The problem with general aviation

[denverpilot]

YOLO. Future time orientation got you where you are, it also delays joy. Sometimes forever.

Heh.

Or I experience more joy with the $10K in the savings account right now, knowing that it equates to having the option to decide where to best spend it.

You just never know. I might like money more than I like magenta lines.

(Or I really liked when the DME was working and was using the iPad as a much less expensive solution to the situational awareness problem. I know the -- somewhat contrived -- limitations acutely, but man is Foreflight good stuff! It'd take one heck of an expensive IFR GPS to match it feature for feature, if it even exists.)

 

[somorris]

you won't fly a 4 banger 4 seater spam can any amount of time most anywhere in the US for $5,000/year all in.

Just so you know, all the figures you quoted are more than we are paying. I guess it depends on where you live and what you fly.

 

[somorris]

Cessna 150:
$3.84/gal x 5 GPH x 100 hours = $1,900 in fuel (Autogas STC)
Insurance (if you get it, we're talking about a 150!): $750
Annual: $500
Tiedown: $650
--------------------
$3,820

Tie down at our airport is only $420/yr (which, by the way, I still think is a little much), and we pay less than that for insurance and my last annual was a little less ($450 -- last month). I know a LOT of people spend a lot more. To each his own.

 

[douglas393]

I find these discussions about the problems with general aviation sort of interesting. I agree with the sentiment that a component of what holds back general aviation is money, but I think it is really not as much a component as we all think. A number of posts quite rightly pointed out that for many of us(me included) you could do the vast majority of your flying with a older Cessna, or Piper, at a fraction of the cost of what many of us fly now(such as my TAA 182). So cost is not the whole problem.

I think to answer the question as what is wrong with general aviation and why it seems to "dying" we have to look at some other activity that encounters the same issues as general aviation but does not appear to be in its dying years and figure out what the difference is. I propose recreational boating as that activity.

To me the similarities between the activities are quite similar, with a few exceptions. By no means is boating cheap. Boaters pay similar prices for fuel, maintenance, and even storage. Insurance prices are similar or higher(in fact my 35 foot Tiara which is probably less valuable than my plane costs me over two times the amount for insurance). The personality bell curve I would suggest is similar as well. There are certainly a lot more things you can do from a boat, such as fishing, diving, swimming, travel, or just going out for a fun day on the water, but the ability of a plane to get you places much faster is a thing boating will never have. Fishing is the boating equivalent of the 100 dollar hamburger; diving or swimming could be acrobatics, formation flying, etc,; and how many of us have gone flying just because being in the air and looking at the sites is just plain fun. Yet there are many more boaters in the country than pilots, and in my boating magazines I never see articles about the death of boating like I do in my aviation magazines.

So what is the difference. In my mind there are three major differences:
1. Government Regulation- the FAA controls flying to such an extent that is not seen in boating. The number of ways you can find your self in regulatory trouble with boating is probably less than 1% of those that occur with boating. The consequences are even less.
2. Training- when I bought my first motor boat(a 28 foot Larson) I was given the keys and was on my way. Well not really, the salesman took me for a ride on the boat, and spent about an hour teaching me basically everything I needed to know. Now I did have some sailing experience and took the three hour coast guard course(though that may have been afterwards) but that was about it. Flying, even to get a sport certification requires quite a bit more training.
3. Proficiency- this I think is the biggest hurdle. The first two are fairly easy to deal with, but if I do not boat for a few months, I may be a little rusty but usually not even that. If I do not fly for a few weeks, I see clear though minimal degradation in my ability. Not so bad I am unsafe or would be noticeable to anyone except for possibly me, I am just not as smooth. I have never gone more than two weeks without flying since starting my training in March 2010, so I am still a low time, low experience flyer, but at this point(with almost 500 hrs) I may not have the same number of hours as boating(probably over my life time 1500-2000 hrs) but then again that is over decades as opposed to three years. Even the FAA recognizes this with its currency requirements. This is where I think the problem lies, where as boating is a hobby that does not control your life, flying is a hobby which may not control your life but certainly requires a much higher level of dedication, and responsibility... two traits that in this world that are becoming rarer.

 

[somorris]

Thanks, Douglass. Very good comparison.

 

[wabower]

Douglas, how much difference do you perceive in both opportunity and complexity in planning and executing a weekend at the lake (say 5-6 hours in the boat) vs. the equivalent use of the plane? How do you view the limitations of each? What is your family's attitude about the two activities?

 

[ClimbnSink]

The problem with GA? Chicks dig boats. Get hot young women to the airport(for any reason) and men with money will be right behind. Disclaimer wrinkled old lady pilots preaching girl power doesn't count and is in fact counterproductive.

 

[douglas393]

Douglas, how much difference do you perceive in both opportunity and complexity in planning and executing a weekend at the lake (say 5-6 hours in the boat) vs. the equivalent use of the plane? How do you view the limitations of each? What is your family's attitude about the two activities?

I do my boating in the Gulf or previously in the Atlantic so cannot consider lake boating from recent experience. As for the opportunity for boating and flying, and executing the said trip, the amount of time spent is for planning and preparation is probably less for flying but is different in what is done. When I plan a day trip with the plane, I check the weather the night before(computer when I file my plan) and right before I leave to go to the airport(about a 10 minute drive from home). I drive to the airport. Get the plane out of the hangar, do a preflight, wait for opening my flight plan if IFR, taxi to the runway, and take off when cleared. About 30 minutes or less of prep and travel to the airport, and another 30 for the preflight, and taxi to take off. Boating I check the weather the night before, and before I go out(usually the forecast on the weather channel, or local news. For a 2 or more hour boating trip I need supplies(food, drink, and ice). So there is the trip to the grocery store. Then I have to get the boat in the water...I am lucky it is on a lift in the backyard, check the boat out(abbreviated preflight), get everyone on board, and off we go. As for my family I am about as likely to get my family boating with me as flying.

Now if I did not have my boat in the backyard, then the preparation for boating is probably a lot more time intensive. Still need the food and supplies, but in addition, now you have to trailer the boat, get the boat off the trailer, park the car, walk back to the boat, etc.

To tell you the truth, for me, spending 3 hours on my boat is A LOT more work, then spending 3 hours on my plane. Also after flying, I spend at most 15 minutes getting the plane into the hangar, and cleaning it, whereas boating is typically over an hour, between get the gear off the boat, cleaning the boat, and putting the canvasses, etc back. Fueling the boat is much more time intensive than fueling the plane. My boat burns about the same amount or a little more fuel an hour than my plane, but then again my boat is 25000 lbs doing 25 to 30 knots, and my plane is 3000 lbs doing 130+ kts.

So for me boating tends to be a lot more work than flying.

 

[wabower]

Which boat did you use for your 400+ nm trips last year? Did you ask the chicks about which one to buy?

The problem with GA? Chicks dig boats. Get hot young women to the airport(for any reason) and men with money will be right behind. Disclaimer wrinkled old lady pilots preaching girl power doesn't count and is in fact counterproductive.

 

[ClimbnSink]

How many hot young chicks did you have spending the weekend on your 180?

 

[douglas393]

How many hot young chicks did you have spending the weekend on your 180?

The same number that spend the weekend on my boat.

 

[PilotAlan]

1. Government Regulation- the FAA controls flying to such an extent that is not seen in boating. The number of ways you can find your self in regulatory trouble with boating is probably less than 1% of those that occur with boating. The consequences are even less.

To quote someone here a while back:
The only hobby that could be more regulated than aviation would be if you were building nuclear reactors in your basement.

 

[Henning]

I'll take the 56' Vette over the plastic batmobile any day.

Just get your checkbook out for modern day General Aviation.

The 56 Vette was plastic too. Me, I want an 82 Vette.

 

[Henning]

Douglas, how much difference do you perceive in both opportunity and complexity in planning and executing a weekend at the lake (say 5-6 hours in the boat) vs. the equivalent use of the plane? How do you view the limitations of each? What is your family's attitude about the two activities?

Equivalent plane use to boating on the lake is flying in the pattern. How much complexity in planning is that? Lets make it a 1300 mile trip down the east coast. The complexity and planning, especially if one is going to take the inside route down the ICW is considerably higher than that of flying, as is the risk that expensive damage will occur.

 

[Dav8or]

The problem with GA is that people have talked about the problem for decades and no one has come up with a solution.

 

[wabower]

Say again which boat?

How many hot young chicks did you have spending the weekend on your 180?

 

[douglas393]

Equivalent plane use to boating on the lake is flying in the pattern. How much complexity in planning is that? Lets make it a 1300 mile trip down the east coast. The complexity and planning, especially if one is going to take the inside route down the ICW is considerably higher than that of flying, as is the risk that expensive damage will occur.

That is definitely true, but a 1300 trip down the intercostal system, or even close to shore is not equivalent to what most of us do with flying. That trip for most boaters would entail at least a week or more of boating, with multiple charts, multiple overnights, and a huge amount of planning and preparation. I think your analogy of flying in the pattern to lake boating is too over-simplified, and for some lakes(the great lakes for example) does not even come close. I think it would be more analogous to flying your plane between two airports on a short cross country in terrain you are familiar with. I still think that I spend more time and energy supporting a 3 hour boating trip than I do a 3 hour plane flight.

 

[douglas393]

The problem with GA is that people have talked about the problem for decades and no one has come up with a solution.

Has anyone clearly defined what the problem or main problems are? For example is the problem over regulation. Or is it the decline in the pilot population? Or is it the increasing age of the pilot population? Or is it the expense of flying? Or is it the decline of the aviation industry? Or is it the AV Gas issue? Or is it the loss of airports to urban sprawl? Or is it the GA accident rate? Or is it the general apathy or outright opposition of the public to GA? Or is it the most of the organizations supporting general aviation are as my dad likes to say about as useful as teats on a bull? Or is it... You get my idea.

I think we need to define the problem succinctly first, and the define what has caused the problem, and only then solutions can be worked out. As it is now there are so many "problems" that GA faces, no single solution is every going to fix it.

 

[JHW]

More fundamentally, why assume there is a 'problem' at all that must be fixed? I don't see a 'problem' per se, what I see is changing demographics. While this might be perceived by the old guard as a 'problem' it could simply be a normal thing. Very likely it was the roaring sales of the 60-70's that were 'abnormal' if anything was.

Has anyone clearly defined what the problem or main problems are? For example is the problem over regulation. Or is it the decline in the pilot population? Or is it the increasing age of the pilot population? Or is it the expense of flying? Or is it the decline of the aviation industry? Or is it the AV Gas issue? Or is it the loss of airports to urban sprawl? Or is it the GA accident rate? Or is it the general apathy or outright opposition of the public to GA? Or is it the most of the organizations supporting general aviation are as my dad likes to say about as useful as teats on a bull? Or is it... You get my idea.

I think we need to define the problem succinctly first, and the define what has caused the problem, and only then solutions can be worked out. As it is now there are so many "problems" that GA faces, no single solution is every going to fix it.

 

[Henning]

That is definitely true, but a 1300 trip down the intercostal system, or even close to shore is not equivalent to what most of us do with flying. That trip for most boaters would entail at least a week or more of boating, with multiple charts, multiple overnights, and a huge amount of planning and preparation. I think your analogy of flying in the pattern to lake boating is too over-simplified, and for some lakes(the great lakes for example) does not even come close. I think it would be more analogous to flying your plane between two airports on a short cross country in terrain you are familiar with. I still think that I spend more time and energy supporting a 3 hour boating trip than I do a 3 hour plane flight.

Wayne boats on lakes in TX, ever boated on a lake in TX? Even there though the lake probably holds more hazards than flying a nearby XC. Great Lakes are a different story.

 

[Henning]

Has anyone clearly defined what the problem or main problems are? For example is the problem over regulation. Or is it the decline in the pilot population? Or is it the increasing age of the pilot population? Or is it the expense of flying? Or is it the decline of the aviation industry? Or is it the AV Gas issue? Or is it the loss of airports to urban sprawl? Or is it the GA accident rate? Or is it the general apathy or outright opposition of the public to GA? Or is it the most of the organizations supporting general aviation are as my dad likes to say about as useful as teats on a bull? Or is it... You get my idea.

I think we need to define the problem succinctly first, and the define what has caused the problem, and only then solutions can be worked out. As it is now there are so many "problems" that GA faces, no single solution is every going to fix it.

Personally I'd say it's the very limited usefulness of GA combined with the inordinately high expenses involved which just keep continuing to mount even at ones destination; rental cars, hotels.... The only way GA pans out to most people is as a time machine, and for that to work one needs to have a use for the plane where the value of the time saved is greater than the value of the costs incurred. Outside of that GA is relegated to those people who just love to fly, and they are few.

 

[jhausch]

The ICW trip is not that difficult. There are enough cruising guides that all you really need is the boat, the time, a cellphone and the money. Preferably your time and someone else's boat and money. The phone could go either way.

 

[Dav8or]

Personally I'd say it's the very limited usefulness of GA combined with the inordinately high expenses involved which just keep continuing to mount even at ones destination; rental cars, hotels.... The only way GA pans out to most people is as a time machine, and for that to work one needs to have a use for the plane where the value of the time saved is greater than the value of the costs incurred. Outside of that GA is relegated to those people who just love to fly, and they are few.

There it is in a nutshell. Ridiculous time and money commitment -> limited utility. Combined with liability and increasing regulation, prospective pilots have become greater educated as to the reality of private airplane ownership and have elected not to. Those that really want to fly (like me) do so in spite of better judgement.

 

[LJS1993]

There it is in a nutshell. Ridiculous time and money commitment -> limited utility. Combined with liability and increasing regulation, prospective pilots have become greater educated as to the reality of private airplane ownership and have elected not to. Those that really want to fly (like me) do so in spite of better judgement.

What would add to the utility aspect of flying? Cheaper fuel prices? Less regulation?

 

[ClimbnSink]

What would add to the utility aspect of flying? Cheaper fuel prices? Less regulation?

Drive to a podunk airport near one of your favorite places. Have a friend drive your car away leaving you at the podunk airport with let's say 75 lbs max in bags. Now have fun.

 

[LJS1993]

Drive to a podunk airport near one of your favorite places. Have a friend drive your car away leaving you at the podunk airport with let's say 75 lbs max in bags. Now have fun.

I see what you mean.

 

[douglas393]

More fundamentally, why assume there is a 'problem' at all that must be fixed? I don't see a 'problem' per se, what I see is changing demographics. While this might be perceived by the old guard as a 'problem' it could simply be a normal thing. Very likely it was the roaring sales of the 60-70's that were 'abnormal' if anything was.

And here lies the crux, we as pilots cannot even agree as to whether a problem even exists, much less if it exist what it is or what they are?

 

[Alexb2000]

Here's one problem that kills the utility of GA in my mind. I just came back from KABQ (Albuquerque) where I dropped off passengers. I was there about 10 mins. Pay a $40 ramp fee or pay $7.30 for gas, 15 gal. minimum. So I paid $122 for 15 gallons. It took about 1.5 hours there and back to Taos. I probably burned 24 gallons total. I went down and picked them up last week, so I flew about 3 hours total and saved them about 5 hours of driving (2.5 each way). However, they could have rented a car for the weekend for less than the gas I used on one of the trips and driven themselves up and back. As long as pistons are lumped in with G-V's in terms of airport impact then potential new pilots won't see the value.

Making it easy for GA to link passengers into the airline system would be a great improvement IMO. Why can't a pilot that lives in a remote area fly to a major airport, park near the terminal, leave his/her bird and get on an airliner, without being charged crazy fees or subjected to the same security as the general public? That would sure add a lot of options for business commuters.

 

[douglas393]

There it is in a nutshell. Ridiculous time and money commitment -> limited utility. Combined with liability and increasing regulation, prospective pilots have become greater educated as to the reality of private airplane ownership and have elected not to. Those that really want to fly (like me) do so in spite of better judgement.

I think we can all agree that flying is not for everyone. However, there are other expensive activities with similar commitments in terms of time, the biggest one I think is boating, that do not seem to have the "problems" that flying does. So what is the disconnect.

As for the "insanity" of flying, I think it is because of my better judgment that I fly.

 

[Dav8or]

What would add to the utility aspect of flying? Cheaper fuel prices? Less regulation?

Sure that would help, but IMO, greater use of technology is in order. If you want to sell more airplanes and create more pilots, you need to make flying easier and more accessible to the non flying public. This idea of course makes "real" pilots bristle at the thought.

Things that in a perfect world could be done now with current technology-

Engines that start and are managed just like in your car, or boat. Meaning, there is no engine management at all to deal with.

Fully coupled auto pilots with flight directors as standard equipment.

A revamp of the entire IFR system so that IFR flying and night flying become as safe and easy as daytime flying. The Instrument rating shouldn't have to be a rating at all, rather just another PPL endorsement. This possible, but I won't bother typing how it could be done because very few "real" pilots believe in it.

Safety systems like airbags and airframe parachutes as well as autopilot stall recovery.

In the not too distant future I would expect electric propulsion to also boost GA. After all, it's always the power plants that drive new airplane design.

Would this future airplane be ridiculously expensive? Yes it would. Will this airplane and by extension, this new way of flying become reality? I seriously doubt it. Is there hope for an expanding and more vibrant GA future? Nearly none.

There you have it. Carry on and keep calm as we continue the sink.

 

[LJS1993]

Sure that would help, but IMO, greater use of technology is in order. If you want to sell more airplanes and create more pilots, you need to make flying easier and more accessible to the non flying public. This idea of course makes "real" pilots bristle at the thought.

Things that in a perfect world could be done now with current technology-

Engines that start and are managed just like in your car, or boat. Meaning, there is no engine management at all to deal with.

Fully coupled auto pilots with flight directors as standard equipment.

A revamp of the entire IFR system so that IFR flying and night flying become as safe and easy as daytime flying. The Instrument rating shouldn't have to be a rating at all, rather just another PPL endorsement. This possible, but I won't bother typing how it could be done because very few "real" pilots believe in it.

Safety systems like airbags and airframe parachutes as well as autopilot stall recovery.

In the not too distant future I would expect electric propulsion to also boost GA. After all, it's always the power plants that drive new airplane design.

Would this future airplane be ridiculously expensive? Yes it would. Will this airplane and by extension, this new way of flying become reality? I seriously doubt it. Is there hope for an expanding and more vibrant GA future? Nearly none.

There you have it. Carry on and keep calm as we continue the sink.

Excellent points about what could be done and about the bristling by the old guard of pilots. For example the guys who have the money and go with the Cirrus are looked upon as "flyers" and not true aviators because they choose to fly something with a chute and more of a car type interior. I personally believe general aviation, as you stated, would soar if the planes were of better technology and a bit more affordable. However better tech and more affordable just doesn't seem logical now does it?

 

[denverpilot]

What would add to the utility aspect of flying? Cheaper fuel prices? Less regulation?

Well not letting a lawyer suddenly decide that the private transport of business-reimbursed multiple person flights would be a start.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Wayne boats on lakes in TX, ever boated on a lake in TX? Even there though the lake probably holds more hazards than flying a nearby XC. Great Lakes are a different story.

Having grown up on the western shores of Lake Michigan, and now living on an island off the Texas Gulf coast, I can say with authority that Texas has ponds, not lakes.

 

[mnewb1]

Rockin on the big lake, Michigan

 

[Henning]

The ICW trip is not that difficult. There are enough cruising guides that all you really need is the boat, the time, a cellphone and the money. Preferably your time and someone else's boat and money. The phone could go either way.

I can tell you 2 places where you'll go aground in N Carolina inside the channel lol. I tow people off almost every time through.

 

[Henning]

What would add to the utility aspect of flying? Cheaper fuel prices? Less regulation?

The ability to TO&L at your destination, not an airport 20 miles away. Basically it would take VTOL aircraft.