Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

Another good indicator of decline is what is available on the rental ramps. In the 90s I could rent nearly anything in a major market. Now finding something beyon a 172/Warrior class plane and you have to go to a worn out Seminole, or a Cirrus for over $300hr. I haven't seen a Diamond on a line in a while.
 
Henning said:
Another good indicator of decline is what is available on the rental ramps. In the 90s I could rent nearly anything in a major market. Now finding something beyon a 172/Warrior class plane and you have to go to a worn out Seminole, or a Cirrus for over $300hr. I haven't seen a Diamond on a line in a while.
Click to expand...


How come there are still waiting lists to get a hangar?
 
teejayevans said:
How come there are still waiting lists to get a hangar?
Click to expand...

There are 2 diamond in a club here at OSU. A Da-20, Da-40 and they used to have a twinstar. The 20 and 40 fly constantly.

Edit: Oops hit reply to the wrong post...
 
Last edited:
There are waiting lists for hangars as no one is willing to build new ones and many older ones are falling to the ground, ( like the fifty year old rotten one that collapsed on my airplane in a snow fall three years ago. ) the price charged for a newer hangar is unaffordable for most younger people today so usually only corporate aircraft that can be written off are in a newer hangar. There is also the " good ole boy syndrome" at work at smaller airports where the waiting list is manipulated. No where near the small aircraft flying today as there were thirty years ago. Not even close.
 
All I really care about in regards to GA: it isn't dying for me. I expected to fly a few times a month here and there and turns out I've logged >50 hours in the last 4 months. Some travel for work, some for vacation, and if I keep realistic goals and expectations it turns out to be a great way to get around.

Today I had a meeting in Newport news. Drive 4+ hours each way, minimum in traffic? Fly commercial? Nope. 90 minute flight there, 90 minutes back. I was home earlier than my driving commute. Less traffic too
 
Last edited:
gitmo234 said:
All I really care about in regards to GA: it isn't dying for me. I expected to fly a few times a month here and there and turns out I've logged >50 hours in the last 4 months. Some travel for work, some for vacation, and if I keep realistic goals and expectations it turns out to be a great way to get around.

Today I had a meeting in Newport news. Drive 4+ hours each way, minimum in traffic? Fly commercial? Nope. 90 minute flight there, 90 minutes back. I was home earlier than my driving commute. Less traffic too
Click to expand...
That may change as you eventually get into some bad weather and survive it or it quits on takeoff three days after an alcoholic did the annual. Or it quits in the air. A lot of it depends on how long you've been flying. Usually everyone is all bushy tailed at the beginning.
 
gitmo234 said:
All I really care about in regards to GA: it isn't dying for me...
Click to expand...

I can relate to that, but what worries me is that as GA economic activity decreases, eventually we lose economies of scale to such a degree that costs become prohibitive, and services, and even destinations, that used to be available to me become unavailable. The latter has already happened to some degree, as I've noticed that airports that used to have rental cars available no longer do, and of course some airports have closed outright.
 
Palmpilot said:
I can relate to that, but what worries me is that as GA economic activity decreases, eventually we lose economies of scale to such a degree that costs become prohibitive, and services, and even destinations, that used to be available to me become unavailable. The latter has already happened to some degree, as I've noticed that airports that used to have rental cars available no longer do, and of course some airports have closed outright.
Click to expand...

Then add to this that the majority of decent airports are funded by state and federal money's. With today's tax problems and city's in deep financial trouble, funding local airports like they have in the past is impossible.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That may change as you eventually get into some bad weather and survive it or it quits on takeoff three days after an alcoholic did the annual. Or it quits in the air. A lot of it depends on how long you've been flying. Usually everyone is all bushy tailed at the beginning.
Click to expand...

You must be a joy at parties :D
 
Henning said:
Yeah, and I can probably find 2 more in the 2500 miles between here and there. The one I used to rent here was taken off leaseback.:(
Click to expand...

There's one here at VKX for rent.

Never flown it but instructors say the seats are really uncomfortable.
 
Bonchie said:
There's one here at VKX for rent.

Never flown it but instructors say the seats are really uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

They're not the worst, and if you get the Oregon Aero cushions they're ok. I wish that DA-20s were a more ubiquitous rental, I like them and they fill my 90% mission right now, very efficient short/medium range transport.
 
If only the DA-20 was IFR. It would give the RV-s a run for their money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How hard would it be for diamond to get it IFR certified? I agree that it is a great plane that's being held back, in some respects, by lack of IFR cert.
 
oregonboy109 said:
How hard would it be for diamond to get it IFR certified? I agree that it is a great plane that's being held back, in some respects, by lack of IFR cert.
Click to expand...

I believe the issue is related to lightning...I think I was told there is no mesh of some sort in the wing/fuselage that would dissipate lightning and as such the hull could melt. Maybe the guy that told me was pulling me leg...I'm not really sure.
 
My understanding is that a certified composite aircraft needs a metal mesh under the composite skin to dissipate the electrical shock of a lightning strike so it is impossible to modify the existing design to be IFR. Although lancairs and glasairs seem to be doing fine. One of the many benefits allowing non-commercial factory built aircraft to be turned into experimental a would bring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MichiPilot said:
I believe the issue is related to lightning...I think I was told there is no mesh of some sort in the wing/fuselage that would dissipate lightning and as such the hull could melt. Maybe the guy that told me was pulling me leg...I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...

This is exactly it. Composite planes that are IFR certified have a copper mesh imbedded in their lay up to facilitate conductivity during a lightning strike. Without it, composite structures can burn and literally explode. That is one reason the DA-20 is not IFR certified. There may be more, I don't know. You can train for IFR in VFR all you want in a DA-20.

Other limitations of the DA-20 is the requirement for two no greater than FAA sized adults, no baggage and an iron butt. Having said that, I did enjoy the short time I had flying the DA-20 when there was one at Oakland Flyers years ago. It didn't last long on the flight line.
 
There is no question that the single most significant barrier to more GA flying is cost. So how can we change that? Here is an idea that is designed not to reduce the absolute cost of flying, but to allow that cost to be shared so that its full incidence is not on the private pilots:

https://www.facebook.com/freedomtoflyforprivatebenefit

Until I can figure out how to reorder the posts from the top-down, start at the bottom and read up. The ability to add posts has been disabled but the comments are open.

Traction for the idea has been steadily growing. The regulatory affairs management at AOPA is very enthusiastic about the idea but their resources are currently focused on the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 campaign, especially the 3rd class medical reform. So for now we're going to continue our pure grassroots effort to persuade pilots, maintenance shop owners, flight schools, FBOs, manufacturers, et al, to contact their US representatives and senators with the message you will find on the Facebook page.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1845496#post1845496



If Oshkosh is any indication, GA is alive and well.
Click to expand...


See post regarding non-commercial GA being a minuscule number of Americans...

Saying the one and only great mass fly-in is an indication of "health" of what's clearly not a common activity, is realistically a bit of a reach. We have to be honest.

AOPA's regional fly-ins might be a better indicator of "health" compared to overall society, and they can't even find a venue to host one in the Rocky Mtn West or Great Plains, east of the Rockies, let alone get enough pilots to come to make it worth their time and effort. The coasts and Texas had them, and how well were those attended?

All we really have left is OSH. That's one of the reasons it does so well. People aren't coming out to the local field to see the barnstormers on weekends.

(Well, if such a thing we're even legal anymore and the airport in Podunk didn't have to have a 7' tall fence with barbed wire on top around it, because it has one RJ flight per day.)

I've pushed pretty hard on regional air show committees within a six hour flight of Denver at GA speeds, to offer fly-in camping or hard surface parking and discounted or reasonable room accommodations, in an effort to combine the two, and there's zero interest. They don't have the volunteer base something like OSH has and can't really pull it off.

EAA has something very special with OSH that can't be replicated at any scale.

Would I want OSH to have real competition? Not really. Then you'd have to decide which friends to go see each year.

But the closest thing to me that even compares is Copperstate, and it's no Oshkosh... And is probably a better indicator of "health" than Oshkosh.

There are multiple States surrounding Colorado that can't even put on a good airshow. If they can, it's a few performers and none of the big names. They can't afford them.

Even Colorado's two biggest shows can't usually book more than a couple of well known acts and Grand Junction only does their shows in years they can get a military team as a show anchor (usually the Blues).

Let's not even discuss what a fustercluck the Denver show turned into trying to accommodate the Birds this year. Logistical disaster is putting it mildly. They issued mass refunds to people who couldn't get from the highway to the venue.

If fly-ins and GA were commonplace and there were multiple local-ish events with the big names out here, it'd be a hard decision to drive or fly 1080 miles one-way to OSH.

It's never a hard decision. That says something. Mostly that we're in an incredibly small niche hobby.

Oshkosh is truly special. I wouldn't use it as a "health" indicator, though. It's kinda like judging the health of football by seeing if the Super Bowl is well-attended. ;)
 
Why do fly-ins need to have performers to be a good sign of health? That's not why I go to fly-ins. I go to meet people and see planes. Fly somewhere I haven't been before. Maybe check out some stuff from vendors, or attend a seminar.

The fly-in at 7B3 was looking pretty good last year... and then there was that crash on takeoff that closed it down. Was a good crowd forming. Don't know if they're going to have one this year. Might be an insurance thing.

Airports with big chain link fences around them really don't attract non-pilots. The EAA fly-in I went to a few weeks back at Lawrence was well attended, but only by pilots. Was a pain in the ass to get through the gate if you drove. Someone had to let you in and out.
 
The biggest reason is Access, IMO. If you live in the city, you must leave the city... if you are close to an airport it is fenced off and segregated from society. I use to think it was money, but I don't believe that at all. People have disposable income and spend it on all sorts of things. For instance: 2016 Can-am commander is almost $20K, then a trailer, then a truck, etc... People drop a ton of money on hobbies, thus, I don't believe it is money.

I really think that remote control quads and FPV could have a positive impact on General Aviation if exploited properly. People are spending between $100-$4000 on a quad. Once they get them in the air, they get addicted to the views. This is who we should introduce sport pilot training to. Show them that for an upgraded quad they could fly a real airplane.

It seems that the current pilot population dislikes anything that is not like them. First it was Cirrus, then Experimental, then LSA, now quads..... all in my short time of enjoying GA. Thus, I'm looking forward to the current state of GA dying and a new form taking its place.

Probably similar to when wing spars went from wood to metal :)
 
denverpilot said:
See post regarding non-commercial GA being a minuscule number of Americans...

Saying the one and only great mass fly-in is an indication of "health" of what's clearly not a common activity, is realistically a bit of a reach. We have to be honest.

AOPA's regional fly-ins might be a better indicator of "health" compared to overall society, and they can't even find a venue to host one in the Rocky Mtn West or Great Plains, east of the Rockies, let alone get enough pilots to come to make it worth their time and effort. The coasts and Texas had them, and how well were those attended?

All we really have left is OSH. That's one of the reasons it does so well. People aren't coming out to the local field to see the barnstormers on weekends.

(Well, if such a thing we're even legal anymore and the airport in Podunk didn't have to have a 7' tall fence with barbed wire on top around it, because it has one RJ flight per day.)

I've pushed pretty hard on regional air show committees within a six hour flight of Denver at GA speeds, to offer fly-in camping or hard surface parking and discounted or reasonable room accommodations, in an effort to combine the two, and there's zero interest. They don't have the volunteer base something like OSH has and can't really pull it off.

EAA has something very special with OSH that can't be replicated at any scale.

Would I want OSH to have real competition? Not really. Then you'd have to decide which friends to go see each year.

But the closest thing to me that even compares is Copperstate, and it's no Oshkosh... And is probably a better indicator of "health" than Oshkosh.

There are multiple States surrounding Colorado that can't even put on a good airshow. If they can, it's a few performers and none of the big names. They can't afford them.

Even Colorado's two biggest shows can't usually book more than a couple of well known acts and Grand Junction only does their shows in years they can get a military team as a show anchor (usually the Blues).

Let's not even discuss what a fustercluck the Denver show turned into trying to accommodate the Birds this year. Logistical disaster is putting it mildly. They issued mass refunds to people who couldn't get from the highway to the venue.

If fly-ins and GA were commonplace and there were multiple local-ish events with the big names out here, it'd be a hard decision to drive or fly 1080 miles one-way to OSH.

It's never a hard decision. That says something. Mostly that we're in an incredibly small niche hobby.

Oshkosh is truly special. I wouldn't use it as a "health" indicator, though. It's kinda like judging the health of football by seeing if the Super Bowl is well-attended. ;)
Click to expand...
I think the abov is well written. Just look around your airport, especially if it's non towered. See any recent aircraft? See any two year old Mooneys or bonanzas? Etc. ? There used to be a lot of newer aircrft around. Now it fourty to sixty year old aircraft. Not a good indicator.
 
It just occurred to me that one small improvement might be that when a new person comes on PoA asking about financial assistance, scholarships, etc. to learn how to fly, maybe we could inform them of the realities with a little less ridicule. :idea:
 
Palmpilot said:
It just occurred to me that one small improvement might be that when a new person comes on PoA asking about financial assistance, scholarships, etc. to learn how to fly, maybe we could inform them of the realities with a little less ridicule. :idea:
Click to expand...

The sad reality is that POA is tough on beginners no matter what the question. This place is not for he thin skinned. I think eating the young is in the ROC.
 
mikeinbama said:
The sad reality is that airplane pilots in general are tough on beginners no matter what the question. This place is not for he thin skinned. I think eating the young is in the ROC.
Click to expand...

This kind of behavior can be observed anywhere pilots are present. All pilot's forums suffer from this and much discussion around an airport will expose this character flaw. :( We tend to suffer from a superiority complex. Likely to do with our own fears of dying due to a mistake.
 
Palmpilot said:
It just occurred to me that one small improvement might be that when a new person comes on PoA asking about financial assistance, scholarships, etc. to learn how to fly, maybe we could inform them of the realities with a little less ridicule. :idea:
Click to expand...


Sounds like a job for a FAQ writer. Nothing anyone has said to a newbie asking those questions
has changed much in 20 years.
 
denverpilot said:
Sounds like a job for a FAQ writer. Nothing anyone has said to a newbie asking those questions
has changed much in 20 years.
Click to expand...
That's a great idea. I have often wondered why there aren't more stickies or FAQs here.

Of course, that would settle the top ten topics here, and the forum would be awfully quiet. lol
 
I've given out a small handful of tours here in Shawnee, almost all of them have been parents with kids watching for planes flying around in the pattern, pushed up as close to the fence as they could possibly get. Their faces always light up when you ask if they want to get close to some airplanes. :D

I try to ramp up a bit, show them a 172 or two, then a Baron, then the T-6 on field. Each kid (and even the parents) have been totally enthralled to be able to get closer than they ever would otherwise.

Heck, even the kids at CAP's Flight Academy got excited about normal planes, and completely fell over backwards after seeing the T-6 up close and personal. What a feeling.

I don't think that people don't like aircraft, I just think that medically and economically it's rough to accomodate. And it's more difficult than a lot of other hobbies too. What other career would a seemingly insignificant or sudden medical problem get you completely grounded and unable to make money after a ridiculously large investment?

Seeing those CAP kids solo though... :yes: Their faces were priceless.
 
What we need is a new type of license, call it "the beginner license". It should take you less time to get and should allow you only to fly lower performance airplanes that are easier to certify, and build so that they would therefore cost less.

Do you think that would work? :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RalphInCA said:
What we need is a new type of license, call it "the beginner license". It should take you less time to get and should allow you only to fly lower performance airplanes that are easier to certify, and build so that they would therefore cost less.

Do you think that would work? :)
Click to expand...

I think they call that Light Sport...

It seems that it takes around 40 hours to get people comfortable in a plane, even with Light Sport.
 
The two main factors holding GA are and have always been.

1. Cost
2. Commitment to learn how to fly. This involves both time, scheduling and cost.

If there would be a practical, safe way to make both training and new planes cheaper, I really think GA would grow. For the price the general public just not see it as a viable means of transportation. Instead it is a rich white man's hobby, in many people's eyes.

I wonder what would happen if we could get the cost of basic training down to around $5000, and have new performance planes costing around $200k to $250k as opposed to $600K. Even better getting basic or trainer type aircraft into the $150k range would be a amazing, and sorry light sport planes do not qualify.
 
Last edited:
drotto said:
The two main factors holding GA are and have always been.

1. Cost
2. Commitment to learn how to fly. This involves both time, scheduling and cost.

If there would be a practical, safe way to make both training and new planes cheaper, I really think GA would grow. For the price the general public just not see it as a viable means of transportation. Instead it is a rich white man's hobby, in many people's eyes.

I wonder what would happen if we could get the cost of basic training down to around $5000, and have new performance planes costing around $200k to $250k as opposed to $600K. Even better getting basic or trainer type aircraft into the $150k range would be a amazing, and sorry light sport planes do not qualify.
Click to expand...


High performance planes for 200:
RV-10
Velocity
Glasair iii
Lancair legacy
Columbia 300 (used but certified)
SR22 (used but certified)

Trainer for under 150:
Very nice refurbished 172 etc
G1000 DA40
SR20
A bunch of experimentals and LSAs

I don't think acquisition cost is the problem, a very nice diamond, cirrus, glasair, RV, etc can go for about the same as a new corvette or Porsche. Difference is the plane will need insurance, a hangar, a mechanic, and a current pilot willing to make aviation part of his "lifestyle".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
2. Commitment to learn how to fly. This involves both time, scheduling and cost.
Click to expand...

A lot of this has to do with how so much of the training is setup across the country. It's often tough for people to coordinate with their CFI, have a plane available, or stick with it when they feel like they are crawling along.

And the attitude of many CFIs is "it's gonna take six months...let's not rush it," as if having a week between lessons somehow makes people better pilots. I think CFIs need to be motivating and seek to keep a quick pace (assuming the student approves of a quick pace).

I think accelerated programs would be much more efficient for getting people to actually finish.

There's no magic that occurs by having 7 days between a lesson. You can learn to fly over 30 days just as well as over 8 months.

Unfortunately, accelerated programs for PPL are rare and you likely won't have a program within driving distance. If more local training was accelerated from the get go or at least more properly regimented (like a 30 day program), you'd see more people finish.
 
Last edited:
Tmpendergrass said:
High performance planes for 200:
RV-10
Velocity
Glasair iii
Lancair legacy
Columbia 300 (used but certified)
SR22 (used but certified)

Trainer for under 150:
Very nice refurbished 172 etc
G1000 DA40
SR20
A bunch of experimentals and LSAs

I don't think acquisition cost is the problem, a very nice diamond, cirrus, glasair, RV, etc can go for about the same as a new corvette or Porsche. Difference is the plane will need insurance, a hangar, a mechanic, and a current pilot willing to make aviation part of his "lifestyle".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am thinking new planes that come across as the latest and greatest. I think people showing up to school and being put into a 30 plus year old Warrior or 172 that looks like crap, looks unsafe (not saying it is but to the laymen it does), and has old instruments does not help us. Improving fleet age and appearance, as trivial as it may be, would make flying look safer and seem cooler. And then at the end of training having the chance to get a modern aircraft to call your own.

I agree 100% on the other commitment costs. But much of that (as well as plane costs) could be alleviated by supply and demand. If there are more planes ordered, more flown, more pilots, the entire economics of the masses kicks in bringing prices down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top