GA "needs"

[denverpilot]

LOL...
The OP never had to deal with the WW2 and Korea-era pilots. Talk about condescending. It's generational, not racial.

It's also military vs civilian. Military IPs teach very differently and there's usually a very different vibe when working with one. Part of that is they didn't care if you washed out or not, they still got paid. You either perform to standard or you don't. They'll push as hard as they can and then mentally cut you loose.

 

[red4golf]

I've seen the WWII pilot up close. Greg Boyington was my sister-in-laws grandpa and my neighbor growing up was a Kamikaze instructor (yes, you read correctly) pilot so I heard some interesting stories from both sides. My first (and favorite) CFI spent 10 years flying Cobra gun ships and 10 years flying Apaches. Even though he was a few generations removed from those other guys, he was very much a military aviator of similar cloth.

 

[FloridaPilot]

I agree with much that's been said, however, one of the biggest issues I've seen is that GA is not friendly to outsiders (other than pilots). When I got out of the military and wanted to finish my ppl. I walked into three flight schools with money in pocket and logbook in hand before anyone asked "May I help you?"... Who knows how many student opportunities have been missed when this is their first encounter...

I can TOTALLY relate to that. I could've just sat there all day and nobody would've said anything.

Newer equipment. You're not going to attract new pilots with aircraft that are older than they are.

I personally don't mind older aircraft as long as they don't smell like my great grandfather.

My PPL was 43 hours at $150/hr for the plane and $60/hr for the instructor.

The DPE was 600 bucks.

The affordable aircraft nowadays are not aircraft that are equipped with equipment that is equivalent to what 'affordable' aircraft 30 years ago were.

Pricing of aircraft maintenance and upgrades is prohibitively expensive. I have a cell phone that can do everything a 530 can do. I have an Android tablet that can do everything a 530 can do. The 530 is a 15000 upgrade from scratch. Oh, you already have a 530? Goal posts have moved. Now you need a W at the end. That W is going to cost you $3,000 installed. Oh, ADS-B out? There's another 3 AMU. Oh, you want to replace your old vacuum powered 1960's technology AI with an electrically powered one that has solid state sensors? $2200... but HA! Experimental only. But we rushed through an STC for a new Dynon that has already been in use by 'experimental' planes... and somehow the press release was 3 months ago and we still haven't given you any information... which suggests that it'll be prohibitively expensive as well.

Oh. You want a digital engine monitor? Okay. That'll be 2500 bucks. OH WAIT. You have a CERTIFIED plane? Sorry. The EXACT SAME MONITOR that is CERTIFIED is $5,800 bucks. Literally more than double.

And that's just the FAA. The pilot cadre of old white guys (I'm a 31 year old mixed breed)... "Oh. You want NEW stuff? You want FANCY stuff? You're complaining about PRICE? Well let me compare my circumstances 40 years ago to what is going on now, and then talk about how entitled you are, while deliberately ignoring inflation and how my income 40 years ago had more purchasing power than you have now at this point in your aviation career. Let me ignore the fact that you're flying the same model year plane in 2016 that I was flying in 1976, because I forget that the plane I'm irritated about you denigrating was actually pretty decent for my era. You're asking for ADVICE? Well why don't we just plan your entire flight for you, you self righteous noob?! Learn to be a pilot. Back in my day we had to fly uphill in the snow both ways..."

It's a wonder people get turned off by GA nowadays....

I always wondered why things are so expensive in GA. When I first started I picked up a flight simulator (FSX) and I used the Saitek Yoke and Rudder pedals 600 dollars for just a toy. Anything aviation related $$$$$$ Why I don't know.

This one is tough. As an "older" soon to be CFI candidate I've thought about this one quite a bit. I certainly want to be a mentor and pass along the joy of aviation as well as be an instructor, but that's a fine line. It's hard to be hired by someone to teach and evaluate them and also be their "bestest buddy". The role has to change as needed.

The pilots who are supposed to be mentors are the OTHER pilots at the airport, not the guy or gal you hire to evaluate you and sometimes have to kick your ass into gear when you've developed a deadly habit or two.

But folks are busy, most pilots who can make enough money to do it for fun are very hard workers at their jobs and have lots of stuff going on in their lives. They're not the old gang that had decent but menial jobs and hung around the airport reading Trade-A-Plane on a Saturday.

Man I'd love to do more of that and probably will a LITTLE but the reality is, to even chase the desire to give a little back to this amazing group of people and machinery that's been one of the greatest joys of my life, I'll be keeping my day job for quite a while.

Maybe it can morph into being less hours and replace some of those with instructing, but full time instructing looks like a pretty good way to go really really broke unless you're also producing course material and selling it, or have a niche type or special TAA knowledge and specialize heavily.

So 70-90 hour weeks look like what the future likely holds as a full time worker with an instructing fetish. Or more. Or less. But it won't be hanging out at the airport sitting in the FBO on the couch shooting the breeze much, like the old days, I don't think. Nor will probably many students I might be lucky enough to pick up probably be doing that much.

But in the end, I'm on the clock when I arrive, and I'm doing a job. If we get along and like each other, that's obviously great and I'll happily talk aviation as long as we both have time to talk after the lesson or checkup or whatever is done, but with all the Type A's in aviation, I'd quickly get branded as "wasting my time" by some pilots who need to get to the airport, get their stuff done, and get back to their hectic lives.

And there's that line of "Right now I'm not your friend, I have to tell you that you're doing some things that will get you hurt and I'd prefer to see you around for a long time". Any instructor is going to run into that from time to time.

It's not a small amount of money or time that I'm investing to be able to do this. I'd rather do it well and be known as a good teacher than everyone's best friend on the airport.

We have an instructor around here who's like that. He's everyone's friend. He's purely awful at paperwork and regs. He dismisses student queries about how to get better at regs and stuff they need memorized with phrases like "oh you don't need to know all that as long as you can fly", and he's constantly picking up students because he's always the salesman telling them how great it all is. Which is nice. But he has a lot of students leave him to more organized instructors and he's had at least one 709 ride amongst other disciplinary action by an employer that I can't get into here, for not following the organizations rules. Got the Ray Bans and the leather jacket, so he must know what he's doing, right?

When I heard him on the radio the other day I said to my current CFI, "that's so and so. Haven't heard him in a while. I don't trust him at all." Current CFI wisely said back (because aviation is a very small world), "I've heard stories."

No instructors can really afford to be "that guy", but every area has one. Gotta be careful with that stuff. You can't be everybody's best buddy, and that may bother *some* Millenials and folks who want the "besties" experience or who may be shocked that they just hired someone to critique them, if they're not used to being critiqued.

Obviously I'll be your friend in the cockpit if you decide you don't mind that and we'll probably be flying to more shared lunches somewhere than most people ever go to with most of their co-workers and I may even see you more than your own family for a while in your life ... But I'm also paid to do a job and not waste the students' time or money.

Interesting thoughts to ponder as I work through the requirements to do this stuff.

That makes sense but I guess the word "Mentor" means different things to different people. (IMO) Mentor and Drinking buddies are totally two different things. For me a Mentor is a CFI that will work with you all the way until your commercial, teach you how to be a safe pilot and schedule recurring training with you to keep you sharp. All too often CFI's have one foot out of the door because they are building hours. That is one of the things I would change about GA. Give the flight instructors a decent wage.

 

[FlyingElvii]

I can TOTALLY relate to that. I could've just sat there all day and nobody would've said anything.



I personally don't mind older aircraft as long as they don't smell like my great grandfather.



I always wondered why things are so expensive in GA. When I first started I picked up a flight simulator (FSX) and I used the Saitek Yoke and Rudder pedals 600 dollars for just a toy. Anything aviation related $$$$$$ Why I don't know.



That makes sense but I guess the word "Mentor" means different things to different people. (IMO) Mentor and Drinking buddies are totally two different things. For me a Mentor is a CFI that will work with you all the way until your commercial, teach you how to be a safe pilot and schedule recurring training with you to keep you sharp. All too often CFI's have one foot out of the door because they are building hours. That is one of the things I would change about GA. Give the flight instructors a decent wage.

Given the current shortage, the wage is changing, but it is costing US more.

 

[denverpilot]

That makes sense but I guess the word "Mentor" means different things to different people. (IMO) Mentor and Drinking buddies are totally two different things. For me a Mentor is a CFI that will work with you all the way until your commercial, teach you how to be a safe pilot and schedule recurring training with you to keep you sharp. All too often CFI's have one foot out of the door because they are building hours. That is one of the things I would change about GA. Give the flight instructors a decent wage.

Ahh I see. You want someone who's not a time builder. I get that. Florida is a hot bed of schools where there's lots of that, I suppose.

It takes some digging but there's always older instructors around who aren't headed off to the first non-instructing job they qualify for. You just have to ask around.

A good person to ask is usually a local DPE. They know who isn't going anywhere.

Another good question to ask a local DPE is, "I know you can't recommend instructors or take sides, but I would really like to know a few names of instructors who send you well trained and prepared applicants consistently. I can take it from there, but sometimes they're hard to find."

Not only will you get some names but most DPEs are going to toss you names of people they'll bet you could get along with. They're usually pretty good judges of who not to mix in a cockpit. Ha. They've seen a lot of people interact over theirs years.

Not kidding. You kinda have to own it. You're the person doing the hiring, so to speak.

A little known here story about when I was thinking about calling up @jesse to do the instrument in Nebraska... Before I ever sent him a note, I sent private messages to a few levelheaded pilots here (yeah, right!) asking if I could call them with a training question, and then when I called asking how well they knew Jesse.

They all gave great reviews. More than one had flown with Jesse. That was huge in me choosing to then ask him if he had time that December to do some training.

I won't embarrass anyone by mentioning who I called or anything. But I did.

Interestingly once you find one of that "been teaching around here for 20+ years" crowd, you'll find the rest of them. Birds of a feather and all that...

Just keep in mind they have that one guy they know shouldn't be... Haha. If you see the graybeards rolling their eyes whenever you mention a certain name or going totally blank but not saying they don't know the name you just said, it's a hint.

They're not going to badmouth another instructor, but there's signs... Subtle ones. Took me a while to notice those, but they're there. Even silence speaks pretty loudly.

 

[Palmpilot]

...The guy above me hit it right on the head, why is my cell phone $600 but a system that doesn't do a quarter as much $20,000...

Aside from the artificial cost increase due to FAA certification requirements, another big issue is volume. Products that are sold in high volume tend to give you more for the money, because some of the costs are not affected much by the number sold, but the contribution those costs make to the selling price gets divided by the number sold.

I got real clear on this concept when I worked for a company that designed and manufactured semiconductor inspection equipment, which is very complex, requires a lot of engineering effort to perfect, and sells in small numbers.

[Edit: I see KFD already mentioned this.]

 

[OkieFlyer]

Cost is without question the biggest factor. It's probably not going to get better anytime soon, if ever. I really hate to say that.

 

[James331]

I got my ticket in 1978. I flew until 1983, but had nowhere to go and drifted out of it. I took up hang gliding 8 years ago.

Your point that you could paint a 30 year old 172 like a new one and most people couldn't is exactly my point as well. I've been around aviation almost 50 years, and we're flying the same airframes and engines as when I was a kid. While there certainly folks who are fine with that, I'm thinking there are lots more who would expect something up to date. Back when I took my first airplane ride, an O-360 was a reasonably up to date technology.. Now, it's lawnmower technology, and the cheapest car is fuel injected and has the automotive equivalent of FADEC. If I were 25 years old and interested in aviation,I'd be disappointed in how old tech the aviation fleet is

Know how many folks I've taken on a discovery who flight who even know what FADEC is? I'd guess well under 5%

MAYBE 10% could even hold a conversation about their cars systems, and they drive the damn thing everyday, a good chunk of folks plunge themselves into debt for their car, still could tell me how many cam shafts they have lol


There are reasons things haven't changed, the 172/182/etc design, it works quite well.

I guess, like new cars, we could install a dummy light for service and glue non functional fins and scoops onto the thing, maybe make a super complicated throttle which connects to a circuit board, which runs a servo, which moves the throttle, but I like my simple, safe and effective cable.

Also, like I said, this generation can't even tell me jack about their cars engine, many cant even change a tire, I could just tell most folks that it's a horizontal opposed 6 cylinder, "you know a flat engine, like a Porsche" and get a "WOW!"

You don't know what you don't know, and folks nowadays don't seem to know jack about mechanics.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Interesting. I've always worked on my own vehicles, and I take pride in having never taken a vehicle to a shop (except the tire shop). Never heard the acronym FADEC in all of my days.

 

[exncsurfer]

Interesting. I've always worked on my own vehicles, and I take pride in having never taken a vehicle to a shop (except the tire shop). Never heard the acronym FADEC in all of my days.

Isn't that just another term for the engine computer that most cars have had since the late 80's/90's

 

[Caramon13]

snip..

#5. I wish CFI's were more mentors than pilots that were just passing through trying to obtain hours.

I wish that too. And I've had some great CFI's. But it's a cost factor as well. When you pay a CFI based on hours in the air, what do you expect? Even mentors have to make money, unless they are just independently wealthy and do it for fun.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

That may play a part as well but the overwhelming majority of my friends cannot afford and do not own a new vehicle of any type.

When they ask how much my pilot's certificate is costing me and I tell them approximately $10,000 by the time I'm done they are speechless. Then when I add that on top of that cost, it will be approximately $100-150 per hour to rent a plane after that, they are again speechless.

It's been a lifelong dream of mine and that's why I'm doing it but the barrier to entry into this market for young people is CRAZY high. When you investigate the decision tree: do I spend $10,000 to get the certificate and then add ownership or renter's costs on top of that and compare versus the ownership costs of a jetski than most people will take the jetski. Only those who truly have a passion for learning to fly will take the flying choice.

In the end, if we could make flying a $50/hour venture (not saying it's possible, just if) then we would have a flood of people dying to get in the air. As it is now, people cannot afford it.

I sort of disagree with the jet ski analogy. A jet ski costs roughly 10k and you end up buying a new one every 5 years, selling the old one for 5k. Wait, not one but 2 (because jet skiing alone or shared sucks) + maintenance + gas + trailer + a truck that can pull it. That isn't a cheap hobby either. I can drive my cheap electric car to the airport with 3 friends and fly them around for a fixed $100-$165 a hour (more money faster plane). The entry to hobby is a one time 10k deposit and 40-50 hours of time.

 

[FormerHangie]

Interesting. I've always worked on my own vehicles, and I take pride in having never taken a vehicle to a shop (except the tire shop). Never heard the acronym FADEC in all of my days.

Isn't that just another term for the engine computer that most cars have had since the late 80's/90's

FADEC is an aviation term, so no, you wouldn't hear it around an automotive shop, which is why I said the "automotive equivalent of FADEC." Exncsurfer is correct.

When I started taking lessons, I trained in a Grumman T-Cat, which was an up to date trainer at the time. If I'd gone out to the airport and they'd shown me a Tri-Pacer or a Colt, I don't think I'd have wanted to continue, those airplanes would have looked old and frumpy to me at the time. If I were the same age now, and I came out to the airport to take an intro lesson, and you sat me down in a 172 with steam gauges, I'd probably seriously rethink whether I wanted to spend $140 per hour to fly such an old school piece of technology. If you put me in a DA40 with a glass panel, I'd react to that very positively, and I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. They're not going to post here because they never got past their first lesson or two.

There are a lot of people who think cost is the main deterrent to people getting in the air. I think there's more to it. If cost were the number one issue, then of all the experimental aircraft out there, the Sonex would be the dominant type rather than the RV. Aviation is expensive, and if you're asked to spend a lot of money to fly in something that you're not very impressed with, you just may decide the value proposition isn't there, and you just don't do it.

 

[hockeyrcks9901]

I sort of disagree with the jet ski analogy. A jet ski costs roughly 10k and you end up buying a new one every 5 years, selling the old one for 5k. Wait, not one but 2 (because jet skiing alone or shared sucks) + maintenance + gas + trailer + a truck that can pull it. That isn't a cheap hobby either. I can drive my cheap electric car to the airport with 3 friends and fly them around for a fixed $100-$165 a hour (more money faster plane). The entry to hobby is a one time 10k deposit and 40-50 hours of time.

It certainly wasn't a good analogy. I just built off the previous post that said "toy" and picked jet ski. Wasn't meant to be taken literally. A jet ski was just a specific toy but could have chosen any other toy really.

 

[thebruce]

If I were the same age now, and I came out to the airport to take an intro lesson, and you sat me down in a 172 with steam gauges, I'd probably seriously rethink whether I wanted to spend $140 per hour to fly such an old school piece of technology. If you put me in a DA40 with a glass panel, I'd react to that very positively, and I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way.

Ditto, except that I'm the guy who got his certificate at the ripe old age of 45 last year. And even though I've got the old tech ability (I know my way around a pushrod V-8 car engine and have built a custom EFI for a classic car or two) I could not WAIT to get checked out in the nice new/fancy light sport because I thought I'd like the look and feel of new technology. Except guess what... the LSA isn't as fast as the PA-28 or the Grumman AA-5 so I never did, and now it's out of the club because no one ever flew it. Speed makes a difference, but price always wins out. I can rent a Cherokee for about a buck a knot (TAS) and bring an adult human or two with me. Not so in the light sport, and if the club I'm in had a DA-40 I'd pay $30 more an hour for ten knots higher TAS. Of course one of the reasons the rental rates are so high is because they get flown so much less. It's a vicious circle. So, since the topic is GA "needs," I think GA will only attract new pilots if the community as a whole (with a substantial investment from industry) is willing to invest now in the newer planes.

As for the "old white guys" comments, they are absolutely true. And not much different than the classic car crowd. (For the record, I'm old enough, white, and a car guy.) Go wander around the next cruise-in in your town, and ask the greybeard sitting next to his perfectly restored '32 Ford what he thinks of the young guys squeezing 450 horsepower out of Honda 2.0l engines. You'll be lucky if front wheel drive is all you hear him badmouth. Kinda reminds me of pilots griping about kids these days having no mechanical ability. Who is the safer pilot: the one who knows that the engine that just failed in his forty-year old airplane is a carbureted, air-cooled, horizontally opposed four cylinder, or the one that because he wasn't afraid of new technology put together a raspberry pi-based Stratux system for less than $100 and because he could see the oncoming traffic was able to avoid a collision in the SFRA over LAX?

One last thought on what GA needs. It needs a purpose. If the purpose is that it's a hobby, fine. But it's going to have to be made fun again if we are going to attract enough kids and twenty-somethings to keep it alive.

 

[ircphoenix]

James.... you're a stereotype.

 

[exncsurfer]

... If I'd gone out to the airport and they'd shown me a Tri-Pacer or a Colt, I don't think I'd have wanted to continue, those airplanes would have looked old and frumpy to me at the time. If I were the same age now, and I came out to the airport to take an intro lesson, and you sat me down in a 172 with steam gauges, I'd probably seriously rethink whether I wanted to spend $140 per hour to fly such an old school piece of technology...

Thats funny, my first ever GA ride was a couple years ago, a 60's or 70's 172, my first impression was, wow, this thing is kinda crusty. I felt like we had hopped into the harry potter flying car, it was kind of comical to me. Fortunately that didn't deter my interest as much as it just puzzled me. 2nd try, some months later was a 60's era Cherokee. I found that to be somewhat claustrophobic with the single door entry and climb over the right seat deal. The rentals I ended up training in were 2000's 172s, so a newer version of the same old beast and didn't seem quite so antiquated although they're steam with the pinball machine display type GPS's.

My first impression of GA:

 

[James331]

James.... you're a stereotype.

Where was I wrong?

I've done a ton of discovery flight and had lots of students, just speaking from what I've seen.

Model year and tech was FAR from a concern in my experience.

 

[ircphoenix]

Where was I wrong?

You're just the constant contrarian.

Someone likes tech? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone likes newer looking planes? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks GA needs to be more accommodating for a new generation? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks ADS-B is a good thing? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

I don't know what your opinion is on 'chutes, but I can only assume.

Every thread. Every time.

So... if someone doesn't know how a turbocharged engine works... they should immediately turn in their Ford with the EcoBoost because carbed 50's engines were better based on nothing other than them not knowing how a turbo works? That doesn't pass the smell test. Newer tech is generally better. The fact that many newer computerized cars you can't work on without being able to talk to the ECM or BCM or LCM doesn't make them necessarily less reliable or worse... it just means *if* something breaks, it necessitates a trip to the dealer. If you're flying a certificated aircraft, even the dead simple lawnmower engine technology requires a trip to the "dealer" by regulation.

The reason the aviation tech hasn't changed much has far less to do with it being *right* than with it being *easy.* If you look at the experimentals, there is way more glass and new fangled whizbang high speed low drag stuff going into them because they CAN. And guess what? It works.

If you're honestly under the impression that, given the same or similar price point, a prospective pilot new to aviation would NOT prefer a high tech aircraft, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Thats funny, my first ever GA ride was a couple years ago, a 60's or 70's 172, my first impression was, wow, this thing is kinda crusty. I felt like we had hopped into the harry potter flying car, it was kind of comical to me. Fortunately that didn't deter my interest as much as it just puzzled me. 2nd try, some months later was a 60's era Cherokee. I found that to be somewhat claustrophobic with the single door entry and climb over the right seat deal. The rentals I ended up training in were 2000's 172s, so a newer version of the same old beast and didn't seem quite so antiquated although they're steam with the pinball machine display type GPS's.

My first impression of GA:

Had it not been for an original avionics 1975 Cessna 172 at $110 but a diamond glass cockpit, I never would have gotten my license. I got mine in college and every last penny was used to get that license. Now that I actually make decent money I fly planes multiple times a week
with gizmos galore.

That entry price needs to be kept as low as possible. Some people with money might want to fly something fancy, but you have to get people involved before 30. GA needs to make it a lifestyle for people. After 30 changing someone's lifestyle becomes increasingly harder. Kids in their 20's are trying to save up for a house etc. that extra $70 bucks makes a big difference but doesn't do anything constructive for the flying lesson at hand.

 

[exncsurfer]

Had it not been for an original avionics 1975 Cessna 172 at $110 but a diamond glass cockpit, I never would have gotten my license. I got mine in college and every last penny was used to get that license. Now that I actually make decent money I fly planes multiple times a week
with gizmos galore.

That entry price needs to be kept as low as possible. Some people with money might want to fly something fancy, but you have to get people involved before 30. GA needs to make it a lifestyle for people. After 30 changing someone's lifestyle becomes increasingly harder. Kids in their 20's are trying to save up for a house etc. that extra $70 bucks makes a big difference but doesn't do anything constructive for the flying lesson at hand.

I get what you're saying and agree the cheaper the better for attracting newbies. I was just giving my first impression as an outsider. The newer planes I ended up in were even cheaper than the old ones I was first exposed to. I actually prefer steam now. I had one lesson on a G1000 and found it to be too sensitive. I'm sure you get used to it and stop chasing the numbers. But I'm sure it would be more like what a non pilot might imagine a flight deck to look like in the modern world.

 

[KFD]

You're just the constant contrarian.

Someone likes tech? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone likes newer looking planes? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks GA needs to be more accommodating for a new generation? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks ADS-B is a good thing? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

I don't know what your opinion is on 'chutes, but I can only assume.

Every thread. Every time.

Maybe James needs my avatar instead of me James just say the word and you can have it. It better suits your posting style. Seriously it's yours.

Yeah, I don't get his argument. As if somebody doing a discovery flight is going to tell him "Damn your plane is old and low tech". Most people don't do that stuff to your face in real life. Maybe online... If that same person gets into a brand new SR22 with a glass panel and a chute they're going to really be impressed. Not all of us can afford that doesn't mean we have to put it down.

 

[James331]

You're just the constant contrarian.

Someone likes tech? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone likes newer looking planes? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks GA needs to be more accommodating for a new generation? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Someone thinks ADS-B is a good thing? "BAH! HUMBUG!"

I don't know what your opinion is on 'chutes, but I can only assume.

Every thread. Every time.

So... if someone doesn't know how a turbocharged engine works... they should immediately turn in their Ford with the EcoBoost because carbed 50's engines were better based on nothing other than them not knowing how a turbo works? That doesn't pass the smell test. Newer tech is generally better. The fact that many newer computerized cars you can't work on without being able to talk to the ECM or BCM or LCM doesn't make them necessarily less reliable or worse... it just means *if* something breaks, it necessitates a trip to the dealer. If you're flying a certificated aircraft, even the dead simple lawnmower engine technology requires a trip to the "dealer" by regulation.

The reason the aviation tech hasn't changed much has far less to do with it being *right* than with it being *easy.* If you look at the experimentals, there is way more glass and new fangled whizbang high speed low drag stuff going into them because they CAN. And guess what? It works.

If you're honestly under the impression that, given the same or similar price point, a prospective pilot new to aviation would NOT prefer a high tech aircraft, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Oh sweet baby Jesus....

I don't think you have one factual remark in there.

Where did I say I didn't like tech?

Or I don't like the new generation, FYI I'm probably younger than most on here.

Or that I don't like ADSB?

I actually DID say that a new paint job is a good idea, and a 172N can easily look just as new on the ramp as a 172SP with new paint with the tribal swoosh.

FYI my work plane has full ADSB and XM, radar, etc which I use quite a bit, my own plane has a EHSI, 530 / 430/ 330 / nice audio panel, autopilot with GPSS, etc.

What I clearly said was that many new guys are more concerned with the price than the model year.

I have also convinced more than a few people to train in simpler and less expensive planes, got folks to go ground up in a citabria over a G1000 172SP, they were also better pilots for it, and had more money in the bank after their PPL, and had more fun!


The biggest issue in GA is government overreach in everything from ADSB to medicals to, insane tax rates, and overblown airport security which screams "go away".

 

[FormerHangie]

I did think of something that general aviation needs:

MOAR HANGARZ!!!!!

Seriously, where I live, hangars are bloody expensive and the waiting list is long. I suspect the same is true in a lot of other metro areas.

 

[cowman]

I'll tell you what we need.

We need some factory built airplanes capable of taking a typical family on a cross country trip that are reasonably enough priced for a typical middle class household to be able to afford.

How I propose that happens is to create a new non-commercial certification for factory built aircraft that's only held to the standards of current kit-built experementals. It doesn't have to be legal for commercial ops.... but the idea is you could build a new cirrus or 172 or whatever under this category but skirt the red tape. Preferable we get some new designs utilizing engine technology that's not stuck in the 50s and can actually take a typical family on a cross country. Maybe some glass cockpits that don't run tens of thousands for something that doesn't have much more functionality than an ipad.

A NEW Cessna 172 in 1956 cost $8,700. That's $76,840.19 in today's money... pricey but doable for a middle or upper middle class family. We're paying that much these days for 30-40 year old airplanes for god sakes. We need to figure out what it is that makes it impossible to build a comparable aircraft for that kind of money today and fix it. Airplanes are fun, a lot of people are interested up until I tell them the real costs.

The other issues can be addressed if you can get it affordable and have people interested but that cost factor is a show stopper for I'd say 90% or more of the population.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Had it not been for an original avionics 1975 Cessna 172 at $110 but a diamond glass cockpit, I never would have gotten my license. I got mine in college and every last penny was used to get that license. Now that I actually make decent money I fly planes multiple times a week
with gizmos galore.

That entry price needs to be kept as low as possible. Some people with money might want to fly something fancy, but you have to get people involved before 30. GA needs to make it a lifestyle for people. After 30 changing someone's lifestyle becomes increasingly harder. Kids in their 20's are trying to save up for a house etc. that extra $70 bucks makes a big difference but doesn't do anything constructive for the flying lesson at hand.

Agree.

As it is today, only the fairly hardcore middle class aviation enthusiast is going to make it in aviation. If you're not fairly well off, it takes quite a bit of sacrifice and heart to own an airplane. That's no slight against those that are well off, I applaud you, but the GA growth will primarily have to come from the middle class, because those that want to fly, and have the money to do it, are probably already doing it. So the only way, in my mind, to get more people involved, is to make it more accessible to those with the desire, but may lack the means. I'm not talking about giving airplanes to poor people. I'm talking about making it possible for someone with a family making, say, 70K to own something other than a 40 year old C-150 without breaking the bank or having to make pretty serious sacrifices, and praying to the Almighty that the engine doesn't crap out. I don't know how that's possible, however. The real problems though are the lack of purchasing power of the dollar, the high cost of housing, the high cost of cars, and the high cost of insurances, among other things. Those being what they are, the middle class American doesn't have much disposable income to commit to any hobby.

 

[Everskyward]

One last thought on what GA needs. It needs a purpose. If the purpose is that it's a hobby, fine. But it's going to have to be made fun again if we are going to attract enough kids and twenty-somethings to keep it alive.

Reading the boards I get the feeling that people have a hard time just thinking of it as a hobby. They seem to want to justify it as an efficient means of transportation. I'm not sure why that is. People don't have the need to justify other hobbies in the same way.

"I ski so I can go from the top of the mountain to the bottom faster than I can walk..."

 

[OkieFlyer]

I'll tell you what we need.

We need some factory built airplanes capable of taking a typical family on a cross country trip that are reasonably enough priced for a typical middle class household to be able to afford.

How I propose that happens is to create a new non-commercial certification for factory built aircraft that's only held to the standards of current kit-built experementals. It doesn't have to be legal for commercial ops.... but the idea is you could build a new cirrus or 172 or whatever under this category but skirt the red tape. Preferable we get some new designs utilizing engine technology that's not stuck in the 50s and can actually take a typical family on a cross country. Maybe some glass cockpits that don't run tens of thousands for something that doesn't have much more functionality than an ipad.

A NEW Cessna 172 in 1956 cost $8,700. That's $76,840.19 in today's money... pricey but doable for a middle or upper middle class family. We're paying that much these days for 30-40 year old airplanes for god sakes. We need to figure out what it is that makes it impossible to build a comparable aircraft for that kind of money today and fix it. Airplanes are fun, a lot of people are interested up until I tell them the real costs.

The other issues can be addressed if you can get it affordable and have people interested but that cost factor is a show stopper for I'd say 90% or more of the population.

AMEN!!!

Why on earth does it cost 3 times the original sticker price to overhaul an engine?!?! I don't know what all influences the price of an overhaul, but just getting that, and the price of decent avionics down to a reasonable level would go a long way.

Reading the boards I get the feeling that people have a hard time just thinking of it as a hobby. They seem to want to justify it as an efficient means of transportation. I'm not sure why that is. People don't have the need to justify other hobbies in the same way.

"I ski so I can go from the top of the mountain to the bottom faster than I can walk..."

100% agree. For most, it's a fantastic, fun hobby. That's all. That being the case, how many folks are going to commit to a hobby that may wind up costing more than their home? Again, speaking of the middle class.

 

[Everskyward]

100% agree. For most, it's a fantastic, fun hobby. That's all. That being the case, how many folks are going to commit to a hobby that may wind up costing more than their home? Again, speaking of the middle class.

Obviously that's one of the reason there are not more pilots. But for people who don't lack the money, there's also the possible lack of interest and time, plus the decision to spend discretionary income in a different way.

 

[ircphoenix]

Reading the boards I get the feeling that people have a hard time just thinking of it as a hobby. They seem to want to justify it as an efficient means of transportation. I'm not sure why that is. People don't have the need to justify other hobbies in the same way.

"I ski so I can go from the top of the mountain to the bottom faster than I can walk..."

I think it's because of the cost involved with this particular hobby. It's easy to justify getting a pair of skies and driving up to the mountain as a hobby. Much more difficult to justify spending more than most people spend on a car, with an engine that burns more fuel than a car, at 2x or 2.5x the price per gallon.... not counting the insurance, plane room and board, etc. So I think it's only natural to want to justify the expense as more than your run of the mill hobby.

 

[hindsight2020]

I'll tell you what we need.

We need some factory built airplanes capable of taking a typical family on a cross country trip that are reasonably enough priced for a typical middle class household to be able to afford.

How I propose that happens is to create a new non-commercial certification for factory built aircraft that's only held to the standards of current kit-built experementals. It doesn't have to be legal for commercial ops.... but the idea is you could build a new cirrus or 172 or whatever under this category but skirt the red tape. Preferable we get some new designs utilizing engine technology that's not stuck in the 50s and can actually take a typical family on a cross country. Maybe some glass cockpits that don't run tens of thousands for something that doesn't have much more functionality than an ipad.

A NEW Cessna 172 in 1956 cost $8,700. That's $76,840.19 in today's money... pricey but doable for a middle or upper middle class family. We're paying that much these days for 30-40 year old airplanes for god sakes. We need to figure out what it is that makes it impossible to build a comparable aircraft for that kind of money today and fix it. Airplanes are fun, a lot of people are interested up until I tell them the real costs.

The other issues can be addressed if you can get it affordable and have people interested but that cost factor is a show stopper for I'd say 90% or more of the population.

This was addressed and proposed. It was called primary non-commercial category, a term contained within the document created and sent up to the FAA by the Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Congress bought it, the President signed it. Then Congress told the FAA to implement it. What did the FAA do with the recommendation? They wiped their anus with the recommendation, stonewalled Congress' deadline by a full two years, and when they did make the implementation, primary non-commercial was unapologetically ABSENT from the changes as implemented.

THAT'S how your dream (and mine) of turning certified spam cans into the affordable de facto experimental 4-seaters (market the exAB crowd is uninterested in serving), died under the boot of the FAA. So it's not for a lack of trying, and it certainly isn't for lack of awareness or ignorance of the clamoring you, me and thousands of owner/operators have already made regarding the rather simpleton idea of allowing already-depreciated affordable spam cans to be operated under the maintenance and price point relief the 2-seater crowd in exAB land already enjoys.

So instead, they focused on some mickey mouse "performance-based" academic masturbation about new aircraft certification, which even after their manufacture under said new certification process, will still be un-affordable by the unwashed, aka us little people flying 50 year old antiques around.

So, yeah...cost.... And a whole bunch of apathy on the part of the people with the task of "promoting aviation" unceremoniously removed from their charter in 1996. At least you now know your enemy...

 

[Everskyward]

I think it's because of the cost involved with this particular hobby. It's easy to justify getting a pair of skies and driving up to the mountain as a hobby. Much more difficult to justify spending more than most people spend on a car, with an engine that burns more fuel than a car, at 2x or 2.5x the price per gallon.... not counting the insurance, plane room and board, etc. So I think it's only natural to want to justify the expense as more than your run of the mill hobby.

But people buy boats, purely for recreation, that are as expensive as airplanes. People go on vacations that are as much as the cost of a PPL. It depends how you want to spend your discretionary dollars, if you are lucky enough to have some.

 

[mondtster]

Reading the boards I get the feeling that people have a hard time just thinking of it as a hobby. They seem to want to justify it as an efficient means of transportation. I'm not sure why that is. People don't have the need to justify other hobbies in the same way.

"I ski so I can go from the top of the mountain to the bottom faster than I can walk..."

That's one thing I've never understood. It's like people feel obligated to justify why they are going out to the airport to fly, as if a justification is needed. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say something like "I've got to go out and fly for an hour since airplane engines don't like to sit for too long." As if it is some terrible task that they must accomplish whether they want to do it or not.

People just need to start thinking in the terms of "I feel like flying today so I'm going to go somewhere." No explanation is needed.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Obviously that's one of the reason there are not more pilots. But for people who don't lack the money, there's also the possible lack of interest and time, plus the decision to spend discretionary income in a different way.

That's true. I guess I was just thinking that it's primarily the middle class Joe that has been nudged out of GA over the years. The older guys I've spoken to over the years have indicated that there used to be a lot more average Joes with airplanes. Just family men/women with regular day jobs coming out to fly on the weekends. Those are the folks that need to be brought back into the fold. The ones who already have the desire to fly are the ones we need to reach. However, it wouldn't hurt to try to lure some folks with lotsa dough into GA too, but that seems to be the crowd that GA manufacturers are going after already, which doesn't do much for the rest of us. I say it's time to start looking at ways to include the little guy again, as Cowman has suggested.

 

[MetalCloud]

I think the reason young folks aren't into it: it's a matter of kids looking down at screens, not up in the clouds. Maybe. I don't know.

Cost is definitely a concern, but like others said, people spend money on what's important to them. Yes, $240/hour for a 182T hurts a little, but damn is it worth it. Granted, it's probably cheaper in other parts of the country, but everything is adjusted for cost of living.

But I think we somehow need to promote the passion and the cool factor and all the good things about aviation. Most people just hop on southwest flights or read about GA crashes in the news. I will say... The neighborhood grade school takes kids to the local aviation museum at SQL... So cool!!! I think things like that are crucial.

 

[hockeyrcks9901]

This was addressed and proposed. It was called primary non-commercial category, a term contained within the document created and sent up to the FAA by the Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Congress bought it, the President signed it. Then Congress told the FAA to implement it. What did the FAA do with the recommendation? They wiped their anus with the recommendation, stonewalled Congress' deadline by a full two years, and when they did make the implementation, primary non-commercial was unapologetically ABSENT from the changes as implemented.

THAT'S how your dream (and mine) of turning certified spam cans into the affordable de facto experimental 4-seaters (market the exAB crowd is uninterested in serving), died under the boot of the FAA. So it's not for a lack of trying, and it certainly isn't for lack of awareness or ignorance of the clamoring you, me and thousands of owner/operators have already made regarding the rather simpleton idea of allowing already-depreciated affordable spam cans to be operated under the maintenance and price point relief the 2-seater crowd in exAB land already enjoys.

So instead, they focused on some mickey mouse "performance-based" academic masturbation about new aircraft certification, which even after their manufacture under said new certification process, will still be un-affordable by the unwashed, aka us little people flying 50 year old antiques around.

So, yeah...cost.... And a whole bunch of apathy on the part of the people with the task of "promoting aviation" unceremoniously removed from their charter in 1996. At least you now know your enemy...

Is there a way to get this sent back through the rules making progress?

Anything AOPA or EAA is working on?

I hadn't heard of this before and is something that I would love to voice my support for, however little that would help.

 

[James331]

100% agree. For most, it's a fantastic, fun hobby. That's all. That being the case, how many folks are going to commit to a hobby that may wind up costing more than their home? Again, speaking of the middle class.

For most, for some it makes sense, I have a flight comming up, 2hrs by air vs 7hrs, some of which driving through the city, complete with all the citidiots.

One of my favorite places to hang out, 3.5hr drive or a 45min flight.

Other times it just for the joy of it, and I've told folks before, when they ask why I'm going up, or where I'm flying "because I can, no destination in mind"

Also seems like people have less passion nowadays, when people hear about someone who is very passionate about flying/restoring cars/painting, it's almost looked down upon, offending some.

If you're passionate about something there isn't a single thing wrong with running with it, even if it costs more than the ticky tacky little box you "live" in.

 

[RV10flyer]

Agree.

As it is today, only the fairly hardcore middle class aviation enthusiast is going to make it in aviation. If you're not fairly well off, it takes quite a bit of sacrifice and heart to own an airplane. That's no slight against those that are well off, I applaud you, but the GA growth will primarily have to come from the middle class, because those that want to fly, and have the money to do it, are probably already doing it. So the only way, in my mind, to get more people involved, is to make it more accessible to those with the desire, but may lack the means. I'm not talking about giving airplanes to poor people. I'm talking about making it possible for someone with a family making, say, 70K to own something other than a 40 year old C-150 without breaking the bank or having to make pretty serious sacrifices, and praying to the Almighty that the engine doesn't crap out. I don't know how that's possible, however. The real problems though are the lack of purchasing power of the dollar, the high cost of housing, the high cost of cars, and the high cost of insurances, among other things. Those being what they are, the middle class American doesn't have much disposable income to commit to any hobby.

Yes. We are making it, but barely.(Saved a little building our house and plane). Incomes are decreasing and costs for everything are increasing. If we do not get our economy improving soon, GA will be the least of our worries. Trying to hang in there.

 

[Everskyward]

I guess I was just thinking that it's primarily the middle class Joe that has been nudged out of GA over the years. The older guys I've spoken to over the years have indicated that there used to be a lot more average Joes with airplanes. Just family men/women with regular day jobs coming out to fly on the weekends.

I'm not sure if that is true or just a perception. It also depends on who you are referring to as the "average Joe". I'm not sure it's ever been the case that people with the median income for a family of 4 (isn't it in the $50-60,000 range now?) have owned airplanes in any kind of significant numbers. I know there are regional differences so substitute the median income in the area you are thinking about for the number I quoted which I believe is the national average. I know people I would consider "average Joes" who own airplanes but I'm guessing they make more than the median, have other assets, or don't have other responsibilities. But I'm also thinking of the people I knew when growing up in the 60s and 70s. I lived in a middle class suburban area and I didn't know anyone who owned an airplane.

 

[EdFred]

It's not just aviation, it's just about anything that takes practice.

I play competitive (travel) sports and the influx of young players is not there. Why? It's too much work to be good. And the few young ones that are there, seem to have the least hustle. Go out to the golf course, the young players aren't there either. Why? It's too much work to be good. When Tiger busted onto the scene he got a bunch of young (and non-white) people interested in golf. And then slowly, I saw the new blood go away. Why? Because it's too much work to be good. If they can't shoot even par within 3 weeks of picking it up, they give it up. And we expect them to put 40 hours into flying an airplane that they can't even do loops or rolls in like the airplanes on their XBOX/PCs? And that's just the young kids...

I have offered nearly everyone I know the opportunity to go up flying with me (and usually go to a destination they would be interested in) and the number one reason I get as to why they won't go: "My wife won't let me, she saw on a the news a plane ran out of fuel and crashed." "Dude, tell her I have 6 hours of fuel in the plane, and we are only going on a 90 minute round trip flight." "Doesn't matter, she's made up her mind."

Then you've got the people with kids who let the kid's schedule run their lives. When I was growing up, almost everything was on my parent's schedule, not ours. Parents nowadays seem to put their kids into so much stuff, they have zero free time. Even non-aviation I throw out an invite to come over just to grill out. "Can't daughter has this going on 4 days a week, 2 other things twice a week, and our son has his thing every night and...."

Now let's realize that only 30% of Americans have over $1000 in savings. Even if aviation was 1/3 the price it is now people most people still couldn't afford it. And we haven't gotten around to talking about spending habits of the average American...