Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

Not in the minds of the sellers.

weilke said:
Recover to what ? The prices of aircraft never dropped.

Almost any 1970s spam-can you buy today has the same retail value it had when it was sold new. The irrational exuberance and artificial market constraints of the 90s have eased and aircraft prices have returned to what you would expect from a transportation asset.
Click to expand...
 
So which ones did you buy? Lemme guess, when you called the owner he said "high-time engine, but using no oil, making no metal, I'd get in and fly it anywhere in the country. Fresh annual with sale."

weilke said:
Just as we have a bubble of pilots, we also have a bubble of aircraft that are still on the rolls but will never be market relevant, except maybe for salvage.

Today, I toured a couple hangar developments on some local rural strips. In one hangar that houses 8 aircraft, the door on one side (with 4 aircraft) hadn't been opened in 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
weilke said:
Recover to what ? The prices of aircraft never dropped.

Almost any 1970s spam-can you buy today has the same retail value it had when it was sold new. The irrational exuberance and artificial market constraints of the 90s have eased and aircraft prices have returned to what you would expect from a transportation asset.
Click to expand...

Tell that to anyone who bought an aircraft prior to the meltdown.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Decisions per second for an airline pilot over an 8 hour shift flying vs. decisions per second for a city bus driver over an 8 hour shift driving. Hmmm.
Actually the snobism, elitism stuff doesn't matter, at the end of the day us pilots are jerks to non(or not)-yet-pilots.
Click to expand...

Just know you are a wanker.
 
Jim Logajan said:
  • The average single engine piston airplane consumes ~13.3 gph of 100LL.
  • The average Light Sport aircraft consumes ~5.0 gph of 100LL.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, you and Pete Zitbag will save a bundle in fuel buying a $125,000 POS LSA over an old 172 for $25k. See you at the high limit tables at the Sands...
 
steingar said:
Tell that to anyone who bought an aircraft prior to the meltdown.
Click to expand...

Model T Fords used to be worth good money until our grandparents died. Try to get rid of one of those in an estate sale today...

I learned to be a farrier in 4-H. Haven't made a dollar doing that for 30 years, either.
 
I spent yesterday with an ownership group whose Citation V was purchased in 2007 for 3.45MM and recently sold for 1.3MM. To a man, they think market prices have decreased.

steingar said:
Tell that to anyone who bought an aircraft prior to the meltdown.
Click to expand...
 
Prices may have decreased but they are still pretty high. I am sitting here in an FBO looking at the front page of the Controller. There is a 1963 Cessna 205 where the owner is asking $129,900 and another one for $99,000. That's not to say that they would sell for those amounts but these are almost 50-year-old airplanes but not the type that would bring a premium price as "antiques".

Also, people are clamoring for lower new aircraft prices. If that happened, which I don't think is likely, the bottom would fall out of the market for people who already own these older airplanes.
 
Manufacturers have been successfully ignoring this clamor since the end of WW-II. I would advise the clamorors to not hold their breath.

Everskyward said:
Also, people are clamoring for lower new aircraft prices. If that happened, which I don't think is likely, the bottom would fall out of the market for people who already own these older airplanes.
Click to expand...
 
pilot_dude said:
Whether we like it or not, GA is not a need, but rather a want. There really isn't anything that cannot be accomplished if GA went the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...

Hasn't this always been the case? By the same measure, just about anything short of absolute necessities are not useful. My Corvette is not "useful", nor is a motorcycle, a boat, or a house larger than a small family room, bedrooms, bathroom and minimal kitchen; or an RV. Is a swimming pool useful? A large screen television?

The truth is, fuel prices will likely reduce participation in many of these things; and our federal deficit will reduce it more. I seriously doubt that "snooty pilots" has much to do with it.
 
ChrisRikli said:
Dude. That is a really great point.
Click to expand...

Chris has it right!

There's a lot of people that think 5 bedroom homes and $50K cars for everybody is "normal". Or, $300K boats. It's not. It was a bubble. We are moving towards "normal".

Fuel costs are a concern, but compared to fueling a boat or an RV, it's relatively affordable.

Bottom line, it's not for everybody and it shouldn't be. It's fairly hard, fairly dangerous, and you can't impress your neighbor with it. So, those that were drawn to it bay all of the superficial reasons are now gone. I am curious, what did the numbers for certificates look like in the 70's?
 
Fact is, most of what we do and have is extraneous, not necessary, extravagant. We need simply ask the Really Smart People what we need, and what we do not need, and they will tell us. In addition, they will help us to achieve this state of perfection, by relieving us of all of that which they, in their wisdom, deem that we do not need.

Really Smart People live in just a few places. The tonier parts of the LA area, Chicago, San Jose, some islands off the coast of Massachusetts, and (of course), the District of Columbia.
 
I tend to ignore the Really Smart People (TM) and talk to the Really Interesting People. ;)
 
psachseJr said:
There's a lot of people that think 5 bedroom homes and $50K cars for everybody is "normal". Or, $300K boats. It's not. It was a bubble. We are moving towards "normal".

Fuel costs are a concern, but compared to fueling a boat or an RV, it's relatively affordable.

Bottom line, it's not for everybody and it shouldn't be. It's fairly hard, fairly dangerous, and you can't impress your neighbor with it. So, those that were drawn to it bay all of the superficial reasons are now gone. I am curious, what did the numbers for certificates look like in the 70's?
Click to expand...

Around 50% higher than they are now, IIRC... And of course, the population was a fair bit lower as well. I believe 1979 was the peak year for GA aircraft production... And the economy wasn't doing very well at that point.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Around 50% higher than they are now, IIRC... And of course, the population was a fair bit lower as well. I believe 1979 was the peak year for GA aircraft production... And the economy wasn't doing very well at that point.
Click to expand...

I remember the late 70s and early 80s as being bleak, economically -- yet we had a brazillion more pilots.

Of course, we still had the huge WWII bubble actively flying, at that point...
 
Jay Honeck said:
I remember the late 70s and early 80s as being bleak, economically -- yet we had a brazillion more pilots.

Of course, we still had the huge WWII bubble actively flying, at that point...
Click to expand...

You hit the big factor right there.
 
Trapper John said:
I learned to be a farrier in 4-H. Haven't made a dollar doing that for 30 years, either.
Click to expand...

The guy we use is in his 30's, probably pulls down $150k+ a year, owns his home, funds his retirement plan and will probably retire before he's 55. He has a waiting list of clients, because he's a freaking artist at shoeing a horse.

Yes, he could afford to fly. No, he has no interest in it. Can't justify the maintenance costs.

To have him shoe a valuable horse runs probably $2,500 a year.

Ironic.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I remember the late 70s and early 80s as being bleak, economically -- yet we had a brazillion more pilots.

Of course, we still had the huge WWII bubble actively flying, at that point...
Click to expand...

That and the GI bill paying for vets training...
 
I also get the distinct impression from *some* people I've talked to who *say* they want to fly, that they don't want to give up anything else to do it. Or they don't want to inconvenience their SO or family -- that seems to be another one.

The folks I'm thinking of certainly have the means, but they don't see it that way because they're spending it on other stuff. And they want flexibility in that discretionary spending.

For others, they just want instant gratification. "So how much does a pilot's license cost?" not as a budgetary or planning question, but asked more as if they were saying, "If I put X on the credit card, I'll be a pilot, right?"

Life-long avocations that keep you away from the weekly trip to the mall, because you spend your money and time on them almost exclusively, seem to be out of vogue -- so to speak.

"You went flying instead of buying [insert newest media-hyped must-have item here]? No way!"
 
A guy at work has always wanted to fly, but his wife won't let him. :-(
 
I still maintain - to keep the numbers from dropping further, we need drastic change.

And that drastic change starts with dropping the "We're pilots, we're better" attitude and realizing that things are too expensive, difficult, and time consuming to begin these days. Getting a PPL should be easier and quicker.

Start there, and the prices will go down once more people start flying.

Its not very popular, and we'll probably lose some of our current pilots to "Now its too easy, and I don't feel safe anymore," but we'll gain enough that their loss will be offset easily.

The secret is to let go of what things were, and accept that this generation is different. Its not easy, even for me, to accept that as I get older, I lose touch with what the younger crowd does and how they do it, but we need to adjust or we will fail.

We need to return to the goal of "an airplane in every garage."
 
SkyHog said:
I still maintain - to keep the numbers from dropping further, we need drastic change.

And that drastic change starts with dropping the "We're pilots, we're better" attitude and realizing that things are too expensive, difficult, and time consuming to begin these days. Getting a PPL should be easier and quicker.
Click to expand...

It's called a Sport Pilot Certificate... And while it's helping a little bit, the established aviation industry hasn't bought into it enough, so availability isn't great, so it's difficult to do in many areas.

OTOH, those who "think different" and are operating a Sport Pilot training program seem to be doing VERY well.

Institutional stupidity at work...
 
I don't disagree. Problem isn't the 40 hours, written test, and checkride. Problem is how crappy most FBOs/flight schools are about delivering value and getting people through the hoops. That isn't going to change.
SkyHog said:
I still maintain - to keep the numbers from dropping further, we need drastic change.

And that drastic change starts with dropping the "We're pilots, we're better" attitude and realizing that things are too expensive, difficult, and time consuming to begin these days. Getting a PPL should be easier and quicker....
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
I don't disagree. Problem isn't the 40 hours, written test, and checkride. Problem is how crappy most FBOs/flight schools are about delivering value and getting people through the hoops. That isn't going to change.
Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree.

Agree because a lot of CFIs are pretty bad about optimizing time spend learning.

Disagree because:

For a pilot to make it from point A to point B - we need to accept that building 40 hours is not necessary. This is where I usually get shouted down, but here goes:

PPL Should take about 20 hours total:
3 hours learning the 4 fundamentals
4 hours learning the basics of landing/go arounds
5 hours learning various navigational techniques (including ground maneuvers)
5 hours solo
3 hours Checkride Prep

The entire PPL program should be based around a single plane, and the checkride should also be focused on that single plane. Maybe the license carries some sort of restriction for that single type of plane (type rating of sorts), and to fly other planes, a pilot must have 1 hour dual in type first.

I'd also like to see a graduated license of sorts, if this ever went into place. After the pilot gains his PPL, he can carry one passenger until he hits 50 hours post license. Then he can carry 2. And then, 50 hours later, he has a full license.

I think we need to remove the instrument rating requirement to be a basic flight instructor. CFIs that provide only primary training shouldn't need an IR...for pilots that want to start earning money instructing, they could go from PPL to Commercial to CFI. Then, to get the CFII, they'll get their IR first, and then the CFII.

Its drastic, but it would help bring our numbers up. The accident rate would probably stay about the same, but there'd be more people flying, so of course, there'd be more accidents. As more people started flying, people would be less afraid of it, so the accidents that do happen would be more like car accidents now, where it barely garners news attention except in really big cases (just like car accidents).

Drastic is what we need, folks.
 
Isn't sport pilot pretty close to that? 20 hours fixed wing iirc, 12 hours zero to hero in a powered parachute. One passenger by design and privileges by endorsement.
SkyHog said:
I both agree and disagree.

Agree because a lot of CFIs are pretty bad about optimizing time spend learning.

Disagree because:

For a pilot to make it from point A to point B - we need to accept that building 40 hours is not necessary. This is where I usually get shouted down, but here goes:

PPL Should take about 20 hours total:
3 hours learning the 4 fundamentals
4 hours learning the basics of landing/go arounds
5 hours learning various navigational techniques (including ground maneuvers)
5 hours solo
3 hours Checkride Prep

The entire PPL program should be based around a single plane, and the checkride should also be focused on that single plane. Maybe the license carries some sort of restriction for that single type of plane (type rating of sorts), and to fly other planes, a pilot must have 1 hour dual in type first.

I'd also like to see a graduated license of sorts, if this ever went into place. After the pilot gains his PPL, he can carry one passenger until he hits 50 hours post license. Then he can carry 2. And then, 50 hours later, he has a full license.

I think we need to remove the instrument rating requirement to be a basic flight instructor. CFIs that provide only primary training shouldn't need an IR...for pilots that want to start earning money instructing, they could go from PPL to Commercial to CFI. Then, to get the CFII, they'll get their IR first, and then the CFII.

Its drastic, but it would help bring our numbers up. The accident rate would probably stay about the same, but there'd be more people flying, so of course, there'd be more accidents. As more people started flying, people would be less afraid of it, so the accidents that do happen would be more like car accidents now, where it barely garners news attention except in really big cases (just like car accidents).

Drastic is what we need, folks.
Click to expand...
 
Seems that the cost of obtaining the PPL goal is not the expensive part of this experience. The real expense is in the necessary aircraft operating costs of ownership.

I don't know if our small sample size is any reflective of other locations but there are 31 aircraft based at our home airport and ONE has shared ownership.

Why is it that there is not more shared ownership?

Having only 1/2 or 1/3 of the fixed costs would help many people that have the desire to be involved but just can't make it happen by themselves.

I have had a partner in an earlier Piper and it worked out fine and I liked paying 1/2 of the fixed costs. But the day that partner had his checkride was the last day that he ever flew. Guess he didn't actually like it but he did complete the goal.
I've tried to buy a plane with another guy but we just couldn't agree on which features we did and did not want and so it didn't happen.

More shared ownership seems like an important piece of the future GA puzzle. I'm willing to sell shares in my Dakota today to help myself and other pilots make recreational flying more cost friendly.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Isn't sport pilot pretty close to that? 20 hours fixed wing iirc, 12 hours zero to hero in a powered parachute. One passenger by design and privileges by endorsement.
Click to expand...

Close. But without the ability to carry more passengers and take an easy checkout into bigger planes, its too limited.
 
dakota-cowboy said:
More shared ownership seems like an important piece of the future GA puzzle. I'm willing to sell shares in my Dakota today to help myself and other pilots make recreational flying more cost friendly.
Click to expand...

How much would sell 'em for? That's probably the key. I see a lot of stuff like 182s with a quarter share selling for $50,000.

Hell, if someone could afford $50,000 for a quarter share of a 182, they could just buy a 4 seater outright and be good to go.

edit: More apt: We need to see the $30,000 planes out there with quarter shares available to really make this work - most people could afford $7500 and a quarter of the maintenance.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
I don't disagree. Problem isn't the 40 hours, written test, and checkride. Problem is how crappy most FBOs/flight schools are about delivering value and getting people through the hoops. That isn't going to change.
Click to expand...

From what I see at least an equal share goes to the people not putting forth the effort. Thing is, aviation makes a pretty crappy "part time hobby" and requires real effort to learn well.
 
Henning said:
From what I see at least an equal share goes to the people not putting forth the effort. Thing is, aviation makes a pretty crappy "part time hobby" and requires real effort to learn well.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head, Henning, but that is also what makes it so rewarding.
 
As of late I had been thinking of the continued health of GA. The answer occured to me while watching an antique car auction.

Any attempt to tweak the current paradigm of making GA 'afforable' or pointing to the 'utility' is already a doomed effort.

Using cars as an example, if an amphibious landing craft were as sexy as a fighter jet you can bet a car would have had a large flat plate on the bow instead of pointy bows and tail fins. IOW, it wasn't and is not now all about money and the alluded to 'utility'.

It was this way because...well, because we could. Because we wanted it so. It is a uniqely American characteristic. America is still GA central in the entire world.

One can make all the argument in the world using 'form follows function' as the basic tenet. But in absence of the 'joy of flight', the aerial version of a joyride, it doesn't take any argument at all to derive that the days of GA are numbered.

We fly because we can. The utility of such freedom is of secondary importance. Until that priority is realized, until that word is gotten out, the malaise which infects GA is from within.
 
Last edited:
Once they realize buying a plane isn't like buying a motor home they get turned off. The fact you need a bit of talent and commitment to flying in order to get a licence keeps a lot of people away as well.
 
SkyHog said:
I still maintain - to keep the numbers from dropping further, we need drastic change.

And that drastic change starts with dropping the "We're pilots, we're better" attitude and realizing that things are too expensive, difficult, and time consuming to begin these days. Getting a PPL should be easier and quicker.

Start there, and the prices will go down once more people start flying.

Its not very popular, and we'll probably lose some of our current pilots to "Now its too easy, and I don't feel safe anymore," but we'll gain enough that their loss will be offset easily.

The secret is to let go of what things were, and accept that this generation is different. Its not easy, even for me, to accept that as I get older, I lose touch with what the younger crowd does and how they do it, but we need to adjust or we will fail.

We need to return to the goal of "an airplane in every garage."
Click to expand...

I think another part of the problem is that now that these new airplanes are coming out with glass cockpits, the old aircrafts that came out before glass cockpits are severely dated, and you can't exactly put in glass panels in these old birds without spending more money than the aircraft is actually worth on such an investment.

The simple fact is that people want the latest and greatest.

There really needs to be a drive to allow non-certified products into certified aircrafts. I mean avionics by Dynon is just as good as avionics by Garmin.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
I think another part of the problem is that now that these new airplanes are coming out with glass cockpits, the old aircrafts that came out before glass cockpits are severely dated, and you can't exactly put in glass panels in these old birds without spending more money than the aircraft is actually worth on such an investment.

The simple fact is that people want the latest and greatest.

There really needs to be a drive to allow non-certified products into certified aircrafts. I mean avionics by Dynon is just as good as avionics by Garmin.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part. I think if we could get a "Non-Commercial" exception added, that said we could use non-certified parts/products in certified planes, provided the plane will not be used in any For-Hire, passenger carrying operations, that would help a whole lot.

But, I don't know that its a universal truth that people want the latest and greatest anymore. With the increase of mobile GPS options out there, one can get a VERY good option for navigation using a number of different platforms, and not need all the fancy new stuff.

Part of the problem has been up until now that Garmin has, quite literally, raped the living daylights out of pilots moneywise. You could buy a new car for less than some of their products cost, and that is insane. I'll be curious to see how Garmin responds to being essentially phased out of "necessity" with mobile apps. If someone could come up with some sort of iPad or Android based "glass cockpit" app, one that could be just velcroed over the existing panel or something, I think we'd all be better off!

The next few years will be interesting, presuming we can make it that far :D
 
I can't speak on the east coast or the Gulf of Mexico, but on the west coast, when the environmental nazis pushed for more fisheries closures, the sports pointed fingers at the commercial operations who pointed to the day charters. Most non-commercial ops survived the first round.

Then even more onerous restrictions appeared on the horizon and as the storm clouds rolled in thicker and heavier it became more apparent the sports were being targeted. It was with a weak voice they cried, 'unfair'. They quickly changed tactics by trying to engage the commercial operators as their allies.

The LSA intially presented relief from the burden of restrictive regulation and/or too great a monetary entry into recreational flying. But they tried to distant themselves from the rest of the GA fleet. Now they eat alone while grumbling into their plate about it not being 'fair'.

The moral here is stop trying to emulate a more commercial type of flying. Be content with having the same instrument panel and capabilities of say, a Luscomb of days old. You can still make the same flights just don't expect the payload.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Close. But without the ability to carry more passengers and take an easy checkout into bigger planes, its too limited.
Click to expand...

Well, you suggested:

I'd also like to see a graduated license of sorts, if this ever went into place. After the pilot gains his PPL, he can carry one passenger until he hits 50 hours post license. Then he can carry 2. And then, 50 hours later, he has a full license.
Click to expand...

You can upgrade from Sport to Private in WELL under 50 hours, and take more than one extra passenger. Sounds like you're making things more difficult, not less.

FWIW, I kind of agree with your suggestion in principle - I think that it can be done quite easily already via the Sport or Recreational pilot certificates, followed by the Private after a bit of time out in the real world on the Sport/Rec license. It's not a difficult upgrade, and by allowing a passenger earlier on in the process, it helps give the new pilot some extra motivation - It's kind of like a "solo plus passenger" status that lets them share the joy with a friend or family member.
 
SkyHog said:
Agree because a lot of CFIs are pretty bad about optimizing time spend learning.
Click to expand...

And most flight schools have abysmal customer relations skills and practices, and don't offer much in the way of helping students afford to fly, either.

For a pilot to make it from point A to point B - we need to accept that building 40 hours is not necessary. This is where I usually get shouted down, but here goes:

PPL Should take about 20 hours total:
3 hours learning the 4 fundamentals
4 hours learning the basics of landing/go arounds
5 hours learning various navigational techniques (including ground maneuvers)
5 hours solo
3 hours Checkride Prep

The entire PPL program should be based around a single plane, and the checkride should also be focused on that single plane. Maybe the license carries some sort of restriction for that single type of plane (type rating of sorts), and to fly other planes, a pilot must have 1 hour dual in type first.
Click to expand...

You've almost perfectly described the Sport Pilot certificate...

I'd also like to see a graduated license of sorts, if this ever went into place. After the pilot gains his PPL, he can carry one passenger until he hits 50 hours post license. Then he can carry 2. And then, 50 hours later, he has a full license.
Click to expand...

... and the upgrade to Private, though as I said in the last post you've made it more difficult than it actually is.

I think we need to remove the instrument rating requirement to be a basic flight instructor. CFIs that provide only primary training shouldn't need an IR...for pilots that want to start earning money instructing, they could go from PPL to Commercial to CFI. Then, to get the CFII, they'll get their IR first, and then the CFII.
Click to expand...

Again... You're describing CFI-SP. Now, for a CFI-A, if they don't have an IR then how are they supposed to teach the required instrument time?

For the CFI-A, I think the traditional path is a good one - It hopefully gives them some time between the IR and the Comm/CFI to get at least a little bit of real-world time - Instrument and otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top