Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Everskyward]

See: hedonic treadmill.

There's a lot of truth to that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Move to strike, speculation.

Ok your honor, I dare opposing counsel to find a single example that refutes my "speculation."

That is... Find me a single example of a G1000 172 that rents for $100 per Hobbs hour, wet, with no dues required. I'd put money against that. I think it's highly unlikely you'll even find one for $120/hr.

 

[dmccormack]

Ok your honor, I dare opposing counsel to find a single example that refutes my "speculation."

That is... Find me a single example of a G1000 172 that rents for $100 per Hobbs hour, wet, with no dues required. I'd put money against that. I think it's highly unlikely you'll even find one for $120/hr.

If there's a VFR Private Pilot that needs a G1000 I'm wagering he/she isn't much of an aviator -- since they shouldn't be looking at the panel much anyway!

Eyes outside, folks! That's where the bangy-ouchy stuff is!

 

[Everskyward]

The point is, if I have $115,000, it's still difficult to convince me that I should buy a new LSA vs. a used... just about anything else. If my mission fits an LSA, there are still cheaper options.

If I was going to spend $115,000 I would buy a newish Super-D, not an LSA or a traveling machine, twin or otherwise. However, I can't justify a toy like that right now and I'm trying to simplify my life, not complicate it so it's not happening.

As far as the whole panel debate goes, personally I wouldn't have any great desire for glass on a personal airplane. Although the airplane I fly now is glass, I've only flown it for 3 years, and the 30 before it I used steam gauges except for the couple years I flew an airplane with EFIS which is somewhere in-between. However, there's no way I would consider myself the "future of aviation" and I think that would go for a lot of people who post here too. I think that people who have grown up with computers like that kind of technology and find it more intuitive. There's been a huge movement to glass in the past 10 years and avionics have advanced in small airplanes more than I ever thought they would in that period of time. Look at all the people, many of whom are on the older side, who are drooling over ForeFlight on the other threads...

 

[wabower]

Objection, miseading. Judge will rule that your erroneous assertion that the accepted definition of "old and ragged-out" includes any airplane without the newest glass-panel technology is incorrect.

I now see that your gambling strategy is to draw bulls-eyes around the bullet holes on a moving target.

Ok your honor, I dare opposing counsel to find a single example that refutes my "speculation."

That is... Find me a single example of a G1000 172 that rents for $100 per Hobbs hour, wet, with no dues required. I'd put money against that. I think it's highly unlikely you'll even find one for $120/hr.

 

[pilot_dude]

They are also charging more than your hypothetical $80/hour plus there are dues.

http://www.skyraideraviation.com/fleet.htm

Here's a good reason GA is going the way of the dinosaur, a "$130 discovery flight". Sorry, most folks that I know won't plop down 130 bucks for 45 minutes just to see if they may have an interest. That does not imply the CFI should work for free or the plane doesn't have expenses. It does mean the price of "check it out" is silly high IMHO.

 

[Everskyward]

Here's a good reason GA is going the way of the dinosaur, a "$130 discovery flight". Sorry, most folks that I know won't plop down 130 bucks for 45 minutes just to see if they may have an interest. That does not imply the CFI should work for free or the plane doesn't have expenses. It does mean the price of "check it out" is silly high IMHO.

Dunno, I think I spent about that much on a helicopter intro ride then went on to spend a whole lot more getting a commercial add-on.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Tandem skydives are over $200 no problem selling those. What does a day rafting trip cost? The price may interfere with continuing participation I don't believe it is the initial hurdle. Problem is too many rules to follow and way too many miserable pilots telling you all about the rules that you have to follow.

Here's a good reason GA is going the way of the dinosaur, a "$130 discovery flight". Sorry, most folks that I know won't plop down 130 bucks for 45 minutes just to see if they may have an interest. That does not imply the CFI should work for free or the plane doesn't have expenses. It does mean the price of "check it out" is silly high IMHO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The point is, if I have $115,000, it's still difficult to convince me that I should buy a new LSA vs. a used... just about anything else. If my mission fits an LSA, there are still cheaper options.

For my personal missions, I agree completely. You know how much I'd love a Twin Comanche for going places or a Swift for playing around...

But, I'm not discussing my personal missions here - I'm discussing flight training, and what I'd do if I were to start a flight school. In that role, I think there's a lot of merit to an LSA, and definitely more merit than most aviation industry insiders give it credit for.

 

[pilot_dude]

Dunno, I think I spent about that much on a helicopter intro ride then went on to spend a whole lot more getting a commercial add-on.

But you were already involved with aviation as opposed to it being a potentially new adventure. I believe that is a significant difference.

 

[pilot_dude]

Tandem skydives are over $200 no problem selling those. What does a day rafting trip cost? The price may interfere with continuing participation I don't believe it is the initial hurdle. Problem is too many rules to follow and way too many miserable pilots telling you all about the rules that you have to follow.

And all of which you write compounds the problem. Really, if I had $200 to burn would I rather do something that's one and done and say I did (sky diving or rafting) or something that's gonna be a drain on my disposable income for the foreseeable future if I even like it?

 

[SkyHog]

For my personal missions, I agree completely. You know how much I'd love a Twin Comanche for going places or a Swift for playing around...

But, I'm not discussing my personal missions here - I'm discussing flight training, and what I'd do if I were to start a flight school. In that role, I think there's a lot of merit to an LSA, and definitely more merit than most aviation industry insiders give it credit for.

Especially when you consider than the right LSA could get a student all the way through commercial instrument with only a few other hours in a retract.

Or get a student through their LSA, and then LSA-CFI.

A C172 can't do both.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If there's a VFR Private Pilot that needs a G1000 I'm wagering he/she isn't much of an aviator -- since they shouldn't be looking at the panel much anyway!

We're not talking about a VFR Private Pilot. We're talking about someone who's never flown before, and the likelihood of them even getting off the ground.

You said:

It's not always a "ratty old 172" versus a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded LSA.

I said:

No, but at the same price point as the LSA's are renting for ($100/hr ±5 at all of the places an earlier poster linked to) you are NOT going to get a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded 172 either.

The point being, to someone who's never flown before, an airplane that LOOKS modern is going to feel "safer" to them, because in this day and age there's not much we expect to last 35 years except our houses. People don't drive 35-year-old cars, and if you show them an airplane that's 35 years old and looks it, they're not likely to feel that it's safe, regardless of reality. If they decide it's not safe, they're gonna walk out the door and go buy a boat or a motorcycle instead.

OTOH, if it looks reasonably modern, they'll probably be more open to it... That is, *IF* it doesn't cost $170/hr! That's what new 172's were going for at a couple of those places linked to earlier. At those same places, old 172's with no GPS are going for $160/hr!

In comparison, they can fly a new LSA there for $135/hr, or in the civilized world (that is, anywhere BUT California ) for $100/hr.

Some people want the gadgets. Some people want cheap (relatively speaking, of course). Don't we give ourselves the best chance of reaching the largest possible audience if we can give them both?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Objection, miseading. Judge will rule that your erroneous assertion that the accepted definition of "old and ragged-out" includes any airplane without the newest glass-panel technology is incorrect.

I now see that your gambling strategy is to draw bulls-eyes around the bullet holes on a moving target.

Nope - But if you'll trace backwards, this was the target:

It's not always a "ratty old 172" versus a shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded LSA.

So, if you look at the hourly price point, $100/hr is going to get you in a nice new LSA, or a ratty old 172. If you look at the "shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded" category, you're looking at a $100 LSA vs. $150/hr 172. In both cases, the LSA compares quite favorably.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Oh you can keep skydiving. But most people don't. Most people are lame and want to do something once get a picture/postcard/tshirt for social proof then talk about it for the rest of their miserable lives.

And all of which you write compounds the problem. Really, if I had $200 to burn would I rather do something that's one and done and say I did (sky diving or rafting) or something that's gonna be a drain on my disposable income for the foreseeable future if I even like it?

 

[Doggtyred]

And all of which you write compounds the problem. Really, if I had $200 to burn would I rather do something that's one and done and say I did (sky diving or rafting) or something that's gonna be a drain on my disposable income for the foreseeable future if I even like it?

$200 bucks is a lot of gas in the Harley....

 

[denverpilot]

That's the point, isn't it? To get the new generation interested in flying? I'll bet if you show a child an LSA with a modern glass panel he or she will be more intrigued than if you show the same child a 172 with a conventional panel, ratty or not.

Then you show 'em a FAR/AIM, tell them about how messing one item in that book up is a great way to sink your entire aviation career, and show 'em a few photos of crew "crash pads" and tell 'em $25K a year awaits them and they'll be lucky if they aren't furloughed or on strike less than three times in their lives...

The ones who'll put up with all of that will fly anything with wings. They'll be CFIs to the losers who need/want the shiny new airplanes but drop out later, because they'll be up flying no matter what they found to fly, even if it's barely airworthy.

Exceptions will include pro aviator's kids who will have help finding something that's both cheap and airworthy and dad/mom will have taught them to sell it off well before it's time for a new engine, and still make a small profit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Then you show 'em a FAR/AIM, tell them about how messing one item in that book up is a great way to sink your entire aviation career, and show 'em a few photos of crew "crash pads" and tell 'em $25K a year awaits them and they'll be lucky if they aren't furloughed or on strike less than three times in their lives...

Uhhh... When did we start talking about airlines?

 

[Ted]

For my personal missions, I agree completely. You know how much I'd love a Twin Comanche for going places or a Swift for playing around...

And if it doesn't seem to meet the missions of most of the people in the discussion, why do we have a reason to believe it will fit anyone else's?

But, I'm not discussing my personal missions here - I'm discussing flight training, and what I'd do if I were to start a flight school. In that role, I think there's a lot of merit to an LSA, and definitely more merit than most aviation industry insiders give it credit for.

Perhaps that's because the industry has found that it lacks the merit its proponents think it has?

Don't get me wrong, the LSA is a step in the right direction of making the aircraft affordable. The problem is that it's still not affordable. As I've said, aviation needs a Henry Ford. Someone who can bring it to the masses by actually making it affordable. Try under $50k for a new airplane with similar functionality to a 182. If an LSA was $35k, it might have some merit.

 

[pilot_dude]

$200 bucks is a lot of gas in the Harley....

Or oil

 

[wabower]

Now I see the problem. Kent is an accomplished computer guy, and has obviously has installed a macro on his keyboard. Any time "172" is entered, the machine auto-enters "old and ratty" as descriptive adjectives.

Clever adaptation of technology.

Nope - But if you'll trace backwards, this was the target:



So, if you look at the hourly price point, $100/hr is going to get you in a nice new LSA, or a ratty old 172. If you look at the "shiny, new, untouched, fully loaded" category, you're looking at a $100 LSA vs. $150/hr 172. In both cases, the LSA compares quite favorably.

 

[Everskyward]

Then you show 'em a FAR/AIM, tell them about how messing one item in that book up is a great way to sink your entire aviation career,

I think that's a bit of message board paranoia. I don't know anyone who has sunk their career by "messing up one item in a book" unless it involved crashing at the end. Nobody out there is perfect or even close to it.

show 'em a few photos of crew "crash pads" and tell 'em $25K a year awaits them and they'll be lucky if they aren't furloughed or on strike less than three times in their lives...

I thought we were talking about flying as a hobby, not professionally.

 

[Everskyward]

And if it doesn't seem to meet the missions of most of the people in the discussion, why do we have a reason to believe it will fit anyone else's?

If LSAs had been around when I started to fly I would have picked one to rent over the 150 which I learned in as long as the price was equal. At that point I wasn't interested in traveling long distances nor did I think of it as a potential career. In any case, I don't see why you couldn't start out in an LSA even if you were planning a career.

 

[wabower]

If you show up at a flight school that has a 150 and a 162 sitting on the line, will you pay signficantly more to fly the 162? Will you pay any more? For most people, is the difference in LSA status of any import when they start training or renting an airplane?

My impression is that the decisions are largely price-driven, and that the cheapest airplane usually wins.

If LSAs had been around when I started to fly I would have picked one to rent over the 150 which I learned in as long as the price was equal. At that point I wasn't interested in traveling long distances nor did I think of it as a potential career. In any case, I don't see why you couldn't start out in an LSA even if you were planning a career.

 

[dmccormack]

My impression is that the decisions are largely price-driven, and that the cheapest airplane usually wins.

That's absolutely correct.

I was a fairly knowledgeable consumer when I started my flight training and the choices were 152, 172, or PA-160 & 180.

The 152 was cheapest and so that's what I did all my basic stuff. Once it was time for longer XC, I shifted to the $25/hour more PA series.

 

[Everskyward]

If you show up at a flight school that has a 150 and a 162 sitting on the line, will you pay signficantly more to fly the 162? Will you pay any more?For most people, is the difference in LSA status of any import when they start training or renting and airplane?

Are you talking about me when I was 19 or me now? When I was 19 I would have picked the cheapest option because flying lessons were a real financial stretch. Now I would pay somewhat more (maybe 10-20%?). I'm not someone who analyzes price so much, though. If I want something that badly I'll do it. It's later than you think, eat dessert first.

 

[Ted]

If LSAs had been around when I started to fly I would have picked one to rent over the 150 which I learned in as long as the price was equal. At that point I wasn't interested in traveling long distances nor did I think of it as a potential career. In any case, I don't see why you couldn't start out in an LSA even if you were planning a career.

I agree, but the point is that the costs aren't equal, at least not so far as I can tell.

Don't get me wrong - an LSA can have a remarkably nice panel and still have some practical functionality. Jay Maynard proved that with his extensive use of his Zodiac. It had a better avionics suite than my Aztec. However, its cost/benefit ratio isn't as good as other options out there, especially not for learning.

 

[steingar]

I just remember the 150 being a real stretch with useful load, trying to be me and a CFI. The 162 carries even less. I think the CFI will have to be a midget to fly in the thing.

A 16 page thread for an easily answered question. Is GA dying? There are fewer pilots every year, and the decreasing trend is stable and likely increasing in rate. The answer is a definite yes.

 

[wabower]

You're preaching to the choir. Check my avatar, life-style, annual number of rounds played and winter address.

Are you talking about me when I was 19 or me now? When I was 19 I would have picked the cheapest option because flying lessons were a real financial stretch. Now I would pay somewhat more (maybe 10-20%?). I'm not someone who analyzes price so much, though. If I want something that badly I'll do it. It's later than you think, eat dessert first.

 

[Ted]

Are you talking about me when I was 19 or me now? When I was 19 I would have picked the cheapest option because flying lessons were a real financial stretch. Now I would pay somewhat more (maybe 10-20%?). I'm not someone who analyzes price so much, though. If I want something that badly I'll do it. It's later than you think, eat dessert first.

Sounds words to live by, and how I try to live my life.

 

[rpadula]

A 16 page thread for an easily answered question. Is GA dying? There are fewer pilots every year, and the decreasing trend is stable and likely increasing in rate. The answer is a definite yes.

Well, you know us -- there is no horse dead enough that we won't beat some more!

 

[airbornejohnny]

Well since we can always return to impacting dead horses with blunt objects for the sake of being able to do it I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth of observation.
I live in western central NJ, and have been here most of my life. I went to the community college nearby, and before that was involved in CAP. I've noticed a general lack of proactivity with regards to aviation in this area. My college didn't offer anything related to aviation, my high school did not show CAP even existed. Lucky for me my father was an aviation enthusiast who brought me into EWR whenever he could. After he retired, he stayed with the aviation community, mostly in the historians realm, but kept in close touch with lots of people. I never heard him say anything about any flight schools attempting to work with local schools, be them colleges or high schools, in order to spawn interest in aviation around here. The small airports around here are somewhat controversial, some due to eminent domain threats from the town, some due to rich folk who don't seem to care that the annoying helicopter noise they hate is a state police helo that operates from where it does so their medevac service is quick no matter where in the region they are called to.
Anyone notice a pattern? Lack of education screams from where I sit. Perhaps it is lack of motivation to start something complicated? How difficult would it be for some local FBO's to be a tad more proactive with colleges, to perhaps start a program the college could incorporate into its offered courses? Even to invite middle schools or high schools to visit the airport, to create that spark igniting the fire.
Details may have to be worked out, whether for costs, available times, eligibility, etc, but so much is out there, yet most of it seems to be word of mouth.
Granted, I am preaching to the choir, and have said what some have already mentioned, but are there other parts of the country that have anything like these ideas in place? How responsive have our youths been to such programs?

 

[barnstorm]

What we might have learned so far:

After reading several threads and post on several aviation related message board, about the decreasing numbers of pilots, and the rising cost of flying, do you believe that general aviation in the United States is dying?

From my own perspective, it really doesn't help that 100LL fuel prices is going up along with Insurance rates. Mogas would be a suitable alternative to the 100LL if it wasn't for the fact that most of them contain ethanol which is harmful to an aircraft engine.

As for the current pilot pool, what we're seeing are the baby boomers hanging up their headsets, there's less people becoming pilots because there's less people in the subsequent generations after the baby boomers.

Which doesn't really bode well for GA, less people equal less revenue for FBOs, flight schools, etc. which means higher rate just to stay afloat.

Is GA dying? Maybe, maybe not, maybe what we're seeing is a paradigm shift in how General Aviation operates in the United States. Only time will tell, but I do know that if the current crops of pilots are willing to be proactive, and reach out to the general public, to educate them on general aviation and to offer flights to get them hook, then maybe everything will be ok.

Thoughts?

1. Is "GA Dying"?

Current trends show a continuation of the decrease in the number of GA pilots in the US. At what point does this number need to be to declare death? Unknown.

2. What is GA?

From the posts presented in this thread we can see that GA means very different things to different people and pilots.

Some seem to think GA is for transportation

Some seem to think GA is for Fun

Some seem to think GA is for learning to fly and build hours for an ATP job.

GA is all of this and more.

3 What is "killing GA"?

Currently no alphabet group or govt agency has spent the time and money to do a really good study of this. AOPA and others have done some surveys but so far every one that I have examined the details of were not statistically significant and did not include proper "exit" interviews.

COST is the number 1 topic discussed online and cited by people new the sport in most of the forums I attend and in informal talks that I have with large groups of new people every week at my place of employment.

However, the recent Flight Training Reform Symposium seemed to somehow miss this entirely even making statements that indicated it was considered a non-issue

The Flight Training Reform Symposium apparently concluded that the problem is CFI renewal, training methods leading to a high GA fatality rate and this is the only thing that needs to be addressed to 'save GA'.

Results from this tread include:

Cost of Flying

Cost of owning an aircraft

Cost of purchasing an aircraft

Cost of training

Changing of the culture of young people (video games over real flying)

Lack of GA exposure to the general public

CFIs that want to be ATPs not CFIs ( lousy instructors )

Poor / Old flight training aircraft

Poor flight school (FBO) business practices and customer service.

Pilot Groups not working together to find answers and solutions

Pilots not evangelizing the sport.

Manufacturers not evangelizing the sport

FAA Restrictions and lack of promotion and support.

Gas Prices

High Student Drop-out rate



4. How do we "Save GA"

This is where we lose consensus.

The Flight Training Reform Symposium concluded that we need to change CFI procedures for training and renewal. (that did not seem to come up much here).

Get Flight Schools & FBOs ( FS/FBOs ) to utilize LSA aircraft

Get FS/FBOs to embrace Sport Pilot training

Get FS/FBO to change training and business models

Do nothing different from the 1950s, let someone else solve the problem

Update fleets

Don't update fleets

Give rides to the young

Give rides to the old

Lower the costs of flying / aircraft ownership

Don't lower the costs of flying / aircraft ownership

Get pilot organisations to collaborate

Don't get pilot organisations to collaborate

Promote Sport Pilot and LSAs.

Utilize Flying Clubs for cost reduction of ownership and lessons

Involve Schools, Youth Programs with CAP and flight training.

Use New LSAs to reduce cost

Use, used LSAs to reduce cost

Use Vintage LSAs to reduce cost

Use Clapped-out 172 to reduce cost

Use Clapped-out 150s to reduce cost


------------------------

Did I miss anything???

------------------------

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Perhaps that's because the industry has found that it lacks the merit its proponents think it has?

But what I've been saying all along is that I don't think the problem is that the industry has found much of anything - I don't think most of them have even considered it, based on my discussions with some.

There is a small group who have considered it, and are doing it, and are apparently doing quite well with it.

Don't get me wrong, the LSA is a step in the right direction of making the aircraft affordable. The problem is that it's still not affordable. As I've said, aviation needs a Henry Ford. Someone who can bring it to the masses by actually making it affordable. Try under $50k for a new airplane with similar functionality to a 182. If an LSA was $35k, it might have some merit.

Oh, no doubt at all there. A $50K 182 that can be a family hauler would make a HUGE difference in this industry. I think it could be done, in sufficient volume, if there was a way to make the certification process just a little easier, and to eliminate liability. Sigh.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now I see the problem. Kent is an accomplished computer guy, and has obviously has installed a macro on his keyboard. Any time "172" is entered, the machine auto-enters "old and ratty" as descriptive adjectives.

Clever adaptation of technology.

Hah!

Here's what I've seen on rental lines for 172's:

1) Old and ratty.
2) New and ratty. (The worst was a 1999 172SP that looked like its interior was 40 years old, not in style obviously, but the amount of wear was insane.)
3) New and so damn expensive they never get flown.

Sadly, I've never seen "old and nice" anywhere.

 

[Everskyward]

Sadly, I've never seen "old and nice" anywhere.

I've seen old and nice but I haven't really seen "nice and inexpensive". Then too, people may be charging what other people are willing to pay and the additional customers they may get from charging less might not be enough to offset the difference in price.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you show up at a flight school that has a 150 and a 162 sitting on the line, will you pay signficantly more to fly the 162? Will you pay any more? For most people, is the difference in LSA status of any import when they start training or renting an airplane?

My impression is that the decisions are largely price-driven, and that the cheapest airplane usually wins.

No doubt about that... And that's why the $100/hr LSA will beat the more-expensive 172 every time.

Now, LSA vs. 152 makes it tougher. The 152 can be bought much cheaper, and operated for not much more than the LSA (I'm assuming here that the maintenance costs will be higher on the 152 with its age). So, its hourly cost is likely to be less than the LSA. (The difference could be at least partially canceled out by the total training cost being potentially cheaper on the LSA because you can get a Sport Pilot certificate instead of the full Private, though.)

However, I chose the 172 instead of the 152 because I'm 6'4" and I don't fit in a 152. Lotsa folks these days don't fit in a 152. Many of the LSA's are quite roomy - Gotta have enough drag to keep 'em slow enough to be LSA's, so a large cabin cross section works well. I've flown several, and sat in several more to try them on. No problems, in most cases. Locally, I would guess based on the comings and goings at the flight school that it's about a 50/50 split between the 152's and 172's for primary training. Well, make that 40/40 with the other 20 going into the PA28's.

So, were I starting a flight school... Again, I'd still go with the LSA, assuming I have to start out with one airplane. (Yeah, I know I can buy 4 152's for the cost of one LSA... But it won't work for taller/wider people or those who only want a sport certificate, so there's no point in having 4 of them!)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I just remember the 150 being a real stretch with useful load, trying to be me and a CFI. The 162 carries even less. I think the CFI will have to be a midget to fly in the thing.

Yup. I bet Tristan could do really well by specializing in LSA training.

It's also a disappointment with the 162, and one reason I probably wouldn't buy one for my theoretical flight school. Hell, I probably couldn't instruct very many people in a 162! Another thing with LSA's in general is that it's difficult to trade fuel weight for cabin weight, because they burn so little fuel they don't carry much in the first place. Pulling an hour of fuel out gives you less than 30 pounds.

That is a particular strength of the Remos, though, their useful load is north of 600 pounds... A definite plus.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Then too, people may be charging what other people are willing to pay and the additional customers they may get from charging less might not be enough to offset the difference in price.

That's a big problem. With such skinny profit margins (around 10% is what has been indicated to me on aircraft rental itself by one operator), knocking just a few dollars off can reduce profits by 50%, but it's unlikely to bring in any more customers at all.

So, clearly, to make a significant difference in the rental rates, something else has to change... Really, a lot of something elses. LSA's, tort reform, outreach, etc. etc.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've noticed a general lack of proactivity with regards to aviation in this area. My college didn't offer anything related to aviation, my high school did not show CAP even existed.

I never heard him say anything about any flight schools attempting to work with local schools, be them colleges or high schools, in order to spawn interest in aviation around here.

Anyone notice a pattern? Lack of education screams from where I sit. Perhaps it is lack of motivation to start something complicated? How difficult would it be for some local FBO's to be a tad more proactive with colleges, to perhaps start a program the college could incorporate into its offered courses? Even to invite middle schools or high schools to visit the airport, to create that spark igniting the fire.

Yes! That's exactly what we need is more outreach programs like that. (Well, among many other things...)

One of the things I was planning on doing had I gotten the latest airport manager/FBO operator gig I was trying for was to teach ground school at the local high school, and also to hire high school students to work at the airport as a summer job.

Kate started teaching a ground school at a community college. It wasn't a huge class, but it was enough for the college to continue offering it and paying her - And she picked up quite a few flight students that way - More than half the class, IIRC. In fact, I think it was closer to the whole class than half the class. Why did this work? Well, rather than relying on "them" to come to "us," we took aviation to "them."

Most successful businesses don't open up in a fairly out-of-the-way location and just sit around waiting for customers to appear, but all too often that's what the aviation industry does.