GA pilot decline

Certainly money is part of the issue, but I think a more fundamental reason for declining PPL numbers is simply that people don't like to fly anymore. Even into the 1970's flying was a novelty, and relatively few people flew commercially. Those that did experienced a pretty good quality of service. Today people fly constantly, and frankly most really dislike the experience. The whole idea of looking out the window and marveling at the landscape passing by is pretty boring to them - they've done it before and they'd rather read a book or watch a movie on their iPad. I've taken up several passengers in my Tiger, and generally their primary interest has only been in getting to the destination - the flight itself held no interest. Times change, people change. Remember that the early 20th century was filled with train enthusiasts... how many of you would be excited by getting on Amtrak today?
 
You guys complaining about the cost of a new plane and lack of technology should first look at how much of the cost of a GA plane goes to liability coverage.
Then top that off with the cost to develop NEW design and technology improvements in the existing fleet through big brother.

Then look at all the games and technology young people have now. Us older folks, not that I am that old, had 4 TV stations with cartoons on for only 30 minutes a day. Planes of any kind sure were cool compared to my bike that I rode all over town instead of playing games 10 hours a day Which many kids do now. Let alone everything else we have these days.
Wonder why GA is diminishing, cost and an array of other technologies to occupy our time not to mention social media
 
Last edited:
AlleyCat67 said:
Certainly money is part of the issue, but I think a more fundamental reason for declining PPL numbers is simply that people don't like to fly anymore. Even into the 1970's flying was a novelty, and relatively few people flew commercially. Those that did experienced a pretty good quality of service. Today people fly constantly, and frankly most really dislike the experience. The whole idea of looking out the window and marveling at the landscape passing by is pretty boring to them - they've done it before and they'd rather read a book or watch a movie on their iPad. I've taken up several passengers in my Tiger, and generally their primary interest has only been in getting to the destination - the flight itself held no interest. Times change, people change. Remember that the early 20th century was filled with train enthusiasts... how many of you would be excited by getting on Amtrak today?
Click to expand...

Total bringdown, dude... :(
 
IK04 said:
Total bringdown, dude... :(
Click to expand...

But it's true. Even if you could cut the cost in half, the vast majority of people aren't interested.

Aviation is a tough sell, you have to be very dedicated to become a pilot and to maintain proficiency. One of the less expensive schools in the area estimates that it will cost between $9000 - 12000 to get a private, using the less expensive airplanes, that are 43 and 50 years old. Want something from this century? Add another $3000.

Once you get trained, what are you going to do for airplane? You can rent a Skyhawk for $130-170, or you have to find some sort of ownership. A minimal rental budget would be $6000, if you spent less than that, you'll risk losing proficiency. You have to be very dedicated to be a pilot and most people don't want that type of commitment in their off time.
 
Part of the problem is perception. People see a cirrus and its price and associate that with all of GA. Flying does not need to be expensive. Go buy almost anything with an o-200, find an instructor and get your rating. You will have less money tied up than most folks do with a boat and you will burn 5 gph...plenty cheap.
 
Johnbo said:
Flying does not need to be expensive. Go buy almost anything with an o-200, find an instructor and get your rating. You will have less money tied up than most folks do with a boat and you will burn 5 gph...plenty cheap.
Click to expand...

"Most people" don't have a boat . . . .

When I bought my plane, my coworkers immediately looked up a new one and started talking about how nice it must be to have so-many-hundred-thousand dollars laying around. I agreed, said it must be nice, that's why my plane is a 1970 model. Shocked looks and wide eyes! Then one said to another, "Dang, Scott! That's older than you are!"

Funny thing was, these were the boat crowd at work. They all had one or more boats, magical devices of marginal seawodthiness used to chew up weekends, with ballpark values mostly of $1000-$3000 each . . . . Nothing else was ever said about the price of my airplane
 
Hank S said:
"Most people" don't have a boat . . . .

When I bought my plane, my coworkers immediately looked up a new one and started talking about how nice it must be to have so-many-hundred-thousand dollars laying around. I agreed, said it must be nice, that's why my plane is a 1970 model. Shocked looks and wide eyes! Then one said to another, "Dang, Scott! That's older than you are!"

Funny thing was, these were the boat crowd at work. They all had one or more boats, magical devices of marginal seawodthiness used to chew up weekends, with ballpark values mostly of $1000-$3000 each . . . . Nothing else was ever said about the price of my airplane
Click to expand...
Yep and they probably only two or three ATVs too. Funny how they never add up the money spent on boats, motorcycles, and ATVs. I know one of my coworkers has a new Ram diesel, a two year old pontoon, and buys a new zero turn every mowing season (not sure why). Another friend takes his family to Disney twice a year staying in the park for an entire week, but they think flying is too expensive, crazy. I do think plane prices are too high and wish I didn't have to buy something the same age as me and even then unless I fly 120 hrs a year, I would have to share it with two to three others to make it work out cost wise.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'd give up telecommunications, personal computers and the internet at this point for more affordable housing, education and health care in exchange. In. a. heartbeat. Tons o' disposable income baby, and a higher quality of life. Amazon Prime and proliferation of touchscreen consumer interfaces is not that central to my happiness and prosperity. Housing and healthcare costs otoh, do get in the way of my pursuit of happiness. :D I don't need electronic Aspen potato to fly upside down either, hell judging by the trutrak thread it might actually be a hazard to my health!!! :eek::D
Click to expand...
As long as that more affordable housing, education, and health care come at the expense of others.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As long as that more affordable housing, education, and health care come at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

i cannot address your rather pointed retort to my tongue in cheek comment about trading the internet for lowered levels of income inequality. Not on this board at least, i cannot. the topic is way too political in order to respond to you comprehensively. i will say judging by your position on animals vs human dying on the other thread, it is clear to me you hold an above average misanthropic streak about your life views. So it doesnt surprise me to find you umbraged about the notion of any wealth redistribution to a cohort of strangers you find anathema to your own sense of comfort in life.

so lets just agree to disagree and hope the political process can keep us, or our children, from ending up on physical opposing battle lines over these issues. its hard enough when the chinese want nothing but our complete economic destruction (and theyre better than we are at the long game i assure you); it's truly a tragedy we cannot treat each other better than they do, as so called compatriots. E pluribus Unum and all that jazz.

Personally i think our multiculturalism becomes a sort of ironic hindrance towards regarding each other as members of the same team. its not an insurmountable problem to be sure, but it is certainly a problem culturally monolithic countries dont have when it comes to social cohesion. But i digress. good luck to us all in FU I got mine USA.
 
It seems like we are having the tail wag the dog here in this discussion.

Maybe I’m totally off, but the key seems like it would be the number of new students getting into the flight schools. I mean, cost is one thing, but even if costs are way too high, having 20 new students wanting to learn to fly vs. Having 5 per year is better.

Letting many people know, or just reminding others, young, middle aged, or even old people that they CAN learn to fly would be the way to go. I think there are also a out of untapped potential.

It’s PR, and it is initiatives that introduce people to the idea that they could learn to fly an airplane that could vitalize GA. The first thing you have to do is get people thinking it is possible. The second thing is to show them how amazingly cool it is, or in the case of older folks like me, remind them that GA even exists and is doable.

Without that, it would matter much if the costs came down.

Come on guys. YOU guys are pilots! Are you telling me that wonderful feeling of piloting an airplane, looking at the ground below, taking off and traveling somewhere and landing and the feeling of it is not able to compete with mobile telephones or even flight sims? (Personally I think flight sims also can be a boon to GA)

Don’t you believe that there is a segment of the population that if they just came out to the local airport and watched some small planes take off and land, might see the same thing we do? Might get enthused and see the beauty and the thrill of it?

I think really people hunger for a real experience. I think GA is not on the radar for many because of lack of exposure. I think the answer is to have small airports and flying clubs, schools, get better at PR.

Regarding the cost. Yes, it is high. But I lived a good part of my life not understanding that it was still doable. The thing being that one can pay as you go. The high price is the total, but it isn’t a lump sum. You can do it on the installment plan. At least to a degree.

The more people one can get to think about learning to be a pilot, and the more the idea is out there would help a lot. Do you guys see, other than because you are in the GA world, much of any advertisement in non pilot areas? Promotions, advertising, or even small planes? We almost never see them. Closest we have gotten is that Tom Cruise film that came out a year or so ago..

I wish the AOPA would try to promote more GA in films, tv series, etc. and get just the idea of flying small planes out there.
 
LongRoadBob said:
It seems like we are having the tail wag the dog here in this discussion.

Maybe I’m totally off, but the key seems like it would be the number of new students getting into the flight schools. I mean, cost is one thing, but even if costs are way too high, having 20 new students wanting to learn to fly vs. Having 5 per year is better.

Letting many people know, or just reminding others, young, middle aged, or even old people that they CAN learn to fly would be the way to go. I think there are also a out of untapped potential.

It’s PR, and it is initiatives that introduce people to the idea that they could learn to fly an airplane that could vitalize GA. The first thing you have to do is get people thinking it is possible. The second thing is to show them how amazingly cool it is, or in the case of older folks like me, remind them that GA even exists and is doable.

Without that, it would matter much if the costs came down.

Come on guys. YOU guys are pilots! Are you telling me that wonderful feeling of piloting an airplane, looking at the ground below, taking off and traveling somewhere and landing and the feeling of it is not able to compete with mobile telephones or even flight sims? (Personally I think flight sims also can be a boon to GA)

Don’t you believe that there is a segment of the population that if they just came out to the local airport and watched some small planes take off and land, might see the same thing we do? Might get enthused and see the beauty and the thrill of it?

I think really people hunger for a real experience. I think GA is not on the radar for many because of lack of exposure. I think the answer is to have small airports and flying clubs, schools, get better at PR.

Regarding the cost. Yes, it is high. But I lived a good part of my life not understanding that it was still doable. The thing being that one can pay as you go. The high price is the total, but it isn’t a lump sum. You can do it on the installment plan. At least to a degree.

The more people one can get to think about learning to be a pilot, and the more the idea is out there would help a lot. Do you guys see, other than because you are in the GA world, much of any advertisement in non pilot areas? Promotions, advertising, or even small planes? We almost never see them. Closest we have gotten is that Tom Cruise film that came out a year or so ago..

I wish the AOPA would try to promote more GA in films, tv series, etc. and get just the idea of flying small planes out there.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I'm certainly trying to do my part. Talked to the young man who did my 91.411/413 checks last week about joining the USAF as a pilot. Went to my kiddo's elementary school classes in uniform to showcase the life of a USAF pilot in a community where most parents are not airline pilots nor military officers. I live in a blue collar income school district, but my professional peers (co-workers included) consider the choice anathema to their lives, so these kids never see these careers showcased or talked about as attainable in a physically palpable manner. I also used to do Young Eagles, though admittedly these days I just limit my demo rides to extended family.

Even ancillary airport jobs can serve as gateways to recreational flying by physical proxy. So those are also good avenues to showcase.

We're def tryin! :D
 
It is FAA and lawyers - that’s it.

It has nothing to do with the Internet , folks having more distractions, getting lazy , dying middle class ( which is not ) etc. ... people are still riding bikes, motorcycles, climbing mountains , owning boats and RVs - so , again, why GA is dying ?
 
LongRoadBob said:
Don’t you believe that there is a segment of the population that if they just came out to the local airport and watched some small planes take off and land, might see the same thing we do? Might get enthused and see the beauty and the thrill of it?
.
.
.
I wish the AOPA would try to promote more GA in films, tv series, etc. and get just the idea of flying small planes out there.
Click to expand...


Yes, I do.

I also believe that the segment of the population most likely, and most able, to actually do something about it is the age segment of approximately 45 to 65.

The folks who are in the early stages of career and family have less disposable income and less spare time to take on something as consuming as aviation. It seems to me the emphasis is almost entirely on recruiting young people. I don't think we should abandon that, but their goal will be professional flying, which doesn't help GA in the long run. The 50-something empty-nester, who has paid off the mortgage and is financially secure, is more likely to pick up an expensive activity and stick with it for many years.

I agree about GA in films and TV. That was true back in the '50s and '60s, when GA often showed up in popular TV shows. Not so much any more.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, I do.

I also believe that the segment of the population most likely, and most able, to actually do something about it is the age segment of approximately 45 to 65.

The folks who are in the early stages of career and family have less disposable income and less spare time to take on something as consuming as aviation. It seems to me the emphasis is almost entirely on recruiting young people. I don't think we should abandon that, but their goal will be professional flying, which doesn't help GA in the long run. The 50-something empty-nester, who has paid off the mortgage and is financially secure, is more likely to pick up an expensive activity and stick with it for many years.

I agree about GA in films and TV. That was true back in the '50s and '60s, when GA often showed up in popular TV shows. Not so much any more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes sense to me too. The thing is, the attempt to recruit younger can get also some in, if their families have enough, etc. but can also sow the seeds for 20 years later “I always wanted to learn how to fly ever since I visited that airport”...

I wonder a little too, if physics and the sciences are not taught as thoroughly or not in general education. Looking at tests from say my fathers time, schools taught pretty heavy physics. Wonder how many folks would like to fly but feel like they couldn’t learn the theory.
 
N1120A said:
The reason is greed in GA. The conglomerates that make the planes refuse to streamline their processes to become more efficient, and the FAA refuses to do anything that would make their precious airlines have to compete for airspace - namely by approving and certifying more easily and cheaply. Why are brand new airplanes still flying around with magnetos? It isn't lawyers.





Yeah, just let them build any old death trap with poor tolerances, and also get rid of a big market for GA planes (us lawyers you want to disparage thanks to insurance industry defamation).

Car makers are no more released from their obligations after a warranty than GA builders are. In fact, car makers don't have special laws limiting their liability to a certain number of years - they still have to pay for defects down the road. Incidentally, when was the last time you got a recall letter for a plane? I've gotten 3 for my Jeep and 2 for my wife's Porsche.
Click to expand...

I meant not disrespect but as you well know lawyers and insurance company's are easy targets. There is a lot of blame that can be had in this situation the fact of the matter is we need to change what we are doing becuase what we have done for the last 3 decades isn't working. The LSA rules gave us an opportunity to change things but as you said greed has taken hold. Why innovate when you can charge $100k+ for a new two seater and not have to do the hard work of creating a new way. I'm working on a new way and it has been a lot of hard work. If you look at how cessna makes planes they certainly don't want to scrap millions of dollars worth of automated drilling and riveting machines to make a plane a different way, they purchased their composite production capacity instead of developing it.

The insurance company's are in business to make money and don't fool your self into thinking anything else. The hull premium on a $150k plane is pricey more so when it is $500k. Liability is for the most part liability and those number don't change much based on the risks associated with flight and hours of the pilot involved. Just as with cars more expensive cars have higher full coverage rates the liability portion remains close no matter what you drive unless you don't have modern safety equipment.

As for recals from manufacturers of automobiles you see many more of them than AD's because lets be serious there are millions of cars produced a year and only 1000 +- prop planes a year and there are still AD's being released regularly but when the manufacturer has quit because of low sales they are no longer going to support they product even if they survive. Most don't remember, but Cessna produced a pretty darn good piston powered helicopter and instead of having the continued liability the company purchased every one back and scrapped them instead of having to continue support for decades. The auto manufacturers when they are finished with a model release the parts production to other manufacturers instead of having to make parts for an extinct model for ever the NHTSA doesn't do what the FAA does in making automobile manufacuters support dead lines. Your Jeep there are probably 1 million copy's like yours on the road. If we had a manufacturer of planes with 1 million planes in the air you would probably see recalls just the same.

The question boils down to how much support do startups in GA aviation get? normally not much, pilots are too busy drooling of the next go fast plane that is $500k or more, nobody wants to invest in the next 152, 172, PA140 etc. when that is where it all starts. If we can't make flight affordable for the masses then the industry will die. Every commercial pilot has to get their private, instrument, multi-engine, before they can even consider stepping into commercial pilot (jet) world, that is more than $100k worth of pilot training and 1500-2500 hrs of flight time before they are making near enough to make it worth their wild.

I'm trying to get a company off the ground right now that will produce a two seat plane for $58,000 ready to fly. Funding is difficult even with the Regulation CF rules from the SEC where I can take investment from non-accreditaed investors, it is still slow. It seems that we all want affordable flight but are unwilling to finance the change we want. Don't get me wrong it is not just aviation, any startup has funding woes but when you are seeking funding that cost less than a new 172 to build a prototype and bring it to market you would think the aviation comunity would give it support. To date the majority of my investors have been from non-pilots. I'm really hoping that changes over the next 2 months.
 
The Elixir in Europe was an interesting concept. Low parts count and the use of Rotax variants to yield a 130KTAS-160KTAS (depending on the engine, one 100hp NA, the other 140hp turbo) 2-seater with around 627lbs UL. Essentially a certified RV-6(a)/Glasair I FT in performance. All for the low low price of 170-200AMUs depending on which engine you pick.

Obviously the resale market for RVs is much more price competitive, but I think the concept of parts count minimization is a great stride, considering much of our woes in certified land deal with these museum piece orphans with parts count galore the OEMs don't want to support anymore, just to go the same stupid 150KTAS. The price point however, continues to be a challenge for these efforts.

 
I agree with alot of what is posted above. I think the decline in GA is really just another active participation type of activity that is in decline along with hunting and fishing - two other activities that I pursue. I just think that people don't want to "do" active hobbies anymore.

I agree with an earlier poster - I have alot of friends that really are just not impressed that I fly an airplane. They just don't care.

That is foreign to most of us because growing up we idolized pilots and dreamed of flying up until the day we went our first airplane ride.

I still look up every time I hear a plane pass overhead. Most people just aren't like that nowadays.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I agree with alot of what is posted above. I think the decline in GA is really just another active participation type of activity that is in decline along with hunting and fishing - two other activities that I pursue. I just think that people don't want to "do" active hobbies anymore.
Click to expand...

hunting and fishing is down? I'm neither, so I'm genuinely curious. Hunters/fishermen outnumber aircraft owners in my professional circle by more than 5 to 1 by my anecdotal count. Most airplane owners in my circle are also hunters too; I'm the odd man out on that front, but that's mostly because I wasn't raised in gun-centric CONUS.

I will say, I was actually quite surprised at the levels of yearly expense hunting and fishing can get up to. Without a doubt some expend more than aircraft ownership, at least at my level (NA single engine piston).
 
Hunting and fishing numbers are done across most states - especially hunting. Numbers are easy to track because of licensing requirements.

One of the biggest challenges right now in the fishing / hunting community. Environmental wackos hate hunting and fishing and they want to inflict their beliefs on the population at large. And they are kind of winning...
 
hindsight2020 said:
I hear ya. I'm certainly trying to do my part. Talked to the young man who did my 91.411/413 checks last week about joining the USAF as a pilot. Went to my kiddo's elementary school classes in uniform to showcase the life of a USAF pilot in a community where most parents are not airline pilots nor military officers. I live in a blue collar income school district, but my professional peers (co-workers included) consider the choice anathema to their lives, so these kids never see these careers showcased or talked about as attainable in a physically palpable manner. I also used to do Young Eagles, though admittedly these days I just limit my demo rides to extended family.

Even ancillary airport jobs can serve as gateways to recreational flying by physical proxy. So those are also good avenues to showcase.

We're def tryin! :D
Click to expand...

I spent Saturday at an air show lifting countless kiddos in and out of my plane. Then gave them an FAA sanctioned demo of the awesomeness of the Velocity. Doing my part bro! :D
22E38A4D-966E-4345-91D4-6FF1AF654380.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Stephen Shore said:
I agree with alot of what is posted above. I think the decline in GA is really just another active participation type of activity that is in decline along with hunting and fishing - two other activities that I pursue. I just think that people don't want to "do" active hobbies anymore.

I agree with an earlier poster - I have alot of friends that really are just not impressed that I fly an airplane. They just don't care.

That is foreign to most of us because growing up we idolized pilots and dreamed of flying up until the day we went our first airplane ride.

I still look up every time I hear a plane pass overhead. Most people just aren't like that nowadays.
Click to expand...

According to Running USA, slightly more than 18 million people signed up for at least one running event last year, and according to USA Triathlon, slightly more than 4 million people participated in at least one triathlon. It's not that people aren't interested in active participation sports, it's that they are choosing different ones. Also, where I live, both hunting and fishing activities entail a lot of waiting around. Most of the hunting here is deer hunting and is done from a stand. As far as fishing goes, we all know about that.

The only person I know who hunts recently gave it up because he is tired of being shot at while hunting on public lands. He says he won't go back. I do know a number of adult men who fish, but not any children. I did fish when I was a kid, but it's too much waiting around for me now.
 
Stephen Shore said:
Hunting and fishing numbers are done across most states - especially hunting. Numbers are easy to track because of licensing requirements.

One of the biggest challenges right now in the fishing / hunting community. Environmental wackos hate hunting and fishing and they want to inflict their beliefs on the population at large. And they are kind of winning...
Click to expand...

I live in Oregon, where there’s both an active hunting community and a bunch of, as you say, environmental wackos, and quite frankly most of my friends who did hunt say that they just don’t have the time anymore, or viewed it more as their father’s hobby, and just aren’t that interested. It’s pretty expensive as well and a skill that needs to be kept up or you’re just gonna miss and be frustrated. Not one has mentioned the wacko angle at all, unless it’s getting shot at by other hunters.

Most active outdoor sports around here seems to have migrated to running, hiking, biking, and kayaking. All activities that can be done relatively inexpensively both in terms of money and time. The bikers pretty well infest the roads too....
 
The "environmentalist" activists (I will not use the term "wackos") are very active in their attempts to stop hunting. From shutting off public lands, to attempts to shorten seasons, and then the ultimate in their "activism" the reintroduction of alpha predators wolves to the environment. The wolves of course of decimated the elk herds as well as the cattle herds. In other words - greatly affected the local population's ability to earn a living or enjoy the wilderness. A good percentage of these "environmentalists" also are probably actively involved in stopping new airport construction or curtailing development of existing airports.

Just part of the overall culture now of not only being free to have your own beliefs, but now everyone wants to inflict those beliefs on everyone else.

I am all for anyone not being forced to eat meat, hunt, fly in a GA aircraft, etc. but don't infringe on my right to. Just don't do it yourself and be happy with that.
 
LongRoadBob said:
It seems like we are having the tail wag the dog here in this discussion.

Maybe I’m totally off, but the key seems like it would be the number of new students getting into the flight schools. I mean, cost is one thing, but even if costs are way too high, having 20 new students wanting to learn to fly vs. Having 5 per year is better.

Letting many people know, or just reminding others, young, middle aged, or even old people that they CAN learn to fly would be the way to go. I think there are also a out of untapped potential.

It’s PR, and it is initiatives that introduce people to the idea that they could learn to fly an airplane that could vitalize GA. The first thing you have to do is get people thinking it is possible. The second thing is to show them how amazingly cool it is, or in the case of older folks like me, remind them that GA even exists and is doable.

Without that, it would matter much if the costs came down.

Come on guys. YOU guys are pilots! Are you telling me that wonderful feeling of piloting an airplane, looking at the ground below, taking off and traveling somewhere and landing and the feeling of it is not able to compete with mobile telephones or even flight sims? (Personally I think flight sims also can be a boon to GA)

Don’t you believe that there is a segment of the population that if they just came out to the local airport and watched some small planes take off and land, might see the same thing we do? Might get enthused and see the beauty and the thrill of it?

I think really people hunger for a real experience. I think GA is not on the radar for many because of lack of exposure. I think the answer is to have small airports and flying clubs, schools, get better at PR.

Regarding the cost. Yes, it is high. But I lived a good part of my life not understanding that it was still doable. The thing being that one can pay as you go. The high price is the total, but it isn’t a lump sum. You can do it on the installment plan. At least to a degree.

The more people one can get to think about learning to be a pilot, and the more the idea is out there would help a lot. Do you guys see, other than because you are in the GA world, much of any advertisement in non pilot areas? Promotions, advertising, or even small planes? We almost never see them. Closest we have gotten is that Tom Cruise film that came out a year or so ago..

I wish the AOPA would try to promote more GA in films, tv series, etc. and get just the idea of flying small planes out there.
Click to expand...

Yup. I tell prob 5 people a week that they should get their license. Friends, clients, co-workers. For many it seems to be a thought already but with no network of support, they never try.

AOPA should pull together a few hundred thousand and put out a bunch of FREE INTRO flight coupons. Not in aviation magazines. In Time, Air & Space, Smithsonian, pop mechanics, boating mags, scuba mags, whatever mags dr’s & business owners read, New York Times, etc.... and not in tired old planes. For schools with new modern fleets (and new modern facilities and new modern CFI’s).
 
flyer770 said:
I live in Oregon...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry.

flyer770 said:
Most active outdoor sports around here seems to have migrated to running, hiking, biking, and kayaking. All activities that can be done relatively inexpensively both in terms of money and time. The bikers pretty well infest the roads too....
Click to expand...

Those are the only activities left that can be done with the few remaining personal freedoms that have yet to be taxed out of existence. None involve gasoline or real estate...
 
Oh hey - I'm a lawyer and an environmentalist - I guess I must HATE flying...oh...wait...

Incidentally - why don't we have a 100LL alternative? That isn't lawyers or environmentalists. It is simply the FAA refusing to approve of something, and the plane makers caring much more about building stuff that burns Jet A. Why is it only being refined in 2 places, making it expensive in the US and Canada and eye watering elsewhere? Right - oil refiners who are limiting supply.

Anyway, the up thread about people 1) having more means of stimulation and 2) being able to travel in airplanes more, does hold some water. Personal flying used to be the only practical way to make a 3-6 hour drive into a much shorter trip. You didn't have hourly flights between most cities that were about 300-500 nm apart. Now you do. Of course, it is still faster to fly yourself - all things considered - not not much, and flying the airlines is a lot cheaper than it once was.

Also, before private jets were a thing, folks with means would buy Bonanzas to fly themselves and the folks in their company. Now, there are lots of private jets out there for prices that even relatively small companies can afford. There goes that Bonanza.

Andrew M House said:
I meant not disrespect but as you well know lawyers and insurance company's are easy targets.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies deserve all they get - and more. Lawyers don't. For various reasons.
 
N1120A said:
. . .
Incidentally - why don't we have a 100LL alternative? That isn't lawyers or environmentalists. It is simply the FAA refusing to approve of something, and the plane makers caring much more about building stuff that burns Jet A. Why is it only being refined in 2 places, making it expensive in the US and Canada and eye watering elsewhere? Right - oil refiners who are limiting supply . . .
Click to expand...

I believe it's bit more complex than the "FAA refusing to approve of something". Something about replacing a fuel that has to work in the 85HP bug-smasher all the way to the 300HP turbocharged twin is not a simple task. 100LL has a long track record, and making sure that 94UL (or whatever comes out of it) doesn't vapor lock at altitude or cause detonation on a high-compression engine is a tedious process to certify. Also, as to why it is only being refined in 2 places, one word: volume. We don't use enough 100LL to justify dozens of refineries making it. It costs a lot of money to crack hydrocarbons, and changeover costs aren't minuscule, either. So, it's more cost-effective overall to refine it in 2 places and ship it to where it needs to go.
 
N1120A said:
Why is it only being refined in 2 places, making it expensive in the US and Canada and eye watering elsewhere? Right - oil refiners who are limiting supply.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that has nothing to do with environmental regulations and taxes.
 
Andrew M House said:
Well that would be one way, and I agree the tort laws are rediculous in that product liability on a plane is forever when car manufacturers are released after the warrenty expires for the most part.
Click to expand...
Actually, the plane liability is limited by law. Airplanes tend to be used for a much longer time than cars; nobody is gonna sue GM over something that happens in a '69 Corvair, but they would sue Cessna over a '69 Skyhawk incident.
Today's helpful hints: ridiculous, warranty.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Actually, the plane liability is limited by law. Airplanes tend to be used for a much longer time than cars; nobody is gonna sue GM over something that happens in a '69 Corvair, but they would sue Cessna over a '69 Skyhawk incident.
Today's helpful hints: ridiculous, warranty.
Click to expand...
And that is wrong!!!! I'm sorry but Cessna should have zero liability for '69 Skyhawk that is just beyond normal reason and the expectation of any manufacturer. GM still exists just the way Cessna does and yet GM is off the hook and Cessna is still responsible.
 
N1120A said:
Oh hey - I'm a lawyer and an environmentalist - I guess I must HATE flying...oh...wait...

Incidentally - why don't we have a 100LL alternative? That isn't lawyers or environmentalists. It is simply the FAA refusing to approve of something, and the plane makers caring much more about building stuff that burns Jet A. Why is it only being refined in 2 places, making it expensive in the US and Canada and eye watering elsewhere? Right - oil refiners who are limiting supply.

Anyway, the up thread about people 1) having more means of stimulation and 2) being able to travel in airplanes more, does hold some water. Personal flying used to be the only practical way to make a 3-6 hour drive into a much shorter trip. You didn't have hourly flights between most cities that were about 300-500 nm apart. Now you do. Of course, it is still faster to fly yourself - all things considered - not not much, and flying the airlines is a lot cheaper than it once was.

Also, before private jets were a thing, folks with means would buy Bonanzas to fly themselves and the folks in their company. Now, there are lots of private jets out there for prices that even relatively small companies can afford. There goes that Bonanza.



Insurance companies deserve all they get - and more. Lawyers don't. For various reasons.
Click to expand...

There are alternatives approved the problem is they are not readily available. Basic economincs is ruling in this case not enogh demand to justify the expense. 100LL can not be replaced in every engine combination but most of the flying fleet can use mogas or unleaded if it were available FBO's don't want to manage another pump when demand for 100LL is so low, as it is already. We need to be careful because TEL is in the cross hairs of the EPA and if there is an administration that is more keen on eliminiating it we may find the availability of avgas even more restrictedand higher priced than today. To see if your airframe/ engine combination can use mogas https://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml check the link, there are a lot.
 
I stated in an earlier post I am attempting to raise capital for a less expensive entry level plane for pilots to stimulate the lower end of aviation and hopefully get more people involved the link to the raise is https://netcapital.com/companies/orion-aircraft I am acutally selling ownership interests in my company so please have a look and pass the link along even if you don't want to invest. We are trying to produce a prototype and get it to the Light Sport Expo , Sun N Fun, and Airventure in 2020.AIRCRAFT1.3711248 (1).jpg
This is a rendering of what we are trying to bring to the market for $58000.
 
Andrew M House said:
I stated in an earlier post I am attempting to raise capital for a less expensive entry level plane for pilots to stimulate the lower end of aviation and hopefully get more people involved the link to the raise is https://netcapital.com/companies/orion-aircraft I am acutally selling ownership interests in my company so please have a look and pass the link along even if you don't want to invest. We are trying to produce a prototype and get it to the Light Sport Expo , Sun N Fun, and Airventure in 2020.View attachment 73979
This is a rendering of what we are trying to bring to the market for $58000.
Click to expand...

Looks like you put the wing on backwards.
 
IK04 said:
I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

Don't be, I feel the same about Texas.

Andrew M House said:
I stated in an earlier post I am attempting to raise capital for a less expensive entry level plane for pilots to stimulate the lower end of aviation and hopefully get more people involved the link to the raise is https://netcapital.com/companies/orion-aircraft I am acutally selling ownership interests in my company so please have a look and pass the link along even if you don't want to invest. We are trying to produce a prototype and get it to the Light Sport Expo , Sun N Fun, and Airventure in 2020.View attachment 73979
This is a rendering of what we are trying to bring to the market for $58000.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, looks kind of like an LSA Cessna 336. The visibility would be fantastic. When are you expecting to have a flying prototype?
 
Andrew M House said:
I stated in an earlier post I am attempting to raise capital for a less expensive entry level plane for pilots to stimulate the lower end of aviation and hopefully get more people involved the link to the raise is https://netcapital.com/companies/orion-aircraft I am acutally selling ownership interests in my company so please have a look and pass the link along even if you don't want to invest. We are trying to produce a prototype and get it to the Light Sport Expo , Sun N Fun, and Airventure in 2020.View attachment 73979
This is a rendering of what we are trying to bring to the market for $58000.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept. Do you have plans for a 4 place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top