Van's Article On The Future Of General Aviation

No revelations here. Get kids involved. Form flying clubs like Europe and build more kits. Nice enough piece about kids, fish and ponds and then in the last third it's just a promo piece for his company. IMO, if you're going to editorialize your opinion on GA's future, don't turn it into sales pitch for your product. It's a little cheesy.

On this idea of getting kids to the airport and get them flying, at my home field of Byron, the Patriots Jet team is based. Randy, the owner is a big GA booster and has started a sort of hands on school for kids to come in from the community and learn about flying and airplanes. They get to learn about all things aviation, from piloting, to mechanics, design and aerodynamic principles and even air traffic control. He's spending a lot of money on this.

He has classes where the kids get to learn how to make airplane parts and I asked him, why not just have them build a kit, or restore a vintage plane? His response was that he would love to do that, but the insurance and liability on the finished plane would be crushing and not workable for his operation, so the kids continue to build parts that go nowhere. I guess Van found a way around these problems.

Anyhow, I think the program is successful so far. Tuesday's and Wednesday's are the days when they work and the kids learn and yesterday afternoon I had to deviate as I taxied to the runway because there was a large gaggle of kids trouping across the ramp, probably 30-40 kids going from Randy's shiny new jet hangar to the old maintenance hangar on some sort of tour. Kind of neat to see all the kids show up.

By the way, if people are interested, they accept volunteers to help out with the annuals on their L-39s. They have 7 of them and it takes about 6 months to get them all done, after hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Also the hangar is almost always open and they don't mind people showing up and showing off all the toys. Not just L-39s and Mig 17s, all kinds of planes in there.

People are trying get more 1st generation pilots started and it just a shame that more build a plane programs couldn't get started. Maybe the EAA and AOPA could devise a way to have some sort insurance plan, or way to deflect liability away from sponsor organizations.

By the way, I am a first generation pilot. Nobody in my family ever flew, or worked on airplanes. The closest my family came was my Uncle who took flying lessons while he was in the Army and scared himself enough that the quit before solo. On my Mom's side of the family, my Grandfather had a best friend that built a Pietenpol Aircamper in the '30s and nearly killed himself with it, so that was the end of his flying career, but he did go on to become a career aircraft mechanic for the airlines. Interesting and cool guy, but I only met him twice in my life.

I got up the gumption and got to the airport all by myself and let me tell you, it is daunting and not very inviting. Part of it is the security environment, but part of it is the people that are at the airport. Still a lot of attitude.
 
Liked the article ,nothing really new. The more we keep the thoughts out there the better. I was not offended by his speaking on kit building. I am also a first generation pilot,however I did fly in the airforce as a loadmaster. I do think we have to work on the attitude at some of the airports as pilots we have to be friendly,and more approachable.
 
In my opinion in the ideal world public schools would have some type of aviation related program. Perhaps something with a blend of aviation history, functional knowledge, and perhaps even actual training for the more ambitious students. Now that would be cool.
 
Cost. Period.

that's my $.02.

Well, that and some people DO try it and actually don't like it or it wasn't what they thought it was. I think we can thank things like Groupon for getting a bunch of new people to at least try a discovery flight. After that I think it comes down to cost.
 
LJS1993 said:
In my opinion in the ideal world public schools would have some type of aviation related program. Perhaps something with a blend of aviation history, functional knowledge, and perhaps even actual training for the more ambitious students. Now that would be cool.
Click to expand...

You mean like this:
http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/area_news/article_bfcd3ed8-2a10-11e3-a2df-001a4bcf887a.html

A short excerpt:
Under an agreement hammered out in February, Baldwin County juniors and seniors will be able to take courses and be dual-enrolled — earning both high school and college credits. Since the curriculum is approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, the students will also earn FAA credits. Zunk noted that in two years, a high school student could earn four of the five FAA credits required to work on aircraft at Airbus in Mobile or Goodrich in Foley.
Click to expand...

In addition, I think we need to make the local airport a DESTINATION. You need space, decore, free WiFi access, coffee, clean bathrooms, and a place for people to hangout and watch the planes. Food would be nice. Take a look at Steerman Field in Wichita, Kansas. It is a DESTINATION all on its own. Great food. A stage where local musicians play on the weekend. A full blown bar. Indoor and outdoor seating. Motorcycles park on the ramp right next to fence that surround the outdoor seating. It is on the north end of the runway within 100-150 feet from the runway. There is a play area for the kids. Kids have something to do and there is the opportunity for those special few who will be mesmerized by the planes. Those few who will stand next to the fence and stare. It is also right next to the transient parking and maybe, just maybe someone about to go flying will ask the kid if he/she wants to go up.

http://clemensaircraft.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi

http://www.stearmanfield.com/

Jim
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
You mean like this:
http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/area_news/article_bfcd3ed8-2a10-11e3-a2df-001a4bcf887a.html

A short excerpt:


Jim
Click to expand...

A program almost like this exists in my county. It is actually a partnership with Embry-Riddle and they come in and teach classes in some of the high schools. The problem is getting enough students to enroll in the classes. I was in the program my freshman and sophomore year. My flight instructor taught me private pilot ground school through this program.
 
I think Europe of the model on what to avoid if you want a healthy GA population.

We need to take it back to the 50-80s, less regulations, less taxes, fewer sue happy people, no TSA. Back then flying was accessible and fun.
 
Enterprise State Community College has the Alabama state mandate for all public aviation schools. They have no publically funded competition, but they don't abuse it. They have grabbed the reins and run with it. They do this everywhere they have a campus from one end of the state to the other.
 
You can get people involved but the number of people I know my age or younger or even much older that are capable of affording it is very very very limited.
 
The part 23 re-write is about to take a big hard bite off the rear-end of the commonplace "cost" argument to GA lack of access. This is going to change the game much more than simply advocating more exposure to people who wouldn't be able to afford it anyways, regardless of attraction.
 
jesse said:
You can get people involved but the number of people I know my age or younger or even much older that are capable of affording it is very very very limited.
Click to expand...

Agreed. (WARNING! Gross generalization coming!) Maybe we as a community need to quit looking down our noses at inexpensive routes into the air.
http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/gt-500air/

What did people learn to fly in back in the big boom? (I'm assuming right after WWII?) They were not flying four seat, high horsepower aircraft with avionic that cost more than the rest of the plane.

Get people hooked inexpensive flying. If they want to move on to more capable aircraft, and can afford it, they will. Not everyone will or can, and there is nothing wrong with slow and low.

Jim
 
A good first step would be to take a page or two out of Reagan's book and 'tear down this fence(wall [sic]).

Fences around some small and medium size GA facilities makes for bad publicity, and bad neighbors. Even if it were just as simple as putting up a two rail painted wooden thing to keep cars off and remove the chain link, with razor wire on top that makes boulder/Jeffco look like a damn prison.

Next, Van's patrons who often fly in groups with the overhead break, do barrel rolls over the field, and generally hot-dog around GA airports isn't helping either. That's for another thread, but just know that this kind of stuff doesn't bring many people in who are already leary of GA. It might interest the super type-A guy that's looking for a thrill but they would be drawn to GA anyway.
 
docmirror said:
A good first step would be to take a page or two out of Reagan's book and 'tear down this fence(wall [sic]).

Fences around some small and medium size GA facilities makes for bad publicity, and bad neighbors. Even if it were just as simple as putting up a two rail painted wooden thing to keep cars off and remove the chain link, with razor wire on top that makes boulder/Jeffco look like a damn prison.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Take a look at Steerman Field. Pretty much NO fences. The only ones I saw were around the outside seating area at the grill, and they are only tall enough to keep kids & pets in.

Another good one is Potomac airfield VERY near DC. You would think that it would have 20 foot tall, razor wire topped fences. Nope, no fences. Fences make security people "feel" safe. They don't really help with safety. Instead, they have picnic table for people to sit at and enjoy the action.

http://potomac-airfield.com/


docmirror said:
Next, Van's patrons who often fly in groups with the overhead break, do barrel rolls over the field, and generally hot-dog around GA airports isn't helping either. That's for another thread, but just know that this kind of stuff doesn't bring many people in who are already leary of GA. It might interest the super type-A guy that's looking for a thrill but they would be drawn to GA anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree. As long as they are legal, I have no issues with this. Heck it is the kind of stuff that ATTRACTS people to the airport.

EDIT: I missed the over the airport part. I'm good with overhead formation breaks leading to a proper pattern entry. Barrel rolls over the airfield should be reserved for approved airshows!

Jim
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
Sorry, I disagree. As long as they are legal, I have no issues with this. Heck it is the kind of stuff that ATTRACTS people to the airport.

Jim
Click to expand...

A; doubt you could prove it either way. I don't see it.

B; Maybe it's the pilot in me watching a RV do a roll while I'm entering the pattern that gets me a little steamed. Not sure if it's legal or not, and don't want to have the debate, it just doesn't help; there's places to do that stuff, and over the field isn't a good plan.
 
I'm pretty sure that a roll while entering the pattern would be frowned upon and have to agree with that!

Jim
(PS. I went back and added an edit to my reply above. I missed the "over the airport" part.)
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
What did people learn to fly in back in the big boom? (I'm assuming right after WWII?) They were not flying four seat, high horsepower aircraft with avionic that cost more than the rest of the plane.
Click to expand...

They also weren't driving cars that had satellite radio, computer-controlled fuel ignition, ABS, traction control, stability control, tire pressure monitors, back-up cameras, and GPS navigation.

The reason avionics are expensive is basically the same reason that everything else on the plane is expensive - small markets, liability, certification requirements, luxury item, etc. I doubt that anything on a plane after WWII was TSO'd or certified to much of anything.

I don't think that removing a few $100 touchscreens, $50 worth of sensors, and a $100 worth of processors/etc is the answer. The challenge is to figure out how to actually reduce the design costs and overhead from avionics, and everything else.

I think the reason kits are so successful is because they get rid of much of the assembly overhead and liability. It has to be a lot harder to sue the kit vendor when the pilot was the one putting the whole thing together - you can't argue that they didn't know how the thing worked.
 
My point was that they were simple aircraft with minimal instrumentation. You flew with your eyes outside of the plane, low and slow. That kind of flying IS inexpensive.

Jim
 
Affordability.

I actually earned my PPL when I was seventeen living at home with mama. I was the second youngest pilot in Texas that year. Another kid beat me by like two months.

I flew and flew, then got married when I was 21, had our first child at 22, and didn't fly for twenty years. Couldn't afford it.
 
I’ll bet that a considerable percentage of pilots flying today are second generation pilots, or even third or fourth generation pilots.
Click to expand...
His theory didn't pan out for the posters in the other thread. I think there were far more first generation pilots.
 
Most of that is not going to work. The fences are not going to come down. Pilot attitudes to noobs isn't going to change. And the price for the stuff with onboard tv will continue to climb. As to the Euro model heard there is 200,000 paraglider pilots in Europe(maybe 5,000 in the states.) Don't think they are all going to start building RV 12s.
 
Aircraft engines cost too much. Vans could give away free RV-12 kit with free avionics, but the typical new 100 HP aircraft engine would set his customers back over $20,000. Most middle class earners have an issue with that pricing.

Recreational GA is going no where with the current crop of engine choices (some exceptions are the Jabiru and Viking Aircraft engines - but still pricey.)
 
Jim Logajan said:
Aircraft engines cost too much. Vans could give away free RV-12 kit with free avionics, but the typical new 100 HP aircraft engine would set his customers back over $20,000. Most middle class earners have an issue with that pricing.

Recreational GA is going no where with the current crop of engine choices (some exceptions are the Jabiru and Viking Aircraft engines - but still pricey.)
Click to expand...
Have you seen the sonex sight,not only do they have a low priced kit but the have the aero eye engine.The jabiru engines are also offered.
 
Just curious on why the Van's RV-12 ELSA kit costs over $60,000? For kit plane builders I'm sure that is a deal breaker for people who want to build their own airplane.

I'm sure you can buy tube-and-fabric SLSA for that price or a little bit higher than that.
 
N918KT said:
Just curious on why the Van's RV-12 ELSA kit costs over $60,000? For kit plane builders I'm sure that is a deal breaker for people who want to build their own airplane.

I'm sure you can buy tube-and-fabric SLSA for that price or a little bit higher than that.
Click to expand...

That price includes everything you need except paint, gas and oil. Unlike most kit planes, this is a complete kit, including engine, prop and avionics. In the end you get an airplane that is everything as much as the other $120,000-$140,000 offerings. It comes in installments, so you don't have to come up with all the money all at once if you don't want to. It just takes years of your life to finish it.

I'm sure you can buy a lesser, or used airplane for the same amount, but as always, you get what you pay for. There are builders and there are fliers. I suspect the builders see the value in this and the fliers not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top