided that we could use seatbelts that had been approved by NASCAR (IIRC), but not simply Detroit. OK, that's a step in the right direction, but not far enough. I'd like to put ON-STAR in my plane. I understand that I can buy one for my Geo Metro. There's some system being touted on TV that knows when I'm getting sleepy or simply not paying attention. Wow! No more wondering whether it is time to setup the oxygen. Hubby wants all sorts of engine analysis stuff that costs about 10 AU just to buy, before installation.

FAA wake up. Make safety affordable. Stop simply looking at accidents and calling them "pilot error."
 
A brand new hand held two way radio costs around $250.00. If you add another $100.00, you can have VOR tracking capabilities.

That same technology, if you permanently install it into your panel, is going to cost, if you buy used equipment, from $3,000.00 to $5000.00. That just does not make any sense, yet makes perfect sense to the FAA bureaucrats.

We could all easily use handheld radios and nav aids with a coat hanger antenna if we wanted, but we don't, we spend the money and get our radios fixed or replaced with five or ten thousand dollar equipment, that should cost about 75% less than it does.

All that extra expense accomplishes is it keeps bureaucrats working in the FAA certification division. It's like a huge hidden tax that keeps more and more people away from aviation.

They are slowly regulating themselves out of jobs as they diligently reduce the need for their services by keeping more and more people out of aviation entirely.

John
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
A brand new hand held two way radio costs around $250.00. If you add another $100.00, you can have VOR tracking capabilities.

That same technology, if you permanently install it into your panel, is going to cost, if you buy used equipment, from $3,000.00 to $5000.00. That just does not make any sense, yet makes perfect sense to the FAA bureaucrats.

We could all easily use handheld radios and nav aids with a coat hanger antenna if we wanted, but we don't, we spend the money and get our radios fixed or replaced with five or ten thousand dollar equipment, that should cost about 75% less than it does.

All that extra expense accomplishes is it keeps bureaucrats working in the FAA certification division. It's like a huge hidden tax that keeps more and more people away from aviation.

They are slowly regulating themselves out of jobs as they diligently reduce the need for their services by keeping more and more people out of aviation entirely.

John
Click to expand...

Sadly, I believe that if you persist in couching your objections in personal invective, you undermine your credibility, and since I agree with your examples, you undermine mine as well.

I prefer to believe that the FAA and the people working with the FAA really want a better and safer flying experience for us all. It does no good to keep putting them on the defensive.

sigh.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Sadly, I believe that if you persist in couching your objections in personal invective, you undermine your credibility, and since I agree with your examples, you undermine mine as well.

I prefer to believe that the FAA and the people working with the FAA really want a better and safer flying experience for us all. It does no good to keep putting them on the defensive.

sigh.
Click to expand...

I doubt if blurbs on a pilots forum will have any effect on the moral of FAA employees.

Most people do not criticize any bureaucracy they may have dealings with, for fear of retribution in one form or another. So whatever may be wrong, never gets corrected.

It takes large numbers, very large numbers, of complaints or criticisms for a bureaucracy to even notice, much less act on them.

Your suggestion of being careful to not rock the boat is without a doubt, the safest approach when dealing with government agencies. Nothing will change, everyone stays happy.

John
 
No, John, I'm not saying it out of a fear of rocking the boat. I'm saying it because I believe you are wrong. I honestly don't fear retribution. I don't believe the FAA is out to get me or you. I believe that there are problems that need to be corrected, but don't take it personally. Nor do I believe that there is an advantage to assuming the worst in others.

I also think that honest, informative, and positive suggestions are effective even in small numbers.
 
DutchessFlier said:
They should name this the "EAA Bald Eagles Program"
Click to expand...
I'm not bald. Hubby is not bald. Grey Eagles or Golden Eagles is better. (I'm not grey either, but someday that will happen.) I suppose "Old Eagles" would be the antonym for "Young Eagles."
 
want some thing to really cut aviation cost of ownership?

Owner maintained, owner operated, still must meet its airworthy condition every 12 months. but who cares who turned the wrench.

Pilots must be smart enough to read a weather map, but are too dumb to read a maintenance manual? Get real.
 
denverpilot said:
I hope you mean the "half" that doesn't have the bald genes, and not females... 'cause there's definitely bald females out there... and our society is pretty hard on them, sadly.

You don't see many balding females just up and grab the Bic one day and shave it all off to get it "over with", like us males can get away with.
Click to expand...
Agreed, there definitely are balding women, but as you point out, not very many. And, as you also infer, it is not an image we promote.
 
Tom-D said:
want some thing to really cut aviation cost of ownership?

Owner maintained, owner operated, still must meet its airworthy condition every 12 months. but who cares who turned the wrench.

Pilots must be smart enough to read a weather map, but are too dumb to read a maintenance manual? Get real.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I'm not bald. Hubby is not bald. Grey Eagles or Golden Eagles is better. (I'm not grey either, but someday that will happen.) I suppose "Old Eagles" would be the antonym for "Young Eagles."
Click to expand...

Mature Eagles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top