Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

[Jay Honeck]

How will the closing of the vast majority of small local airports help GA again?

You are making an unsupported assumption that cutting Federal ties will result in the closure of vast numbers of airports.

IMHO, that's simply not true. There might be some fallout of the lesser-used airports, but -- if the Feds were TRULY removed from the equation, I can see many airports EXPANDING.

Our airport, for example, would extend the runway next week, were it not for all the absurdly expensive Federal make-work requirements. Instead, we are looking at an uber-expensive, multi-year procedure that may (or may not) result in a minor extension of the runway.

Decentralize, shorten the supply lines, and simplify the procedures -- and we will all win.

 

[dmccormack]

You are making an unsupported assumption that cutting Federal ties will result in the closure of vast numbers of airports.

IMHO, that's simply not true. There might be some fallout of the lesser-used airports, but -- if the Feds were TRULY removed from the equation, I can see many airports EXPANDING.

Our airport, for example, would extend the runway next week, were it not for all the absurdly expensive Federal make-work requirements. Instead, we are looking at an uber-expensive, multi-year procedure that may (or may not) result in a minor extension of the runway.

Decentralize, shorten the supply lines, and simplify the procedures -- and we will all win.

Are "absurdly expensive Federal make-work requirements" things like obstacle clearance studies? Rainwater runoff plans?

 

[pilot_dude]

How will the closing of the vast majority of small local airports help GA again?

Assuming a decrease in budget not in parallel with the number of airports being closed, each remaining airport would receive a bigger portion of the remaining pie.

 

[pilot_dude]

Agreed, it is in the nation's best interest to support a wide network of small GA airports throughout the country. I don't want to have to fly out of KCLT everytime I want to fly, I much prefer my local airport for my flying needs.

But are ALL of the GA airports necessary? The honest answer is no. I have 2 GA airports within 15 miles of my house in 2 different counties. That is unnecessary.

 

[dell30rb]

There are three types of Discovery Flight types:


#3 Is further broken down into several categories

1. Mentally and physically capable, but no money
2. Mentally and physically capable, with money
3. Mentally and/or physically incapable, but no money
4. Mentally and/or physically incapable, with money

#2 and #4 will get their tickets

I fit into the "accept a lower standard of living" category. I'm 24 and don't earn all that much but I also have low living costs as I have no kids and I pretend that my girlfriend is low maintenance. (this is working out great)

Friends my age have squandered their money by getting married, buying a sports car, or living in an expensive apartment downtown and goin out all the time. I'd rather go flying

 

[Jay Honeck]

Are "absurdly expensive Federal make-work requirements" things like obstacle clearance studies? Rainwater runoff plans?

Yes, along with "environmental impact statements" and requirements regarding everything from pavement thickness to lighting.

These so-called safety requirements have done little to enhance safety, while hindering or outright preventing airport enhancements or expansion. It happened in Iowa, and it's happening again in Texas.

Example #1: Our airport desperately needs new hangars. I just finally got one, after waiting 18 months, and pulling every string I know.

Were it up to the city, those hangars would have been built years ago. The Feds won't let 'em do it, without an EPA "study" that will cost more than the hangars. So, they just don't get built.

Example #2: Our airport needs to extend the runway so that biz-jets and large turboprops can operate more safely. Our airport is surrounded by water, naturally (we're on an island!), so to extend the runway would require landfilling an area off the approach end of Rwy 12.

This is child's play stuff -- the Corps of Engineers and State of Texas dredge the intracoastal waterway adjacent to the runway, and routinely create new islands from the extra material. All they need to do is dump it over *here* instead of over *there* -- and we would have our runway.

But, NOOOOOOO. This is a "protected wetland area" that requires a $500,000.00 EPA study before it can be deemed "safe" to make such a land-fill area.

Friggin' idiots. It's just a powerplay, and a way to make work for a bunch of bureaucrats. In the end, the runway will be extended EXACTLY AS PROPOSED -- but instead of costing NOTHING (well, the pavement and lights) it will end up costing MILLIONS.

The inmates are running the asylum. It's time to cut 'em loose -- for the good of GA and all America.

 

[Everskyward]

Personally I think it's good that there would be some independent study before filling in the waterways, not to mention putting a runway on landfill.

 

[dmccormack]

Personally I think it's good that there would be some independent study before filling in the waterways, not to mention putting a runway on landfill.

There's no argument that Federal regulation imposes a huge burden that isn't always justified.

Yet, we need some standards so that when I land a heavy twin on Clem-town runway, I don't break through the 1/2" pavement and tossed in the hoosegow until I pay for a new runway.

The tension between federal oversight and local control is long standing, and was supposed to be rectified by the Constitution (which came about due to the inadequacies of the very de-centralized Articles of Confederation).

The pendulum sways, but certainly has tipped a too far in the DC direction. We just have to ensure we don't toss the baby out with the bathwater when we talk about returning to some balance between local and federal.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Personally I think it's good that there would be some independent study before filling in the waterways, not to mention putting a runway on landfill.

The EPA is "independent"? Independent of what? Control? Common sense? Logic?

It's funny, when I was a kid I always thought of EPA as our protectors of the environment. After watching them in action at three different airports, I now know that they are truly obstructors of progress, with no actual or even perceived enhancement of "environmental safety".

BTW: Putting a runway on landfill is the norm. Even on dry land, they often bring in millions of tons of fill. (They did in Iowa -- and had to leave it settle for over a year before they could pave.) Doing so in the water off the end of our island only requires different equipment.

This equipment is already there, and is used every day by the State to dredge the nearby intracoastal waterway. To change the area they dump the dredge in order to use it for something productive should be (and used to be) a local issue.

Which brings us back to the salient point. Get the national government out of the way, and let local officials make these judgments. It will help GA and America.

 

[Everskyward]

The tension between federal oversight and local control is long standing, and was supposed to be rectified by the Constitution (which came about due to the inadequacies of the very de-centralized Articles of Confederation).

But in the case of this runway, for example, would "local" mean the town government or the state of Texas? If it's the town government, would they be concerned or knowledgeable enough to consider impacts which might take place downstream or outside their borders? Would they be able to take the whole wetlands picture into consideration? Sure, one runway probably wouldn't hurt anything but if everyone decided they could construct things to their heart's content it would be another story.

 

[ClimbnSink]

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

[Everskyward]

t's funny, when I was a kid I always thought of EPA as our protectors of the environment. After watching them in action at three different airports, I now know that they are truly obstructors of progress, with no actual or even perceived enhancement of "environmental safety".

That's because airports are something you want. If you were on the other side and did not want an airport there you would be glad the regulations are strong. You can bet that there are people out there who are pushing the EPA for stronger regulations.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Which is why the EPA and zoning and all the other stuff gov't does to limit property rights is wrong. Let people build airports and pig farms. Don't like it buy the property and change it or move. Everything else is theft.

That's because airports are something you want. If you were on the other side and did not want an airport there you would be glad the regulations are strong. You can bet that there are people out there who are pushing the EPA for stronger regulations.

 

[Jay Honeck]

That's because airports are something you want. If you were on the other side and did not want an airport there you would be glad the regulations are strong.

Not in my case. I do not want a national, out-of-touch, 2400 mile away government micromanaging ANYTHING in my community, not just airports.

There are plenty of things I support at the local level that I would be opposed to at a national level. One example: Our local government, upon seeing a few horrendously ugly, Soviet-style high-rise building being built along the shoreline, decided to ban anything taller than 35 feet in town.

Normally, I am as Libertarian as they come -- but in this particular case, I really, really like the fact that LOCAL people came together to stop those eyesores from blighting our view of the ocean.

That said, if the Federal government had done the exact same thing, I would be filing lawsuits, and screaming bloody murder.

Bottom line: Decentralize, shorten the supply lines, and simplify the process. We will ALL be better off if this happens -- including GA.

 

[Everskyward]

Which is why the EPA and zoning and all the other stuff gov't does to limit property rights is wrong. Let people build airports and pig farms. Don't like it buy the property and change it or move. Everything else is theft.

I have been to places where they have no zoning and I wouldn't want to live there. I can't build whatever I want on my lot and I accept that. I'm glad my neighbors can't have a pig farm. They can't have pigs at all unless they are those pet indoor pigs.

 

[Everskyward]

Not in my case. I do not want a national, out-of-touch, 2400 mile away government micromanaging ANYTHING in my community, not just airports.

There are plenty of things I support at the local level that I would be opposed to at a national level. One example: Our local government, upon seeing a few horrendously ugly, Soviet-style high-rise building being built along the shoreline, decided to ban anything taller than 35 feet in town.

Normally, I am as Libertarian as they come -- but in this particular case, I really, really like the fact that LOCAL people came together to stop those eyesores from blighting our view of the ocean.

That said, if the Federal government had done the exact same thing, I would be filing lawsuits, and screaming bloody murder.

I guess I should admire you for being willing to fall on your sword for your principles. With most people, including me, it's usually only the result that matters. I still say that with no federal support for airports many of them will disappear. Maybe you are right and they are not needed.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I have been too places where they have no zoning and I wouldn't want to live there. I can't build whatever I want on my lot and I accept that. I'm glad my neighbors can't have a pig farm. They can't have pigs at all unless they are those pet indoor pigs.

I've lived in places like you describe, and found them...stifling. I've also lived in areas with no zoning.

Generally I prefer freedom over regulation -- although you do get some interesting juxtapositions without zoning. I've seen million-dollar homes next to double-wides, and beautiful businesses next to junk-filled lots.

IMHO, this is still better than places that won't let you park a motorhome in your own yard...

 

[denverpilot]

I find that in most... not all... places without zoning... the people are reasonable and know their neighbors.

They also know that Bob & Betty next door won't appreciate a three story garage blocking their view, and she won't be very happy or quiet about it at next year's Christmas party.

Zoning is something that gets more useful the closer you get to the utter stupidity of population dense cities.

People back East or on the coasts in the big cities can't even imagine living on the prairie, knowing the neighbors, being able to recognize most folks in town, and even spot strangers.

They also don't quite get the power of the phrase, "So I know you're new around here, but..." and the same message repeated by everyone they run into in town about the ugly green paint they put on their shed.

It's nice to get out of these rat-trap cities once in a while and have lunch with folks wearing bib overalls who don't have any need for powerful government and wouldn't cede much of it to 'em anyway. Not for all the lies and broken promises in the world.

And in the end, that's all the EPA is anyway. A bureaucracy that pretends to care.

 

[Everskyward]

It's nice to get out of these rat-trap cities once in a while and have lunch with folks wearing bib overalls who don't have any need for powerful government and wouldn't cede much of it to 'em anyway. Not for all the lies and broken promises in the world.

That's a pie-in-the-sky mythological view about "country-folk". They can be just as contentious as city folk. I've seen it.

The EPA doesn't work in a vacuum. For everyone that wants less regulation there are people who want more.

As far as airports and airspace goes, though, I think that centralized, federal control is the way to go. Otherwise you are going to end up with a patchwork of regulations and standards.

 

[denverpilot]

I have too. The New Braunfels thread is a good example. Is government helping much? Not really. Battles happen.

Local isn't always better if you're on the losing side, but at least you know where you stand and know the personalities and players involved. With far-remote bureaucracies, you have no idea who you're dealing with most of the time. Even the person they send out to you regularly says, "It's not my call." Then why are you here? Go away.

EPA is special in that they have folks in DC who just make up stuff for them to do that's so broad and unbounded that they're not really accomplishing what they originally said they'd do most of the time. The idea that we all get a vote on it via our representatives is generally false. The crap gets tacked on to giant bills no one reads. It's a joke. A very bad one.

Never claimed anything about aviation. FAA seems to be well-bounded and typically they're also underfunded which is exactly what one wants to see when dealing with a bureaucracy. They also (so far) seem to hire a lot of folks with real world aviation experience.

They also seem to be able to balance their missions fairly well, whereas EPA has no skin in the game if they're standing in the way of progress.

FCC used to be similar to FAA, then they stopped hiring real RF Engineers into management and they're going downhill fast. Their highest priority is auctioning spectrum to make themselves a lot of money, something a regulator shouldn't be doing, and clearly a huge conflict of interest.

EPA is about selling the promises that they're correctly and efficiently managing the environment. Their track record isn't holding up to the Marketing slick. Especially the efficient part.

If the airlines weren't constantly broke, FAA would morph into an awful organization in about ten year's time that would be pandering far worse to them than they already do. We all saw the tip of the iceberg of that this week with their inability to make changes in crew rest regulations.

Regulators who are bought and paid for by those who are being regulated, aren't effective.

FAA will get there. Just wait and see what gets priority if user fees happens. They'll be bought and paid for. Like most branches of government.

Government "service" is not what it used to mean once you get very far past the local level. It all depends on who is paying and has their ear.

 

[dmccormack]

That's a pie-in-the-sky mythological view about "country-folk". They can be just as contentious as city folk. I've seen it..

Ain't that the truth!!!



As Depeche Mode eloquently put it in 1984, "People are people...."

 

[Jay Honeck]

Government "service" is not what it used to mean once you get very far past the local level. It all depends on who is paying and has their ear.

The government never changes. They simply can't solve a problem, because to do so would be to limit (or even eliminate) their own power.

This tendency is somewhat restricted at the local level, by peer pressure. At the national level, where you are just another number, the governor is off the engine, and you are just more cannon fodder.

Big government is bad government.

 

[alcottadney]

Everyone wants to fudge the laws of economics by simplistic means. Too many people look to blame the man behind the curtain (ala Wizard of Oz) who is secretly manipulating everything. While supplies appear to be plentiful, the other economic problems (weak dollar, incipient inflation, speculators) increase the cost, while continued consumption maintains the increase. My flying will survive this for a while and I am not planning on flying less. I have enough other distractors which keep me out of the air.

 

[woodchucker]

Not in my case. I do not want a national, out-of-touch, 2400 mile away government micromanaging ANYTHING in my community, not just airports.

There are plenty of things I support at the local level that I would be opposed to at a national level. One example: Our local government, upon seeing a few horrendously ugly, Soviet-style high-rise building being built along the shoreline, decided to ban anything taller than 35 feet in town.

Normally, I am as Libertarian as they come -- but in this particular case, I really, really like the fact that LOCAL people came together to stop those eyesores from blighting our view of the ocean.

That said, if the Federal government had done the exact same thing, I would be filing lawsuits, and screaming bloody murder.

Bottom line: Decentralize, shorten the supply lines, and simplify the process. We will ALL be better off if this happens -- including GA.

I get your sentiment, but I live in a red state that would love to take ownership of federal lands (you know, things like Zions and Bryce). I trust the Feds to manage wilderness better than some redneck hicks who would sell it away to build cattle ranches or gas wells. The Feds do provide some stability for long-term public use. Local control is a horrible idea in managing wilderness.

Furthermore, there are quite a few local areas in the deep south that would go back to slavery in a heartbeat if they could. Of course, this is part of a long and contentious history in the US culture. That is the problem with Libertarianism. Where do you draw the lines? True Libertarianism is really just Anarchy. Anything less allows some government power. It is really fun to watch self-proclaimed Libertarians try to justify their positions across the spectrum. Gun control, abortion, weed, gay marriage, etc. It's quite entertaining really.

About GA, if you want to "shorten the supply lines", then what? Flying from town A to town B will involve different rules, by local control. Maybe some mayor of some small town decides to close the local airport for the day to host a festival? Of course, he probably changed the CTAF to that of his wife's birthday. Have fun landing there! Probably jacked the tax rates for pilots as well. Have fun with your $15/gal 100LL.

My point is, you gotta have some level of consistency for a civilization to function.

Local control is fine for things that affect the locals ONLY. Should a strip club be built across the street from a school, or should landing patterns be changed for an international airport? That was actually an issue here in Salt Lake some years ago. There was a proposal to modify departures and approaches here (not sure if that came from the FAA directly, or KSLC folk). There was an uproar in the local community. Of course, the flight paths were all over the "poor" suburbs, and I believe the proposal would have opened up flights over the more "rich" areas of the city. Guess who had the louder local voice? The poor people or the rich people? So, even with local control, it is not equitable control necessarily. Our current system is rigged for certain subsets of society. Even at the local level.

 

[SbestCFII]

Using the statistics on Student and Pilots certificates issued, it's hard to gauge. Information after 2009 would be helpful. The numbers are basically show a series of ups and downs. It's not like a definite steep downward trend.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Furthermore, there are quite a few local areas in the deep south that would go back to slavery in a heartbeat if they could

Best reason for omnistate I've heard in a while.

 

[Anthony]

Bottom line: Decentralize, shorten the supply lines, and simplify the process. We will ALL be better off if this happens -- including GA.

^^^^This. That is why states rights are so important. For things not specifically inumerated, and allowed int eh Constitution, like the 2A, the states, and municipalities should decide. That way, if you don't like it, you can show up on their door step and complain. Not so with DC.

 

[gitmo234]

Everyone wants to fudge the laws of economics by simplistic means. Too many people look to blame the man behind the curtain (ala Wizard of Oz) who is secretly manipulating everything. While supplies appear to be plentiful, the other economic problems (weak dollar, incipient inflation, speculators) increase the cost, while continued consumption maintains the increase. My flying will survive this for a while and I am not planning on flying less. I have enough other distractors which keep me out of the air.

Wow.... first post on the forum and its to a thread that ended in 2011. Bravo!

 

[Bonchie]

GA as it was 50 years ago is dying. Pilots are becoming more compressed in urban areas. Rural, unused airports will continue to close while larger, congested airports will keep growing.

GA in general is not dying though. Tickets are getting handed out just as much as they were five years ago.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Wow.... first post on the forum and its to a thread that ended in 2011. Bravo!

I know, right? I didn't even remember this thread! lol

 

[brian109]

My answer's pretty simple. No.

People still want to fly. Costs are up, flying is down, and the younger generations have a lot of things competing for their free-time.

But sooner or later, simulators and fighter pilot games don't satisfy anymore. Especially once you've actually flown.

Just keep taking people up who show interest and the dream won't die.

Have friends who couldn't afford powered flight and it went against some of their "green" principals. (No judgement there.) They learned to paraglide and travelled to Mexico and Europe to do it.

Flying may change bit it won't die.

As a 33 Year old Student Pilot who has had the bug since he was about 9 years old this is exactly right. Simulators are cool and they are fun to play around with but it is nothing like the real thing. And now that I have tasted the real thing, that is all I want.

 

[ahkahn]

According to the FAA, pilot certificates issued
Student
2009 54,876
2008 61,194
2007 66,953
2006 61,448
2005 53,576
2004 58,362
2003 55,446
2002 65,421
2001 61,839
2000 58,042
Private
2009 93,861
2008 100,555
2007 108,019
2006 99,792
2005 91,446
2004 99,416
2003 98,643
2002 113,583
2001 108,000
2000 106,517
Instrument rating
2009 25,337

Sorry to quote from the first page, but I am not going to search 27 pages to see if this has been addressed.

Why is it (other than a typo) that there are double the amount of privates issued than student certificates? Shouldn't it be the other way around??

 

[FormerHangie]

Sorry to quote from the first page, but I am not going to search 27 pages to see if this has been addressed.

Why is it (other than a typo) that there are double the amount of privates issued than student certificates? Shouldn't it be the other way around??

I'm not sure where those numbers came from. The 2014 Airmen Statistics are found here : http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/

For 2014, there were 49,261 student certificates issued, 17,795 private tickets, 465 recreational and sport certs, 9803 commercial ratings, and 7749 ATPs. All these refer to Airplane, there 3754 rotorcraft certs issued and 195 glider only ratings. This is down a little from the average over the last 10 years, but not tremendously.

If you look at the pilot average age, the average age of rated pilots has increased slightly, while the average age of student pilots has been decreasing. Also, there is a large cohort of private pilots between 50 and 70 years of age that is not likely to be replaced, the number of private pilots in the cohorts that are younger are smaller, and most student pilots are under 30.

I'm rather less concerned about being able to find new pilots, I'm worried about them having something they'd like to fly. It's going to be tough to attract new pilots with aircraft that may be 40 years old, and are even older, design wise.

I'm rather

 

[ahkahn]

I'm not sure where those numbers came from. The 2014 Airmen Statistics are found here : http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/

For 2014, there were 49,261 student certificates issued, 17,795 private tickets, 465 recreational and sport certs, 9803 commercial ratings, and 7749 ATPs. All these refer to Airplane, there 3754 rotorcraft certs issued and 195 glider only ratings. This is down a little from the average over the last 10 years, but not tremendously.

If you look at the pilot average age, the average age of rated pilots has increased slightly, while the average age of student pilots has been decreasing. Also, there is a large cohort of private pilots between 50 and 70 years of age that is not likely to be replaced, the number of private pilots in the cohorts that are younger are smaller, and most student pilots are under 30.

I'm rather less concerned about being able to find new pilots, I'm worried about them having something they'd like to fly. It's going to be tough to attract new pilots with aircraft that may be 40 years old, and are even older, design wise.

I'm rather

Gee thanks... I just spent a good hour dissecting those statistics! Very interesting stuff. Other than the odd increase in instrument ratings over the past several years, I am not sure what to make of the statistics other than they seem to follow economic times.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Chatting with a buddy and he mentioned millenials are doing old timey things, starting bridge clubs and such. Not phone app bridge real human interaction style. If that carries wonder what there take on aviation will be? Gliders? barnstorming? Simple homebuilts?

 

[Dav8or]

Chatting with a buddy and he mentioned millenials are doing old timey things, starting bridge clubs and such. Not phone app bridge real human interaction style. If that carries wonder what there take on aviation will be? Gliders? barnstorming? Simple homebuilts?

I'm guessing bed sheets off the garage roof.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

General aviation activity is far less than it was in the fiftys thru the seventies, due to severe reduction in middle income jobs and stagnant wage scale. Also Germaine is a 1950s conversation between henry ford , ceo of ford , and walter Reuther, the head of the United auto workers union., ( they were touring a new ford engine plant..) ...Henry ford.. " walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay Union dues!?" Walters famous reply.." Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?" Same applies to aircraft.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Another big detriment to GA is state and federal funding that has been severely curtailed due to recent budget cuts. Most GA airports depend to a large extent on these funds. Without them they are in big trouble.

 

[Circuit Flyer]

I wonder if the whiz-bang of CGI movies and hyper-realistic video games has rendered the younger generations too jaded to get any thrill out of "merely" flying an airplane.

 

[jesse]

I wonder if the whiz-bang of CGI movies and hyper-realistic video games has rendered the younger generations too jaded to get any thrill out of "merely" flying an airplane.

I don't think so. I'm quite exposed to the "younger generation", the problem isn't that they don't have an interest in flying, the problem is that they've never had more than a thousand dollars to their name at once and are living paycheck to paycheck.

The concept of being able to just spend the seven thousand dollars or so it would take to get their private is just so far completely out of realm of possibility that they don't pursue it.

Whose fault is that? Well I would blame them for it as someone that has always been motivated and is their same age. But the reality is that there isn't the jobs out there for the vast majority of them to ever have such money.