Solution to GA dying?

I think that summed up much more clearly, and concisely what I was trying to say previously, but my perspective different as I am much older than you. I feel like the world has passed GA by. Our culture has changed so much that it is one of those things that people aren't willing to do anymore.
I'm older than you and I don't think the culture has changed that much, especially with respect to GA. As Wayne mentioned, flying has always been relatively expensive. As he also mentioned, I came from a much bigger graduating class (800) and I don't know anyone who became a pilot either, not that I know that many people from HS any more. I'm sure I didn't know any pilots at all before I started taking lessons. It's always been one of those unusual things.
 
You may be right Mari, but I grew up in the Wonder Bread years, well actually a bit after that in the turbulent 60's, but my neighborhood was like Leave it to Beaver.

People didn't seem to recoil at the thought of personal flying like they do now, and I don't remember all the sensationalism around small plane "crashes". My uncle had a plane and family and friends thought nothing about going up with him. It was kind of normal. I just don't get that feeling today.
 
You may be right Mari, but I grew up in the Wonder Bread years, well actually a bit after that in the turbulent 60's, but my neighborhood was like Leave it to Beaver.
Maybe we are about the same age then. :rofl:

People didn't seem to recoil at the thought of personal flying like they do now, and I don't remember all the sensationalism around small plane "crashes". My uncle had a plane and family and friends thought nothing about going up with him. It was kind of normal. I just don't get that feeling today.
I don't notice that people recoil from personal flying, at least not any more now than they did then. People have always acted either surprised or puzzled when I mention I am a pilot. I can't remember anyone lecturing me about it being dangerous, though, either now or in what they might have thought was my misguided youth.
 
Several thoughts:
1. GA IS expensive, right out of the gate, and the training takes a big commitment of time AND money. Many people think they can't afford it, ignoring the fact that they can afford all sorts of things that are as expensive as flying lessons- cruises, vacation condos, nice new luxury car with all bells and whistles, golf, boat, club memberships, handsome clothes, the latest and greatest computer/phone/video gadgetry. Individually they may not cost as much, but they do add up to a lot of money over the course of a year. Life's all about choices, but people forget that they can choose to drive a clunker, have less fancy logos on their shirts, stop at one beer, eat out less often, make do with a smaller TV, less cable... (insert your favorite economy here.)
2. GA is dangerous, and pilots are irresponsible lunatics. What, don't you even read your daily paper, or tune in the evening news? I explain to people my view- that with good training and good maintenance, regular brush-ups, and conservative decisions, it doesn't feel all that dangerous. And besides, there are fewer drunks texting on their cell phones, disciplining their kids, fighting with their spouses, and hurtling toward me at a closure rate of 140 mph up there in the sky.
3. We need a much harder look at our training syllabi and CFI standards. Too many people get discouraged by the haphazard lesson plans, the difficulty of scheduling both aircraft and instructor to fly on a regular basis, the sometimes scarily shoddy maintenance, and the boring routines, unrelieved by fun- like landings at unfamiliar airports, $100 burgers after an hour of airwork, flying in suboptimal weather to learn how to deal with it.
4. What the nonflying public is missing most of all is what GA sold so effectively in the '50s and '60s- FREEDOM! Glorious slipping of surly bonds, and all that, was a real attainable goal, and aircraft manufacturers, tv series, movies, airshows, and more, really made it feel as if there was something wonderful up there they realistically could be a part of. I've seen the old magazine ads in family publications showing mom, dad, Junior and Suzie all walking from their family Cessna as casually as from their Ford station wagon. where are those ads now? They sold more than Cessnas. They sold a dream, an attainable goal.

We could sell that concept today- it's still true. Yes, we have more complex airspace, but I can still hop in my Mooney tomorrow morning on the east coast, and be more than halfway to the Pacific Ocean before dark, without saying a word to anybody. On the other hand, I have complete coverage, coast to coast, of competent people on the ground whose job it is to look out for me. Even in my 31-year old airplane, my weather information and navigational devices are unimaginably far ahead of what we had in the 60s. My shoes stay on my feet unless I'd rather fly barefoot, my bags arrive when I do, with whatever size shampoo I want to bring, I can stop just about anywhere I like, or take an extra turn around a famous landmark for a closer look, I can jump in my bird and go see my grandkids tomorrow morning, just because I want to. And I always have a window seat.
Why aren't we selling that?

It's great to introduce kids to airplanes- there's hardly anything more fun than seeing the look of wonder on a kid's face, her excited boast that SHE flew the airplane all by herself- except for her feet, but I'm not convinced that thrill brings many teenagers to a flight school.
We really need to do a better job of selling the dream, the practicality of flexible transportation, and the freedom offered by GA to adults, people who have the time, the money, and most of all, the motivation to make the time to get through the training in a practical and organized fashion. They're out there. We just need to reach them.

Amen to that.


I have a very limited point of view on this topic since I'm likely the youngest person in this thread. However, I have a hard time believing that my generation is all that different from all of yours. There are some people who are completely passionate about some things, there are people who have a passing interest in most things, and then there are people who are just... grey. They have no passion, nothing turns them on, they don't really see the point of flying/scuba diving/motorcycle racing, whatever. I don't believe that there are more kids in my generation who are of that last type than there were in yours. I think the primary difference is that there are definitely more ways to escape reality in my generation and it's SO much easier to sit down and play XBox than it is to go outside and stare at the night sky or look up at airplanes or to go to a museum. I would say that we should make video games illegal, but I don't really believe that and anyway it would be impossible. But parents have to do a better job of throwing their kids outside and forcing them to realize that there is a real world full of awesome outside of the TV (Calvin and Hobbes, anyone?).

I'm also not really sure about where this idea that everyone is terrified of small aircraft crashes come from. Sure I heard a little about it growing up, but when I tell people that I am about to start flight training, I get mostly excited faces. Only one co-worker and my mom are un-enthusiastic about me flying. Everyone else ranged from confusion to excitement (can you take me up when you get your license?). In fact, I get a far, FAR more negative and freaked out reaction when I tell people that I play rugby than that I'm going to fly an airplane.
 
In the 1990's we drove around to the other schools in the area. We discovered that they were arrogant, unfriendly, and had dirty broken down looking airplanes.

We decided that this could be done better, and started a new school. We did barbecues on Saturday mornings, sponsored an aviation Explorers post, had clean planes that were well maintained... and our school was very successful. Three nearby flight school closed down within our first year, apparently because we were doing something right.

I tried to market our flight school to the general public, only to waste a lot of money. We discovered it was difficult to get people off the sofa, away from the TV, and actually live their life. It was much more effective to send postcards to existing pilots to "steal" them from other schools/FBO's.

Eventually I sold the school, and moved back into my regular IT career.

Fast forward to 2011... I was laid off from my IT job, and apparently have too many gray hairs to be hired by Corporate America again. So I'm trying to start a smaller flight training program. Sure, it's the worst recession since the great depression. And I'm heading into winter in frigid Minnesota. But I need a challenge, right? So I bought a like-new Beechcraft Skipper... attractive, roomy and economical. And it's in a heated hangar.

From prior experience I mailed postcards to all pilots in the area. So far that has accomplished little, although there must be some value in general awareness. Pilots will know of someone who wants to learn how to fly.

Then I set up monthly FAASTeam seminars. Only existing pilots attend, but again they may know of someone who wants to learn to fly.

Then last week I ran a Groupon. I couldn't think of another way to reach 900,000 people in the metro area at zero up-front cost. In 5 hours they sold 100 vouchers for a first flight lesson at $73 each. I also received phone calls and emails from people who missed the "deal". After the Groupon fee, this will only pay for the gas for each flight. But 100 new people will get a taste of aviation. Of course I'm hoping some of them turn into students.

That's my story... we will see if a really nice plane, in a heated hangar, that is (relatively) heavily marketed, can generate any interest in learning to fly. Your ideas on how to make this "fly" are appreciated!

See www.AlphaZuluLLC.com
 
Last edited:
I think we need to be better representatives of GA by not being idiots and ending up in the paper or in someone's back yard. Every person I talk to about flying that doesn't have experience with small airplanes immediately defaults to "isn't it dangerous?". Once you debunk that, they ask the cost and look at you like you've lost your marbles when you explain how much it takes to make a trip in rental aircraft.

Then there are the rental rates and requirements. I know this isn't the fault of the flight schools, but $120/hr for a 172? I'd have an easier time justifying that if it meant I could upgrade to other aircraft shortly after with relative ease, but anything more complicated is going to end up being over $200/hr and having insane insurance requirements like having 50 hours IN TYPE. How are you supposed to tell someone flying can be useful for travel when to make a trip in a reasonably capable aircraft you have to spend over $10k on getting trained in those complex airplanes. Don't even get me started in the requirements on twins.

I realize pricing varies from area to area, living in Atlanta definitely doesn't make it any better, but I've met no less than a dozen people who have told me they'd fly if it weren't for the cost. I can also name several who had to quit for the same reason. It's unfortunate, but the average person can't afford to fly as a means of transportation.

I usually explain that ownership has been really good to me and that the expense is easier to eat owning your own aircraft, not to mention we fly our 182 at about 1/3rd the hourly cost of the local flight school. I also explain that being in a partnership has made it even more reasonable and practical for us to use. I then explain how the cost differs from rental aircraft and how the buy-in worked for me, at which point their "you've lost your mind" expression kindof dissipates, either out of boredom or because all of a sudden it seems more reasonable, even with more complex aircraft like a Bo.

No one has mentioned that a new piston single that meets the *capabilities* of the 35 year old aircraft (sorry LSA fans!) costs more than my house.

It still baffles me that Cessna, Piper, et al can get away with charging over $250k for a trainer (eg 172). There is no way I'd ever pay that much for an airplane that can barely carry 4 people and flies at 120 knots. I find it absolutely absurd.

I realize it's probably not their fault and that is probably what it takes to produce an aircraft in this era, but I just don't understand how they can offer that with a straight face. The TTx baffles me as well, a $750k 4 place piston single? I about fell out of my chair when I saw what they were asking for that airplane.
 
Last edited:
Someone posted that costs are similar today to the past... About a day's pay for an hour in the air.

I found that measurement fascinating since it removes the monetary value that's based on a system that requires inflation and "growth" to continue lending at 9:1 on deposits.

The more sobering thought is to remove older aircraft from that estimate. If one had to rent/buy something 10 years old or less, the number of days of work per flight hour would jump by about a factor of two. Double the price if there weren't a sturdy fleet of 35 year old aircraft still kicking around.

When that fleet disappears to attrition as maintenave costs rise on them, or they sit parked without a rebuilt engine for too long, that will be the monetary cliff GA will fall off of, I believe. It's a while away still, since the 35 year old birds can still econically be maintained.

When the boom years 1970s fleet gets too old and busted to maintain, look out. There won't be as many 80s and 90s birds to choose from.

I doubt too many of the 00's and 10's new LSAs will make it much past 30 years. Not built well enough. We might be witnessing the beginning of the move on the small inexpensive entry aircraft being much more "throwaway" than the 70s fleet.

Of course if new pilot starts and retention continue to fall, it won't matter. Demand dropping off as the fleet ages seems to naturally even things out.
 
When that fleet disappears to attrition as maintenave costs rise on them, or they sit parked without a rebuilt engine for too long, that will be the monetary cliff GA will fall off of, I believe. It's a while away still, since the 35 year old birds can still economically be maintained.

When the boom years 1970s fleet gets too old and busted to maintain, look out. There won't be as many 80s and 90s birds to choose from.



This is a sobering thought. My Tiger's 33 year old airframe is relatively low time, and it is in great shape, and well maintained. Many 30 - 40 year old aircraft are not well maintained, and as owners realize that they'll have to dump $25K - $30K into an engine and/or firewall forward rehab, then that may be the tipping point. This is close to today's value for many of these older aircraft. Add the cost for avionics upgrades to be actually use the IFR system well, the numbers are just way upside down.

Experimental aircraft may be the only gig remaining. I wonder if Lycoming will ever make a non-certified engine specifically for the experimental market? I also wonder what the reduction in cost to acquire that engine would be.. What about an unleaded fuel, non-certified aircraft engine, virtually identical to a certified engine?
 
Last edited:
The last few posts got me thinking:

Can a certificated plane become an experimental, thereby alleviating it from the restrictions (and thus capabilites) of certificated aircraft? This seems like it could be an attractive option for a lot of people.
 
In the 1990's we drove around to the other schools in the area. We discovered that they were arrogant, unfriendly, and had dirty broken down looking airplanes.

We decided that this could be done better, and started a new school. We did barbecues on Saturday mornings, sponsored an aviation Explorers post, had clean planes that were well maintained... and our school was very successful. Three nearby flight school closed down within our first year, apparently because we were doing something right.

You pretty much described the first airport school I went to, only I didn't know any better at the time. The airplanes were in crappy condition, the lessons were haphazard and unstructured, lessons were repeated (wasting money), the instructor dragged everything out as long as possible to make as much money as possible. When I soloed, the instructor changed the frequency on the radio to see if I would notice. I don't like people trying to trick me, but that's how they were. I ended up hating that place, I have nothing nice to say about that airport and the money-grubbing people.

So I moved to another airport farther away. I now drive 45 minutes to a much nicer airport and school. I would much rather spend money on a really good CFII with nice well-maintained airplanes. The instructor I have now is so much better than the one I had for my private, I'm kicking myself I didn't find him first. I really wish I hadn't wasted so much money at the other airport. The instructor I go to now appears to be successful, and he is poaching students/renters from other airports. I know at least one other person from my old airport who also ended up where I am now.

So good for you!
 
Last edited:
The last few posts got me thinking:

Can a certificated plane become an experimental, thereby alleviating it from the restrictions (and thus capabilites) of certificated aircraft? This seems like it could be an attractive option for a lot of people.

Not really. There are exceptions, but, in general, it would not be worth the trip.
 
The airplanes were in crappy condition, the lessons were haphazard and unstructured, lessons were repeated (wasting money), the instructor dragged everything out as long as possible to make as much money as possible. When I soloed, the instructor changed the frequency on the radio to see if I would notice. I don't like people trying to trick me, but that's how they were. I ended up hating that place, I have nothing nice to say about that airport and the money-grubbing people.

Wow -- that is so dumb on so many levels.

:mad2:

My first flight training experience was at a 141 school connected to Mercer County Community College near Trenton, NJ in 1980. While the ground school was structured, flight ops were a mess. I had no idea who I'd be flying with, scheduling was accomplished on a calendar at the airport (which means you had to drive over, check the time slots, sign up, then hope weather was VFR and an instructor showed up).

My instructor was an arrogant a## who "demonstrated" as I observed. On short final he reached across the C152 and opened my door for "more drag" so we could make the 4000' runway.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Thanks Dan.

However, I'm really thinking non-certified, unleaded fuel versions of the O-320, O-360, O-540, etc. Something that could be installed less expensively in a Van's RV-7, 8, 10, or similar that would give certified aircraft type performance or even BETTER performance more economically.

There is no prohibition against installing a "certified" engine in an experimental. After all, if you want an IO-470 to drive your milkhouse pump, who cares?

:dunno:

Anyway, I'm sure the RV folks will storm onto the thread to let you know all about it...

:rolleyes:
 
There is no prohibition against installing a "certified" engine in an experimental. After all, if you want an IO-470 to drive your milkhouse pump, who cares?

:dunno:

Anyway, I'm sure the RV folks will storm onto the thread to let you know all about it...

:rolleyes:


I guess I didn't make my point well. We're lookign to lower cost of GA, right? How about a non-certified Lycoming made just for the Experimental market? I am wondering what that would sell for.
 
I guess I didn't make my point well. We're lookign to lower cost of GA, right? How about a non-certified Lycoming made just for the Experimental market? I am wondering what that would sell for.

Oh!

But isn't that the Rotax niche?

Even VW engines are driving Pietenpols, so I don't think it's engine cost, per se. More like engines with good reputation and solid engineering at a low cost -- tough combination.

:(
 
The last few posts got me thinking:

Can a certificated plane become an experimental, thereby alleviating it from the restrictions (and thus capabilites) of certificated aircraft? This seems like it could be an attractive option for a lot of people.

I think Canada has done something along those lines with owner mx. Don't know if there's enough data to draw any conclusions.
 
I guess I didn't make my point well. We're lookign to lower cost of GA, right? How about a non-certified Lycoming made just for the Experimental market? I am wondering what that would sell for.

Lycoming does make non-certified engines for experimentals and Van's Aircraft sells them for a few thousand less than the certified counterparts:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1321897449-390-723&browse=engines&product=lycoming2

The certified equivalents:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1321897449-390-723&browse=engines&product=lycoming
 
Thanks Jim.

A few thousand is a little dissapointing though.
 
It coIt costs 45k to make an air cooled, carburated, mag ignition'd engine?

I can get you a 2,500hp promod engine for that much.

Prices are 90 percent of the GA issue.
 
Back
Top