More Good News

sad to hear, but aviation is expensive to get into and expensive to maintain. I'm surprised that so many airports actually continue to function at smaller cities in my area.
 
The small airfield closest to me (0T3) used to have 8 or 10 airplanes based there in the '70s and '80s and offered flight training. It stayed pretty busy, both the airport and the flight school.

Today, there is one plane there. a tripacer in pieces.

One of the local pilots from those glory years was a shop teacher at the local high school. He had two planes; a cherokee and a taildragger of some sort and he gave high school kids rides after school.

Today, a shop teacher couldn't afford one plane, much less two.

This airport really needs to be closed as no one uses it and it's nothing but a drain on the little town's already stressed finances.

I hate to see any airport close but reality is reality.
 
Its a strange phenomena. At two different airports, while a student and a pilot I've approached them about volunteering some time and energy (as well as some money) to help out. I have some experience in advertising/marketing online, and I offered to assist with social media, get the word out to try and encourage potential student pilots.

At the first airport the idea was absolutely rejected. Not only rejected, but almost ridiculed. Oddly enough, that's the same airport where I didn't perceive a good atmosphere as a student and that contributed to me leaving. Six months later or so they got the crazy idea to take up an semi-active social media campaign and last I checked you could barely book an airplane there. It was constantly full.

I've offered the same to my current airport and they agreed to let me help but never take the actions so I can. Activity draws activity. If there's nobody to lead/organize/whatever to start that, it wont happen that often
 
Yep, if we don't share what we love, then no one will care.

But as long as pilots keep using this "nose up" attitude, it will continue to slowly die.
 
I've always been worried that we would lose our little airport in Lindsay, OK. We're a small rural town of about 3000 folks and very few pilots. We have 4 hangars that stay filled and one plane that ties down on the ramp for a total of 5 airplanes. To my astonishment, we actually got the runway resurfaced a few years ago, and last year, a new chain link fence with automatic gate around the property and the entrance and parking area were repaved. The city actually has a local farmer cut and bale all the grass inside the airport for hay, so the city only has to mow a few feet either side of the runway and taxiways to help costs. In fact, the pilots do quite a bit to keep things looking nice. I actually mowed all the taxiways and around the hangars last week. We all try to do our part to help keep it going.

I truly think that our airport would be utilized a great deal more if we had more hangars. I guarantee we could fill at least 4 more hangars if we had them. I think more folks would fly the Lindsay skies if there were more places to park a plane. T-hangars at nearby airports cost double what we pay here. I'd be willing to pay a little more for mine if they'd build a few more. They could still charge substantially less than other airports and have them paid for fairly quickly. I'd be happy just building a covered parking area rather than private hangars. I've begged the city to add parking, but it's never even considered. I also think if we would put in a mogas tank, people would be lining up at the pump. There are crop dusters and pipeline flyers in the area all day everyday, and they'd probably love to stop in Lindsay for gas if they could. For such a small town, we actually have several major oil company offices. I'm sure some of the oil guys are flying into nearby airports to visit the field offices and oil and gas fields that encompass the area. Alas, most city people don't give a crap about aviation, and are content to just barely keep the airport open. Ideas to improve the airport and draw in more pilots just fall on deaf ears. In our case, there are pilots out there to attract if the city had any desire whatsoever, and it's terribly sad that they just won't.
 
The grassroots maintenance is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to stop the slide of general aviation.

General aviation is dying because it is crushed under the weight of regulation. Every other thread on this board seems to be some variation of "is it legal".

I don't care what the intent of the regulations are. Every one of them is intended to make us safer. What they have succeeded in doing is keeping us safe by keeping us on the ground. It's the outcome that matters.

All this fussing over accident statistics misses the point that accident rate = # of accidents / # of flights or flight hours but the denominator in that equation is shrinking.

I had occasion to fly a test flight yesterday to attempt to get an STC to use a particular transponder with a particular WAAS GPS position source. Both boxes fall under probably a half-dozen TSOs already. The amount of paperwork and testing and inspection that goes into this is staggering - and that's on top of the same that went into certification of the two boxes, respectively.

The barriers to entry into aviation are high for manufacturer and pilot alike and everything down to the gnat's eyelash has an FAR or obscure chief counsel ruling associated with it. That has stifled innovation and/or made what little there is much more costly and thus our freedom to choose and economize is greatly diminished.

So to those who think there's just no other way that wouldn't result in massive loss of life and property, I say look at the outcomes.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the FAA Airmen statistics, there is a bit of good news. The number of ATP certificate holders and CFIs is increasing, and the number of student pilots is holding steady. On the other side of things, the number of private and commercial ticket holders is declining, and there's been a little falloff in the number of new students.

There's a large group of pilots between 50 and 65. As these pilots age out, the generations that will replace them may be somewhat smaller. Maybe not either, while the age group with the largest number of pilots is 55 to 59, the second largest is 25 to 29, and the group with the most number of student pilots is 20 to 24.
 
I believe this could change in the not to distant future. In my view what we need for recreational aviation is for electric motor and battery technology to make a few small leaps. If you could get a small two seat trainer with an electric motor that could fly for say two hours with reserve and have a swapable battery system I think you could make it affordable and maintenance would be fairly simple and inexpensive.

In today's dollars if you could get the cost of an hour of flight to something in the range of 25-50 basically the cost of what fuel alone is. I think there would be a ton of interest. When I tell people it cost me 120 and hour to fly not including medical, insurance and other costs they go crosseyed.

ETA: Once people were certified they could use the trainers to build time and stay current or just have fun flights and rent heavy metal for going places.
 
petrolero said:
The grassroots maintenance is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to stop the slide of general aviation.

General aviation is dying because it is crushed under the weight of regulation. Every other thread on this board seems to be some variation of "is it legal".

I don't care what the intent of the regulations are. Every one of them is intended to make us safer. What they have succeeded in doing is keeping us safe by keeping us on the ground. It's the outcome that matters.

All this fussing over accident statistics misses the point that accident rate = # of accidents / # of flights or flight hours but the denominator in that equation is shrinking.

I had occasion to fly a test flight yesterday to attempt to get an STC to use a particular transponder with a particular WAAS GPS position source. Both boxes fall under probably a half-dozen TSOs already. The amount of paperwork and testing and inspection that goes into this is staggering - and that's on top of the same that went into certification of the two boxes, respectively.

The barriers to entry into aviation are high for manufacturer and pilot alike and everything down to the gnat's eyelash has an FAR or obscure chief counsel ruling associated with it. That has stifled innovation and/or made what little there is much more costly and thus our freedom to choose and economize is greatly diminished.

So to those who think there's just no other way that wouldn't result in massive loss of life and property, I say look at the outcomes.
Click to expand...

I really like this point of view, and wonder how we could bring that to a position of power to affect change.
There are how many of us here? How many of us does it take to fix it? Let's ACT!
 
EAB. With the diminishing number of pilots, the rental fleet shrinks and the price of used aircraft drops.

Regulation is part of it, but EAB can address some of the concerns. Bottom line, though, is that younger folks see things like VR and online to be more interesting. Ham radio is in the same boat.
 
Of course, income inequality is part of the problem, too. Folks just don't have the disposable income they once did for things like flying....
 
wsuffa said:
EAB. With the diminishing number of pilots, the rental fleet shrinks and the price of used aircraft drops.

Regulation is part of it, but EAB can address some of the concerns. Bottom line, though, is that younger folks see things like VR and online to be more interesting. Ham radio is in the same boat.
Click to expand...


I do believe lack of interest is most of it. Look at what happened to Light Sport. With the ASTM certification, we got a robust marketplace of aircraft, but not many buyers. Let's say we create ASTM rules for four seat aircraft, 180 hp maximum. Considering what an LSA sells for, I have to think they's start at a quarter million dollars, and that's not going to be a big seller.

Having said that, I don't think GA is dying, but it is shrinking. There were almost 50,000 student tickets issued last year. I think the real challenge will be finding aircraft for them to fly. We can't keep flying the old stuff forever.
 
FormerHangie said:
I do believe lack of interest is most of it. Look at what happened to Light Sport. With the ASTM certification, we got a robust marketplace of aircraft, but not many buyers. Let's say we create ASTM rules for four seat aircraft, 180 hp maximum. Considering what an LSA sells for, I have to think they's start at a quarter million dollars, and that's not going to be a big seller.

Having said that, I don't think GA is dying, but it is shrinking. There were almost 50,000 student tickets issued last year. I think the real challenge will be finding aircraft for them to fly. We can't keep flying the old stuff forever.
Click to expand...

With hangar rates between $350 and $500 for an older T-hangar, maintenance costs, data/charts, etc. the fixed-cost of owning an airplane approaches $1,000 a month, whether it flies or not. Plus fuel, oil, landing fees, etc. Rental rates reflect the same - an older, beat-up Cessna or Piper can be rented for $130-150 an hour (wet). Newer stuff can be twice (or more) that price - locally, a Corvallis rents for $395/hour.

To stay current and proficient, it quickly becomes cost-prohibitive for someone at or below the median household income. The cost of plane ownership can approach the cost of an apartment in many areas.
 
petrolero said:
The grassroots maintenance is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to stop the slide of general aviation.

General aviation is dying because it is crushed under the weight of regulation. Every other thread on this board seems to be some variation of "is it legal".

I don't care what the intent of the regulations are. Every one of them is intended to make us safer. What they have succeeded in doing is keeping us safe by keeping us on the ground. It's the outcome that matters.

All this fussing over accident statistics misses the point that accident rate = # of accidents / # of flights or flight hours but the denominator in that equation is shrinking.

I had occasion to fly a test flight yesterday to attempt to get an STC to use a particular transponder with a particular WAAS GPS position source. Both boxes fall under probably a half-dozen TSOs already. The amount of paperwork and testing and inspection that goes into this is staggering - and that's on top of the same that went into certification of the two boxes, respectively.

The barriers to entry into aviation are high for manufacturer and pilot alike and everything down to the gnat's eyelash has an FAR or obscure chief counsel ruling associated with it. That has stifled innovation and/or made what little there is much more costly and thus our freedom to choose and economize is greatly diminished.

So to those who think there's just no other way that wouldn't result in massive loss of life and property, I say look at the outcomes.
Click to expand...


We have a winner!
 
FormerHangie said:
I do believe lack of interest is most of it. Look at what happened to Light Sport. With the ASTM certification, we got a robust marketplace of aircraft, but not many buyers. Let's say we create ASTM rules for four seat aircraft, 180 hp maximum. Considering what an LSA sells for, I have to think they's start at a quarter million dollars, and that's not going to be a big seller.

Having said that, I don't think GA is dying, but it is shrinking. There were almost 50,000 student tickets issued last year. I think the real challenge will be finding aircraft for them to fly. We can't keep flying the old stuff forever.
Click to expand...

I think the sport certificate was a good idea, but the problem is that the planes are mostly impractical and very expensive. Or worse, they are completely inaccessible for 95% of people.

While I don't think expanding it up to 172s and Warriors would be a total solution, it would certainly get a lot of current pilots back in the air (who may of quit before failing their medical but have no access to a sport plane) and perhaps more new pilots would stick with it if the barrier for completion of the "first level" is lower.

Unless you live in an urban area, good luck finding a sport plane to rent and if you do find one they are expensive. But if we let the glut of Cessnas and Cherokees around the country be eligible for sport pilots, I could see it producing an uptick in activity.
 
wsuffa said:
With hangar rates between $350 and $500 for an older T-hangar, maintenance costs, data/charts, etc. the fixed-cost of owning an airplane approaches $1,000 a month, whether it flies or not. Plus fuel, oil, landing fees, etc. Rental rates reflect the same - an older, beat-up Cessna or Piper can be rented for $130-150 an hour (wet). Newer stuff can be twice (or more) that price - locally, a Corvallis rents for $395/hour.

To stay current and proficient, it quickly becomes cost-prohibitive for someone at or below the median household income. The cost of plane ownership can approach the cost of an apartment in many areas.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I don't think aircraft ownership was ever available to the average person, except for those in an unusual circumstance. I do think flight training and renting used to be more affordable than it is now.

Bonchie said:
I think the sport certificate was a good idea, but the problem is that the planes are mostly impractical and very expensive. Or worse, they are completely inaccessible for 95% of people.

While I don't think expanding it up to 172s and Warriors would be a total solution, it would certainly get a lot of current pilots back in the air (who may of quit before failing their medical but have no access to a sport plane) and perhaps more new pilots would stick with it if the barrier for completion of the "first level" is lower.

Unless you live in an urban area, good luck finding a sport plane to rent and if you do find one they are expensive. But if we let the glut of Cessnas and Cherokees around the country be eligible for sport pilots, I could see it producing an uptick in activity.
Click to expand...

When LSAs are available for rent around here, they typically rent for about the same as an old Cessna 150. I'd rather take the LSA.

While I do realize that the current rules are making it more expensive to maintain a certificated airplane, my point is that even if we switch from FAA certification to ASTM standards, aviation is still expensive. It was expensive when I got my license in 1979 and it's expensive now. It may have been less expensive then, but it wasn't something everyone could afford. I will have to say this: if the only way private aviation can continue is to keep flying the same pre-1985 airplanes indefinitely, then it is doomed. At some point some new, up to date airplanes have to be built.
 
FormerHangie said:
When LSAs are available for rent around here, they typically rent for about the same as an old Cessna 150. I'd rather take the LSA.

While I do realize that the current rules are making it more expensive to maintain a certificated airplane, my point is that even if we switch from FAA certification to ASTM standards, aviation is still expensive. It was expensive when I got my license in 1979 and it's expensive now. It may have been less expensive then, but it wasn't something everyone could afford. I will have to say this: if the only way private aviation can continue is to keep flying the same pre-1985 airplanes indefinitely, then it is doomed. At some point some new, up to date airplanes have to be built.
Click to expand...

They are anywhere from $120 to $150 an hour in the DC area. I've never seen a 150 rent for more then $90.

And you said the magic words..."when they are available for rent," which isn't very often unless you live in an major urban area.

If you want more new planes built, you need more old pilots back in the air and new pilots getting some level of certificate who may buy them someday. Sport pilot rules for practical, non-HP/complex 4 place planes can only help increase the number of people flying.
 
Last edited:
Our local flying club had a few LSAs for rent, but after the high number of incidents they dumped them from the fleet. Apparently mostly pilots from Pipers and Cessnas with too little transition time, people thinking it has less power than a 172 what possible training could they need, I only know of a couple people who actually did their Sport Pilot in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top