Solution to GA dying?

[JesseD]

I think it is more than money, regulations, time for training, etc. I think it is CULTURAL. We as a culture just do not value this type of pursuit. The risk/reward is just not there for most people.

Look at the change in attitudes for many things people now consider "dangerous". Much of the fear is irrational perception, but people still believe it. It is an overall waning in people's own self belief.

That's driven by the yellow corporate media. We get a little less of it here near Wittman / Osh (local news) but you can see it on the national news. ZOMG!! LITTLE PLANES WILL KILL YOU!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MBDiagMan]

Private, recreational aviation is a commitment. It's very similar to selective "clubs" I've been in where there's wariness with any newcomer.

Is this woman from the FAA? Is she going to talk me ear off? Can I get away without reciting all the safety statistics? Is this guy gonna eat into my flying time by boring me with stories from his 22.3 logged hours?

We all have limited time. The airport is an escape, and we usually want to squeeze as much aviation out of each trip as we can (which might include hangar flying, oil changing, or just polishing).

I've done plenty of intro flights, walk arounds, talks with folks hanging by the gate, etc. If I see a Dad or Mom with kids just watching airplanes I always go over and offer a close up look.

But this takes effort and time. Not everyone is glib with strangers, not everyone has the time, and, quite frankly, not everyone wants to make the effort.

That's OK. I think some of the barriers are tests -- do you really want this? If so, you won't be discouraged by some initial coldness.

There have been many good points made in this thread, but I think Dan hit on something that we all can do to help GA.

Taking the time to let a youngster sit in your plane and ask their questions will not help us next year, but if alot of this kind of thing is done, the more investment there will be in the future of GA.

A week ago last Saturday I flew over to the Antique Airplane Association Fly In. My plane is a decent looking plane, but next to the vast majority of the planes there, mine is a rag, with older paint on top of that I had lost my spinner the night before.

Many of the planes there had signs saying look but don't touch and the like. I walked by one of these spit shined planes and there was a little girl about 6 or 7 who wanted to sit in a plane and her Dad was trying to explain why she couldn't. I told him to take her over to that Orange & White plane over there and she can sit in it all she wants.

I finished looking at the planes on one row and made it over to my plane just as she was getting in. She asked lots of questions and had a big grin on her face. Who knows, this might have made the spark that sets in motion the next Amelia Earhardt.

I then flew back home and the local IA had his 150 out and was giving rides to four kids from his neighborhood. I hung around a little longer than I'd planned because it was fun seeing their reactions. One of them didn't take to it, two of them liked it and one of them was beside himself.

Spending time with these kids won't do anything for GA in the short term, but we need to keep priming the pump.

Doc

 

[dmccormack]

There have been many good points made in this thread, but I think Dan hit on something that we all can do to help GA.

Taking the time to let a youngster sit in your plane and ask their questions will not help us next year, but if alot of this kind of thing is done, the more investment there will be in the future of GA.

A week ago last Saturday I flew over to the Antique Airplane Association Fly In. My plane is a decent looking plane, but next to the vast majority of the planes there, mine is a rag, with older paint on top of that I had lost my spinner the night before.

Many of the planes there had signs saying look but don't touch and the like. I walked by one of these spit shined planes and there was a little girl about 6 or 7 who wanted to sit in a plane and her Dad was trying to explain why she couldn't. I told him to take her over to that Orange & White plane over there and she can sit in it all she wants.

I finished looking at the planes on one row and made it over to my plane just as she was getting in. She asked lots of questions and had a big grin on her face. Who knows, this might have made the spark that sets in motion the next Amelia Earhardt.

I then flew back home and the local IA had his 150 out and was giving rides to four kids from his neighborhood. I hung around a little longer than I'd planned because it was fun seeing their reactions. One of them didn't take to it, two of them liked it and one of them was beside himself.

Spending time with these kids won't do anything for GA in the short term, but we need to keep priming the pump.

Doc

Excellent point! Sometimes we get so caught up showing off our airplanes to each other, we ignore those outside the club.

I certainly appreciate seeing a pristine new or restored airplane. But if it has to be handled with chamois gloves, can't give rides, and only flies when the bugs aren't splatting -- maybe the point of airplane ownership is lost?

 

[p1l0t]

We definitely do need to strive to reach out to the general public. Fly-ins are a great way to do this. In Simsbury, CT 4B9 there is a yearly fly-in that is also a car show and has all kinds of food, cotton candy, they get a Blackhawk to show up, hot air ballon rides [tethered], no aerobatics because its under Bradley International's Class C, but good formation flying demo from some RV pilots, last year a C-5 Galaxy low and slow flyover (and then a 250kt pass), skydiving demo, and of course you get to watch 100s of small airplanes land and takeoff in succession. Its a great flyin bcause it gets local community involved, especially youngsters. Bradley also helps with sequencing up until you enter the pattern almost.

<---<^>--->

 

[Meanee]

When is that flyin at Simsbury? I am from NYC and there's not much of flyin activity, except maybe Sky Manor in NJ. I'd love to attend...

 

[Sportsman]

There have been many good points made in this thread, but I think Dan hit on something that we all can do to help GA.

Taking the time to let a youngster sit in your plane and ask their questions will not help us next year, but if alot of this kind of thing is done, the more investment there will be in the future of GA.

A week ago last Saturday I flew over to the Antique Airplane Association Fly In. My plane is a decent looking plane, but next to the vast majority of the planes there, mine is a rag, with older paint on top of that I had lost my spinner the night before.

Many of the planes there had signs saying look but don't touch and the like. I walked by one of these spit shined planes and there was a little girl about 6 or 7 who wanted to sit in a plane and her Dad was trying to explain why she couldn't. I told him to take her over to that Orange & White plane over there and she can sit in it all she wants.

I finished looking at the planes on one row and made it over to my plane just as she was getting in. She asked lots of questions and had a big grin on her face. Who knows, this might have made the spark that sets in motion the next Amelia Earhardt.

I then flew back home and the local IA had his 150 out and was giving rides to four kids from his neighborhood. I hung around a little longer than I'd planned because it was fun seeing their reactions. One of them didn't take to it, two of them liked it and one of them was beside himself.

Spending time with these kids won't do anything for GA in the short term, but we need to keep priming the pump.

Doc

Great points. Two other hobbies of mine are hunting and fishing, both of which are facing declining participation. One generation didn't invest in the next. Combine that with access issues (mobile society and increasing urbanization, the reason I no longer hunt and fish despite love for both) and the hobby is in peril, including increasing government regulation.

The GA community is at least somewhat standoffish to outsiders, including noobs interested in the sport (me), the barrier is cost and increasing hostility to GA from larger airports and the government, and then like everything, increasing regulation.

Change can begin here because a positive for GA is outsiders considering GA are likely to lurk on forums searching for information. Some of us even post.

 

[Banjo33]

My wife has been flying with me twice and attempted to again today. The 2nd time was in a -152. On takeoff, my seatback collapsed backward dumping me in the baggage compartment. Fortunately I had the wherewithal to release my grip on the yoke and avoid pulling us into a stall 50' off the ground. Today, I brought her to the airport to go for a ride in the club's -172. The first thing she noticed was the paint worn off the leading edge root of the wing (fuel hoses) and other miscellaneous cracks/bare spots in the 40 year old paint. Then, while doing the run up checks, the engine died 4 times when pulling the throttle to idle! $60/hr wet is about what I can afford to pay to rent an airplane. My other option is to drive an additional hour and pay $140/hr for a newer -172. Hard to justify the hobby to the average person when the rental fleet is in such shoddy disrepair or too expensive to afford.

Definitely not the only reason, but absolutely a contributor.

 

[denverpilot]

I'd certainly defer to the 150 owners in the crowd if they choose to pipe up, but $60/hr wet means...

$5/gal for fuel (roughly... Use your own local number) * 9 gal/hr = $45/hr.

60/hr - 45/hr =

... the aircraft operator only has $15/hr for maintenance and insurance.

I don't want to discourage you, but at least do the math and go in eyes-wide-open to the numbers.

$15/hr isn't a whole lot of money to keep it airworthy with current parts prices and mechanic's rates. A good mechanic around here (in a so-called big city, lower perhaps in rural areas) runs about $75/hr. Maybe $50 if you're damn lucky.

That 150 has to fly more than four hours just to pay the mechanic for one hour's labor, no parts/materials included.

That sounds okay at first since typically it'll go the full 100 hours between mandatory inspections with hopefully only minor things done to it, and of course hopefully the inspection finds nothing seriously amis. They're pretty simple birds without a ton to go wrong.

How long should a C-150 100 hour inspection take, by the book? I'll have to leave that one to the mechanics here.

Now add some of the known fixed costs in, and that $15 looks awfully sparse.

I don't know what an overhaul is running on an O-200 these days, but you can find that and plug that into the price also and know within a couple of bucks an hour how much is going into the engine replacement fund.

Let's see... A quick Google search says $18,000. That divides nicely into the 1800 hour TBO, so let's just say it takes $10/hr to pay for the required engine overhaul. That's an easy to use round-number for just double-checking the rental rate.

So we're now up to $55/hr for fuel and engine overhaul before we've even done anything to the aircraft or used it.

No insurance, no oil, no filters, no brake pads, no tires, nothing else. Just fuel and an engine fund.

You've got $5 hour left to pay for all of that at $60/hr.

Frankly, I think you need to be seeing about $65/hr-$70/hr as a bare minimum to keep a 150 properly maintained and fed with engine reserves. Parked outdoors. Hangar extra.

At $60/hr, that's a money-loser for someone. You're getting a screaming deal, if they're actually doing maintenance properly, because someone else is paying for the time you're flying off of the engine.

But that screaming deal may be skewing your perception of how "expensive" the newer 172s are.

With students flying that 150, complete with blown tires and flat spots, and the additional wear and tear of hard landings and general inability to be "kind" to it, I'd say a 150/152 normally would rent for a minimum $75/hr in today's market.

Now for fun lets see how close I got...

This article claims $85/hr is typical. Just a Google search... plus the article has an interesting premise. Haven't thought the author's questions through yet, but it'll make folks think at least.

http://www.airplaneflyingpilot.com/2010/12/why-cessna-150-and-152s-are-not-rented-as-much.html

So a quick scroll through Google results for C-150 rental rates yielded only one that said $70/hr. On closer inspection it had a $5 fuel surcharge in addition to the $70, so it was really $75/hr wet. Everything else was $85-$89/hr.

Run some numbers as if you owned it to see if there's warning signs that MX could be skimpy.

My quick numbers (you can plug in more accurate ones for your home area) say that $60/hr just isn't realistic for a flight school based C-150, IMHO.

Just out of curiosity... Does the club own the aircraft, or is it a leaseback? I've seen owners lose money on leasebacks just to lose LESS money than letting the engine and airframe corrode and die if they can't fly it enough. Those same owners sometimes really cheap-out on MX.

So... be careful. Think about what your $60/hr has to cover for the rental place to make it break even or a tiny profit.

 

[weilke]

One reason the rental fleet is skewed towards ratty planes is natural selection. The operators of rental outfits have noted that it is usually the minimally equipped but $5/hr cheaper plane that racks up the hours and the one with the IFR GPS and updated interior sits on the ramp.

Pilots are cheap.

 

[Anthony]

Renter Pilots are cheap.

Fixed it for ya.

There is nothing about airplane ownership that is cheap, and sometimes renter pilots are there own worst enemies with how they treat the airplanes. Some treat them like their own, no question, but others not so much.

I think a network of equity flying clubs would be helpful to allow people to own, and fly more.

 

[weilke]

I think a network of equity flying clubs would be helpful to allow people to own, and fly more.

Get checked out and 'certified' by one club, you are good to take out a plane by any other club. Everything blessed by the insurance outfit that covers all the clubs. Guaranteed quality standard for the club aircraft.

You know it won't work because individual clubs would not honor the checkout by another club to fly 'their' aircraft and the clubs with the ratty planes would continue to hold them an try to bilk a tourist out of his flying dollars.

 

[MSPAviator]

$60/hr wet is about what I can afford to pay to rent an airplane. My other option is to drive an additional hour and pay $140/hr for a newer -172. Hard to justify the hobby to the average person when the rental fleet is in such shoddy disrepair or too expensive to afford.

Definitely not the only reason, but absolutely a contributor.

I've always rented from FBOs and I think you're going to have a hard time finding a 152 for $60/hr these days. In my short time flying, I've seen 100LL dip below $2 for a very short period, then stay around $3.80 or so. I used to think $5/gal. was "expensive" but it seems to be the the norm now, most airports are a little bit above that.

The bulk of the rental fleet is old...and if you're only paying $60/hr., it's going to be in shoddy disrepair.

 

[Banjo33]

Yeah, $65 for a -152 at the local FBO or $60 for my clubs -172 (plus $35/month dues) is a bargain comparatively speaking. My point was that the average renter is paying over $60/hr iot fly. If you want nice looking equipment, it's going to cost twice as much. That's an expensive hobby! I've raced motocross, fished/hunted, bought a '75 Bronco to restore and flown R/C for a couple of years (in the past), and it would have been difficult to justify any one of those if they would've cost as much. Fortunately, not one of them required the same amount of study/prep/upkeep as aviation does. I'm confident I could go right back to any one of them and pick up right where I left off, with little extra expense or preparation. It's tough to say that about aviation. Beyond that, what do you normally do during an average hour of flying? Go to breakfast/lunch? Look at the leaves? That's a really expensive Sunday drive. I love flying, but shoddy-looking equipment for such a high hourly use rate can be a big hurdle.

I finally got my wife and son to go up today. Yesterday, after the plane broke, all I remember her talking about was how scary and old the plane looked. Now, I've just got to find a way to get her to see past the ugliness of the plane and inflict her with the same bug I've got for aviation. It has to be exciting or a utility provided that will help her to justify it and support my enthusiasm for it. Best I can hope for though is a couple hours a month and hopefully a 5 hour round trip once or twice a year to visit her family.

I'm not whining, but cost/appearance of the equipment
does matter.

 

[dell30rb]

I'd certainly defer to the 150 owners in the crowd if they choose to pipe up, but $60/hr wet means...

$5/gal for fuel (roughly... Use your own local number) * 9 gal/hr = $45/hr.

60/hr - 45/hr =

... the aircraft operator only has $15/hr for maintenance and insurance.

I don't want to discourage you, but at least do the math and go in eyes-wide-open to the numbers.

$15/hr isn't a whole lot of money to keep it airworthy with current parts prices and mechanic's rates. A good mechanic around here (in a so-called big city, lower perhaps in rural areas) runs about $75/hr. Maybe $50 if you're damn lucky.

That 150 has to fly more than four hours just to pay the mechanic for one hour's labor, no parts/materials included.

That sounds okay at first since typically it'll go the full 100 hours between mandatory inspections with hopefully only minor things done to it, and of course hopefully the inspection finds nothing seriously amis. They're pretty simple birds without a ton to go wrong.

How long should a C-150 100 hour inspection take, by the book? I'll have to leave that one to the mechanics here.

Now add some of the known fixed costs in, and that $15 looks awfully sparse.

I don't know what an overhaul is running on an O-200 these days, but you can find that and plug that into the price also and know within a couple of bucks an hour how much is going into the engine replacement fund.

Let's see... A quick Google search says $18,000. That divides nicely into the 1800 hour TBO, so let's just say it takes $10/hr to pay for the required engine overhaul. That's an easy to use round-number for just double-checking the rental rate.

So we're now up to $55/hr for fuel and engine overhaul before we've even done anything to the aircraft or used it.

No insurance, no oil, no filters, no brake pads, no tires, nothing else. Just fuel and an engine fund.

You've got $5 hour left to pay for all of that at $60/hr.

Frankly, I think you need to be seeing about $65/hr-$70/hr as a bare minimum to keep a 150 properly maintained and fed with engine reserves. Parked outdoors. Hangar extra.

At $60/hr, that's a money-loser for someone. You're getting a screaming deal, if they're actually doing maintenance properly, because someone else is paying for the time you're flying off of the engine.

But that screaming deal may be skewing your perception of how "expensive" the newer 172s are.

With students flying that 150, complete with blown tires and flat spots, and the additional wear and tear of hard landings and general inability to be "kind" to it, I'd say a 150/152 normally would rent for a minimum $75/hr in today's market.

Now for fun lets see how close I got...

This article claims $85/hr is typical. Just a Google search... plus the article has an interesting premise. Haven't thought the author's questions through yet, but it'll make folks think at least.

http://www.airplaneflyingpilot.com/2010/12/why-cessna-150-and-152s-are-not-rented-as-much.html

So a quick scroll through Google results for C-150 rental rates yielded only one that said $70/hr. On closer inspection it had a $5 fuel surcharge in addition to the $70, so it was really $75/hr wet. Everything else was $85-$89/hr.

Run some numbers as if you owned it to see if there's warning signs that MX could be skimpy.

My quick numbers (you can plug in more accurate ones for your home area) say that $60/hr just isn't realistic for a flight school based C-150, IMHO.

Just out of curiosity... Does the club own the aircraft, or is it a leaseback? I've seen owners lose money on leasebacks just to lose LESS money than letting the engine and airframe corrode and die if they can't fly it enough. Those same owners sometimes really cheap-out on MX.

So... be careful. Think about what your $60/hr has to cover for the rental place to make it break even or a tiny profit.

I rent well maintained 152's for $70 an hour. Fyi your 9gph is way off. Its more like 5.5. 9gph is about what the 180hp 172's burn

 

[denverpilot]

I rent well maintained 152's for $70 an hour. Fyi your 9gph is way off. Its more like 5.5. 9gph is about what the 180hp 172's burn

Fair enough. I was just suggesting the OP do the math.

I don't think a well-maintained 150 rented for much less than what he's currently paying today when I started in 1991.

I'd love to see the rental fleet in pristine condition and a beautiful airplane is a draw to anyone, but it's not happening at a lot of FBOs and flight schools.

His worry that his wife will see the old birds as "unsafe" even though new paint and nice interiors have nothing to do with airworthiness, are one of GA's image problems.

The birds are old. Diamonds and Cirri only go so far to fixing that. A $350,000 newer Skyhawk is not going to rent for a reasonable rate for the average renter.

It's sad, but it's where we're at today.

 

[inktomi]

You don't think that people would pay $140 / $150 an hour for a new DA40 or SR20? It seems like people pay that around here pretty regularly (Las Vegas).

 

[denverpilot]

I don't think as many people as we need for a robust thriving GA infrastructure will.

The percentage of pilots vs. the total population is falling. Lots of reasons, but bottom line is cost vs typical salaries in the so-called Middle Class.

(I say so-called because I don't put a lot of weight on class warfare political wrangling designed mainly to control people. More directly, a new Certificated aircraft can't be purchased for equal to, or less than, the cost of a typical suburban house. It's roughly 3X that price today. People don't typically spend more than their house is worth on a hobby.)

 

[Jim Logajan]

Dollars per hour seems to be a valid way to measure the cost of pleasure value.

Dollars per mile seems to be a valid way to measure the cost of travel value.

The cost per mile for an average car is somewhere between $0.47 to $0.74.
(http://www.piercetransit.org/rideshare/costs.htm)

The cost per mile for your rental or owned airplane is ... ?

(My airport has 152 and 172 airplanes for $95 and $125 an hour, so can cost about $1.00 per mile, absent the proverbial 20 kt headwind.)

 

[denverpilot]

Those sound like prices on fully-owned rentals. The newer aircraft someone somewhere is mortgaging do seem to run a bit higher. (Since we're talking about a wife wanting modern automotive amenities right now in this thread.)

Traveling in a 150/152 is a bit uncomfortable for most folks. The 172 is more doable for "normal" folk.

C-172S models are renting for $139 or $149/hr wet around here. Drop back to the pre-restart birds and they're in a range from $99/hr on up to $128/hr for the Garmin 430W equipped bird.

The chart is interesting when it comes to useful load too... newer aircraft give up a lot of pounds of carrying capability to haul better avionics and cushier seats aloft.

Interestingly, the C-172RG now rents for $151/hr which is higher than the C-182Q at $146/hr. Clearly shows the market demand for a retract for Commercial training.

I also see that the C-182RG dropped off the list. Guess it got sold or went elsewhere. Hmm. That leaves one retract. No wonder the C-172RG is so high.

To compare to room and comfort of a modern car that your spouse wants to sit in for hours to go somewhere, the C-182 makes things reasonably comfortable, travel-wise -- and you can cram a lot of stuff in for a long trip. Especially an older one.

But I'm talkin' newer aircraft here since they have the amenities typically seen in a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord here. The family is used to seeing those types of vehicles.

To get those, we're talking amortizing half a million dollars into the rental cost -- if you're talking about a new C-182.

Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

The local club, out of many clubs around here, that even has a T182T on the rental line -- which is exceedingly rare -- charges $191/hr wet for that bird. I bet it just covers costs for the owner and includes little or none of the purchase price.

Start asking the typical suburban spouse who's not thrilled about their SO flying because of all the disinformation out there about it, if they'd happily let their SO plunk down $191/hr to fly around and keep current, as well as take family trips, it gets hard to justify. And the family must weigh less than 988 pounds, minus fuel... even with the 3100 MGTOW extra allowance the later 182's have.

My wife started out flying with me in our youth. We used to cram ourselves in a Skyhawk and it matched the size of our econo-box cars. She never experienced a C-150/152.

Now that we're older and she's flown in the C-182, I doubt she'd say no to the higher costs of the 182.

But the target audience for new pilots these days needs to include the middle aged crowd with (hopefully) some money and job stability. (If that even exists anymore.) That group typically isn't going to enjoy cramming into a C-172 very often. They might put up with it for a while, but in the end, only I'd they're hopelessly addicted to aviation will they not look for something a little bigger. Middle-age-spread isn't just a stereotype, Americans are fat.

Most middle-aged pilots, no matter how addicted, are definitely not going to drag the family along in a C-150/152. The spouse alone may put up with it once or twice, but add kids and it's a no-go.

We have to get the price tag down on the true four-seaters or aviation is doomed to be a local-only "sport" in LSAs and specialized types like gliders and aerobatic birds. Not that flying those isn't fun, but you realky lose the travel utility if the spouse can't pack normal luggage for a week long trip. Maybe if they really enjoy the adventure and the view they'll play your "pack a t-shirt, socks, and fresh underwear" game and ship whatever clothes they buy at Walmart home via FedEx on the return trip, but generally that's asking a lot of a non-flying spouse. Asking them to do that with kids? No way.

The market won't be able to sustain the "flying is for everyone" image for much longer if the fleet isn't being refreshed with new mid-sized aircraft that can actually carry a load and cost way, WAY less than $500K.

All we can do is hope the largest two contributors to purchase price find a way to drastically reduce costs. Insurance and FAA Certification. Since insurance prices track overall price almost linearly, after liability costs are factored into the amortization schedules, it's really just the FAA Certification price-tag that's got to drop. By half.

I just don't see that happening.

 

[inktomi]

Is it really the FAA certification price that causes the aircraft to cost so much? I've always wondered what makes a C172/DA40 cost north of $300,000 new.. it doesn't seem like there's that much to them!

I 100% agree that the biggest threat to general aviation is the cost of entry. It used to be that a plane cost a few times the price of a car. Now even the most basic 4 seat planes cost a few times your home's value.

There's very little chance I'd ever buy a new plane at that price - and my friends are scared (disinformation sure, but they are) to fly period - much less in a plane older than them no matter how well maintained it is.

 

[JesseD]

Is it really the FAA certification price that causes the aircraft to cost so much? I've always wondered what makes a C172/DA40 cost north of $300,000 new.. it doesn't seem like there's that much to them!

I 100% agree that the biggest threat to general aviation is the cost of entry. It used to be that a plane cost a few times the price of a car. Now even the most basic 4 seat planes cost a few times your home's value.

There's very little chance I'd ever buy a new plane at that price - and my friends are scared (disinformation sure, but they are) to fly period - much less in a plane older than them no matter how well maintained it is.

While I won't say that certification is the biggest factor, it is a large one. I'd wager there are many things that could be done to streamline time to market without compromising safety. I also think it's time to "man up" and admit our birds have gotten fat with us. Look at the useful load on a 1970 Six vs a 200X Saratoga. We both need to lose some weight.

We also need certification to be cleaned up so we can get a more mass market fuel (Jet-A or Unleaded) in the planes, and that includes the STC process so people can refit older birds.

Imagine if a Jet-A 200HP was real / workable, and the STC wasn't a fortune for you to throw one in an M20J, C172, PA-28. Now you could have one fuel at airports. Heck, even an overall unleaded fuel (lowering costs because you no longer need special handling due to the tetraethyl lead) standard would help. I'd still prefer a single fuel overall, because that would lower costs (and liability, for the FBO) if only one fuel was used.

You'd see some casualties though. 1xxLL/VLL for Warbirds and vintage planes would dry up if that happened. That would be sad beyond belief because they are such pretty planes, and fire-breathing history. Still, it would be better in the long run for GA to have a single fuel common with the air transport carriers.

Yes I'm moving the bar, because I want the longest term solution.

--edit

And larger Jet-A engines too, so 300HP et al.

 

[denverpilot]

While I won't say that certification is the biggest factor, it is a large one. I'd wager there are many things that could be done to streamline time to market without compromising safety. I also think it's time to "man up" and admit our birds have gotten fat with us. Look at the useful load on a 1970 Six vs a 200X Saratoga. We both need to lose some weight.

Yup. A modern 182 won't haul what an old one will... too much "stuff" on board.

We also need certification to be cleaned up so we can get a more mass market fuel (Jet-A or Unleaded) in the planes, and that includes the STC process so people can refit older birds.

I'm not sure this is a huge problem... most of the engines that can safely run MoGas already have STCs available. The problem there seems to be more of a supply problem, and of course, Tom's argument (correct I believe) that benzene and toluene tear up stuff. Our modern MoGas morphed into "corn juice with really nasty additives" after the fleet's engines were allowed to run the pre-Ethanol MoGas.

Maybe what you're saying here is that you want an easier STC process for replacement of engines with something completely different... that, I can agree with in some respects...

I've said for a long time that 20% of the GA fleet is holding 80% of the GA fleet hostage to 100LL, and the poor warbirds and a lot of the workhorses of the fleet that fly commercially and fly more than the types with MoGas-capable engines are in that 20%... so it's a tough nut to crack. I'd hate to see us lose those birds, but it's wildly popular these days to pick solutions that are good for the 80% and bad for the 20%... I'll take "Recession and Government for $500, Alex".

Imagine if a Jet-A 200HP was real / workable, and the STC wasn't a fortune for you to throw one in an M20J, C172, PA-28. Now you could have one fuel at airports. Heck, even an overall unleaded fuel (lowering costs because you no longer need special handling due to the tetraethyl lead) standard would help. I'd still prefer a single fuel overall, because that would lower costs (and liability, for the FBO) if only one fuel was used.

Crazy thoughts... I've had crazy thoughts about this for a while... with the advent of hybrid cars, could an electric powerplant with enough battery on board to handle 45 minutes of flying and a very small turbine running Jet-A recharging it, be viable?

You'd see some casualties though. 1xxLL/VLL for Warbirds and vintage planes would dry up if that happened. That would be sad beyond belief because they are such pretty planes, and fire-breathing history. Still, it would be better in the long run for GA to have a single fuel common with the air transport carriers.

Hadn't thought of it that way, but yeah... using the same fuel as everyone else would be a Good Thing(TM).

Yes I'm moving the bar, because I want the longest term solution.

I'm just shaking the tree looking for ideas. People think better under stress sometimes.

I think true turbine conversions for light GA aircraft suck too much fuel... but the use of a tiny turbine and using that to power electrics... well, I think it could be done, but there's so many road-blocks in its way, I don't know if anyone would attempt it.

 

[weilke]

Imagine if a Jet-A 200HP was real / workable, and the STC wasn't a fortune for you to throw one in an M20J, C172, PA-28.

I dont think the aircraft diesel is a certification problem, it is mostly a combination of engineering challenges.

The experimental crowd is not hamstrung by certification issues, yet you dont see many diesel conversions flying. The experience with the Thielert and Austro conversions has been that to run a fast-running lightweight diesel at high power settings is not a trivial undertaking. They work well in cars, but mostly at 20-25% of max hp. The SMA project for a slow-turning direct drive diesel has shown that once you try to convert a legacy airframe with a diesel that runs at 75psi manifold pressure, you start to run into issues with cooling drag, turbocharger efficiency and limited air-start capability. Can't blame the FAA for physics.

I would be happy enough if Bombardier came out with a 6 or 8-cylinder based on the Rotax 912/914 platform. 180-200hp, runs on autofuel and backed by a big company that is not going to run out of cash before the infant mortality issues of the design can be worked out.

 

[p1l0t]

When is that flyin at Simsbury? I am from NYC and there's not much of flyin activity, except maybe Sky Manor in NJ. I'd love to attend...

Sorry for the delayed response but it is usally the second or third weekend of September.

<---<^>--->

 

[Tommy3]

I think there's also kind of a personality disconnect (maybe it's a generational thing) that dissuades potential student pilots. I was lucky to have a great CFI for the vast majority of my training. He loved to fly and imparted that enthusiasm to me. He understood that he had a responsibility to me, his paying client. At the same time he had a broader responsibility to ensure I became a safe pilot. But a lot of the CFIs I've met, and some of the flight schools I've visited, simply don't seem very friendly.

For example, I finished up my PPL at a prominent and well-regarded flight school in May. I came in for class the day after we killed bin Laden and the school's chief pilot was huddled around the TV in the lobby with some other CFIs. They were complaining that Obama was a Muslim, how bin Laden's death would only be used to promote Obama's socialist agenda, blah blah blah--the regular stuff. Not only was it unprofessional, but us younger folks--especially those of us who are coming back from OIF/OEF and considering using the GI Bill for flight training--can't take people like that seriously. It gives one pause about the CFI's competence.

Of course, political preference has nothing to do with it--I have no idea what the views of my CFI were, nor he, mine, and that's the way it should be. But I think before people pay a lot of money to be trained in a fairly risky activity like flying, they want to know that their instructor will be professional and devoted to making that budding pilot a better aviator. I'm sorry to say, for a good number of CFIs I don't get that impression.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Of course, political preference has nothing to do with it--I have no idea what the views of my CFI were, nor he, mine, and that's the way it should be. But I think before people pay a lot of money to be trained in a fairly risky activity like flying, they want to know that their instructor will be professional and devoted to making that budding pilot a better aviator. I'm sorry to say, for a good number of CFIs I don't get that impression.

Sorry I have to lol. Ever meet a skydive instructor? Hangglider instructor, rock climbing or rafting guide? Most CFIs have a decent appearance of competence compared to many risky activity instructors, not that living in a school bus makes one incompetent to teach.

 

[denverpilot]

I think there's also kind of a personality disconnect (maybe it's a generational thing) that dissuades potential student pilots.

I think it's called "inability to delay gratification" on just about any activity in their lives. Not saying that to be mean, just saying there's a distinct lack of that ability in many young folk these days.

Probably rooted in the economy. They could work for ten years and not see the fruits of their labor due to previous generations mortgaging away their monetary value. Thus, they do lots of "cheap thrill" stuff that doesn't require much capital to get started in, nor any long-term commitments to capital expenditure.

Or as one friend jokes... Snowboarders are just skiers who can't afford boots. LOL!

 

[Tommy3]

I'm not sure about that. I mean, I do more or less agree with your assessment of that generation in general, but that's not how most student pilots strike me; most seem to be serious and hard-working people.

For me, a lot of CFIs just seem cranky, and some flight schools have this attitude about them like they're doing the student a favor. That is totally bonkers. The student is paying them, a lot. That student is a customer and if the customer isn't happy you are doing a bad job as businessman. Of course you can't always give the customer what he wants--a CFI can't authorize a solo for someone who's not ready--but I do think it's really important that CFIs have a sense of professionalism about them and a genuine love for aviation that rubs off on his students.

I think it's called "inability to delay gratification" on just about any activity in their lives. Not saying that to be mean, just saying there's a distinct lack of that ability in many young folk these days.

Probably rooted in the economy. They could work for ten years and not see the fruits of their labor due to previous generations mortgaging away their monetary value. Thus, they do lots of "cheap thrill" stuff that doesn't require much capital to get started in, nor any long-term commitments to capital expenditure.

Or as one friend jokes... Snowboarders are just skiers who can't afford boots. LOL!

 

[Everskyward]

For example, I finished up my PPL at a prominent and well-regarded flight school in May. I came in for class the day after we killed bin Laden and the school's chief pilot was huddled around the TV in the lobby with some other CFIs. They were complaining that Obama was a Muslim, how bin Laden's death would only be used to promote Obama's socialist agenda, blah blah blah--the regular stuff. Not only was it unprofessional, but us younger folks--especially those of us who are coming back from OIF/OEF and considering using the GI Bill for flight training--can't take people like that seriously. It gives one pause about the CFI's competence.

I agree. This is part of customer service, though. Nothing like making your customers uncomfortable before you even start. The problem is that people like this, whatever side they're on, assume the other person agrees with them. You know what they say about assumptions. I have had this happen even at very high end flight training facilities. Instructors will make political, and even racial remarks thinking the entire class is behind them.

 

[CMTowner]

I have to agree with pretty much everything I have read here thus far. I have the opportunity to talk with many flight school on a regular basis and have heard and seen a lot. Many flight schools have shown a decline in training of students from that compared to five years ago. When asking why they think this is, many have stated the availability of loans available within the U.S. have declined, or they have really high interest rates.

I have seen many flight schools operate a mixture of older aircraft as well as some newer aircraft. It seems these older aircraft are flown a little more frequently because they offer a lower rental cost, in turn helping keep the flight training costs lower. I don't know if it will ever get back to the levels it was when I did my flight training in the 90's, unless a CFI has their own aircraft and is setting their own rates.

My thought, which could totally be out in left field here, is I that if we could find a way to lower the overall operating cost of aircraft rentals, it may help boost GA flying a little bit. I know that this is where flying clubs come into play, I just think the problem is that flying clubs are either to few and far between, or they are not well advertised. I know that I am looking to start one near where I keep my airplane, in part to get my plane flown a little more frequently, but also to try and help out those who want to fly but don't have affordable access to an aircraft.

I am a believer in that there is more than just cost that is the cause of a decline in GA pilots, that reasonable or respectable flight training is a factor, as is perhaps aircraft selection.

Is there an easy solution or fix, that I really don't know.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

GA is dying because it isn't a practical mode of transportation, or an affordable means of entertainment for the masses.

It isn't cheap because it hasn't reached mass, and it won't reach mass until it is a practical mode of transportation or form of entertainment.

How would it become practical to the masses? By innovation. How do you encourage innovation? Make it financially rewarding to succeed. How do you make innovation financially rewarding?

Solutions to GA dying (or a damn good start)

1. If an FAA regulation does not measurably increase safety or reduce the cost of flying, it should be rescinded.

2. Heavily reduce tort damages/litigation. Put common sense back in court rooms.

We can ***** and complain forever about the symptoms (insurance too high, gas too expensive, airplanes are old and ratty, new ones are too costly, training too difficult, etc.), but these are simply problems that entrepreneurs were born to solve. All it takes is for government to get out of the way and the market will do the rest.

 

[JesseD]

GA is dying because it isn't a practical mode of transportation, or an affordable means of entertainment for the masses.

It isn't cheap because it hasn't reached mass, and it won't reach mass until it is a practical mode of transportation or form of entertainment.

How would it become practical to the masses? By innovation. How do you encourage innovation? Make it financially rewarding to succeed. How do you make innovation financially rewarding?

Solutions to GA dying (or a damn good start)

1. If an FAA regulation does not measurably increase safety or reduce the cost of flying, it should be rescinded.

2. Heavily reduce tort damages/litigation. Put common sense back in court rooms.

We can ***** and complain forever about the symptoms (insurance too high, gas too expensive, airplanes are old and ratty, new ones are too costly, training too difficult, etc.), but these are simply problems that entrepreneurs were born to solve. All it takes is for government to get out of the way and the market will do the rest.

I wouldn't count on that too much from the USA. We've become ruled by middle manager mindset MBA's, accountants, and entitlement complex CEO's. If it won't boost the profits / stock next quarter, f*ck it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ClimbnSink]

No blame for the bureaucrats?

I wouldn't count on that too much from the USA. We've become ruled by middle manager mindset MBA's, accountants, and entitlement complex CEO's. If it won't boost the profits / stock next quarter, f*ck it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JesseD]

No blame for the bureaucrats?

I posted that further up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[p1l0t]

There are certainly a lot of "cranky" CFIs out there. I steal a lot of business from them. I do have a reputation for being "mean" in that I push students to do more than other CFIs, but I also have enough of a reputation for making it fun that I get enough word-of-mouth recommendations. Long story sort is that people want to be challenged, but if it isn't fun then they won't learn and if they aren't learning then you aren't doing your job. Teach don't instruct.

<---<^>--->

 

[Chip Sylverne]

There are certainly a lot of "cranky" CFIs out there. I steal a lot of business from them. I do have a reputation for being "mean" in that I push students to do more than other CFIs, but I also have enough of a reputation for making it fun that I get enough word-of-mouth recommendations. Long story sort is that people want to be challenged, but if it isn't fun then they won't learn and if they aren't learning then you aren't doing your job. Teach don't instruct.

<---<^>--->

Bully for you, that's the answer to soooo much in aviation. Much better than jumping up and down with clenched fists, red faced yelling "Why won't these people learn!" as so many do.
Your stu's are lucky to have you.

 

[dmccormack]

Bully for you, that's the answer to soooo much in aviation. Much better than jumping up and down with clenched fists, red faced yelling "Why won't these people learn!" as so many do.
Your stu's are lucky to have you.

Teachers remember what it's like to learn.

Educators think everyone should know what they know.

 

[p1l0t]

It helps to remind yourself too to forget your measly $20 and remember that your students are really paying $150-$200 per hour for the lesson. When someone pays $200/hr to hang out with you for an hour you better be professional, honest, fun, and they damn sure better learn something. I just enjoy teaching though too. I know a lot of guys just want build time to fly jets, or retired from flying jets.. but even so, live for the moment. As a good teacher you can have a lasting impact, especially in a world as small as aviation.

<---<^>--->

 

[Hughes Sky]

Read a great article the other day in PlaneandPilotmag.com regarding LSAs. While LSAs will never be the perfect match for everyone, they do satisfy many of the issues raised in this forum. Lower purchase price, lower fuel costs, lower maintenance costs, etc...

LSAs, coupled with a strong push for shared ownership and flight clubs are what this industry ordered.

Easy Ownership: The Great LSA
Paradigm shifts happen...and we’re right in the middle of one!
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/lsas/easy-ownership-the-great-lsa.html

 

[Fishalot]

Here is my take...the general public doesn't see flying as fun. Think about it. Their perception of flying is based upon a crammed commercial flight. The only other thing they know about aviation is that small planes fall out of the sky because there was no flight plan.
So right off, you lose most people. Than you have the rest who are interested but are put off by the process/time/cost to learn how to fly. IMO, time is the hardest hurdle. Like many here, I visited several fbo before I finally found somebody who I had confidence in. But that outfit was 2 hours away. So that meant reserving 6 hours a day just to go get lessons.
The boat analogy is actually interesting because just like in any other activities, there are many tiers. I don't know the actual numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if more $100-600k new boats are sold per year then airplanes. By several folds. So to me the financial aspect is not the real cause.
I think that to many, flying is actually boring. It seen more as a mode of transportation to go from point a to point b and that is it. When you talk to people at large about boating, they think about water skiing, fishing, pulling unto a sandbar and have a party. It is fun. Ask them the same question about aviation and they will ask you "where are we going". That to me that is the real difference. Some get excited about the destination, others think about the trip unto itself....