Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[jesse]

Slow flight is probably not necessary. Stalls, on the other hand, are a very real possibility, and should probably be taught.

And yes, I am of the opinion that spins should be taught.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle Nick. There items do not "delay" training. They're useful blocks used in the teaching process.

The reason they are in the PTS is because it provides a CONSISTENT FAIR checkride that can be done pretty quickly. If you remove them from the PTS they will just make the checkride more difficult.

 

[SkyHog]

Slow flight mastery is critical to landing -- sorry, it's one of the first things I do in a new airplane.

Landing is critical to landing. Slow flight is part of landing. Teaching landings should already cover this.

One step removed right there.

 

[Darsh]

Actually *doing* a simulated base-to-final steep turn to simulate someone screwing up and misjuding the turn needed and seeing how much the nose has to come down to hold airspeed, and what that sight-picture looks like out the window at altitude, might make it less of a killer at low altitude.

My CFI did that all the time. She'd pull the engine when I was turning base, and make me do steep turns and short approaches to make the runway. It certainly helped. Also, steep turns taught me to keep my eyes outside and not be staring at the instrument panel.

 

[SkyHog]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle Nick. There items do not "delay" training. They're useful blocks used in the teaching process.

The reason they are in the PTS is because it provides a CONSISTENT FAIR checkride that can be done pretty quickly. If you remove them from the PTS they will just make the checkride more difficult.

Not necessarily. The PTS, as it stands (neglecting preflight info which is non-flying time, and ASES specific stuff, because I don't know anything about that):

III. AIRPORT AND SEAPLANE BASE OPERATIONS
A. Radio Communications and ATC Light Signals
B. Traffic Patterns
C. Airport, Runway, and Taxiway Signs, Markings, and Lighting

IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb
B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb
D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing
E. Short-Field Takeoff and Maximum Performance Climb
F. Short-Field Approach and Landing
K. Forward Slip to a Landing
L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing
V. PERFORMANCE MANEUVER
Steep Turns

VI. GROUND REFERENCE MANEUVERS
A. Rectangular Course
B. S-Turns
C. Turns Around a Point

VII. NAVIGATION
A. Pilotage and Dead Reckoning
B. Navigation Systems and Radar Services
C. Diversion
D. Lost Procedures

VIII. SLOW FLIGHT AND STALLS
A. Maneuvering During Slow Flight
B. Power-Off Stalls
C. Power-On Stalls
D. Spin Awareness

IX. BASIC INSTRUMENT MANEUVERS
A. Straight-and-Level Flight
B. Constant Airspeed Climbs
C. Constant Airspeed Descents
D. Turns to Headings
E. Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes
F. Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and Radar Services

X. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
A. Emergency Approach and Landing (Simulated)
B. Systems and Equipment Malfunctions
C. Emergency Equipment and Survival Gear

XI. NIGHT OPERATION
Night Preparation

The PTS, as a suggestion:

III. AIRPORT AND SEAPLANE BASE OPERATIONS
A. Radio Communications and ATC Light Signals
B. Traffic Patterns
C. Airport, Runway, and Taxiway Signs, Markings, and Lighting

IV. TAKEOFFS, LANDINGS, AND GO-AROUNDS
A. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb
B. Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
C. Soft-Field Takeoff and Climb
D. Soft-Field Approach and Landing
E. Short-Field Takeoff and Maximum Performance Climb
F. Short-Field Approach and Landing
K. Forward Slip to a Landing
L. Go-Around/Rejected Landing

V. PERFORMANCE MANEUVER
Steep Turns

VI. GROUND REFERENCE MANEUVERS
A. Rectangular Course
B. S-Turns
C. Turns Around a Point
VII. NAVIGATION
A. Pilotage and Dead Reckoning
B. Navigation Systems and Radar Services
C. Diversion
D. Lost Procedures

VIII. SLOW FLIGHT AND STALLS AND SPINS
A. Maneuvering During Slow Flight
B. Power-Off Stalls
C. Power-On Stalls
D. Spin Recovery

IX. BASIC INSTRUMENT MANEUVERS
A. Straight-and-Level Flight
B. Constant Airspeed Climbs
C. Constant Airspeed Descents
D. Turns to Headings
E. Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes
F. Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and Radar Services

X. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
A. Emergency Approach and Landing (Simulated)
B. Systems and Equipment Malfunctions
C. Emergency Equipment and Survival Gear

XI. NIGHT OPERATION
Night Preparation (if endorsement sought)

 

[dmccormack]

Landing is critical to landing. Slow flight is part of landing. Teaching landings should already cover this.

One step removed right there.

It's ALOT easier and cheaper to teach slow flight with lots of air between you and the ground.

Landings slow flight lasts what? 3-7 seconds?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But - you're reducing an already unlikely scenario (engine failure) by saying we want engine failures where a steep turn is necessary to land successfully.

That was only one example. Steep turns are useful for a lot more than that - Not only the teaching process (adverse yaw, load factor, more drag at high AoA, controlling the plane simultaneously in all three axes, etc etc) but in terms of avoiding hazards. Imminent midair, flew up a box canyon, "xxx, turn IMMEDIATELY for yyy hazard" etc. etc. etc. It's a very useful maneuver.

So does pattern flying, takeoff/landings, stalls, slowflight, etc. Every maneuver we currently require teaches students how to control the plane in different attitudes and situations.

Steep turns simply amplify a lot of the things that are talked about in ground school, but our trainers have gotten too forgiving to show in flight.

Landing is critical to landing. Slow flight is part of landing. Teaching landings should already cover this.

One step removed right there.

So, you think an intro flight should be a few trips around the pattern, because there's no point in teaching slow flight before teaching landings?

Like Dan said, there's not a lot of time when you're down by the runway to master slow flight. I bet if you removed slow flight from the syllabus, you would make the PPC take LONGER because it'd be a lot harder to learn to land.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

Slow flight is probably not necessary. Stalls, on the other hand, are a very real possibility, and should probably be taught.

And yes, I am of the opinion that spins should be taught.

I'd have to disagree about the slow flight thing. Slow flight should be taught because it teaches about the relations between power and airspeed during final.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Slow flight is probably not necessary. Stalls, on the other hand, are a very real possibility, and should probably be taught.

If you can teach someone critical slow flight skills, stall recovery will never be needed, in theory.

Also, not everyone flies off of 5000 foot paved runways. Book numbers for an airplane only get you so far. Short field landings require slow flight skills. Also, what is an emergency off-airport landing but a short field landing in less than ideal circumstances? You don't need to practice short-field landings! You should practice controlling the airplane at slow speeds!

IMO a student would learn more in five minutes of slow flight on the edge of exceeding the critical AOA, than three hours of stall recovery practice.

 

[Richard]

Win some. lose some. Nick, you are just gonna have to let this one go. Teaching slow flight is so critical and for all the reasons previously mentioned.

 

[SkyHog]

That was only one example. Steep turns are useful for a lot more than that - Not only the teaching process (adverse yaw, load factor, more drag at high AoA, controlling the plane simultaneously in all three axes, etc etc) but in terms of avoiding hazards. Imminent midair, flew up a box canyon, "xxx, turn IMMEDIATELY for yyy hazard" etc. etc. etc. It's a very useful maneuver.



Steep turns simply amplify a lot of the things that are talked about in ground school, but our trainers have gotten too forgiving to show in flight.



So, you think an intro flight should be a few trips around the pattern, because there's no point in teaching slow flight before teaching landings?

Like Dan said, there's not a lot of time when you're down by the runway to master slow flight. I bet if you removed slow flight from the syllabus, you would make the PPC take LONGER because it'd be a lot harder to learn to land.

Steep turns:
Let's say you're a pilot that was never taught to do a steep turn. You get in asituation where you need to perform a 50 degree bank to avoid somethin and you're not neat the ground. What happens? You lose some altitude? Maybe perform an uncoordinated turn? You're certainly not going to roll inverted. Because the nose drops, you're not going to enter an accellerated stall.

I fail to see the danger.

 

[jesse]

Steep turns:
Let's say you're a pilot that was never taught to do a steep turn. You get in asituation where you need to perform a 50 degree bank to avoid somethin and you're not neat the ground. What happens?

You fail to turn 50 degrees because you're afraid of it.

 

[SkyHog]

You fail to turn 50 degrees because you're afraid of it.

But - if we just dropped the term "Steep Turn" from our vocabulary (which we probably should anyway), there'd be no fear...its just another turn then.

We're just going around in circles. I take it you are of the opinion that things are fine and nothing needs to change? Seeing our numbers dwindle is just fine?

 

[dmccormack]

But - if we just dropped the term "Steep Turn" from our vocabulary (which we probably should anyway), there'd be no fear...its just another turn then.

We're just going around in circles. I take it you are of the opinion that things are fine and nothing needs to change? Seeing our numbers dwindle is just fine?

Is there a single aspiring pilot who's left the ranks because she would have to do steep turns??

 

[Everskyward]

But - if we just dropped the term "Steep Turn" from our vocabulary (which we probably should anyway), there'd be no fear...its just another turn then.

If you are going to take the "steep" out of "steep turns" in order to make them less scary what are you going to call spins?

 

[SkyHog]

If you are going to take the "steep" out of "steep turns" in order to make them less scary what are you going to call spins?

You're missing the point. A steep turn has no special properties to it. Its a turn. A turn in which the plane banks steeply.

We, as a community, make flying harder than it is. Its like when I hear about "Project Management" difficulties. The hard part is breaking things down into individual steps. Stay natural, and it works naturally. If we taught turns thusly:

"Turn the plane. Keep the plane turning, using whatever aileron input is necessary. When finished, return to straight and level"

We wouldn't have to worry about explaining overbanking tendencies. I think Jesse himself once said "When you drive a car, you just don't hit the curb, you don't think about it, right?" Similarly, during driver's ed, were you told how to not hit the curb? How about how to turn the car?

Some stuff is not intuitive, I get that. But we overcomplicate when we say "turns between this degree and this degree will understeer. After that, they'll oversteer. Oh, and you'll probably lose x amount of altitude for every degree you bank. Oh, and make sure you apply rudder throughout the turn to keep the turn smooth."

Instead: "Turn the damned airplane." works just fine.

 

[AEROBAT]

Steep turns:
Let's say you're a pilot that was never taught to do a steep turn. You get in asituation where you need to perform a 50 degree bank to avoid somethin and you're not neat the ground. What happens? You lose some altitude? Maybe perform an uncoordinated turn? You're certainly not going to roll inverted. Because the nose drops, you're not going to enter an accellerated stall.

I fail to see the danger.

Then the newly minted pilot sees the nose pointed at the ground jeks the stick back and bingo accelerated stall...next he trys to roll level [pro spin aileron] with stick back in the uncoordinated turn..... insipient spin!

 

[Everskyward]

Similarly, during driver's ed, were you told how to not hit the curb? How about how to turn the car?

Driver's ed was a long time ago for me but I'm fairly certain that I was given some visual cues about when to start turning and how to stay in the lane. Do I think about these things now? Of course not, but I'm fairly certain they helped me learn in the beginning.

Some stuff is not intuitive, I get that. But we overcomplicate when we say "turns between this degree and this degree will understeer. After that, they'll oversteer. Oh, and you'll probably lose x amount of altitude for every degree you bank. Oh, and make sure you apply rudder throughout the turn to keep the turn smooth."

Instead: "Turn the damned airplane." works just fine.

I think a little bit of explanation for background is in order, but just like driving a car, I never think about these things while doing steep turns. Part of this depends on your learning style. Some people like all the theoretical explanations. I may be more like you and learn things by observation and feel. Still, that doesn't mean steep turns or other maneuvers aren't valuable. Gaining a feel for the airplane and being able to make it do what you want is a big part of flying.

 

[dmccormack]

You're missing the point. A steep turn has no special properties to it. Its a turn. A turn in which the plane banks steeply.

Not really - what about over-banking tendencies? Increased G forces?

 

[zaitcev]

You fail to turn 50 degrees because you're afraid of it.

As an inept aviator, I am inclined to agree. I only do the 2G steep turns when instructors make me (at new type checkouts, mostly) and even then I enter at best-rate speed and then just bump the power up a bit to prevent settling -- exactly like I did in computer sims when I was younger. In fact I have never experienced an accelerated stall. And then in the patterns I never go steeper than 30 degrees. I don't trust myself doing these turns when slow.

 

[zaitcev]

Similarly, during driver's ed, were you told how to not hit the curb? How about how to turn the car?

Funny you mentioned that, because my instructor did, in fact, teach me how to turn the car, but apparently my daughter's did not. I had to show it to her postfactum, both the go-over and the proper shuffle ("only force UP"). She only allowed me to do it because her "hamster shuffle" technique would not allow her to make a particular turn in our neighbourhood without entering the oncoming lane. Fortunately she was intelligent enough to recognize the failure. Millions of drivers drive with a finger on the wheel, or do the palm-on-wheel like one would in a warehouse loader. Usually the situation that calls for proper turns ends with an airbag pushing their crossing arm into their face. Fortunately it happens so rarely that it may be not worth teaching anyone, unless you care about the specific case.

P.S. Watch marks on the curbs and lose faith.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I take it you are of the opinion that things are fine and nothing needs to change? Seeing our numbers dwindle is just fine?

Dude... You really think steep turns are going to be the downfall of GA?

Money? Definitely. Time and effort in this I-want-it-now world? Probably. Poor business (marketing and customer service) skills among flight schools? Yup.

Steep turns? Uh, no. Really, how many people do you think get hung up by steep turns? And since you've been advocating spins, I must say that I think doing spins will stop WAY more people than steep turns. Most people are afraid of stalls in general, especially the power-on variety. Tell those people they're going to have to learn how to recover from spins, and you WILL lose people. I don't think anyone quits because of steep turns.

S-turns across a road - Now that, I can see eliminating. I think that the turns around a point and rectangular course are more than enough to learn the skills that ground reference maneuvers are designed for. But again, these are so dirt simple that I don't think they make a big difference in terms of pilot training.

Money, money, money. That's what stops people. Hell, in the weeklong training class I was in a couple months ago, there were three pilots out of a dozen or so people. I'm the only one left flying. Why? Money. Both of the other two quit because of money. The pilot ranks are dwindling because people can't afford it. These people have all learned steep turns already. They know the joys of flying. The money just isn't there.

 

[SkyHog]

Dude... You really think steep turns are going to be the downfall of GA?

Money? Definitely. Time and effort in this I-want-it-now world? Probably. Poor business (marketing and customer service) skills among flight schools? Yup.

Steep turns? Uh, no. Really, how many people do you think get hung up by steep turns? And since you've been advocating spins, I must say that I think doing spins will stop WAY more people than steep turns. Most people are afraid of stalls in general, especially the power-on variety. Tell those people they're going to have to learn how to recover from spins, and you WILL lose people. I don't think anyone quits because of steep turns.

S-turns across a road - Now that, I can see eliminating. I think that the turns around a point and rectangular course are more than enough to learn the skills that ground reference maneuvers are designed for. But again, these are so dirt simple that I don't think they make a big difference in terms of pilot training.

Money, money, money. That's what stops people. Hell, in the weeklong training class I was in a couple months ago, there were three pilots out of a dozen or so people. I'm the only one left flying. Why? Money. Both of the other two quit because of money. The pilot ranks are dwindling because people can't afford it. These people have all learned steep turns already. They know the joys of flying. The money just isn't there.

Kent, reread the last few pages and you'll see that is not about sttep turns. Its about our community failing to recognize that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I've brought up 10 different possibilities, and been countered on every step without a suggestion to fix it.

Which means, I guess, that we don't see a problem.

Something has to give. But what?

 

[zaitcev]

Kent, reread the last few pages and you'll see that is not about sttep turns. Its about our community failing to recognize that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I've brought up 10 different possibilities, and been countered on every step without a suggestion to fix it.

Which means, I guess, that we don't see a problem.

Something has to give. But what?

It was explained to you in detail that training may be a problem but is not the problem. It popped up recently because AOPA types looked at the stats like the one I blogged and saw this:
- number of new pilots is falling quick
- number of new students remains flat (about 55 to 62 thousands)
- graduation rate falls correspondingly (43% in 2000 to 33% in 2010 across the field, AOPA says down to 20% in Part 61 schools)
Then they had a BRILLIANT IDEA: let's reform training so that graduation rates go back to what it was! Then we'll have lots of new pilots! Who pay AOPA dues!

Hence the training symposiums with nice catering and the like. Of course the FAA got in on that too.

Why is it that nobody realizes that students drop out when they realize how much flying costs?

As to what's going to give, well, it's obvious, isn't it? I mean, just look at Europe. Look at Russia, China, Japan. We are going to have a smattering of ultralights, a few glider ports, and then several Teterboros for super-rich and their jets. And making training fractionally cheaper is not going to change anything.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, reread the last few pages and you'll see that is not about sttep turns. Its about our community failing to recognize that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I've brought up 10 different possibilities, and been countered on every step without a suggestion to fix it.

Which means, I guess, that we don't see a problem.

Something has to give. But what?

That's just the problem here. You keep suggesting maneuvers that we need to get rid of... But that isn't what's causing our problems. A lot of what you've discussed earlier on in this thread is pretty much already taken care of via the Sport Pilot or Recreational Pilot certificates... And I think that if those options were available in more places, we'd be in better shape.

However, the biggest problem is the hourly operating cost of an airplane. Changing the PTS or coming up with new certificates won't help that.

 

[denverpilot]

It still beats the hourly costs of a helicopter!

 

[SkyHog]

That's just the problem here. You keep suggesting maneuvers that we need to get rid of... But that isn't what's causing our problems. A lot of what you've discussed earlier on in this thread is pretty much already taken care of via the Sport Pilot or Recreational Pilot certificates... And I think that if those options were available in more places, we'd be in better shape.

I still think SP is too limited, and that's one of the reasons its not taking off the way we hoped.

However, the biggest problem is the hourly operating cost of an airplane. Changing the PTS or coming up with new certificates won't help that.

Yes it will. More pilots == lower costs for everyone.

 

[Everskyward]

I think GA has at least three problems attracting large numbers of people. The first and probably most common is lack of interest among the general population for whatever reason. The second is that, contrary to what Nick may think, it's not that easy. Just recently we had a post from someone who seemed like he had adequate money and had studied quite a bit in advance, who was frustrated by his own progress. Flying adds a third dimension in space to what people are normally accustomed to dealing with. In addition, you can't pull over in the airplane to work out a problem. The physics of flight mean that the airplane needs to keep moving even if the pilot is way behind. There are sometimes ways to buy yourself time to think but they are not intuitive to the beginner.

As far as cost goes, I think that most people can come to the conclusion that getting a private costs X amount and then budget for it. The problem is that it doesn't end there unless getting the private was the only goal. In Nick's world someone can get a private at 20 hours instead of 40, using round numbers. However, that person is probably not going to want to stop flying at 20 hours so the cost of continuing is virtually the same, maybe minus some CFI cost. By the time the 40-hour private and the 20-hour private get to 100 hours the total cost is probably not all that different.

 

[dmccormack]

What if we're comparing the costs and activity to an unrealistic standard?

In other words -- how do we know what the pilot population should be, in an open market with no artificial props (such as the GI Bill was for an entire generation)?

We're concerned that the population is declining -- but was it artificially high to begin with?

 

[SkyHog]

As far as cost goes, I think that most people can come to the conclusion that getting a private costs X amount and then budget for it. The problem is that it doesn't end there unless getting the private was the only goal. In Nick's world someone can get a private at 20 hours instead of 40, using round numbers. However, that person is probably not going to want to stop flying at 20 hours so the cost of continuing is virtually the same, maybe minus some CFI cost. By the time the 40-hour private and the 20-hour private get to 100 hours the total cost is probably not all that different.

I agree, but the difference is that it gets them started cheaper, which gets them hooked quicker. If you look at a private pilot with 1000 hours and no additional ratings, the CFI costs were a very small percentage of their overall costs, but conversely, the time spent with a CFI is also much less, which means they are out learning and developing on their own for a much larger amount of time.

As I've said, though, for me, who had a difficult time learning to land, it wouldn't have had much of an impact on my time. Aside from the various landing types, I was ready to go at about 20 or 30 hours. With the landing practice and learning how to do that right, it took me another 30 or 40 hours to be proficient there.

Everyone's different. What I'm suggesting doesn't guarantee that everyone will be sent out quicker, but it does give those who have a natural ability to fly airplanes a much faster, cheaper way to do so with full permissions.

Perfect example: a child that grew up with a pilot parent. By the time he's ready to fly, he'll already have non-logged hours in the dozens if not hundreds. But day one, with a brand new CFI, he'll have 0 hours. He really has to fly off 40 hours to prove he can do something he can do in his sleep?

But the same applies for any pilot that has that je ne sais quos about him that allows him to get in the plane and fly without even thinking about what he's doing.

 

[SkyHog]

What if we're comparing the costs and activity to an unrealistic standard?

In other words -- how do we know what the pilot population should be, in an open market with no artificial props (such as the GI Bill was for an entire generation)?

We're concerned that the population is declining -- but was it artificially high to begin with?

A distinct possibility. But in 1895, how many people drove cars, and how many people had a desire to learn?

In time, with ease of access, more people will naturally begin doing something if its convenient and affordable enough.

 

[Henning]

I still think SP is too limited, and that's one of the reasons its not taking off the way we hoped.

Yes it will. More pilots == lower costs for everyone.

GA itself is too limited, that's why it doesn't take off, and it's limited by technology. Until we have V/TOL- STO/VL aircraft that are basically "Dial and fly" where you can replace a car with them and go to work, or go to the store, you will not expand GA. Look how many inactive pilots licenses there are right now, adding another stack of inactive licenses to that won't change a thing. It's not so much the money, it's how little you get for your money with aviation that keeps it where it is. Not everybody "Loves flying". Those who love flying, for the most part are flying one way or another. Even among those who love flying, there is only a minority sect who can continue to justify the expense.

I've said it before, in order to build GA you have to build the social aspect.

 

[Jay Honeck]

What if we're comparing the costs and activity to an unrealistic standard?

In other words -- how do we know what the pilot population should be, in an open market with no artificial props (such as the GI Bill was for an entire generation)?

We're concerned that the population is declining -- but was it artificially high to begin with?

In some ways you are correct. WWII, Korea, and Vietnam produced a lot of pilots. With those types of wars largely a thing of the past, the military is not training new pilots at that rate anymore.

So, for the last 50 years we've had a pilot "bubble". We mistakenly thought it would last -- as most people do when they're in a bubble.

We also had a wealth bubble after WWII. Prior to WWII, in the Great Depression, flying was for the rich. After WWII, with our economy booming and America sitting astride the entire world, we had a "perfect storm" of "Lots of Pilots + Wealth = Booming GA".

All of that is gone, or nearly so.

The question is: What to do about it?

There are lots of things coming together that will (IMHO) resurrect G.A. They include:

1. Automation. We've now got UAVs that safely fly themselves right back to the numbers. This technology will find its way into GA, eventually -- probably in the experimental category.

2. Government downsizing. It now appears inevitable that the U.S. government will be downsized, perhaps by as much as half. The only question remaining is whether it will happen systematically and logically, or abruptly, against our will.

Once THAT happens, much of the oppressive and silly regulations that have stifled pilot growth and aircraft certification for two generations will go away.

3. Efficiency. Just since I learned to fly, airplanes have become MUCH more efficient. None of us ever believed a fixed-gear airplane could fly faster than a Bonanza -- but that's where we are now.

This drive for efficiency has been directed at increasing speed -- but with the price of fuel going up, IMHO this will be re-directed toward making airplanes cheaper to operate per hour. Light Sport aircraft are already flying at 5 GPH or less.

4. Greater Utility. With a down-sized government, we may be facing an extended period of road maintenance cut-backs. Imagine if the interstate highway system were to fall into disrepair, how that would impair travel.

This could make light aircraft "the way to go" again, like they were in the '50s.

These admittedly somewhat depressing options may be our best bet for growing GA in America.

As for the REST of the world, I think the future for expansion of GA is bright -- IF their political systems allow it. China, for example, will have ample wealth and all of the conditions for GA growth in place (poor road system, vast distances to cover, etc.) -- but this can only happen if their rulers allow GA to develop unfettered.

Meanwhile -- I will fly as long as I can.

 

[Everskyward]

4. Greater Utility. With a down-sized government, we may be facing an extended period of road maintenance cut-backs. Imagine if the interstate highway system were to fall into disrepair, how that would impair travel.

This could make light aircraft "the way to go" again, like they were in the '50s.

Which do you think is going to lose funding first, funding for highways or funding for small airports?

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

Which do you think is going to lose funding first, funding for highways or funding for small airports?

Small airports.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Which do you think is going to lose funding first, funding for highways or funding for small airports?

Small airports can (and should) be paid locally. Were it not for federal meddling, maintaining a small airport would be quite affordable.

Interstate highways, on the other hand, can and should be a federal affair. Maintenance will be one of the last things to be cut, of course -- but it will be cut.

 

[Everskyward]

Small airports can (and should) be paid locally.

I don't think local governments are flush with money either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I still think SP is too limited, and that's one of the reasons its not taking off the way we hoped.

I think the main reason it's not taking off is that it's unavailable in most areas of the country. Here, you can find a 172 and CFI just about anywhere, but I only know of one place in the entire state where you can get sport pilot training. The rental availability of an LSA there has been intermittent as well. There's another place where you can rent J-3's, but it's not well-known and I'm not sure the CFI there does Sport Pilot training - Most of the previously-established aviation industry has pretty much ignored SP/LSA as something for old farts who can't get their medicals any more rather than an opportunity to bring new pilots into the fold at a lower cost.

Yes it will. More pilots == lower costs for everyone.

No... Lower costs for everyone == More pilots. The lowered costs have to come first, or we won't have more pilots to keep the costs low.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Small airports can (and should) be paid locally. Were it not for federal meddling, maintaining a small airport would be quite affordable.

You really think "federal meddling" is what causes airports to be expensive? Hell, the cost of paving a runway is very high, and I think most local governments would simply skip it and re-pave their roads instead - That's what the local voters are going to want.

Without FAA grants and assurances, I would guess that AT LEAST two thirds of the public airports we have today would be gone, and in reality probably closer to 90%.

Interstate highways, on the other hand, can and should be a federal affair. Maintenance will be one of the last things to be cut, of course -- but it will be cut.

So, how is it that interstate highways should be a federal government affair, but airports shouldn't? They're both pieces of transportation infrastructure that are essential to the economy.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think GA has at least three problems attracting large numbers of people. The first and probably most common is lack of interest among the general population for whatever reason.

You and I must talk to different people. I get two common responses when people find out I'm a pilot:

1) "Isn't that dangerous?" This is fairly common, but it's not as common as the other one, which is

2) "Oh COOL! I've always wanted to do that!" So, I don't think it's a lack of interest. I think a lot of it is poor marketing. I've "always wanted to do that" too, but it wasn't until I saw a Be a Pilot ad on TV in the late 90's that I really started thinking more seriously about it (hook) - Hello, AOPA? Whatever happened to that program? Then, I found out one of my fraternity brothers was a pilot (line). Then, after 9/11 I went looking for answers and ended up at the AOPA forums where I was in the midst of a bunch of pilots and I could talk aviation - The enthusiasm was infectious (sinker). So, Henning is very correct about the social aspect being important as well.

As far as cost goes, I think that most people can come to the conclusion that getting a private costs X amount and then budget for it. The problem is that it doesn't end there unless getting the private was the only goal. In Nick's world someone can get a private at 20 hours instead of 40, using round numbers. However, that person is probably not going to want to stop flying at 20 hours so the cost of continuing is virtually the same, maybe minus some CFI cost. By the time the 40-hour private and the 20-hour private get to 100 hours the total cost is probably not all that different.

Excellent point, Mari - And that's why we need to get the hourly costs under control, they're way more important than any changes to the PTS.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You really think "federal meddling" is what causes airports to be expensive? Hell, the cost of paving a runway is very high, and I think most local governments would simply skip it and re-pave their roads instead - That's what the local voters are going to want.

Well, then that's what they will get. It will be up to us to show the economic viability of small airports.

And, yes, I *do* think federal meddling is primarily to blame for the extreme cost of maintaining an airport.

One tiny example: My airport wants to extend the runway. We are in a town of 3500 people.

Cost of the EPA "study": $500K. Need I say more?

Without FAA grants and assurances, I would guess that AT LEAST two thirds of the public airports we have today would be gone, and in reality probably closer to 90%.

From what I've seen, flying around the country, that sounds about right.

So, how is it that interstate highways should be a federal government affair, but airports shouldn't? They're both pieces of transportation infrastructure that are essential to the economy.

Interstate highways cross state lines.