Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Dav8or]

Consider you can get a new SLSA like a Flight Design CTLSi with fuel injection, an ECU, 120ktas cruise, 140ktas top end, Dynon Touch, Garmin touch nav, a parachute, 4gph burn at 90%, mogas or avgas, ADS-B, Autopilot for $160k.

Soon, Flight Design will have their C4 which has a 150ktas cruise, four seats, Garmin G3x touch, Garmin GTN 750 nav, ADS-B, dual fuel, 3-axis autopilot, 1320 useful load, parachute for $250k.

The slower and much higher priced Cessna 172 and even the 182 are staring at oblivion.

Be very aware when you get excited about this upcoming C4 that the super low, low price estimate is predicated entirely on an anticipated part 23 rewrite that will make certification much easier like it is for the LSAs. You will notice that all the new planes that people are promising are sort of on hold right now. They are waiting for the Feds. If the rewrite doesn't happen, this plane will cost the same as a 172. There is no secret sauce in aviation.

 

[LoxaBagels]

Be very aware when you get excited about this upcoming C4 that the super low, low price estimate is predicated entirely on an anticipated part 23 rewrite that will make certification much easier like it is for the LSAs. You will notice that all the new planes that people are promising are sort of on hold right now. They are waiting for the Feds. If the rewrite doesn't happen, this plane will cost the same as a 172. There is no secret sauce in aviation.

The FD C4 is getting EASA certification under CS-23 rule not waiting for the FAA. https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/e...aks-new-ground-with-c4-certification-approach

The plane will be sold and have final assembly in the USA. The company will provide a contingent FAA Part 23 'fix' under warranty if the difference turn out to be significant, which they likely will not be...

The plane will mix certified Garmin GTN 750 with Garmin G3X touch screen PFD and MFD under the joint agreement rule.

The price point may change, but not by much. Also, final test flights have been completed and the specs are firming up. It does appear they are going to have a product and it will be 50 to 60% less price of Cessna product in the same niche.

 

[Henning]

....but you're still talking about a $250K solution to a $60K problem. You guys know what the US median household income is right? The inefficiencies of flying a 1940s design still are much cheaper than that ridiculous capital difference for a decade or two of flying. The whole thing is a non-starter. A 172 could fly 200knots tomorrow and it still wouldn't change a thing, as long as it's 250K to buy. How long would it take for one of these contraptions to depreciate to sub 100K price points? That's about the only residual value to the proposition.

Well, the SR-22s took around 10 years to depreciate 75%. You can now buy them for $125k with a fresh chute.

 

[mikea76]

This kind of theory is as weak as trickle down economics. It doesn't work that way at all. Most service jobs don't pay diddly. The guy that owns the business that provides the service might make good money, but the guy who actually provides the service, doesn't make diddly in most cases.

I'm no economist (who are actually just high paid witch doctors/weather forecasters than anything else), but if you look at the percentage of GDP that manufacturing used to account for in say the '70s, then look at the percentage now, then compare the median income for Americans then and now, then look at the unemployment and under employment figures today and it sort of paints a picture of what really happened.

Good paying jobs got turned in to crappy paying jobs, or no jobs at all. How can this be when the want ads are full of positions for high paying tech jobs and the like and many of these companies are having to import talent from overseas?? It's happening because the "retooling of America" isn't working.

Bottom line is, in any society anywhere in the world, not just America, a certain percentage of the population is just not cut out to be brain power. They are better suited to muscle power. 40 years ago we had a pretty good ratio going on and we did well as a whole, but our pursuit of higher corporate profits, new technology and the consumers thirst for everyday low prices has lead to our decline and a huge rift in wealth.

I don't have any great answer to this problem as it's a tough nut to crack, but one thing is for sure, the service sector can not take up the slack left from the decline of the manufacturing sector.

DING DING DING! We have reason number 1 why GA is dying right here.


It used to be that a wider segment of the population could afford a hobby like GA, back in it's heyday when costs were spread among more pilots middle class people could afford this hobby. A guy with a good union job could afford to get his PPL. Now you need to be upper middle class or higher to realistically afford it. So in reality the economics are attacking GA from both ends. Fewer people with the means to fly means less people fly, less people flying means costs go up to those that can fly this causes even less people to be able to afford to fly.

 

[hindsight2020]

Well, the SR-22s took around 10 years to depreciate 75%. You can now buy them for $125k with a fresh chute.

Asking prices for the oldest 22s with the frag grenade tanks still hover above 180K.....

 

[Tmpendergrass]

Asking prices for the oldest 22s with the frag grenade tanks still hover above 180K.....

I've heard non glass 20s/22s don't get anywhere near asking. Not sure about $125k though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Art VanDelay]

We'll never, ever get it. The seats of government are largely occupied by lawyers. They will never turn on their brethren and they will never attempt to degrade their holy institution. In addition, there is a large part of the general population that likes all this litigation. It's a litigation lottery with promises of big pay offs! Woo Hoo!!!

Enormously sad just the same. The next solution would be to stop electing lawyers to run government.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The price point may change, but not by much. Also, final test flights have been completed and the specs are firming up. It does appear they are going to have a product and it will be 50 to 60% less price of Cessna product in the same niche.

I'm skeptical of the significant stated price disparity but we will see.

 

[Dav8or]

The FD C4 is getting EASA certification under CS-23 rule not waiting for the FAA. https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/e...aks-new-ground-with-c4-certification-approach

The plane will be sold and have final assembly in the USA. The company will provide a contingent FAA Part 23 'fix' under warranty if the difference turn out to be significant, which they likely will not be...

The plane will mix certified Garmin GTN 750 with Garmin G3X touch screen PFD and MFD under the joint agreement rule.

The price point may change, but not by much. Also, final test flights have been completed and the specs are firming up. It does appear they are going to have a product and it will be 50 to 60% less price of Cessna product in the same niche.

Yeahbut...

The company expects to receive EASA CS-23 certification for the C4 “around this time next year,” he said, and the aircraft will then go through the FAA’s validation process for certification in the U.S. The streamlined certification is enabling Flight Design to offer the C4 for $250,000. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta visited Flight Design during his Oshkosh visit and discussed “harmonizing the new Part 23 with the new EASA CS-23” rules, a conversation Peghiny described as “substantive.”

If this new "harmony" doesn't occur, Flight Design will either have to forgo US certification, or spend a whole lot more on traditional part 23 certification. We shall see. I do hope the FAA, the Feds, the congress, or whatever lame government entity is standing in the way of progress can get it together.

 

[FormerHangie]

It's not just cost.

Yes, aviation is expensive and it looks like it always will be, but there are other issues as well.

• It's dangerous. Last year, there were 253 fatal GA accidents that killed 410 pilots and passengers, and nine on the ground. Also last year, there were 593,000 licensed pilots. Included in that total are 150,000 ATPs, some of whom never fly GA, and 120,000 students, many of whom have stopped flying altogether, so let's say there are 500,000 active GA pilots. That's one death for approximately every 1200 active pilots. Compare that to highway deaths. There were 32,700 roadway fatalities, and approximately 215,000,000 licensed drivers in the US in 2013, which is the latest data available. That's one fatality for every 6500 drivers. Want to make it look worse? Look at the fatality rate per mile. The FAA estimated that there were 18,100,000 GA hours flown last year. That's 36 hours for each of our 500,000 pilots, so maybe the average pilot covered 5000 miles in his 36 hours aloft. The average driver covered more than 10,000 miles, so the per mile rate is now somewhere around 10 x what the automotive rate is. If we really want to scare people away, how about calculating the per hour rate? I'd venture to say that the average driver drives a minimum of five times as many hours per year than does the average pilot, and that makes the per hour fatality rate something like 25x what the automotive rate is. That's worse than motorcycling, hang gliding, paragliding, and skydiving. BTW, part 135 operations have an accident rate that is less than one sixth than the rest of GA.
• It's of limited utility. Depending on what you're flying, there's a fairly narrow range where GA is an effective means of travel. If you're looking at a 172 or equivalent, if the trip is less than 200 miles, it's usually no faster than driving, and for more than 500 miles, it's usually slower than taking an airliner.
• It's demanding to learn. Much has been made of the slow acceptance of the sport pilot ticket. I suspect a large part of that is that it takes a certain amount of time to learn to fly, and the minimums allowed for sport pilot are below what most people need, so the cost for going on and getting the private aren't that much greater, and that's what students do.
• It's demanding, period. If you don't like what's going on in your car, you can be stopped in a few seconds. Once you have taken off, you will have to continue your flight to its conclusion. If you're flying a single and the engine quits, if there's nothing hospitable withing gliding distance, you're gonna crash. If you stumble into worse weather than you expected, you either figure out how to get out of it, or you crash. An all weather capable airplane is out of the financial reach of 99 percent of the population.
• It requires regular practice to remain proficient. We go out and rent a boat a few times per year. I'm a perfectly safe boat operator with that limited amount of time on the water, because operating a boat is simple. Only fly three times per year? No way.
• It's very weather dependent. There are maybe 12 hours in the average year where I wouldn't feel safe operating my car. As a VFR pilot living in the southeast, I can't tell you how many times I had to reschedule.

I get the impression that there are people on this board that think that there are just hundreds of thousands of people who would like to become pilots, and that we just have to get the word out, or there are hundreds of thousands of people who are wanting to fly and would if we could get the cost down by 20 percent or so. I don't think that's the case, the vast majority of the population is not interested in what GA offers. There was a time 30 or 40 years ago when more people were interested, but those days are gone. I spent 14 years of my life doing amateur sports car racing with the Sports Car Club of America. Now, there are considerably fewer amateur sports car racers than there are pilots, so that was an even smaller group. One thing we all understood was that we were the odd people out, that the vast majority of people didn't want to do what we did. Pilots need to understand the same is true about GA, most people don't want or need it. What you're looking for is someone who is interested in aviation, has sufficient resources, has the need or want to either travel regionally on a regular basis or just wants to fly locally, and is willing to take the risk. That's not a lot of people.

 

[Dav8or]

Enormously sad just the same. The next solution would be to stop electing lawyers to run government.

That is a great idea. Sadly, that is mostly who runs. People don't get a lot of choices and the choices they do get are poor.

 

[Dav8or]

It's not just cost.

Yes, aviation is expensive and it looks like it always will be, but there are other issues as well.

• It's dangerous. Last year, there were 253 fatal GA accidents that killed 410 pilots and passengers, and nine on the ground. Also last year, there were 593,000 licensed pilots. Included in that total are 150,000 ATPs, some of whom never fly GA, and 120,000 students, many of whom have stopped flying altogether, so let's say there are 500,000 active GA pilots. That's one death for approximately every 1200 active pilots. Compare that to highway deaths. There were 32,700 roadway fatalities, and approximately 215,000,000 licensed drivers in the US in 2013, which is the latest data available. That's one fatality for every 6500 drivers. Want to make it look worse? Look at the fatality rate per mile. The FAA estimated that there were 18,100,000 GA hours flown last year. That's 36 hours for each of our 500,000 pilots, so maybe the average pilot covered 5000 miles in his 36 hours aloft. The average driver covered more than 10,000 miles, so the per mile rate is now somewhere around 10 x what the automotive rate is. If we really want to scare people away, how about calculating the per hour rate? I'd venture to say that the average driver drives a minimum of five times as many hours per year than does the average pilot, and that makes the per hour fatality rate something like 25x what the automotive rate is. That's worse than motorcycling, hang gliding, paragliding, and skydiving. BTW, part 135 operations have an accident rate that is less than one sixth than the rest of GA.
• It's of limited utility. Depending on what you're flying, there's a fairly narrow range where GA is an effective means of travel. If you're looking at a 172 or equivalent, if the trip is less than 200 miles, it's usually no faster than driving, and for more than 500 miles, it's usually slower than taking an airliner.
• It's demanding to learn. Much has been made of the slow acceptance of the sport pilot ticket. I suspect a large part of that is that it takes a certain amount of time to learn to fly, and the minimums allowed for sport pilot are below what most people need, so the cost for going on and getting the private aren't that much greater, and that's what students do.
• It's demanding, period. If you don't like what's going on in your car, you can be stopped in a few seconds. Once you have taken off, you will have to continue your flight to its conclusion. If you're flying a single and the engine quits, if there's nothing hospitable withing gliding distance, you're gonna crash. If you stumble into worse weather than you expected, you either figure out how to get out of it, or you crash. An all weather capable airplane is out of the financial reach of 99 percent of the population.
• It requires regular practice to remain proficient. We go out and rent a boat a few times per year. I'm a perfectly safe boat operator with that limited amount of time on the water, because operating a boat is simple. Only fly three times per year? No way.
• It's very weather dependent. There are maybe 12 hours in the average year where I wouldn't feel safe operating my car. As a VFR pilot living in the southeast, I can't tell you how many times I had to reschedule.

I get the impression that there are people on this board that think that there are just hundreds of thousands of people who would like to become pilots, and that we just have to get the word out, or there are hundreds of thousands of people who are wanting to fly and would if we could get the cost down by 20 percent or so. I don't think that's the case, the vast majority of the population is not interested in what GA offers. There was a time 30 or 40 years ago when more people were interested, but those days are gone. I spent 14 years of my life doing amateur sports car racing with the Sports Car Club of America. Now, there are considerably fewer amateur sports car racers than there are pilots, so that was an even smaller group. One thing we all understood was that we were the odd people out, that the vast majority of people didn't want to do what we did. Pilots need to understand the same is true about GA, most people don't want or need it. What you're looking for is someone who is interested in aviation, has sufficient resources, has the need or want to either travel regionally on a regular basis or just wants to fly locally, and is willing to take the risk. That's not a lot of people.

I don't know what to say, other than this is spot on. This is why I believe that the rebirth of GA won't come until the airplanes are so automated that anyone can run them with minimal training. If it becomes simple, easy and reliable, a great number of people will finally see utility in an GA airplane. It will happen one day in the future. Until then, we are among the last of the first wave.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I don't know what to say, other than this is spot on. This is why I believe that the rebirth of GA won't come until the airplanes are so automated that anyone can run them with minimal training. If it becomes simple, easy and reliable, a great number of people will finally see utility in an GA airplane. It will happen one day in the future. Until then, we are among the last of the first wave.

Afraid so.

But what we can all do is to encourage the growth potential that we have in GA. I grow weary of the guys who think that flying is "hard", and strut around like peacocks, acting like the ace of the base. This attitude has turned off too many potential student pilots, especially women.

Flying is fun, challenging, useful, and safe, if you take into account just a few very basic measures. Like motorcycling, it's possible to improve your accident rate dramatically by taking a few common sense steps:

1. Don't drink and ride/fly.
2. Don't hot dog.
3. Don't ride/fly in bad weather.
4. Don't skimp on maintenance.
5. Keep enough gas in the tank.
6. Keep your head on a swivel.

Following those six steps has kept me alive through 38 years of motorcycle riding, and 21 years of flying.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Also consider what aircraft were equipped with thirty, fourty years ago. No glass cockpits costing thousands! you had a few charts and a wristwatch. The charts were free. Today, many pilots could hardly make a simple flight with this type of equipment. Add to this many pilots reporting that a two, three thousand foot runway seems very short even though they are flying say, a 172! ......sad.

 

[denverpilot]

It's not just cost.

Yes, aviation is expensive and it looks like it always will be, but there are other issues as well.

• It's dangerous. Last year, there were 253 fatal GA accidents that killed 410 pilots and passengers, and nine on the ground. Also last year, there were 593,000 licensed pilots. Included in that total are 150,000 ATPs, some of whom never fly GA, and 120,000 students, many of whom have stopped flying altogether, so let's say there are 500,000 active GA pilots. That's one death for approximately every 1200 active pilots. Compare that to highway deaths. There were 32,700 roadway fatalities, and approximately 215,000,000 licensed drivers in the US in 2013, which is the latest data available. That's one fatality for every 6500 drivers. Want to make it look worse? Look at the fatality rate per mile. The FAA estimated that there were 18,100,000 GA hours flown last year. That's 36 hours for each of our 500,000 pilots, so maybe the average pilot covered 5000 miles in his 36 hours aloft. The average driver covered more than 10,000 miles, so the per mile rate is now somewhere around 10 x what the automotive rate is. If we really want to scare people away, how about calculating the per hour rate? I'd venture to say that the average driver drives a minimum of five times as many hours per year than does the average pilot, and that makes the per hour fatality rate something like 25x what the automotive rate is. That's worse than motorcycling, hang gliding, paragliding, and skydiving. BTW, part 135 operations have an accident rate that is less than one sixth than the rest of GA.
• It's of limited utility. Depending on what you're flying, there's a fairly narrow range where GA is an effective means of travel. If you're looking at a 172 or equivalent, if the trip is less than 200 miles, it's usually no faster than driving, and for more than 500 miles, it's usually slower than taking an airliner.
• It's demanding to learn. Much has been made of the slow acceptance of the sport pilot ticket. I suspect a large part of that is that it takes a certain amount of time to learn to fly, and the minimums allowed for sport pilot are below what most people need, so the cost for going on and getting the private aren't that much greater, and that's what students do.
• It's demanding, period. If you don't like what's going on in your car, you can be stopped in a few seconds. Once you have taken off, you will have to continue your flight to its conclusion. If you're flying a single and the engine quits, if there's nothing hospitable withing gliding distance, you're gonna crash. If you stumble into worse weather than you expected, you either figure out how to get out of it, or you crash. An all weather capable airplane is out of the financial reach of 99 percent of the population.
• It requires regular practice to remain proficient. We go out and rent a boat a few times per year. I'm a perfectly safe boat operator with that limited amount of time on the water, because operating a boat is simple. Only fly three times per year? No way.
• It's very weather dependent. There are maybe 12 hours in the average year where I wouldn't feel safe operating my car. As a VFR pilot living in the southeast, I can't tell you how many times I had to reschedule.

I get the impression that there are people on this board that think that there are just hundreds of thousands of people who would like to become pilots, and that we just have to get the word out, or there are hundreds of thousands of people who are wanting to fly and would if we could get the cost down by 20 percent or so. I don't think that's the case, the vast majority of the population is not interested in what GA offers. There was a time 30 or 40 years ago when more people were interested, but those days are gone. I spent 14 years of my life doing amateur sports car racing with the Sports Car Club of America. Now, there are considerably fewer amateur sports car racers than there are pilots, so that was an even smaller group. One thing we all understood was that we were the odd people out, that the vast majority of people didn't want to do what we did. Pilots need to understand the same is true about GA, most people don't want or need it. What you're looking for is someone who is interested in aviation, has sufficient resources, has the need or want to either travel regionally on a regular basis or just wants to fly locally, and is willing to take the risk. That's not a lot of people.

As soon as I saw "fatality rate per mile" not adjusted to account for the different speeds of the vehicles, I once again appreciated my college level statistics course for helping me tune my meter. You know which meter.

One of the few courses worth the price of tuition.

 

[Bob Noel]

As soon as I saw "fatality rate per mile" not adjusted to account for the different speeds of the vehicles, I once again appreciated my college level statistics course for helping me tune my meter. You know which meter.

One of the few courses worth the price of tuition.

Well, when one considers the level of training, skill, and judgement of the typical driver vs the level of training, skill, and judgement demanded of the typical pilot....

 

[Challenged]

The deaths per participant seems like a pretty good comparison, since those numbers should be fairly accurate, I imagine, but I'm no statistician. Once ADSB is in use, will that give us more accurate count of GA flight hours?

 

[1600vw]

The deaths per participant seems like a pretty good comparison, since those numbers should be fairly accurate, I imagine, but I'm no statistician. Once ADSB is in use, will that give us more accurate count of GA flight hours?

Only if you fly into and out of controlled airfields. There will still be a lot of airplanes in the sky that will not have to use ADS-B for they have no electrical system or they do not fly into or out of this airspace that requires this equipment.

Tony

 

[FlyingIsGood]

I just found an old receipt in my logbook for a rental flight I took 10 years ago. After cross referencing it with my log book entries, here's what I've come up with:

2-Jun-2005 1.4 Hours (wet) PA28-161 $120.40 (tax included)
7-Aug-2015 1.4 Hours (wet) PA28-180C $158.27 (tax included)

That's a $37.87 (24%?) increase over 10 years. The Warrior was a rental from a flight school. The Cherokee 180 is from a flying club. So, after 10 years, I'm paying $37.87 (24%?) more for the same rental time, but getting more aircraft.

Seems like there are other factors causing the decline. Like I've mentioned before, the perception of limited access to aviation due to the public associating aviation with long lines and TSA molestations is what I believe to be a major culprit. I'd also include the lack of welcoming attitude at GA airports - to outsiders. It just "feels weird" to show up, unannounced at a GA airport and start asking questions because 99% of the time, folks will be suspicious, or not want to divulge any info.

Lastly, it's that folks want something new and shiny, not some 50-year old rag that is going to cost a fortune to house and maintain. If costs have anything to do with it, it's the notion that you'll shell out huge $$ for aged, entry-level equipment. Have you browsed TaP or Barnstormers lately? People are asking $25-$45k FOR A 40-year old CESSNA 150/152! GTFO! It's an absolute joke.

 

[Bob Noel]

... It just "feels weird" to show up, unannounced at a GA airport and start asking questions because 99% of the time, folks will be suspicious, or not want to divulge any info.

Contrast that with what can happen at some other types of activities. For example, my two gun clubs each hold an Open House every year as well as a Ladies' Day each year. These are open to the public and are intended to introduce the public to the various shooting sport disciplines. We also offer junior programs in archery, smallbore, and air rifle/pistol.

 

[FormerHangie]

As soon as I saw "fatality rate per mile" not adjusted to account for the different speeds of the vehicles, I once again appreciated my college level statistics course for helping me tune my meter. You know which meter.

One of the few courses worth the price of tuition.

I'm not familiar with the concept of fatality rate per mile adjusted for speed, can you elaborate? I can certainly understand that it's not correct to compare accidents or fatalities per hour for vehicles going a vastly different speed, but I think that fatalities per distance is the most correct measure.

 

[Acrodustertoo]

I will chime in on the TOPIC of this thread:

Is aviation dying in this country? Yes it is, the prices are out of reach of most folks lifestyle. My father has been with a flying club for close to twenty years. The club had seven aircraft and are now down to three, yes three! in a town with well over 100K people that include one of the biggest hospitals in the U.S. so no shortage of money there. The only way i will be able to fly is to build an airplane. That is what i am doing simply because of the staggering cost to own a certified.

Can most people own an airplane? Yes they can but that will have to be their only "hobby" and will soak up all their disposable income and then some. Is twenty or forty grand for an engine a reasonable cost? How much does a boat motor cost in comparison? How much does an RV cost? Do you have to have your boat, motorcycle, RV, 4x4, or go cart inspected every year costing you thousands of dollars? You do the math and it doesn't add up any more. Thank the lawyers for that.

 

[Bonchie]

I'm not familiar with the concept of fatality rate per mile adjusted for speed, can you elaborate? I can certainly understand that it's not correct to compare accidents or fatalities per hour for vehicles going a vastly different speed, but I think that fatalities per distance is the most correct measure.

It's misleading because millions of cars/miles driven in this country never go/happen over 40mph (regularly) but are there to dilute the statistics on deaths for cars. I live in DC. I drove 20 miles today to a job (it's in McLean) I was almost never in a situation where a fatal accident could occur because it was traffic the whole way. Plenty of people in major cities, large parts of California, etc. are adding lots of miles traveled to the stats while never being really exposed to deadly situations.

It's much more dangerous to go drive a car at 70mph on an interstate then the statistics might bare out when guys like me who are in the city are factored in. My risk is practically zero while the guy on the interstates is more even though the general stats say we carry the same risk. If we could somehow compare that situation vs. GA, it'd be a more realistic picture of risk when traveling at high speeds.

But we don't have a way to really do that accurately. Keep in mind, I'm not claiming GA is still even close to driving in safety. I'm just saying it's not quite as bad as it may seem.

The fatalities figures for GA are also skewed by location and choices. Places like Alaska have much higher fatality rates (1 in 7 deaths in all 50 states happen in Alaska). People who tangle with weather and fly in the moutains have much higher fatality rates.

1) Don't fly in Alaska 2) Don't fly around or in bad weather 3) Have personal minimums for where you'll fly (like don't fly out/into airports with no outs on takeoff, really short runways, over moutains, etc.).

I personally don't observe #3 because I fly out of VKX. We have no outs the first 700 feet of climb. It's a risk I'm taking though to finish my IFR training.

It'll never be as safe as driving a car, but it's not as unsafe as it's made out to be if you manage the risk.

I think if we were more forthright about the dangers it'd help. Be honest and tell people that yes, GA is dangerous in general. But also teach the multitude of ways in which risk can be greatly reduced.

 

[Everskyward]

There are comparatively few people who possess the interest plus time plus money. I just attended my 40th high school reunion where others introduced me as a pilot (probably because it seems so strange). I only met one other pilot, who is an airline pilot. No one mentioned being a GA pilot although one person had flown across the country a few times in a GA airplane with a friend. I got the feeling that many of my classmates who attended have more than enough money to pursue this as a hobby but I didn't notice much interest. On the other hand, no one mentioned the dangers of GA. Surprisingly, one mentioned being in an an airline accident (World Airways overrun in the early 1980s), and sadly, I learned that one friend's husband was killed in the Colgan accident in Buffalo.

 

[hindsight2020]

Lastly, it's that folks want something new and shiny, not some 50-year old rag that is going to cost a fortune to house and maintain. If costs have anything to do with it, it's the notion that you'll shell out huge $$ for aged, entry-level equipment. Have you browsed TaP or Barnstormers lately? People are asking $25-$45k FOR A 40-year old CESSNA 150/152! GTFO! It's an absolute joke.

How exactly does a 500K Cirrus help any of that? They're the closest to a pedestrian blankie (automotive ergonomics and "Save me Johnny the plane is ACME falling!!" wife parachute) as they come and they ain't exactly flying off the shelves. In 1968 Vero Beach was cranking PA-28 variants at a rate of 7,000 units PER YEAR. They weren't 500K inflation adjusted either.

An SR-20 costs more to maintain than my Arrow and it's barely 7-10 knots faster on the same gas (I've flown it, hold on to your hats!!...oh wait, 140-143TAS at 9gph, wah wah....), so the claim that new is free from the labor costs associated with maintenance and inspection kabuki is just a tired canard.

No hay dinero playa'

 

[FlyingIsGood]

How exactly does a 500K Cirrus help any of that? They're the closest to a pedestrian blankie (automotive ergonomics and "Save me Johnny the plane is ACME falling!!" wife parachute) as they come and they ain't exactly flying off the shelves. In 1968 Vero Beach was cranking PA-28 variants at a rate of 7,000 units PER YEAR. They weren't 500K inflation adjusted either.

An SR-20 costs more to maintain than my Arrow and it's barely 7-10 knots faster on the same gas (I've flown it, hold on to your hats!!...oh wait, 140-143TAS at 9gph, wah wah....), so the claim that new is free from the labor costs associated with maintenance and inspection kabuki is just a tired canard.

I'm with you in thinking that new aircraft are ridiculously over-priced, but the SR-20, or any Cirrus aircraft, isn't comparable to a PA28. Piper's modern base model PA28 (2015 Archer TX) starts at $345k MSRP. A major chunk of that is in the G1000 glass, Aspen EFD-1000, WAAS GPS, etc. A looong way from a 60's/70's, steam gauge PA28. And most of those frills have nothing to do with actually flying an aircraft.

I can't believe they sell ANY of them for that kinda dough.

When the Sport Pilot regs came out, I remember all BS talk about $60-$75k, factory new aircraft being available everywhere. Did that ever happen? No. The market targets were for older guys who are established enough to squeeze for at least double that, and they set those prices accordingly - while killing off the majority of the Part 103 world. See those stats on Sport Pilots license issuances to see how that's working out.

The liability issues tend to get the blame a lot, but why hasn't the AOPA lobbied to change that?Instead, they get the bright idea to clean up a C150/152 and sell it for $100k. "That will save aviation!" What a joke!

 

[Jay Honeck]

The liability issues tend to get the blame a lot, but why hasn't the AOPA lobbied to change that?Instead, they get the bright idea to clean up a C150/152 and sell it for $100k. "That will save aviation!" What a joke!

I don't think AOPA (or any lobbying group) has the power to influence our lawyer-run government. That would be money wasted, IMHO.

What I DO want to see from AOPA is marketing. Where is the national ad campaign, promoting private pilotage? Why haven't they teamed up with EAA and the aircraft manufacturers to make ads to sell the concept of becoming a private pilot and aircraft owner?

Sometimes it seems like the people who are most jeopardized by the collapse of GA aren't even trying to save it.

 

[drotto]

I'm with you in thinking that new aircraft are ridiculously over-priced, but the SR-20, or any Cirrus aircraft, isn't comparable to a PA28. Piper's modern base model PA28 (2015 Archer TX) starts at $345k MSRP. A major chunk of that is in the G1000 glass, Aspen EFD-1000, WAAS GPS, etc. A looong way from a 60's/70's, steam gauge PA28. And most of those frills have nothing to do with actually flying an aircraft.

I can't believe they sell ANY of them for that kinda dough.

When the Sport Pilot regs came out, I remember all BS talk about $60-$75k, factory new aircraft being available everywhere. Did that ever happen? No. The market targets were for older guys who are established enough to squeeze for at least double that, and they set those prices accordingly - while killing off the majority of the Part 103 world. See those stats on Sport Pilots license issuances to see how that's working out.

The liability issues tend to get the blame a lot, but why hasn't the AOPA lobbied to change that?Instead, they get the bright idea to clean up a C150/152 and sell it for $100k. "That will save aviation!" What a joke!

Better solution is taking something like a PA28 and putting the experimental garmin stuff in it (and pray they get approved like the C4 is).

 

[Tmpendergrass]

Exactly. Just allow us to "de-certify" our Cessnas, mooneys and pipers.

$30k for a spam can of choice
$15k for a full IFR G3x system
$15k for new paint and interior.

That's one heck of a bird for less than the cost of a new BMW.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In addition, there is a large part of the general population that likes all this litigation. It's a litigation lottery with promises of big pay offs! Woo Hoo!!!

Yup. It's the same thing as the people who are low-income but vote for certain candidates who advocate lessening the tax burden on the rich - They want to be rich someday, so they don't want the rich to be taxed, but 99.999% of them will never be rich and vote against their own interest because of the elusive dream.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In GA as in the USA as a whole the lawyers plaintiffs are sucking the life blood out of everyone.

FTFY. Without the plaintiff who hired the lawyer, there would be no lawyer.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Exactly. Just allow us to "de-certify" our Cessnas, mooneys and pipers.

$30k for a spam can of choice
$15k for a full IFR G3x system
$15k for new paint and interior.

That's one heck of a bird for less than the cost of a new BMW.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, that alone would probably make me think about buying an aircraft. Shelling out $60K for a 6-pack 4-seater with mid-time engine, dated interior and iffy paint doesn't sound appealing. However, give me the ability to spend $45K on one, but upgrade the avionics and interior for $10-15K, and the appeal of the aircraft just went up. I love the experimentals, like RV-10's, etc, I just don't have the time/space to build one of my own.

 

[Anthony]

I love the experimentals, like RV-10's, etc, I just don't have the time/space to build one of my own.

As the fleet grows, there are more and more on the secondary market. Buy one already built.

 

[Tmpendergrass]

As the fleet grows, there are more and more on the secondary market. Buy one already built.

Everyone loves the RV10 but it's price point is out of reach of a lot of people. The only 4 seat experimental on the market for under 100k I can think of is an older velocity(which isn't for everyone).

Off topic:
Why don't we see more multi engine experimental stuff? (How awesome would it be to have a twin engine RV-10 or something powered by a couple of rotax 912s!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoonerAviator]

As the fleet grows, there are more and more on the secondary market. Buy one already built.

True, but it being a (relatively) newer model means there are fewer to purchase, and they have been priced accordingly. You can generally find them between $150-$200K, but that's still a little rich for my blood given that you can pick up certified aircraft for much less. Get them into the $75-85K range and it would be worth considering. It won't happen for another decade until there are enough built and the model has started to depreciate a bit more.

My personal concern is not the age of the airframe, just the ability to modernize it with non-certified equipment. I can't afford a $150K RV-10, but I can afford a $55K Piper Comanche if I were able to upgrade the 1960's panel for $10K. I think it would open the door to a lot of aircraft if at least the avionics were allowed to be changed out. I'm not sure how I'd feel about an LS6 in there in place of the Lyco/Conti, at least from a one-off standpoint.

LS6 in an RV-10 designed for it from the start? Sure!

 

[Anthony]

I can't afford a $150K RV-10, but I can afford a $55K Piper Comanche if I were able to upgrade the 1960's panel for $10K. I think it would open the door to a lot of aircraft if at least the avionics were allowed to be changed out.

That's the problem right there as you have articulated it. Modern avionics to upgrade the panel for certified aircraft are just stupid expensive. It really is prohibiting a lot of people from doing it, and even buying a plane that needs new radios. There really is no economically viable solution when your radios cost more than what the plane is worth.

Experimentals are the way to go, but yeah, there are not many RV-10's out there yet. I'd like to get a 6, 7, or even and 8 like Jay's, but that's not in the cards right now.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Pardon what is probably a really dumb question.

Why can one not just go buy a 172 and start hacking on it themselves in exchange for changing it to experimental category?

 

[Tmpendergrass]

Pardon what is probably a really dumb question.

Why can one not just go buy a 172 and start hacking on it themselves in exchange for changing it to experimental category?

Cuz thems the rules. Hopefully the part 23 re write will allow exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Noel]

Pardon what is probably a really dumb question.

Why can one not just go buy a 172 and start hacking on it themselves in exchange for changing it to experimental category?

Because the 172 wasn't amatuer-built. But, I believe you can convert it to an experimental, you just won't get the advantages that an amateur-built aircraft would enjoy.

(I know, it doesn't completely answer your question)

 

[SoonerAviator]

Pardon what is probably a really dumb question.

Why can one not just go buy a 172 and start hacking on it themselves in exchange for changing it to experimental category?

Well you could do it and be fine until your next annual inspection. The inspection is help to the certified standards, so at that point the C172 would no longer be considered airworthy due to the non-certified equipment/hacking and the aircraft is grounded.