Is General Aviation Dying in the USA?

SoonerAviator said:
The acquisition cost is the big player for me, personally. I have my vehicles paid for, boat, jet ski: paid for. However, both of my vehicles and boats/jet ski have a value somewhere around $60K all-in, which is about what it would cost for a 1970's 4/5-seat XC machine in average condition.

I live in Okla, so not exactly a high cost of living area. We make over $100K as a family and live in a modestly priced home. So, with that being said, I can have 2 boats, a jet ski, and 2 vehicles and no storage costs -or- one 1970's aircraft that I have to pay hangar fees and annual inspections on even when it doesn't move. That's the middle-class conundrum for me, personally. The value on a somewhat basic aircraft (even used) is a substantial outlay for middle-class individuals. To be honest, a $60K aircraft is half of what I paid for my house! It's just hard to justify that much money for a hobby, of which I have many. I could go out and find a ratty 172 for $30K and buzz around, but it's not much of a hauler or XC aircraft. Plenty of 2-seaters out there as well, but I'd plan on having children in the near future, so that makes it a hard sell to the wife.

I suppose if you're used to buying BMW/Mercedes vehicles at $50-60K a pop, maybe the aircraft purchase doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Click to expand...

I have been obsessively looking at purchasing a plane for the past 6 months. This admitted obsession is also why I have yet to purchase. In my opinion the plane itself is almost inconsequential compared to the hangaring, inspections, insurance, repairs, etc. You will get at least some of the cost of the plane back when/if you sell, however the other "incidentals" are gone forever.

Having said that, I have somehow managed to convince my wife that owning a plane would in some esoteric fashion outweigh the crazy costs, so she is on board. :yes: In fact, she texts me several Trade-a-Plane, Barnstormers, etc. ads daily. Truly a keeper.
 
Bonchie said:
Or just don't buy your own plane.

I rent a Cherokee for $105/wet. On my very middle class income (and I live in DC where's it's freaking expensive), I have no problem spending the $300-400 a month to get to fly several times, have some fun, maybe take a trip to OC with my wife, or whatever.

At this point, I'm spending a lot more then that because I'm getting my IFR (and then heading toward my commercial), but you get the point.

Getting the ticket is expensive, but unless you are freaking dirt poor, it's not a big deal to stay airborne 3-4 hours a month if it gets your rocks off.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
noobJohn said:
When these discussions come up I'm always amazed at the number of folks who say cost isn't a factor. I guess that points on the income bracket most pilots are in. Cost is the #1 factor that limits my hours/year since getting my license.
Click to expand...


When I was 19, I worked three jobs to do it. I wasn't in a high income bracket. Aviation gave me a reason to work hard enough to get into a higher income bracket.

Don't be amazed. I think if you ask why, you'll find the phrase "cost isn't a factor" is silently followed with "... because I'll figure out how to make enough money to go flying, no matter what it costs."

Making more money than my peer age group, and more than many Doctors and Lawyers in my peer age group also, as a college dropout, wasn't something that happened by accident or came easily. It still doesn't.

It's easier now than at the first job, or the second, or the tenth... But I don't ever take it for granted.

The key is in learning that to make bigger bucks (plus bennies) anywhere, either as a boss or as an employee, you have to make or save the organization more than that amount per year. That's a lot easier at big wasteful places than small places in the building phase, which is my current challenge. As they ramp up a couple of the businesses, that should become easier. If they don't ramp them up, I'll be moving on in a couple of years to somewhere that needs the cost savings more than they do.

Treat your job like its a business. If you can't articulate how you made or saved the parent company over you individually as an employee at least your salary and your bennies, on a moment's notice, you're overhead and eventually you'll be trimmed away like excess fat on a juicy steak.

If they keep the numbers from you, figure it out anyway. Knowing what the overall business makes and how it pays the bills is a very important skill to have even if it's just by guesstimating.

You'd be surprised how close you can get and how little argument you'll have about salary or raises when you can articulate a good guesstimate at what the group or division makes a year and put in hard numbers what you did to make or save it money.
 
DrPappy said:
I have been obsessively looking at purchasing a plane for the past 6 months. This admitted obsession is also why I have yet to purchase. In my opinion the plane itself is almost inconsequential compared to the hangaring, inspections, insurance, repairs, etc. You will get at least some of the cost of the plane back when/if you sell, however the other "incidentals" are gone forever.

Having said that, I have somehow managed to convince my wife that owning a plane would in some esoteric fashion outweigh the crazy costs, so she is on board. :yes: In fact, she texts me several Trade-a-Plane, Barnstormers, etc. ads daily. Truly a keeper.
Click to expand...


Notes on the above: You can buy hangars too. Our co-owner group did exactly that when our hangar rent got bumped and the owner couldn't justify it (absentee in another State, he didn't see the many "For Sale" signs on the airport and his timing was poor for an increase). We hit the timing on that pretty well at a busy airport and I suspect we won't lose a single dime in that investment. The airport still charges a ground lease under it and those costs are sunk, but cash on the barrel head one time, cut our monthly hangar cash flow in half with a four year payback. Done deal. Should have done it sooner. We should send the owner of the other hangar a thank you card for waking us up.

As far as convincing her it's going to be a way to lower costs: Good luck with that. It could backfire badly. Talk to her and see if she'd rather you be happy than not and base life on that. Mine had to teach me that lesson.

I hemmed and hawed and wrote up endless scenarios in spreadsheets after running across an offer to join my current co-owners. At the end of the day, the airplane hasn't hit the best case scenario and it hasn't hit the worst. It was good to go in eyes wide open, but don't let the analysis stop the decision.

When it came down to it, she said I was annoyingly miserable not flying for eight years and she knew I'd always let her buy or do whatever she liked if we could swing it. She felt it was my turn.

Get 'er done.

By the way, the biggest "incidental" in any motorsport is the fuel to operate the thing. At least until the engine barfs, and if you set aside engine money in the process, it won't be as painful when the time comes and you'll get quite a bit of that one back. Not all.

Fuel disappears into smiles per mile and that's the only possible way to justify the fuel. If it ever makes you stop smiling to fill the tanks and go up, it's time to sell the flying machine.
 
StevieTimes said:
The average dude who rents has a different reality than $200 for a 146 nm round trip (Port Aransas to Galveston).

For me though, SkyVector says at 110 knots it would take 1 hour, 20 minutes one way. With taxi, climb, approach, taxi, let's call it (an optimistic) 1 hour, 30 minutes on the hobbs (if we stop at Galveston, we're doing runups both ways).

So at $130/hour for a 172, * 3 hours, = $390, plus tax. That's just to travel to Galveston and back!
Click to expand...

You illustrated your point perfectly... I'm in total agreement and wouldn't change a thing you mentioned.

I guess if you fly a lot then buying is the cheapest. :)
 
denverpilot said:
When I was 19, I worked three jobs to do it. I wasn't in a high income bracket. Aviation gave me a reason to work hard enough to get into a higher income bracket . . .
Click to expand...

You made some very good points regarding the earning/negotiating of wages, however I don't feel like the ones who scrape together every nickel to get an hour of flight are the reason GA is having a hard time. The guys who only want to fly and will find a way to do it aren't likely the problem, it's the large numbers of guys (not unlike myself) who would love to own/fly more, but since it's not a career or a sole-hobby it makes it prohibitively expensive compared to other activities/hobbies.

I believe that's why the largest comparison is to the marine industry, which has few decent rental options but a huge market for used equipment that just about anyone can afford. Sure, there's more risk/training involved in learning to fly, but if GA is competing with other activities which provide enjoyment for the whole family (instead of primarily the pilot), then finding a way to drive costs down is the only way that segment of GA will survive/flourish.

I don't think the 3rd class medical will really do a whole lot for GA, but it may entice a small number of guys who had been fretting the medical to come back. I DO think the certified/owner-maintained segment could have some meaningful impact, but it would take several years after enacted to see the results in the used market. Flying clubs are another excellent idea, but it seems that very few people are willing to shoulder the burden of getting one together from scratch.

GA in the US will always be around, but it could very well become as stagnant as the European version is if some things aren't done to stop the bleeding.
 
evapilotaz said:
Denver pilot what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...


These days I manage a tiny IT department (two people plus close work with two multi-talented DBAs who aren't worried about getting hands dirty in systems or even climbing into the ceiling to hang wifi access points), for what's essentially six small companies owned by the same guy, but the majority of the work prior to this gig was a mixture of telecom and Unix-y/Linux-y stuff at large scale.

The majority of this gig was always intended to be mass clean up of everything from the servers to the desktop, and organization of same, as well as setting them up to scale one of the businesses that looks like it'll have a significant growth spurt between now and the fall 2016. (It's related to voting.)

Right now we're a year in (I estimated three and hoped for just over two to really have it all done), and my desk looks like a tornado hit it.

Whether they'll grow it organically or via investors, remains to be seen, but it needs to be clicking along on all cylinders and running pretty lean for either option... Saving the owner money or prepping for a due-diligence visit. Either one, the next year or so are essentially the same job. Clean it up from the standard disorganized stuff at a start-up, make it Enterprise grade, and lower the costs to operate it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
GA in the US will always be around, but it could very well become as stagnant as the European version is if some things aren't done to stop the bleeding.
Click to expand...

Agreed. GA flying isn't dying, it's shrinking. It will be much like Europe soon. There is a fair amount of GA in Europe, just not on the scale we have it here. Over there, an ultra light, or an LSA type plane is a "real airplane" and something like a Skyhawk, or Warrior, is for wealthy people only, but in spite of high taxation, there are wealthy people there that can afford them. Lots of sail planes too.

As others have noted, GA here is doing just fine around the wealthy urban areas of the country. Prices are high, airports busy, ramps have lots of planes, but out in the country is where GA is shrinking. Empty tie downs, empty hangars, rotting dead airplanes and little activity. Some country airports have found a way to make it work, but lots are on the verge of collapse and they're just waiting for the county/city/town to pull the plug.

Everybody knows cost is the reason. GA has always been expensive and it always will be, but the ratios of expense to median income has widened and so the decline. Short term, we need two things to happen-

  1. No third class medical and only driver's license for non commercial GA.
  2. The option to convert your certified plane into an experimental and enjoy all the same advantages that the E/AB guys do.
Long term I believe that GA needs new technology both in the cockpit, in the power plant department and wider adoption of airbag seat belts and BRS recovery systems. Wider adoption of "experimentals" both amateur built and factory built will allow this to happen IMO.
 
Dav8or said:
Agreed. GA flying isn't dying, it's shrinking. It will be much like Europe soon. There is a fair amount of GA in Europe, just not on the scale we have it here. Over there, an ultra light, or an LSA type plane is a "real airplane" and something like a Skyhawk, or Warrior, is for wealthy people only, but in spite of high taxation, there are wealthy people there that can afford them. Lots of sail planes too.

As others have noted, GA here is doing just fine around the wealthy urban areas of the country. Prices are high, airports busy, ramps have lots of planes, but out in the country is where GA is shrinking. Empty tie downs, empty hangars, rotting dead airplanes and little activity. Some country airports have found a way to make it work, but lots are on the verge of collapse and they're just waiting for the county/city/town to pull the plug.

Everybody knows cost is the reason. GA has always been expensive and it always will be, but the ratios of expense to median income has widened and so the decline. Short term, we need two things to happen-

  1. No third class medical and only driver's license for non commercial GA.
  2. The option to convert your certified plane into an experimental and enjoy all the same advantages that the E/AB guys do.
Long term I believe that GA needs new technology both in the cockpit, in the power plant department and wider adoption of airbag seat belts and BRS recovery systems. Wider adoption of "experimentals" both amateur built and factory built will allow this to happen IMO.
Click to expand...

The PT-23 rewrite and Class 3 exemption, if it includes more planes than the proposed and includes anything to 6000gw to match the proposed Class 3 exemption, will probably pull in a fair few hot rodders and such.
 
DrPappy said:
: In fact, she texts me several Trade-a-Plane, Barnstormers, etc. ads daily. Truly a keeper.
Click to expand...

Not wishin' you any bad luck or anything, but if anything should happen ...... could I have her phone number?
 
denverpilot said:
When I was 19, I worked three jobs to do it. I wasn't in a high income bracket. Aviation gave me a reason to work hard enough to get into a higher income bracket.
Click to expand...
Those people have always been around but they are few and far between. Many make sacrifices to climb the aviation ladder but I can't think of many who make those sacrifices for aviation as a hobby, especially if they are much past 19. You are more likely to come upon them in some of the other outdoor adventure sports.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The PT-23 rewrite and Class 3 exemption, if it includes more planes than the proposed and includes anything to 6000gw to match the proposed Class 3 exemption, will probably pull in a fair few hot rodders and such.
Click to expand...
Yeah, hot rodders who love doing a blazing 115kts :rolleyes:
 
narchee said:
That's like being a car guy and saying it works to just rent every time you feel the need to drive :rofl:.
Click to expand...

That's a real poor analogy. The car is probably new. The airplane is probably 30-50 years old and you don't fly it to the grocery store, or to work. If you fly fifty hours a year or less rent, more buy and then be very careful what fifty year old crate you purchase. If you were around and flying in the 70s or 80s, flying today is not dying, it's dead!
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That's a real poor analogy. The car is probably new. The airplane is probably 30-50 years old and you don't fly it to the grocery store, or to work. If you fly fifty hours a year or less rent, more buy and then be very careful what fifty year old crate you purchase. If you were around and flying in the 70s or 80s, flying today is not dying, it's dead!
Click to expand...

Well yes I agree with what you say but you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was responding to a reply to one of my posts that said GA is NOT expensive because you can "just rent". My point was that "renting" is not the same as owning and you completely miss out on the real joy and value of GA and that is being able to decide at the last minute that you want to go somewhere and you just go. If you rent, that is not typically possible. In the same way we enjoy our cars to be able to spontaneously just go somewhere, to truly experience GA you need the same freedom.
 
narchee said:
Well yes I agree with what you say but you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was responding to a reply to one of my posts that said GA is NOT expensive because you can "just rent". My point was that "renting" is not the same as owning and you completely miss out on the real joy and value of GA and that is being able to decide at the last minute that you want to go somewhere and you just go. If you rent, that is not typically possible. In the same way we enjoy our cars to be able to spontaneously just go somewhere, to truly experience GA you need the same freedom.
Click to expand...

I understood what you meant, however, I'd like to be able to rent something other than a 150, 172, or Cherokee 140. With cars, if I want to rent a Mustang GT Convertible or an F-250, I can rent it on a whim. With aircraft, I'm limited to what is around, and what an insurance company will allow to be rented (keeping it simple). If I want to rent a 182, it's not an option. If want to rent a Cherokee Six or 35/36 Bo, it's not an option. I would enjoy renting GA a whole lot more if I could spend it flying something I want to fly.

Sure, some wish to fly a lot, and are willing to take on sole ownership in order to have the freedom to jump in at any time. I think it would be awesome for those of us who don't fly 100hrs/yr to be able to rent a Super Decathlon or a Lake Renegade. Sadly, I think that has about a 1:million shot of happening. Hence why flying clubs would be a great solution to pool resources.
 
narchee said:
Well yes I agree with what you say but you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was responding to a reply to one of my posts that said GA is NOT expensive because you can "just rent". My point was that "renting" is not the same as owning and you completely miss out on the real joy and value of GA and that is being able to decide at the last minute that you want to go somewhere and you just go. If you rent, that is not typically possible. In the same way we enjoy our cars to be able to spontaneously just go somewhere, to truly experience GA you need the same freedom.
Click to expand...

But you pay dearly for the opportunity to fly MAYBE thirty to fourty hours a year. After the first emotional Rush, reality rears its ugly head. Expensive annuals, insurance , hangar,( I stress hangar as leaving it outside is called diminishing returns) I experienced true aviation for twentyfive of fourty years of flying and either rented or " borrowed" a friends airplane. I was working all this time! I never went up on the spur of the moment unless it was to practice landings and takeoffs or a very quick flight local. I never desired an instrument rating as I knew to be proficient I would have to fly instruments often , like once a week. ( I know of five who died this way over the years with low time instrument tickets, usually getting into weather far above their abilitys.) if I want to go somewhere far away I call southwest. Always ask the owner of the shop " will you be the one working on my plane?" Often times he turns it over to a young apprentice that your paying 85-100 bucks an hour to train! I didn't miss your point, I'm welcoming you to reality. I've flown over four thousand hours and always enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
That's a real poor analogy. The car is probably new. The airplane is probably 30-50 years old and you don't fly it to the grocery store, or to work. If you fly fifty hours a year or less rent, more buy and then be very careful what fifty year old crate you purchase. If you were around and flying in the 70s or 80s, flying today is not dying, it's dead!
Click to expand...

And yet somehow you are still flying, as are a crap ton of other people in this part of this country (I see you are in Baltimore).

GA may not be the golden age of nostalgia you once saw it as, but it's not dead.
 
Bonchie said:
And yet somehow you are still flying, as are a crap ton of other people in this part of this country (I see you are in Baltimore).

GA may not be the golden age of nostalgia you once saw it as, but it's not dead.
Click to expand...

Nostalgia has absolutely nothing to do with it nor does " as I saw it." Some years back newer aircraft were prevelant. Newer Mooneys, commanches , both single and twin, Senecas, and there were also a lot of small twins like cessna 310s, astecs, shrikes that were purchased by small companys and written off thru expenses. A lot of those companys have closed and their products are now made overseas. Now those aircraft, if still flying are old and the airports I still use, compared to those times are for the most part living on borrowed time. If they were not getting big subsidies from the state and or the Feds, they would be closed. The figures are clear. The amount of GA pilots is way down from thirty years ago. The original bonanza cost ten grand. It's now over half a mill. Way too much money for an aircraft that has not changed that much.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Nostalgia has absolutely nothing to do with it nor does " as I saw it." Some years back newer aircraft were prevelant. Newer Mooneys, commanches , both single and twin, Senecas, and there were also a lot of small twins like cessna 310s, astecs, shrikes that were purchased by small companys and written off thru expenses. A lot of those companys have closed and their products are now made overseas. Now those aircraft, if still flying are old and the airports I still use, compared to those times are for the most part living on borrowed time. If they were not getting big subsidies from the state and or the Feds, they would be closed. The figures are clear. The amount of GA pilots is way down from thirty years ago. The original bonanza cost ten grand. It's now over half a mill. Way too much money for an aircraft that has not changed that much.
Click to expand...

And none of that means GA is dead or even close to dead. I think it's a bit dramatic to say it is.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
You may have the last word and dream on.
Click to expand...

Crazy how we are both still doing something that's supposedly dead. That would kind of go against the idea that I'm dreaming. But if it makes you feel better to pronounce GA dead as a door nail, for whatever reason, ok.
 
A major game-changer would be a $60,000 awesome experimental aircraft, that includes everything new (engine prop ifr panel you name it). If it could be a traveler (150+ ktas), 4+ seater, people would buy them like hotcakes. Then they would eventually sell them to those with even less disposable income. If it could be 200+ ktas, game completely changed, you could actually sell lots of people on the usefulness of it. You would have to come up with some kind of revolutionary aerodynamics, or propulsion, or something.

You can get started here: http://openvsp.org/vid_tutorial.shtml

;)

I know, file this under the "obvious" category... but if the fantasy aircraft could also please take off and land in like 500 feet that would be great, yeaaaah, just work in that small detail. Then a guy could buy not that much land, and have his own hangar and airstrip at home.

Once the aircraft is paid off, you don't pay hangar rent, you just have insurance, maintenance (most you could do yourself since it's experimental), and annuals as fixed costs. Without hangar fee, if you suddenly lost income, you could just stop flying, cancel insurance, and you're out nothing until you get cash again. Of course, this isn't good for the airplane, but it's just an "out" mentally.

Again, obvious stuff, but if you could please invent this, GA might like it.
 
Bonchie said:
Crazy how we are both still doing something that's supposedly dead. That would kind of go against the idea that I'm dreaming. But if it makes you feel better to pronounce GA dead as a door nail, for whatever reason, ok.
Click to expand...
Dead is relative.

Compared to the early 90s, when I first started hanging out at GA airports, it's dead.

Sure, we can make a show of it once in a while. Our island ramp was pretty full over the holiday (although, sadly, our courtesy car never moved), and Oshkosh still brings pilots out in force -- but the WWII and Korea guys are gone, the Vietnam Nam guys are fading fast, and I'm not getting any younger.

It's just a darned shame. I loved it when the pattern was full.
 
A quad copter that you can also drive on the road would save aviation, IMO. This would also make airports obsolete, which would save more money too. While Moller is a money sink for many, his skycar 400 would be a true game changer. The ability to take off in one's drive way, fly direct and land where you want would be simply amazing. If you could build that for sub $125K (the cost of a BMW M5) it would change the face of transportation today.
 
jmp470 said:
A quad copter that you can also drive on the road would save aviation, IMO. This would also make airports obsolete, which would save more money too. While Moller is a money sink for many, his skycar 400 would be a true game changer. The ability to take off in one's drive way, fly direct and land where you want would be simply amazing. If you could build that for sub $125K (the cost of a BMW M5) it would change the face of transportation today.
Click to expand...
Remember the ducted fan quad copters in Avatar? Something like that would be a game changer. Combined with autostabilization, and the ability to navigate itself to your destination? What an awesome world we could have.

Alas, until tort reform is enacted, no one in their right mind will build such a product. Under current law, the first time someone landed on little Billy, dicing him up in the driveway, the company would be gone.
 
jmp470 said:
A quad copter that you can also drive on the road would save aviation, IMO. This would also make airports obsolete, which would save more money too. While Moller is a money sink for many, his skycar 400 would be a true game changer. The ability to take off in one's drive way, fly direct and land where you want would be simply amazing. If you could build that for sub $125K (the cost of a BMW M5) it would change the face of transportation today.
Click to expand...

If you have a VTOL vehicle that can fly direct between points, why would you need powered wheels on it? (Other than for pushing it into a hangar or garage; small castors would do the trick for such cases.)

Also, a web search using the keywords "VTOL" "aircraft" seems to suggest that a fair number of people have ideas for building such vehicles - many appear to be unfunded or underfunded.
 
Bonchie said:
And none of that means GA is dead or even close to dead. I think it's a bit dramatic to say it is.
Click to expand...

The flight schedule for our rental aircraft would highly disagree with GA being "dead".
 
I started reading aviation publications back in the 1950s as a child. I recall being amazed at all the pessimistic articles on the decline/demise of general aviation. Being our own worst enemies is one of the primary traditions of general aviation. Perhaps the cautious attitudes conducive to safe flying also foster general pessimism?

Fortunately, I grew up with a bookshelf full of books from the 1930s and 1940s to counteract all that doom and gloom. Otherwise, I might never have gotten my certificates.
 
Everskyward said:
Those people have always been around but they are few and far between. Many make sacrifices to climb the aviation ladder but I can't think of many who make those sacrifices for aviation as a hobby, especially if they are much past 19. You are more likely to come upon them in some of the other outdoor adventure sports.
Click to expand...


I've got a number of friends my age who have worked as hard to own various toys. It's not really all that uncommon. They just aren't into 35+ year old airplanes is all. One REALLY wants to travel by light aircraft but after I showed him the numbers he realized it's impossible to beat the last minute deals on human mailing tubes to anywhere and still keep an all-weather schedule.

evapilotaz said:
Denver pilot you just reminded me your an IT guy
Click to expand...

More years in telecom than traditional IT, but yes. It's all the same concepts under the hood. Schools rarely teach the concepts anymore. One has to tinker personally to realize how interrelated it all really is. Bits is bits.
 
A few of my non pilot friends have expressed a fascination with the icon A5. They wonder why the 172 that I fly I doesn't look like that. I explain to them that for the cost of an A5, you can purchase a 182/DA40/SR20, a new BMW, and still have 30grand for fuel and hotels.

Cirrus has lead the industry for the past decade in this area and it shows in their sales. They have interiors and creature comforts on par with a new toyota. And the parachute appeals to non pilots in a way that no amount of stats and safety records can.

It is also difficult to explain to a non pilots why a 10 step check list is required to start an engine that seems nosey, rough, and less powerful then the one in their new toyota camry...not to mention the engine itself costs as much as their camry and uses "special" fuel.
 
jesse said:
The flight schedule for our rental aircraft would highly disagree with GA being "dead".
Click to expand...

There are four or five thriving plane rental places at my home airport, and the traffic on sunny weekends is as thick as flies.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are four or five thriving plane rental places at my home airport, and the traffic on sunny weekends is as thick as flies.
Click to expand...


But what % are Americans ? Flight schools are vastly foreign students.
 
teejayevans said:
But what % are Americans ? Flight schools are vastly foreign students.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Flight training is thriving in the SF Bay Area. Nearly all of it aspiring airline pilots, both foreign and domestic. The vast majority once they go back home, or finally get the job at the regionals, will never set foot in a piston single ever again.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Remember the ducted fan quad copters in Avatar? Something like that would be a game changer. Combined with autostabilization, and the ability to navigate itself to your destination? What an awesome world we could have.

Alas, until tort reform is enacted, no one in their right mind will build such a product. Under current law, the first time someone landed on little Billy, dicing him up in the driveway, the company would be gone.
Click to expand...

Yep, ducted fan quad copters will be the game changer because they will add practicality to GA being able to fly to the store and back home. The issue is not one of tort reform, but rather one of available power density. If tort was the issue, Amazon would not be pushing their drone delivery program.
 
Henning said:
Yep, ducted fan quad copters will be the game changer because they will add practicality to GA being able to fly to the store and back home. The issue is not one of tort reform, but rather one of available power density. If tort was the issue, Amazon would not be pushing their drone delivery program.
Click to expand...
That's the initial technical problem.

The societal problem of tort reform may well prove to be a tougher nut to crack. Quad copters are loud, make a mess of everything with down wash, and you just know that some Gomer will land one on a baby carriage.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That's the initial technical problem.

The societal problem of tort reform may well prove to be a tougher nut to crack. Quad copters are loud, make a mess of everything with down wash, and you just know that some Gomer will land one on a baby carriage.
Click to expand...

No different in any of those regards than a helicopter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top