Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[airbornejohnny]

There are still plenty of horses out there, and some money to be made, but it's a niche market, the end.

It does not have to be a niche market, which I think is what cheesehead is getting at about the Young Eagles. It IS what I was getting at with the prospect of working with local community colleges and high/middle schools to provide instruction (college credits/nice college transcript addition) and to spawn interest in kids who are barraged everyday with other activites, good (after school programs) and not so good (i.e. sniffing glue and such). I went to community college because I couldn't afford much beyond that. If my school had a flight training program, I'd surely have been right on top of it.
The way things are now, GA is somewhat a fringe activity, but if it was to grow (as in licensed pilots) enough that there was more competition to produce less expensive aircraft, both in purchase cost and in performance costs, the whole thing could expand something like it did in the middle of last century.
Bottom line, for GA to survive happily, GA needs to adjust for todays market. It needs to be more accessable both financially and visibly (so even Helen Keller could see it). Looks mean a lot to people. I don't agree with some of the standards out there, but I'm not clueless about aviation. Think "Gucci" kids who are looking for something to do to impress their friends. If they learn in a modern-feeling aircraft that doesn't smell like armpit and does not cost half their summer job's pay, more youth will be interested in carrying on what's left of GA. It's up to those in GA now to determine what is left and to get them to show up at the local airfield.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Normally market forces would work this out, but government over-regulation and airplane chasing parasitic lawyers have us in a death spiral.

I'm all for bashing government over-regulation, but FAA regulations are not terribly onerous, insurance can be made a non-factor, and lawsuits not a big factor in setting costs for experimental homebuilts and LSAs. Yet such aircraft are still not "cheap". Consider:

When you take into account only the kit or raw material costs for an RV-10 or Sportsman 2+2, while they are much cheaper than the comparable C-182 (nice comparison table: http://www.painttheweb.com/painttheweb/RV-10/Stats.aspx) the average income person will still consider them as very expensive planes. Likewise, the kit or raw material costs for a Kitfox Super Sport 7 or Jabiru 430 , while much cheaper than the (roughly!) comparable C-172, are still pushing the budget envelope for many people even if they value their labor at $0.

 

[barnstorm]

There are lots of people out there who would love to fly and who could afford to fly... We need to show them where and how.

Bingo!

If we can just get them to read my book!

I run into people that say they would like to fly all the time, but they have no idea how to go about it, or that "personal" aviation even exists.

.

 

[dmccormack]

I run into people that say they would like to fly all the time, but they have no idea how to go about it, or that "personal" aviation even exists.

Me too, yet for too many, price and various requirements dim the ardor.

 

[wabower]

I had this exact conversation yesterday after a round of golf with two friends. Both are self-employed, can easily afford the cost and think flying would be fun. I'm pretty sure one of them will start lessons soon, because he has some places to go. The other guy can't see the value other than for an occasional round of golf, and asked why he needs to learn to fly when I already have a plane.

Anyway, the three of us are going to fly to Possum Kingdom next week to view the fire damage (one of the guys is a home-builder and thinks there may be some opportunities to bid on replacement jobs) and have dinner at Mary's chicken-fried-steak joint in Strawn. That will be fun, and they will both get a turn at the controls.

The conversation at the table yesterday was funny, when one of them asked how far I could fly "in my little plane" without stopping for gas. I first told him I could make it almost to McKinney (26 miles) if the winds were right. After the giggles, I told him I would be flying it to Vermont later in the summer and would probably stop twice, but that I could make it with one stop but would be so stiff they would have to wedge me out of the seat with a crowbar. They were very impressed with all the places I can non-stop from Dallas, had no idea I could fly to Florida, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, etc. without stopping for fuel.

 

[hindsight2020]

I'm all for bashing government over-regulation, but FAA regulations are not terribly onerous, insurance can be made a non-factor, and lawsuits not a big factor in setting costs for experimental homebuilts and LSAs. Yet such aircraft are still not "cheap". Consider:

When you take into account only the kit or raw material costs for an RV-10 or Sportsman 2+2, while they are much cheaper than the comparable C-182 (nice comparison table: http://www.painttheweb.com/painttheweb/RV-10/Stats.aspx) the average income person will still consider them as very expensive planes. Likewise, the kit or raw material costs for a Kitfox Super Sport 7 or Jabiru 430 , while much cheaper than the (roughly!) comparable C-172, are still pushing the budget envelope for many people even if they value their labor at $0.

Why is this though? Materials for all these aircraft are common and not exotic. More material is required to assemble a KIA disposable car than a 1200 lb flying kite. Why is just the material cost of these things equivalent to the cost of a fully assembled passenger vehicle? Economies of scale? Remind me again why these things can't be cranked out robotically like cars, other than liability legalisms?

Was GM handcranking all them airplanes in WWII? I bet some or all that line was mechanized. And they roughly had the same engine technology we're still flying in GA today

Like someone else said, sell these LSAs new at 35K and watch the schools swell up with all sorts of customer base coming out of the woodwork. Not at 80K though.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I had this exact conversation yesterday after a round of golf with two friends. Both are self-employed, can easily afford the cost and think flying would be fun. I'm pretty sure one of them will start lessons soon, because he has some places to go. The other guy can't see the value other than for an occasional round of golf, and asked why he needs to learn to fly when I already have a plane.

You should leave him behind next time. That'll answer that question.

The conversation at the table yesterday was funny, when one of them asked how far I could fly "in my little plane" without stopping for gas. I first told him I could make it almost to McKinney (26 miles) if the winds were right. After the giggles, I told him I would be flying it to Vermont later in the summer and would probably stop twice, but that I could make it with one stop but would be so stiff they would have to wedge me out of the seat with a crowbar. They were very impressed with all the places I can non-stop from Dallas, had no idea I could fly to Florida, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, etc. without stopping for fuel.

So, the one who doesn't want to fly doesn't see the value in that?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why is this though? Materials for all these aircraft are common and not exotic. More material is required to assemble a KIA disposable car than a 1200 lb flying kite. Why is just the material cost of these things equivalent to the cost of a fully assembled passenger vehicle? Economies of scale? Remind me again why these things can't be cranked out robotically like cars, other than liability legalisms?

We don't make enough of 'em to pay for the robots.

Sure, we could roboticize the production lines, but we'd probably be paying MORE until we could convince enough people to get into this crazy business that we were selling 5x as many airplanes.

Cessna figured this out - They sold something like 2,000 Skycatchers on the first day. Hmmm... Robots? Nope, cheap Chinese labor.

Like someone else said, sell these LSAs new at 35K and watch the schools swell up with all sorts of customer base coming out of the woodwork. Not at 80K though.

Oh, I dunno... Looking at the rental equation, you'd be able to knock about $20/hr off the price, but at 300 hours/year you'd still need to charge over $75/hr to break even.

Looking at ownership, well, just remove the profit. The vast majority of pilots fly less than 100 hours/year. With the fixed costs included, that 100 hours/year is gonna cost $145/hr. The other way to look at it is that your first hour costs $10,300 and the rest cost $43/hr.

Either way, while a $35K price tag is a lot nicer than $80K, it's not something that's going to save GA.

Now, if you could buy a new 182 for $50K... Now that might go somewhere. It could haul the family. But a $35K LSA won't save GA if a 182 still costs $400K.

 

[weilke]

Cessna figured this out - They sold something like 2,000 Skycatchers on the first day. Hmmm... Robots? Nope, cheap Chinese labor. .

Actually, they had it figured out back when they were pumping out 172s and 182s with true assembly-line production. With the production numbers from back then and todays flexible robots, a combined production line building 152,172,182 could work.

Chinese labor won't be cheap for long, they already priced themselves out of the garment business. Add some exchange rate shifts and it'll be cheaper to bring the entire 162 production either stateside or to mexico.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Chinese labor won't be cheap for long, they already priced themselves out of the garment business. Add some exchange rate shifts and it'll be cheaper to bring the entire 162 production either stateside or to mexico.

Yup - In fact, Foxconn, who builds the iDevices and lots of other gadgets for Apple and a bunch of other computer companies, is supposedly building a new plant in Brazil because Chinese labor is getting too expensive!

 

[wabower]

I don't think he ever travels farther than McKinnney.

You should leave him behind next time. That'll answer that question.



So, the one who doesn't want to fly doesn't see the value in that?

 

[weilke]

Yup - In fact, Foxconn, who builds the iDevices and lots of other gadgets for Apple and a bunch of other computer companies, is supposedly building a new plant in Brazil because Chinese labor is getting too expensive!

This goes in cycles, every 20 years or so. At one point it was the Japanese who were taking over the world, next it was the Koreans. Today, some of our electronics come from Japan, some come from Korea, a lot of it comes from China and third countries. Eventually, more and more of production will move into the sphere of free-trade agreements, nafta only being the start of this.

 

[denverpilot]

Normally market forces would work this out, but government over-regulation and airplane chasing parasitic lawyers have us in a death spiral.

Crazy 3AM thought...

Maybe instead of Young Eagles, a Pilot to Lawyer flying outreach would be more effective at saving GA in the long-run. (Sure a lot of those kids might grow up to become lawyers, but why not tug at the heartstrings of those already in the profession? Oh wait... Heartstrings probably require hearts...)

 

[denverpilot]

Yup - In fact, Foxconn, who builds the iDevices and lots of other gadgets for Apple and a bunch of other computer companies, is supposedly building a new plant in Brazil because Chinese labor is getting too expensive!

There was also an article recently about a Chinese electronics company requiring staff to sign a document stating that they would quit before they committed suicide.

I can't figure out all the weird social values and customs that could lead to something like that.

 

[Bob Noel]

Crazy 3AM thought...

Maybe instead of Young Eagles, a Pilot to Lawyer flying outreach would be more effective at saving GA in the long-run. (Sure a lot of those kids might grow up to become lawyers, but why not tug at the heartstrings of those already in the profession? Oh wait... Heartstrings probably require hearts...)

Isn't there a really wealthy pilot/lawyer that makes a considerable amount of money suing anything that moves whenever there is a high-profile aviation accident?

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe instead of Young Eagles, a Pilot to Lawyer flying outreach would be more effective at saving GA in the long-run. (Sure a lot of those kids might grow up to become lawyers, but why not tug at the heartstrings of those already in the profession? Oh wait... Heartstrings probably require hearts...)

That's why I wrote earlier in this thread that, as a business proposition, it's probably a better idea to strategy to cultivate interest in people who already have money. But when aircraft manufacturers and aviation magazines do that they are roundly chastised around here for not considering the 'common man', or woman as that may be.

 

[somorris]

But when aircraft manufacturers and aviation magazines do that they are roundly chastised around here for not considering the 'common man', or woman as that may be.

I think there is a place in aviation for everyone.

 

[hindsight2020]

I think there is a place in aviation for everyone.

I beg to differ, unless you count the other side of the fence as aiport property...

 

[weilke]

That's why I wrote earlier in this thread that, as a. short-term business proposition, it's probably a better idea to strategy to cultivate interest in people who already have money. But when aircraft manufacturers and aviation magazines do that they are roundly chastised around here for not considering the 'common man', or woman as that may be.

Fixed it for you.

I think it takes both. Getting kids interested and having something to offer for people who have money and a need for travel further down the line.

There are plenty of pilots, myself included, who learned to fly as teenagers, had to hang it up for a decade or two while advancing their education/career and pick it up once they have the income to support the habit.

 

[rpadula]

Yup - In fact, Foxconn, who builds the iDevices and lots of other gadgets for Apple and a bunch of other computer companies, is supposedly building a new plant in Brazil because Chinese labor is getting too expensive!

Not exactly. Brazil has some very steep import tariffs. It is sometimes worth it to build a manufacturing site there to avoid such.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20110414000136&cid=1502&MainCatID=15

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There was also an article recently about a Chinese electronics company requiring staff to sign a document stating that they would quit before they committed suicide.

I can't figure out all the weird social values and customs that could lead to something like that.

Meh... They're probably sick of the bad press. Foxconn has had a dozen employee suicides in the past year.

I wonder if it'll do 'em any good if the employee quits, and then jumps off Foxconn's roof.

Isn't there a really wealthy pilot/lawyer that makes a considerable amount of money suing anything that moves whenever there is a high-profile aviation accident?

"A" would imply one. Gotta be more than one... But I think the one you're thinking of is Arthur Alan Wolk. I hesitate to even put his name here because after a "discussion" about him on the AvWeb forums a long time ago, they got damn near sued out of existence.

Not exactly. Brazil has some very steep import tariffs. It is sometimes worth it to build a manufacturing site there to avoid such.

The news item I heard had been talking specifically about labor costs, but there's obviously more than one item in the equation when you're talking about building a major manufacturing facility anywhere.

 

[Everskyward]

Fixed it for you.

I think it takes both. Getting kids interested and having something to offer for people who have money and a need for travel further down the line.

There are plenty of pilots, myself included, who learned to fly as teenagers, had to hang it up for a decade or two while advancing their education/career and pick it up once they have the income to support the habit.

That's probably true, but sometimes I think we try to gloss over the fact that you need a certain amount of excess money beyond your living expenses to afford a hobby like aviation. It doesn't take piles of money, but you need to be able to justify it to yourself and prioritize what you want. For example there are plenty of people who will walk out and buy a $25,000 new car or a $40,000 new truck but they balk at spending $10,000 for flying lessons.

 

[wabower]

Perception of value. They obviously think they'll have more to show for their money. I'd rather have a new car than a trip to Asia. The missus would rather take the trip.

That's probably true, but sometimes I think we try to gloss over the fact that you need a certain amount of excess money beyond your living expenses to afford a hobby like aviation. It doesn't take piles of money, but you need to be able to justify it to yourself and prioritize what you want. For example there are plenty of people who will walk out and buy a $25,000 new car or a $40,000 new truck but they balk at spending $10,000 for flying lessons.

 

[Everskyward]

Perception of value. They obviously think they'll have more to show for their money. I'd rather have a new car than a trip to Asia. The missus would rather take the trip.

That reminds me of the friend of mine who told me I was spending a lot of money on helicopter lessons for some writing on a piece of paper (it was still paper then).

 

[denverpilot]

That's like my friends who play lots of golf. That's zero-return on investment for me. Boring.

Well, I take that back. A few drunken rounds with an oil company's trading and pipeline operations management crew back in the day were great, but no one was really there to play golf... I believe they were requested not to return to that particular course the next year or two, then the course management wised up, closed the course for a day every year and charged the company out the wazoo for their Annual tournament. Probably much of that went to cover damages.

But I digress... I'll fly anyone anywhere to play golf, but I get no enjoyment out of the game at all other than hanging out outside on a nice day with friends.

 

[somorris]

I beg to differ, unless you count the other side of the fence as aiport property...

What I was thinking is that if a person just wants to fly, there are ways to get into the air that are in the price range of a four-wheeler or a golf cart and clubs and memberships, etc. An ultralight can be had for under $10,000. No medical or lessons are required and you can actually fly them. A Champ or Cub can be bought for about the price of a new truck, and they can be flown without a medical and kept up fairly reasonably. Just because you can get a new Cirrus, doesn't mean you have to.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A Champ or Cub can be bought for about the price of a new truck, and they can be flown without a medical and kept up fairly reasonably. Just because you can get a new Cirrus, doesn't mean you have to.

The problem is, you're not so much an "aircraft owner" any more as you are a "historic airplane caretaker." That's great for those who choose to do so, and I applaud their efforts, but most aviation newbies simply want to learn how to fly. Restoring and maintaining old airplanes usually isn't on their list at that point, and because the new airplanes cost so much, sooner or later nearly the entire fleet will be of the "vintage" variety, and those who simply want to learn how to fly will be mostly priced out of it. Actually, LSA's are what's bucking that trend right now - In another 5-10 years, they should be fairly affordable on the used market.

 

[Everskyward]

Actually, LSA's are what's bucking that trend right now - In another 5-10 years, they should be fairly affordable on the used market.

Reading some of the medical threads around here I wonder if many people are being pushed to LSAs because they don't want to try for a medical if they have even some small issues in their past. I don't know if this is because the medical process has become stricter or people have become more fearful of it. I remember years ago it seemed like pretty much a given that you could pass an FAA medical as long as you were warm and breathing. There were always those disqualifying conditions like diabetes but it seemed like the attitude was that most people could pass with no problem if they were generally healthy.

If this is the case I can see that LSAs will hold their value better than non-LSAs and that will be the growing segment in the near future.

 

[zaitcev]

Actually, LSA's are what's bucking that trend right now - In another 5-10 years, they should be fairly affordable on the used market.

Yeah, if they survive that long. Listen to Henning, a blind rivet is a death sentence. On this note, I mentioned these rivets to Eric of Fox Aviasport, a salesman of SportCruiser. He went on how Boeing uses the blind rivets, and how he was a materials engineer himself, etc. I might've even believed him, if he weren't selling these airplanes.

 

[denverpilot]

Reading some of the medical threads around here I wonder if many people are being pushed to LSAs because they don't want to try for a medical if they have even some small issues in their past. I don't know if this is because the medical process has become stricter or people have become more fearful of it. I remember years ago it seemed like pretty much a given that you could pass an FAA medical as long as you were warm and breathing. There were always those disqualifying conditions like diabetes but it seemed like the attitude was that most people could pass with no problem if they were generally healthy.

If this is the case I can see that LSAs will hold their value better than non-LSAs and that will be the growing segment in the near future.

The medical system has become Russian Roulette. The "self certification" thing will disappear when enough people "self certify" themselves into terra firma and the insurance companies start requiring "FAA Medical or Equivalent" to insure LSAs. And the "equivalent" will be their docs, and their rules. Just like life insurance. (It'll happen. Just need to see them lose enough money on medical-related crashes and it'll happen.)

Dr. Bruce tells everyone to make sure their health is top-priority and then worry about the medical, but the vast majority of us don't have AMEs that pay as much attention nor have as much access to the FAA's "mind-set" as Dr. Bruce. They don't know the magic words to keep from helping you pull the trigger on that 6-shooter with one round in the cylinder.

Most of the AMEs around here seem to get their real income from pee-testing truckers for CDL medicals, to be brutally honest. Most have signs up for that out front. Those that don't are older and well-established and have a large pilot clientele... but... they still don't always seem to know what to say to the FAA.

Strangely the rules changes to make medicals years longer for those few of us under 40, didn't drive any of them out of business due to lack of customers, which says something about the age of the pilot population, I suppose.

My AME kept sending me reminders to come in and get one, when my 3rd class got "stretched" by the new rules... (Okay actually it's a 2nd Class, but the reminders kept coming well into the 3rd Class years.)

Doesn't have me exactly excited about his ability to be detailed, if he can't put a new renewal date in his reminder database based on reported pilot age. Obviously it's just a dumb mail merge, but it makes me think, "Sloppy. Real sloppy, Doc."

I see and talk to a lot of older pilots who are walking around on pins and needles trying to pick that "just right time" to stop flying regular airplanes and start flying LSAs... that's really really busted... and it's not the self-certification side that's busted. Like I said, that'll "self-regulate" if it costs the insurance companies real coin. It's the other side that's busted.

I probably have avoided a couple of Family Doc visits that should have taken place to get an antibiotic or something equally begnign because with the long timeframes on a 3rd Class... you sit there and wonder... "Did I write EVERY visit I had in all these years down?"... Wondering if some paper pusher at the FAA will cross-reference your form with some medical insurance database and say, "AH HA... He had the sniffles in 1998!"

I know that's not REALLY how it works, but that's how it FEELS to a lot of pilots. Most find the entire process is scary, sometimes un-fair, and even degrading... does the FAA really need to know I had the sniffles two years ago, for crying out loud?

Yes, if I have chronic sniffles, even I'm smart enough to figure out they might be interested in that... but Doctors are in love with paperwork, and when they move into Government, they're in hog heaven.

My wife's a nurse (nowadays her title is "Assistant Director of Nursing" actually... and I need more digits than I have on my fingers and toes to count the number of times she's caught Doctors screwing up paperwork in ways that would HARM patients... let alone just get it right for insurance or other reasons. Color me skeptical that AME's get everything they send to the FAA right... and again... your AME is capable of pulling that trigger by accident and you get to see if the FAA gun goes off and you're "dead".

There's probably hundreds of thousands of folks in any major city who couldn't hold an FAA medical because they could become suddenly incapacitated at the controls of an aircraft... who're driving on the same roads that you did to go to work today. Again, it's not the self-certification process that's broken so much that it won't fix itself...

Similar to Experimental aircraft and avionics... FAA has made themselves the agency everyone wants to avoid completely, and then gave the loopholes to do it. Kinda weird, really.

Ranted a bit there. Sorry.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ranted a bit there. Sorry.

Well... You're right. The FAA is sometimes so overbearing, for example in medical issues and aircraft certification, that they end up being detrimental to safety. I once spoke with the owner of CubCrafters about the Carbon Cub when they'd first built one seemingly for fun, and asked if they were planning on selling it. "We'll sell you a kit." Um, ever gonna get it certified? "After what we had to go through to get the Top Cub certified, we are never ever going to certify another airplane."

So, the certification process made who safer how again?

I've also seen some examples where there have been some pretty obvious safety improvements that could be made to aircraft, but they weren't made because it would have been too costly to certify them. Ridiculous.

 

[wabower]

In a few more years the big "bubble" of pilots currently on the rolls (most of whom were minted "back in the day") will all be dead. The last estimate I saw was that the pilot population will drop ~50% by 2025. Based on that, I can't find a good reason to predicate any future sales projections based on demand.

Reading some of the medical threads around here I wonder if many people are being pushed to LSAs because they don't want to try for a medical if they have even some small issues in their past. I don't know if this is because the medical process has become stricter or people have become more fearful of it. I remember years ago it seemed like pretty much a given that you could pass an FAA medical as long as you were warm and breathing. There were always those disqualifying conditions like diabetes but it seemed like the attitude was that most people could pass with no problem if they were generally healthy.

If this is the case I can see that LSAs will hold their value better than non-LSAs and that will be the growing segment in the near future.

 

[dmccormack]

The problem is, you're not so much an "aircraft owner" any more as you are a "historic airplane caretaker." That's great for those who choose to do so, and I applaud their efforts, but most aviation newbies simply want to learn how to fly.

Apples and orangutans...

Every owner is a "caretaker" -- the advantage of vintage airplanes are provisions for owner-manufactured parts.

Aviation newbies that "simply want to learn to fly" are renters. If they buy before flight training, they usually have a very specific mission in mind (realistic or not).

 

[Everskyward]

I know that's not REALLY how it works, but that's how it FEELS to a lot of pilots.

My impression is that this is the problem here. It's just like the thought that FAA is going to look through you logbook and find out that you made an addition mistake 10 years ago.

 

[wabower]

At OSH a couple years ago, I asked Jim of True Track Autopilots if he would ever produce a certified unit. He said "**** no. I know how, and we could easily do it, but I'd have to be nuts to spend that much time and money."

Well... You're right. The FAA is sometimes so overbearing, for example in medical issues and aircraft certification, that they end up being detrimental to safety. I once spoke with the owner of CubCrafters about the Carbon Cub when they'd first built one seemingly for fun, and asked if they were planning on selling it. "We'll sell you a kit." Um, ever gonna get it certified? "After what we had to go through to get the Top Cub certified, we are never ever going to certify another airplane."

So, the certification process made who safer how again?

I've also seen some examples where there have been some pretty obvious safety improvements that could be made to aircraft, but they weren't made because it would have been too costly to certify them. Ridiculous.

 

[weilke]

In a few more years the big "bubble" of pilots currently on the rolls (most of whom were minted "back in the day") will all be dead. The last estimate I saw was that the pilot population will drop ~50% by 2025. Based on that, I can't find a good reason to predicate any future sales projections based on demand.

Just as we have a bubble of pilots, we also have a bubble of aircraft that are still on the rolls but will never be market relevant, except maybe for salvage.

Today, I toured a couple hangar developments on some local rural strips. In one hangar that houses 8 aircraft, the door on one side (with 4 aircraft) hadn't been opened in 10 years.

 

[steingar]

Yup. But once those aircraft are no longer commercially viable, the prices on the survivors might actually begin to recover.

 

[weilke]

Yup. But once those aircraft are no longer commercially viable, the prices on the survivors might actually begin to recover.

Recover to what ? The prices of aircraft never dropped.

Almost any 1970s spam-can you buy today has the same retail value it had when it was sold new. The irrational exuberance and artificial market constraints of the 90s have eased and aircraft prices have returned to what you would expect from a transportation asset.

 

[Jim Logajan]

FYI, the situation today in the G.A. fleet and pilot population includes the following:

• The average age of all registered airplanes is ~39 years.
• The average age of all registered single engine piston airplanes having 1 to 3 seats is an astounding ~48 years. (I wonder how much these average ages will decline once the FAA "cleans up" its registration database.)
• The average of all registered single engine piston airplanes having 4 seats is "just" ~38 years.
• The average single engine piston airplane consumes ~13.3 gph of 100LL.
• The average Light Sport aircraft consumes ~5.0 gph of 100LL.
• In 1993 the average age of a student pilot was ~33.7 - but in 2010 that number had declined to ~31.4.
• In December 2010, the 20 to 24 year age group had the most students. with 30,631 out of the total of 119,119 students.
• On the other hand, in 1993 the average age of a private pilot was ~42.7 but by 2010 the average had climbed to ~47.6.

These and many more interesting stats not cited came from here: http://www.gama.aero/media-center/i...ics/statistical-databook-and-industry-outlook

 

[denverpilot]

My airplane co-owned by three of us through an LLC, is 36 years old.

My airplane consumes 13 GPH.

I was a student pilot in my 20's, had to take 8 years off from flying and now I'm almost 40.

I guess I nail the averages, eh?

Now here's some more info. Real stuff.

If it weren't for the Internet, I wouldn't know a single Private Pilot my age who also co-owns an aircraft or owns one outright. I'm a lucky SOB and I know it. Even with $5K in maintenance costs spilt between us so far this year.

I know two people my age who were flying dad's plane or the inheritance.

I know one 20-something who bought a cherry C-150, flew the crap out of it, sold it off with a mid-time strong engine to a guy who's going to yank the wings off, crate it, and ship it to Australia where it'll bring top-dollar. He made $2000 in profit and his logbook has hundreds more hours than before he bought it. He has access to an A&P/AI who's retired and typically charges nothing for his services other than to buy him neat new tools.

I know two who are flying in clubs.

I know three CFIs.

All the rest of my co-workers and friends my age own travel trailers, four-wheelers, pickup trucks or SUVs, and rent or own decent but not flashy houses. (And by "own" I really should say "rent" since all of these things are bought with leverage.)

One has a burning desire to fly but trashed his finances with an ugly divorce and lots of debt. He'll be "back" in his 50s, I reckon.

None of the others have any interest in aviation as a sport/hobby at all. They play video games and watch movies on weekends.

They think I'm weird to want to go to the hangar, change airplane oil, scrub the belly, and run around the patch or to an awful airport diner/restaurant for "greasy spoon" food.

I duuno how to fix any of the above. I'm really thinking hard about it all the time, too. With big fences around all the airports it's hard to say, throw a BBQ and hang out at the hangar. We're going to try anyway but it's likely to be a logistics PITA.

These folks have money but zero interest. What changes that? I wanted to fly as a little kid. I have no experience to draw from of how someone "sucked me in"... I sucked myself in. Hmmm.