If you were King for a day...Make GA better.

DFH65 said:
Lose the flight time is compensation garbage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Or at least loosen up the rules where you can't accept your friends offer to pay for fuel or buy you lunch in exchange for a ride.
 
Palmpilot said:
Along the lines of making it more like car rentals, King Richard would mandate a national currency database for rental places, so that if you're checked out and current in type at one FBO/club, you can' rent that type anywhere.
Click to expand...

That would be excellent! Call the insurers and let them know. (I'm not being sarcastic. I really do think it would be excellent to not have to have a checkout everywhere I want to rent.)
 
Yah imagine if you had to do a checkout in a minivan before you could rent it!

They just want to make sure you're OK to drive THIS model of minivan, or whatever the checkout reasoning is.
 
jsstevens said:
That would be excellent! Call the insurers and let them know. (I'm not being sarcastic. I really do think it would be excellent to not have to have a checkout everywhere I want to rent.)
Click to expand...
This is being done already on a volunteer basis. It's called Openairplane. It is a lose network, but allows you to skip a check out ride at participating rental places.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
This is being done already on a volunteer basis. It's called Openairplane. It is a lose network, but allows you to skip a check out ride at participating rental places.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sounds great, but I think I'd rather be involved with a win network. ;)

Sent from my 700-215xt using Firefox
 
drotto said:
This is being done already on a volunteer basis. It's called Openairplane. It is a lose network, but allows you to skip a check out ride at participating rental places.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The problem I saw with OpenAirplane (long ago) was that it costs more to rent through them than it was to just do the checkout, especially if you planned on renting from the new rental outfit more than once.
 
JOhnH said:
Agreed. Or at least loosen up the rules where you can't accept your friends offer to pay for fuel or buy you lunch in exchange for a ride.
Click to expand...

This is a problem, but honestly -- people do it anyway and there's no significant enforcement action coming on it unless they're "holding out". Rules are rules, and I don't recommend anyone purposefully break them, but we all know this one is bent all to hell, regularly. By a lot of people.

drotto said:
This is being done already on a volunteer basis. It's called Openairplane. It is a lose network, but allows you to skip a check out ride at participating rental places.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant "loose"? It's not very loose, it's a business venture. Some clubs choose to join, others don't.

SoonerAviator said:
The problem I saw with OpenAirplane (long ago) was that it costs more to rent through them than it was to just do the checkout, especially if you planned on renting from the new rental outfit more than once.
Click to expand...

I know Rod (who started OA), and there's no intent on his part to make it be that way, but the insurers say it has to cost more that way, and the cost flows through. It's debatable if they could justify it with claims and numbers from an actuary, especially since there's really only a handful of underwriters. But that's a question for them, really.

I think at a bare minimum they should get more detailed about time in type to determine true costs but I suspect they're not seeing enough people actually doing this "fly airplanes somewhere else" thing often enough to bother with that much administrative tracking and cost analysis. The insurers, that is. It's a neat system if you need it, but not many folks really need it.

Many clubs also forego their usual club dues or other fixed income when they rent to an out-of-towner through the OA network, so they have to make that piece up on the hourly.
 
Take the FAA out of private GA, and only allow them jurisdiction over commercial aviation. Let the market and fear of litigation do the rest. The public doesn't need to be protected from private pilots. It needs to be protected from shady commercial operations that put profit before safety of their customers. Most private pilots are already responsible, and those that are not probably are going to do whatever they want anyway. All the FAA really does (in regards to GA) is regulate and inconvenience those that don't need to be. Honestly, I can kill just as many people with my truck as I can with my plane, and it was pretty damned easy to get my drivers license and buy my truck, and I don't ever have to prove that my vehicle is safe to be on the road.

PPL: Revamp the whole damned thing. Get rid of DPEs. (Save them for commercial.) If a CFI can sign someone off to solo up to 25nm from their home field, then why do you need a DPE? (There were plenty of cities that I was flying over as a solo pre-PPL student during which I could have screwed up and killed innocent people.) All a DPE is doing is testing your ability to stay calm and remember what to do during an exam. Not really that valuable. Let the CFI take their students through all their training, endorsing them to do more and fly further as they develop their skills. Solo; other airports; cross-country; night; and basic IFR (for climbing and descending through a layer and shooting approaches). Even add a step for carrying passengers. (Maybe even require training flights with CFI and passengers to get used to flying at max-gross before getting signed off to carry passengers.) Possibly require 50 hours before carrying passengers? However, until a pilot gets a commercial certificate, they have to stay under 18,000 MSL, and under 200kts, single engine only, and cannot fly in hard IMC. Under this system, annual flight reviews would be required instead of bi-annual. Insurers would be free to impose stiffer recency and training requirement.

CPL and up: This is where the FAA gets involved, and medical certifications and DPEs are required.

Aircraft Certification: Again, the FAA is just in the way when it comes to private, small aircraft GA. We all know they just stifle innovation and impede the progress of safety. Experimental proves that beyond doubt. The only requirement should be the initial airworthiness testing for a new model/design. Additions, modifications, etcetera...again, the market and fear of litigation will do it's job here.

Airworthiness: Get rid of the annual inspection requirement. Again, fear of death, litigation, and the market can take care of this, as well as the pilot's sense of personal responsibility. (And again, those that are not responsible already aren't under the current system.) Require that your most recent inspection ticket be visible to all passengers. Require airworthiness inspections at time of sale/transfer of ownership, or when the engine is replaced/overhauled, or when the aircraft has not been flown for an extended period of time. Allow waiver of airworthiness inspections if aircraft has 100 hr inspections on a regular basis. (A lot of us PPL/owners do this already.)

More owner repairs/inspections: Provide online training and testing for an owner/pilot to become certified to do their own inspections, and perform their own 100 hr service/inspections. If an owner knows what to look for, how to look for it, and how to document it, he/she can keep their plane safe for a fraction of the cost. (But only their own aircraft. To work on other peoples aircraft, an AP cert will still be required.) Those that are not mechanically inclined (like myself) will still choose to pay APs to do it. Those who know how to turn a wrench will save money, as they should.

There is obviously a lot more that can be done to save GA, improve it's safety, and make it flourish again. And the more it flourishes, the less expensive it becomes. It's obvious that the FAA is not the answer...it's the problem.
 
donjohnston said:
Can you cite a source for that? I've never heard that one before.
Click to expand...
I don't recall for sure, maybe one of Wolfgang Langweische's books. It was proposed, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered. Would've been nice, though...
 
Rykymus said:
Take the FAA out of private GA, and only allow them jurisdiction over commercial aviation. Let the market and fear of litigation do the rest. The public doesn't need to be protected from private pilots. It needs to be protected from shady commercial operations that put profit before safety of their customers. Most private pilots are already responsible, and those that are not probably are going to do whatever they want anyway. All the FAA really does (in regards to GA) is regulate and inconvenience those that don't need to be. Honestly, I can kill just as many people with my truck as I can with my plane, and it was pretty damned easy to get my drivers license and buy my truck, and I don't ever have to prove that my vehicle is safe to be on the road.

PPL: Revamp the whole damned thing. Get rid of DPEs. (Save them for commercial.) If a CFI can sign someone off to solo up to 25nm from their home field, then why do you need a DPE? (There were plenty of cities that I was flying over as a solo pre-PPL student during which I could have screwed up and killed innocent people.) All a DPE is doing is testing your ability to stay calm and remember what to do during an exam. Not really that valuable. Let the CFI take their students through all their training, endorsing them to do more and fly further as they develop their skills. Solo; other airports; cross-country; night; and basic IFR (for climbing and descending through a layer and shooting approaches). Even add a step for carrying passengers. (Maybe even require training flights with CFI and passengers to get used to flying at max-gross before getting signed off to carry passengers.) Possibly require 50 hours before carrying passengers? However, until a pilot gets a commercial certificate, they have to stay under 18,000 MSL, and under 200kts, single engine only, and cannot fly in hard IMC. Under this system, annual flight reviews would be required instead of bi-annual. Insurers would be free to impose stiffer recency and training requirement.

CPL and up: This is where the FAA gets involved, and medical certifications and DPEs are required.

Aircraft Certification: Again, the FAA is just in the way when it comes to private, small aircraft GA. We all know they just stifle innovation and impede the progress of safety. Experimental proves that beyond doubt. The only requirement should be the initial airworthiness testing for a new model/design. Additions, modifications, etcetera...again, the market and fear of litigation will do it's job here.

Airworthiness: Get rid of the annual inspection requirement. Again, fear of death, litigation, and the market can take care of this, as well as the pilot's sense of personal responsibility. (And again, those that are not responsible already aren't under the current system.) Require that your most recent inspection ticket be visible to all passengers. Require airworthiness inspections at time of sale/transfer of ownership, or when the engine is replaced/overhauled, or when the aircraft has not been flown for an extended period of time. Allow waiver of airworthiness inspections if aircraft has 100 hr inspections on a regular basis. (A lot of us PPL/owners do this already.)

More owner repairs/inspections: Provide online training and testing for an owner/pilot to become certified to do their own inspections, and perform their own 100 hr service/inspections. If an owner knows what to look for, how to look for it, and how to document it, he/she can keep their plane safe for a fraction of the cost. (But only their own aircraft. To work on other peoples aircraft, an AP cert will still be required.) Those that are not mechanically inclined (like myself) will still choose to pay APs to do it. Those who know how to turn a wrench will save money, as they should.

There is obviously a lot more that can be done to save GA, improve it's safety, and make it flourish again. And the more it flourishes, the less expensive it becomes. It's obvious that the FAA is not the answer...it's the problem.
Click to expand...
All GREAT ideas, kudos!
 
Dana said:
I don't recall for sure, maybe one of Wolfgang Langweische's books. It was proposed, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered. Would've been nice, though...
Click to expand...

Okay.

That sounds like one of the many ubran myths about the interstate highway system. My favorite is how every x miles of road, there has to be at least a 10,000' straightaway with no overhead obstructions to be used as a runway in case there's a war.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why we are pretending we are John King for a day. So confused. ;-)
 
Shepherd said:
Do away with the pilot certificate program, completely, then:
1. Everyone starts as a sports pilot with minimum IFR training (but no endorsement for IFR).
2. Everything else becomes an add-on endorsement. Night, long distance cross country, etc.
3. After 100 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for heavier planes up to 5,000 lbs ? (Haven't thought much on weight), and complex aircraft. Each type is a separate endorsement, including Seaplane.
4. After 200 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for IFR, multiengine, jet.
5. After 300 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can work on commercial and next heavy category.
6. Replace exams with the endorsement flights. You want the next step, you fly with the instructor until you can do it.
Click to expand...

1. Everyone starts with a golf cart with minimum combat driving (but no combat driving endorsement).
2. Everything else becomes an add-on endorsement. Night, long distance driving, etc.
3. After 50,000 miles (in a given time period), driver, you can get endorsed for small cars, up to Prius size.
4. After 100,000 miles (in a given time period), driver, you can get endorsed for combat driving, full sized sedans, pickups, SUVs.
5. After 200,000 miles (in a given time period), driver, you can work on class B and heavy duty pickup.

Not the perfect comparison... but does that help illustrate how onerous the new barriers you've imposed are?
 
hey, a modification of that driving reg might have some merit!

ie, sign offs following successful demonstration of:
-ability to use turn signal at the right time (& not use them when it is wrong to)
-ability to stay mostly within the white lines for 50 feet
-complete 5 full mins driving w/o any texting, calling, make-up/shaving
-there must be a cursory understanding of these three complicated light colors: Red, Amber, Green as it applies to traffic
-night sign off would include a semblance of knowledge on at least the location of the high beam control, and attempt to not cause retina bleeds in ~30% of oncoming drivers
 
There needs to be a truly new, low cost, entry level but "Cirrusy" type plane out there that will make aviation accessible to more people without forcing them to ride in a beat to hell Cherokee. Panthera, etc., are all cool, but everyone is trying to grab that market of buyers in the $500K to $1 mil range. Why not build something new, clean, simple, and modern at a low cost and sell somewhere well below the <$200K price point? I get that certification is expensive, but you don't have to be a hero and develop the next greatest thing. Legends like the cub, 152, etc., were born out of a need and the straight manufacturing costs of a 1,300 lbs of aluminum can't possibly be that high... (famous last words)

What does this mean:

*Use a tried and true powerplant like lycoming 360, this means a huge support network and a powerplant that won't surprise you or feel foreign
*doesn't have to be composite, because we want these things to be rugged, cheap to build, and to age well without the "what happens in 50 years" question, and to make repairs easier, and because it's tried and true construction method and will keep costs down
*doesn't have to have FIKI, most new PPL are not instrument rated, and shouldn't be messing around with icing, or tricky IMC
*doesn't need pressurizing, again this is an added complexity that the entry market doesn't need
*doesn't need retractable gear (but should have as an option, I would buy it with RG ;))

*Exterior SHOULD have:
--a modern, yet not outlandish aesthetic low wing design. No hate to high wings, but that strut really gives it that "I'm a flimsy trainer so I need an extra brace to hold my wing on" look. Cirrus nailed their exterior design well. Diamonds just look bazaar, and Archers look old school

*Interior SHOULD have:
--a proper and substantial feeling throttle quadrant (none of these old school push pull knobs or flimsy Warrior throttles)
--a sidestick that feels like you're flying a C17, give it a solid PTT, eletric trim, and AP disconnect. NOT spring loaded, you want to feel the plane
--automotive style climate control knobs
--a clean and symmetric design. So many panels seem hodge podged together
--make the door easy to use
--put a door on both left and right sides
--make a freaking air vent that is obvious and easy to use
--glove compartment, cup holders, plenty of USB power ports
--left, right, and both fuel selector (I know it's a low wing, but find a way to make "both" work) - and put it somewhere easy and obvious like Cirrus, not at the bottom of the floor
Point is to make the pilot feel like they're flying a beefier airplane than they are and not a beat up trainer. You also want to make the non flying passenger feel like "wow this is awesome, I want to learn to fly too!"

*Performance SHOULD:
--be able to have a proper 1,100 lb useful load
--have a decent cruise speed, IE, 130-150 knot
--very docile stall characteristics, no surprises with entry to spin, etc.

*Extras to set it apart:
--give it some cool proprietary features, things like:
---develop a native phone app for the plane.. remember, we need to appeal to millenials
---give it a very basic FMC, I'm talking some lines of Linux code on a raspberry pi with a cool UI on a 7 inch display somewhere... this would serve the purpose of talking to the phone app, could calculate your V speeds based on atmospheric conditions, weight and balance, etc., during an engine out could also give you best glide, time and distance, find a way to plot that onto your Foreflight or iPad via bluetooth??
---why is leaning still some mysterious wizardry? The stoichiometric ratio is well known, have the plane give you a suggested mixture as a guide to the pilot, and have it alert you if you're at or below 3,500, descending, and not full rich
---put some $50 cameras here and there and let the pilot select different views in flight (engine bay, under carriage, top of tail fin, etc.), other than being "cool" this could also give you some insight into icing, potential icing or gear concerns, engine issues, etc.

When everyone is trying to build the next BMW or Tesla no one has refreshed the aging GA trainer fleet, that's what the goal of all this is.
 
Tantalum said:
When everyone is trying to build the next BMW or Tesla no one has refreshed the aging GA trainer fleet, that's what the goal of all this is.
Click to expand...

Cessna did that from a clean sheet and recently sent the unsold ones to the crusher. Literally. The market didn't want them.
 
denverpilot said:
Cessna did that from a clean sheet and recently sent the unsold ones to the crusher. Literally. The market didn't want them.
Click to expand...
Considering how high the price was, I don't have any trouble believing that the market didn't want them, but I heard that the reason for that particular shipment's being sent to the crusher was that the Chinese manufacturer screwed up so badly that they were deemed to be a lost cause.
 
Palmpilot said:
Considering how high the price was, I don't have any trouble believing that the market didn't want them, but I heard that the reason for that particular shipment's being sent to the crusher was that the Chinese manufacturer screwed up so badly that they were deemed to be a lost cause.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, it shows a very scary inability to control suppliers.
 
denverpilot said:
Cessna did that from a clean sheet and recently sent the unsold ones to the crusher. Literally. The market didn't want them.
Click to expand...
Upfront apology to anyone who likes the Skycatcher or has one, no personal offense intended, but that seemed like a seriously POS plane and cheaply executed venture from Cessna. It checked off none of my boxes on the list above or got people excited about flying, it didn't have that "Cirrusy" feel to it, or at least that "this is a much bigger plane that it is" feel that Piper is trying to cultivate in their trainers. It was just an ugly and cheap replacement to a product that already exited and was loved by many (the 152)

I was originally excited when I learned about Cessna's clean sheet trainer, but the more I learned about it the more disappointed I got. You want to make new pilots excited about flying, not give them a plastic toy that borders on insulting. It's like learning to drive a car on one of these:

upload_2017-4-9_22-8-38.png

The original 152 at least had that "airplane" charm to it. The perfect trainer to me would be something that a pilot could also proudly (relatively) own as their first plane after getting licensed... and many people bought 152s, 172, and Cherokees and really loved them. The challenge is, you can't make these planes feel "entry level" (even if they are).


EDIT: some typos
 
The marketing is also critical here... when things are specifically marketed as "trainers" or "entry level" they generally don't do as well... nobody wants to be thought of as "entry level" (even if they are) especially if they about to spend a serious amount of $$ on something

My apologies that my examples always go back to cars.. but Toyota tried that with Scion, and Scion closed up shop too. People will buy things that make them feel good, and that they can afford, if you want to make someone feel good you can't give them a "here is a trainer" or "here is your entry level" experience. The BMW 2 series is arguably their current entry level car, but it doesn't feel entry level and is an absolute joy to drive... The Ford Focus is also a lower cost car too but it doesn't make you feel bad or cheap for driving one, in fact it's a pretty tight and zippy little car
 
Tantalum said:
or at least that "this is a much bigger plane that it is" feel that Piper is trying to cultivate in their trainers. m
Click to expand...

Piper? They slapped their name on an aircraft they didn't design and then bailed out of it after one year. Assuming you're talking about the Sport. It hasn't been available under their name for six years.

I think @ejensen owns the LSA that Cessna should have put their name on, instead of clean-sheeting it. But that's water long under the "LSA excitement/rush to market" bridge.
 
denverpilot said:
Piper? They slapped their name on an aircraft they didn't design and then bailed out of it after one year. Assuming you're talking about the Sport. It hasn't been available under their name for six years.

I think @ejensen owns the LSA that Cessna should have put their name on, instead of clean-sheeting it. But that's water long under the "LSA excitement/rush to market" bridge.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I kind of erased LSA from my lexicon after it failed to takeoff. I think for the very reason that pilot types aren't really interested (at least I am not, and the market would also seem to support this) in small planes that aren't the "real deal"


But I was actually talking about how the "new" Archer 3 has the overhead switches. The Archer 3 is not really a trainer, fine, but it's still their entry level plane, or as AOPA put it, the "first rung" on the ladder
 
Tantalum said:
Sorry, I kind of erased LSA from my lexicon after it failed to takeoff. I think for the very reason that pilot types aren't really interested (at least I am not, and the market would also seem to support this) in small planes that aren't the "real deal"


But I was actually talking about how the "new" Archer 3 has the overhead switches. The Archer 3 is not really a trainer, fine, but it's still their entry level plane, or as AOPA put it, the "first rung" on the ladder
Click to expand...

Hmm. When we wandered off into "trainer" territory I was thinking things people would actually be attracted to train in. I don't think an Archer is the answer, no matter where you put the switches. Heh. But they have UND to buy them...
 
denverpilot said:
When we wandered off into "trainer" territory I was thinking things people would actually be attracted to train in.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just projecting my desire for there to be a Mooney or SR22-esq plane out there that falls more in my price bracket, ha!

But I think the biggest issue in getting new pilots to fly GA is costs. This is a tough generation for 20 and early 30 somethings and more and more people are relying on credit, rentals, leases, etc., to live. $120/hr to rent plus instructor costs are going to keep a lot of people out of the market

This is a couple years old, but according to this the median weekly income of 25-34 year old is only a little over $700 per week.. that income has to go to a car payment, rent, food, *student loan debt*, etc. Spending that money on flying just doesn't seem to be in the cards for these folks.. and even if they truck through it and get their license they definitely won't be able to justify the purchase of an airplane to fly in

http://www.businessinsider.com/young-adult-vs-all-adult-weekly-earnings-2014-12
 
Shepherd said:
Do away with the pilot certificate program, completely, then:
1. Everyone starts as a sports pilot with minimum IFR training (but no endorsement for IFR).
2. Everything else becomes an add-on endorsement. Night, long distance cross country, etc.
3. After 100 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for heavier planes up to 5,000 lbs ? (Haven't thought much on weight), and complex aircraft. Each type is a separate endorsement, including Seaplane.
4. After 200 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for IFR, multiengine, jet.
5. After 300 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can work on commercial and next heavy category.
6. Replace exams with the endorsement flights. You want the next step, you fly with the instructor until you can do it.
Make each time step cover no more than 2 year? If you aren't flying 50 hrs a year you can't "step up" to the next level? Opinions, please.

Add whatever labels puff up your ego to each of the items. Or add epaulets.

Here is my reasoning.
The entire FAA pilot certification system is a heap of mouldering dung. The exams are idiotic, and bear little to no relationship to what actually happens in an airplane.
I read a lot of crap about sports pilots "not getting trained" It's BS, pure and simple.
If an instructor is doing his job instead of lining his pockets, the Sport Pilot would be doing all the requirements for the existing PPL, then take the Sport test.

The existing PPL is a death sentence. Look at the statistics. We turn people loose with as little as 60 hours of flight time and a fat head.
They hop in too much plane, or buy too much plane, or they fly 3 hours a year, and kill themselves and innocent bystanders because they know everything they need to know to pass an FAA exam, they have a plastic card in their pocket that says they are a pilot, but they can't fly worth a damn.
That comes with experience.
So you force them to get the hours before they can move on to the next step.
Costs go down, deaths go down, experience goes up, the arcane, feudal lifetime appointment DPE system goes away.
GA is saved!

So it is written, great Pharaoh, so it is done.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate where the poster is going with this, by giving everyone some ability to start flying you cast a wide net in the market, and if followed through the progression steps it does help ensure safety which ultimately will bring better publicity and media, and hence get more people flying, and the circle continues. The problem is that it does make the initial requirements seem daunting and expensive to a would be pilot, to the point where someone may perceive the barrier to entry as too high


SoonerAviator said:
You can't protect stupid people (or pilots) from themselves without hurting everyone else in the process. While the percentages may well say that low-time pilots have more accidents/fatalities, the actual numbers are still pretty low in terms of overall impact compared to other forms of transportation.
Click to expand...
The other thing to this is that safe pilots will generally be safe regardless of the regs, and a careless pilot will eventually get bitten even if he follows the progression above. When I was flying back the other day (simple VFR flight from PSP) I reflected later on how many opportunities there are to make a fatal mistake while flying.. I was surprised actually at how few fatalities there are, given all the opportunities a pilot has to make things go awry
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe I'm just projecting my desire for there to be a Mooney or SR22-esq plane out there that falls more in my price bracket, ha!

But I think the biggest issue in getting new pilots to fly GA is costs. This is a tough generation for 20 and early 30 somethings and more and more people are relying on credit, rentals, leases, etc., to live. $120/hr to rent plus instructor costs are going to keep a lot of people out of the market

This is a couple years old, but according to this the median weekly income of 25-34 year old is only a little over $700 per week.. that income has to go to a car payment, rent, food, *student loan debt*, etc. Spending that money on flying just doesn't seem to be in the cards for these folks.. and even if they truck through it and get their license they definitely won't be able to justify the purchase of an airplane to fly in

http://www.businessinsider.com/young-adult-vs-all-adult-weekly-earnings-2014-12
Click to expand...

I've said similar but in my 20s I drove beaters and held three crappy jobs to do it, got better jobs and then a travel job so in my 30s I stupidly bought debt and ended up taking eight years off of flying, and after I cleaned that up completely, I'm flying and earning ratings. I don't think the age to income thing is all that abnormal.
 
denverpilot said:
I've said similar but in my 20s I drove beaters and held three crappy jobs to do it
Click to expand...
...and that's the kind of perseverance I worry is lost in my age group. Full disclosure, I'm 31, and most of my peers just seem to float through life, waiting for that dream job earning six figures doing something obscure with no "real value". I buckled down and put my nose to the grindstone, do I have my dream job - no, but after a 5 year break from flying I'm finally back at it and pushing to hit 4-10 hrs per month, work through my ratings, and eventually have my own plane so I can finally say goodbye to renting
 
Tantalum said:
...and that's the kind of perseverance I worry is lost in my age group. Full disclosure, I'm 31, and most of my peers just seem to float through life, waiting for that dream job earning six figures doing something obscure with no "real value". I buckled down and put my nose to the grindstone, do I have my dream job - no, but after a 5 year break from flying I'm finally back at it and pushing to hit 4-10 hrs per month, work through my ratings, and eventually have my own plane so I can finally say goodbye to renting
Click to expand...

Heh. Get used to that weird feeling about peers. I have peers in their 40s and 50s who are still floating along without much in terms of goals.

I consider myself pretty much a slacker in that regard too, but I'm light years ahead of some of them. A few have me way beat on motivation levels and plans, though.

They, of course, think the stuff I did was easy. If you haven't had that "moment" yet where one of them tells you a decade or more worth of work was just your luck, you're in for a treat. LOL. It'll happen.

That one lost a really good job he could've turned into something significant, by playing video games all night. Not kidding.
 
Since others have touched on the issues of cost, which I firmly believe is the biggest issue, I'll throw something else out.

Allocate the funds/resources for an aviation course at ever High School in the country. Take every kid in the class on a discovery flight. Send them home with literature on how to become a pilot.
 
Thought of one. Mandatory pumps with this stuff at all airports. ;-)

046be7cee4cf7f18c602cb91ece20938.jpg
 
The main thing with GA is that for most people it seen as just a hobby, and an expensive one at that... so your pool of potential candidates is very small...

The way to get more people into GA is to ultimately emphasize its utility.. the flying car is here, and it's the private GA plane. And next to that, demonstrate to people that it is not *that* expensive. You don't have to be traditionally "rich" to buy a reasonably equipped plane in the $60K to $110K price region, with the right financing that's what, $200/wk?

A 5hr drive from my dad's house in Mass to Montauk, NY can be flown in 1-2 hrs, depending on plane and route, that's a huge savings. If you live in CA pretty much the whole state is within a couple hours' reach. The country becomes a lot smaller when you can fly yourself somewhere. Is a GA plane a true "cross country" machine, probably not for most people... but a 700 nm radius around your house is still a big zone to explore...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top