What is the general state of GA?

[Zeldman]

Sorry for the rant guys. These things don't need to be as expensive as they are but hide behind the veil of "it's for aviation!"

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but.......

Back in my racing days, one year I got a lot of T-shirts to sell, picture of my race car with me standing next to it, stuff like that. I tried to sell them at cost plus 1 Buck, total sale price $3.50. All I wanted to do was sell T-shirts at prices where the average fan would not have to sacrifice a case of beer for.

Not a single sale for 3 months. Nothing. Then one day I raised the price to the same price as the tracks sold T-shirts for...... 20 bucks. I sold out that day.

Yes, beefy Haines T-shirts cost me $2.50 apiece including silk screening. This was 30 years ago.

My point is some people expect aviation to be expensive, and anything priced "affordable" must not be any good.

 

[Stephen Poole]

You are trying to make it practical as if the whole point was just to get from point A to point B. That’s not why we oldtimers do it. It’s the pushing and pulling and setting, wrestling with adverse yaw and p-factor and making it all look easy and graceful that gives us all that satisfaction. What’s the use if any schmoe can do,it? May as well take up oil painting.

No, if that's what you like, have at it. But those of us who prefer automatic transmissions choose not to drive a stick. I still enjoy driving around sharp curves, and I'd still enjoy flying if, say, a $40.00 microprocessor board handled some of the details for me so that I could concentrate *ON* flying.

Look: if you want to revitalize the light general aviation industry, you will need to appeal to people now, with what they want NOW. Otherwise, it will continue to shrink, smaller GA airports will close (leaving only those with Signature as FBO -- heh -- and yuck) and eventually, it'll just be a bunch of old timers sitting around remember the good old days, when REAL men could control the mixture and forget to lower the gear and all that happy stuff. Good times, good times!

My new Jeep turns the lights on and off for me. When I was driving it home from the dealer, I was looking at all the eye candy on the dash and it gently moved me back into the lane. Automatically! When it rains, the wipers come on automatically.

Example: there's a thread here, "when should I use carb heat?" The younger folks that I'm talking about, and that we NEED to bring into GA, are instantly turned off by that. Whaa? Carb heat??? Have they never heard of thermostats? Sensor control? Servos?

 

[Stephen Poole]

@Stephen Poole . Op here. You just nailed my “outsider” feelings on this perfectly.

Yeah, I know. For me, it was the first time I flew commercial. I said (in my best Will Smith voice), "I have GOT to get me one of these!" I had flown in small planes when I was a little kid, but I was a married adult before I took a fo-real trip (from Birmingham to Denver). I loved it.

Here's what will revitalize small, general aviation. (Let's call it "light GA.")

First, make the FAA join the 21st century. There is no rational reason why I can't replace my own lights, or install new avionics. You could have limits -- like, maybe a certified AP has to do the engines/prop and other critical systems. But that would cut the cost dramatically right there.

We also need more Sport Pilot instruction (finding a school that does the Sport training is actually kind of difficult) and the FAA needs to get its mind right on LSA, too -- 1300 lbs is too light. Fine; raise it to, say, 2500 lbs, but require that the plane must have a parachute if flown by a sport pilot. Problem solved.

Second, let's find some investors to buy a bunch of small, fun-but-rugged planes. Remos GX, Flight Design CTs, or Tecnams. Run the schools, rent the planes. Work with the AOPA and EAA; they're already helping to set up flying clubs. Let's go that one step further.

Repeat: problem solved. But we're going to have to get the FAA on board. Anyone here who thinks I'm picking on them should know that for every pilot who's stuck in the 70's, there's an FAA guy or gal who's stuck in the stone age.

 

[Tantalum]

Back in my racing days

What'd you race?

My point is some people expect aviation to be expensive, and anything priced "affordable" must not be any good.

There's definitely some perceived intrinsic consumer value there based on the price of something.. and no doubt part of flying's appeal is that it is unique. I genuinely believe you could sell planes enmasse at the $250K - $350K price range.. *if* they are brought into the modern era.. IE, not a rebrand of the same old design. Aircraft makers could also get clever with lease programs, have an actual marketing and social media presence, etc. Most people with an okay job can go lease a pretty nice luxury car.. but most people cannot actually afford to buy that same car. Would be great to have some type of program like that for flying. Problem is.. in today's era of tight margins and bottom line results the market to sell airplanes in is tiny.. so while these things *are* possible, they're just not probable

We also need more Sport Pilot instruction (finding a school that does the Sport training is actually kind of difficult) and the FAA needs to get its mind right on LSA, too -- 1300 lbs is too light. Fine; raise it to, say, 2500 lbs, but require that the plane must have a parachute if flown by a sport pilot. Problem solved.

I totally agree with almost everything in your post! I see the LSA thing differently though. The LSA / sport pilot thing really hasn't helped at all, and I don't think it can be fixed, or is worth fixing, here is why I think that is:

--people psychologically mostly want to be real pilots.. the "sport pilot" thing, while a good fit for some, is not going to appeal to most people who want to fly places, use their plane as a tool, and think of themselves as a "real pilot" - there's a reason there is really no sport instruction out there.. the demand simply doesn't exist for it

--honestly, earning your PPL, while challenging, is not really that difficult. People push their bodies to the limits to train for marathons, earn advanced degrees, dedicate hundreds of hours to other skilled hobbies, etc. This perception that the lazy millennial is too dumb to earn a PPL is not true.. they're (we're) just not interested in getting their PPL because it's expensive and the antique planes don't add any opportunity value to them. Plus, I hate to think that we're entering the era of having to lower standards (we already sort of did that with basic med)

--speaking of utility, most LSAs are not very useful as actual "planes".. but ultimately if people want to just experience the thrill of flying (without any actual utility) they'll hang glide, sky dive, bungee jump or do some other sport like rock climb, etc.. for their adrenaline fill. They're not going to spend *a tiny bit less* money to go become a sport pilot and fly around an LSA. The LSA is a very hobbyist market. Some people love it.. but it won't bring back GA. **I do see you mentioned the part about making them more useful as planes, raising the weight to 2,500 lb, etc.. but to that point, I think the experimental market has some legs, see below

The experimental aviation market.. now there is some promising area. I continue to see more and more people flying various VANS, Sling 4, and many of the fields out here will have a Lancair, LongEZ, etc., on the ramp. But you know what these give them? Some real performance..! I see many more homebuilts like that than I do LSA. The Lancair Mako at $400K has some serious performance, enough to give an SR22T a run for its money, at a fraction of the cost. The problem is.. the majority of people aren't interested in building their own airplane.. even if 50% of it comes prebuilt. If there was some way to change *THAT* rule to just requiring that the owner builds 10% of it "here Jim, see that random missing panel on the empennage, screw that on with these 4 screws", etc., or having a third party outfit snap the wings on and sell them.. there we would have some potential.. you would still have to come to 2018 though and create an actual marketing presence, social media presence, etc. Sorry folks, but it's true.. today's buyer is so used to having just about all of Maslow's hierarchy of needs met from their merchants, that for GA to have a hope it has to catch up. There is a reason Apple, Starbucks, Tesla, Amazon, hell even Cirrus (to a lesser degree) have a cult following.. they all to some capacity hit on the needs hierarchy. People rag on the #Cirruslife thing but it does give owners of the plane that sense of "belonging" .. you see the same thing on MooneySpace and in the EA world. A SkyCatcher does not do any of that.. it's just a small, sort of unattractive looking plane that's *slightly* less crazy expensive to rent per hr but has a fraction of the utility a 172 will give you

 

[Brandon Hicks]

@Tantalum that’s an excellent point re: the experimental market. As I’ve begun the “hmmmm, what would I like to own one day” phase I’m sure we all go through, I continue to gravitate back to that space and I’ve spent way too much time on Velocity’s website the past week or so.

I probably have more freetime than most as children weren’t really an option for us and we’ve structured our life around a “weekend” place in the country that keeps our weekends 90% recreational. STILL, with that luxury, the idea of carving out 1000 hours for a “quick build” on top of everything else we want to do, including you know, actual flying, is a difficult proposition and I am pretty handy guy who welds, has a woodshop, renovated the house, etc. Hell, we even have a barn where I could build the damn thing but unless one is retired, time is a really precious thing.

Thing is, in theory at least, a 1000 hour build should only add $50,000 to the cost of a plane and that is paying the builder $100,000 per year. Add in some streamlining and efficiencies for multiple similtanious builds, streamlining, experience, etc. and I’m sure that time could be lowered. I’m not that familiar with all the regulations but I’m suprised a cottage industry hasn’t popped up of people who buy and build kits, certify them, and then resell them for what would/should, in theory at least, compensate them well for their time. Hell, if I could legally buy a “new”, ready to fly Velocity for $50 grand more than the build costs, I’d be all over that.

 

[Bill]

You are trying to make it practical as if the whole point was just to get from point A to point B. That’s not why we oldtimers do it. It’s the pushing and pulling and setting, wrestling with adverse yaw and p-factor and making it all look easy and graceful that gives us all that satisfaction. What’s the use if any schmoe can do,it? May as well take up oil painting.

Great point! I still love manual transmission cars. Yes, I know, in most models the automatics are now BOTH faster and more efficient, but nothing beats the feeling of a well executed shift.

Example: there's a thread here, "when should I use carb heat?" The younger folks that I'm talking about, and that we NEED to bring into GA, are instantly turned off by that. Whaa? Carb heat??? Have they never heard of thermostats? Sensor control? Servos?

There is a cost to thermostats, sensors, and servos, and I'm not talking monetary. Weight. All that stuff adds weight quickly. I don't know what new Jeep you bought, but a JL Wrangler weighs FAR more then an old CJ. Some of it is safety, some of it is expectations, (auto lane keeping, auto braking, fancy touch screen infotainment center, etc.) but the net is it weights a lot more. OK for land based vehicles, not OK for a 145hp 172.

 

[steingar]

And what will probably get me drawn and quartered, but capital has been fleeing out of the middle class and into a few hands of the wealthiest. I suspect his has more to do with the collapse of organized labor than anything else, but that'll be for the historians to decide. Still, there's no denying that money and property are more and more concentrated into the control of fewer and fewer. Fewer people with money means fewer pilots, period.

 

[Brandon Hicks]

While perhaps unpopular and the “why” may be debatable, I think the fact it is happening is pretty undeniable. I bet jet sales are at an all-time high.

 

[paflyer]

30 years ago individuals could get many of the same tax savings as corporations. eg. expense deduction for loan interest, expense if commuting more then 50mi, lower barrier for schedule C small business deduction, etc.

Only corporations get any of these tax incentives today.

Reagan-era tax reform made it instantly unfashionable to carry debt.

 

[Warmi]

I totally agree with almost everything in your post! I see the LSA thing differently though. The LSA / sport pilot thing really hasn't helped at all, and I don't think it can be fixed, or is worth fixing, here is why I think that is:

The Sport Pilot rating indeed doesn't make sense if you are starting out and can get your medical but it helped thousands of people with expired medicals get back into flying.

As far as LSAs , you are just blinded by your need for speed.
If flying for fun at 110-120 knots doesn't work for you , that's fine but you are dead wrong about LSA being "a fraction of the utility a 172 will give you" - hell, most quality LSAs give you 95% utility of what 172 gives you ( frankly, the only thing missing is 2 more seats - rarely used anyway ) and are overall much more modern planes with modern engines and avionics .. and hell , even look much better ( if that matters )
I think LSA with increased gross and certain restriction removed ( which supposedly is being worked on as we speak ) is the ticket - new , modern 200K planes ( Rotax just released 140 HP engine and is working on 200 HP ) with dozens of manufacturers competing against each other, with this new market being sort of half way between experimentals and certified planes - you get factory build planes but without the red tape.

 

[LoLPilot]

29 y/o perspective here. I like the steampunkness of GA. When carb heat, mixture, flap settings, etc were first explained to me I love it. It was evocative of pilots in leather helmets, goggles, and jackets (see the cat in my avatar), and it seemed to be a brilliant escape from the electronic modern world. I enjoy paper flight planning. I'd always run a GPS if I had the option but I enjoy having the chart and the E6B. Then again I also enjoy camping and I seek out cars that I can still get with a manual transmission and without lane departure and automatic "helpers" on it. So maybe I'm a relic trapped in a modern casing.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Is over-regulation, litigation, etc. responsible for the astronomical increase in the costs of these planes?

That’s a rather good summary. Over-regulation has killed many industries and GA is going to be one of them.

 

[Tantalum]

a fraction of the utility a 172 will give you

I mean.. speed is one thing, but by utility I mean "can it carry me and another person a few hundred miles with luggage"
*a 172 humming along at 100 knots will do that. A SkyCather will absolutely not do that, not with a useful load of less than 500 lbs.. roughly half that your typical club 172N, and well below half of any 180 conversion 172. What you can actually use an LSA for I don't quite know. It gets you in the air.. and that's fun, but outside of that it's equivalent to a typical moped and I contend that is the main reason why LSA has not seen this massive new influx of pilots and plane sales. You are still spending several times the amount of money to buy a "new" plane (vs used) that really doesn't do much. If all you are interested in doing is cruising around by yourself in the air for an hr then I think many of those people take up other "flying" hobbies like hang gliding, etc.

hell , even look much better

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Put a Symphony or SkyCatcher next to a Bonanza, Mooney, 195, etc., and I know which one will turn heads. But again, eye of the beholder. I totally get that

^^hopefully I'm wrong, and it will help more people get into aviation. But in its current state you are still spending serious cash to carry around one fat guy and gas or two skinny dudes and gas. No real utility as far as an A->B machine

29 y/o perspective here. I like the steampunkness of GA.

haha, I love Steampunk. San Diego has a cool little gallery here: http://www.devicegallery.com/current_ex.html
I really don't need fancy instruments.. my complaint about 1960s relics at most clubs isn't the fact that they're steam gauge.. in fact I think G1000 in a 172 is a bit of a travesty.. it's more that they rally show their age to the "typical person" when they go sit in one. Like someone else said above, half the time the wheel pants are missing, one of the VORs doesn't work, COMM 2 has been inoped for 5 years.. the gas gauges haven't worked since 1981, it only flies straight with a constant left pressure on the yoke and your leg on the rudder, the little plastic glove compartment box broke off sometime in 1995, etc. There was a 172D for sale in NH a few months ago that was awesome. I believe it was one owner, and in the same condition it was since new, but MAN this guy took care of it. Was really a beautiful plane, I would have kept that exactly as it is

PS, I love manual cars too and dials and knobs. But manual cars are a dying breed, and people generally want LESS buttons, not more.. I mean Apple doesn't even give you a home button any more and people can't get enough it. If we want GA to have a rebound it needs to be in sync with 2018 civilization. There's a reason only one maker is able to sell new planes outside to private owners (not schools, fleets)

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Unfortunately it has become a hobby for the wealthy. It just is not very accessible. It is the first thing to be cut when people are looking for money. Also, the more technologically advanced GA stuff is beyond expensive as well. Young people want technology, and unfortunately 1960s Cessnas with Steam gauges aren't cutting it. An example of this is a 172N at the local flight school rents for 140 bucks an hour. The 172SP with a G1000 rents for $400 an hour. A twin? $450 an hour. This is par for the course here. Completely un-accessible, and currently the reason I have not been flying for quite awhile. Not to mention the increased safety buffer of having technology to aid in situational awareness...

I think you need to define "wealthy".

 

[Rockymountain]

It is far too expensive and far too inconvenient.

The cost has outpaced inflation. When I started in 1990 you could rent a 172 for $43 dollars an hour and the instructor was $15. Today that same 172 cost $125 and hour and the instructor is $50-60. So basically the cost has tripled. While the dollar value has only about doubled in the same time frame ($1.00=$1.95).

Also at least where I am in 1990 every little airport had a fleet of small planes you could rent. Now the only places that have club or rental operations around here are in the bigger cities.

43 per hour in 1990 is 84/hr by inflation, so that is only about 50% increase in hourly rental. Still relatively expensive, but the owner renting the plane at 125/hr is not making money either.

 

[Rockymountain]

I think GA is alive and well. Hours flown, and since planes are faster now, miles flown, are tracking upward, while at the same time the safety record is improving. The airports that I often fly to seem to be thriving, where finding ramp space can sometimes be a challenge. The demographics are changing a little. If you want to use a plane for business and weather flying, sure they are not cheap, but those type of aircraft never really were. If you want to punch holes in the sky on good weather days, that kind of equipment can be had relatively cheaply.

Cost, regulation, the press's war on small planes are negative factors. Best we can do is train, fly safely, introduce others to aviation.

I have heard the price of good used planes is going up. It is getting hard to find CFI's with a hole in their schedule, and in my area, waiting times for a check ride are up to 8 weeks because the DPE's are solidly booked. DOesn't sound like decline to me. In fact for young people, may be the best time in recent history to be a pilot.

 

[Rockymountain]

There's a reason only one maker is able to sell new planes outside to private owners (not schools, fleets)

Piper, Socata and Pilatus have each been selling tens of millions of dollars in aircraft to owner pilots and their numbers are remaining solid. Even Diamonds numbers are up. Why is there just one maker out there? Just because you don't like other OEMS's?

 

[paflyer]

I think you need to define "wealthy".

"Millionaires and billionaires" start at $250K/yr gross income.

 

[Silvaire]

As far as technology goes we have the capability to create a completely autonomous personal aircraft, actually easier than a self driving car and that would be pure utility. But GA is, and always has been, largely sport/recreation and that segment at least is still lively. Travel the world and you will not find anything anywhere near as vibrant as GA is in the USA. There is nothing anywhere even close to our annual Oshkosh Airventure. Yes, it's expensive, always has been. Rental rates are only a part of that number and are affected by several factors one of them being that they don't build anything like the Cessna 150 anymore. Helicopters are hella-expensive but they're in no danger of disappearing from the skys anytime soon.

GA has gone through many downturns and slumps the first of which was in 1947 the year after hundreds of budding manufacturers had just turned out thousands of new airplanes for a boom that never materialized. But here it is, 70 years later and it hasn't gone away. It's arguably much larger than anyone probably dreamed back then.

 

[Tantalum]

Piper, Socata and Pilatus have each been selling tens of millions of dollars in aircraft to owner pilots and their numbers are remaining solid. Even Diamonds numbers are up. Why is there just one maker out there? Just because you don't like other OEMS's?

Yes.

jk

If we're talking straight $$ in sales then Gulfstream, Dassault, etc., are also selling millions of dollars in aircraft. If we're talking single engine piston GA (what most of us afford to fly and what I contend what most think of when they hear "GA") then many of the OEMs lag another maker in particular. I'm lazy to restate the numbers here, but it's all up on the 2017 GAMA report, here https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/memos/63185_GAMA_2017_Year_End_Report.pdf - the numbers look even more dire when you take out fleet sales

Even if we include the PC-12, TBM, and ALL the PA-46s sales, they sold 85, 57, and 56 respectively... hardly the sign of a thriving market (and most of those PC-12 probably didn't go to private buyers, but small charter outfits, etc.).. really by any other industry's standard those numbers are dismal. But my point was not a p!$$!ng contest between who sells more, my point is that, yes, today's buyer who is used to luxuries every where else in life that we now take for granted is unwilling to spend $150/hr (or more) to go fly a 1970s beater. Even with a G1000, that 172 for half a mil or $200/hr doesn't bring enough opportunity value to a consumer. Not my opinion, the sales figures and declining numbers of new GA pilot certificates issues yearly speak for themselves. If UND, ERAU, etc., stopped buying planes we'd keep the high end luxury turbine market (in small numbers), the EA market, some LSA, but your Piper and Cessnas would be mostly toast

 

[FloridaPilot]

I remember I worried about "The state of GA" when I first started wanting to learn how to fly. That was some 4 years ago. Since then:

#1 I got my Pilots license, (Thank you POA for all of your advice in the past).
#2 I flew in many airplanes, (Hitched a ride in a Pilatus PC-12 simply because I asked).
#3 Met some amazing people on the way.

The point is none of us really has a crystal ball. If you want to get into GA DO IT. You will enjoy it and meet some amazing people from all walks of life!

 

[Zeldman]

What'd you race?

I started on local dirt tracks in the street class, worked my way up to late models, one year ran a sprint car, one year went to the drag strips in a front motor dragster, did late models on paved tracks, drove a few races in ARCA when they ran at a nearby track, and worked for a couple NASCAR teams on the pit crew. Jack of all classes, master of none...

 

[woodchucker]

There’s been some discussion here relating manual/auto transmissions to flying.

Here is why I like manual transmissions:
1) Vehicle theft is less likely
2) Friends won’t ask to borrow your vehicle
3) Increased control
4) You are more in tune with the vehicle, which I would argue makes you a better driver overall compared with someone who’s never driven a manual
5) Less stuff to go wrong, cheaper repairs

Both my daughters learned how to drive in manual transmission vehicles. The older one has since bought her own. Point (2) above is for the younger crowd.

Call me crazy, but I think a lot of that applies to aviation. If someone is not interested in learning how to fly because of buttons and switches and procedures and stuff, I think those of us who are flying are better off for it.

 

[Tantalum]

Jack of all classes, master of none

Good stuff! When I was up flying as safety for someone a little while ago we flew over what looked like a motorcross track.. no one on it at the time but the mud looked to be in decent "fresh" shape

 

[sarangan]

It is myth that there have been major strides in technology in the last 50 years. The advances have been limited mostly to information technology. Other areas have been nearly stagnant. Transportation has remained the same - we use piston engines, fossil fuels and driving/flying times have remained the same. Sure, the cars today have more eye-candy dashboards and comfortable seats, but in many respects, it takes longer to get from A to B today than it did 50 years ago. The exception is Uber, but that is really an IT development and not a transportation thing. Health and medical care has not improved (some would say it has declined), except you can see your physician on your computer (which, again is an IT development). The jet engine was invented in 1930. The integrated circuit was invented in 1959, we landed on the moon in 1969, TCP/IP was developed in 1970, and GPS in 1970. What has happened since then? I don't consider the iPAD and the likes, Foreflight or even ADS-B as disruptive innovations. An electric airplane would be a disruptive innovation, but that seems so far out of reach despite massive R&D expenditures and false promises.

 

[hindsight2020]

materials is the only major improvements on the aerospace front. The facilitation of composite construction is where most of the weight shavings have come from, thence fuel efficiency. Beyond that, we're at a plateau, as established by the white flag we threw as a civilization when we agreed high subsonic flight is pretty much where we will be for the next 100 years.

As to recreational GA, sure, the point about stagnation is valid. But that one is because there's no market demand for said innovation. The trappings of low-volume markets. But the technological know how does exist to implement the materials efficiencies we've seen in commercial and military aviation. No buck, no Buck Rogers, per usual.

 

[zaitcev]

First, they can fly commercial for a lot less. That was not true in the 70's. It's definitely true now. Just this past week, I got offers from Delta to fly to a resort for $200-ish, round trip.
Second, commercial is more comfortable and a lot quieter. To a kid who's used to modern cars, flying inside of a typical GA cabin is unacceptably loud, and they ain't gonna wear headphones just to be able to carry on a conversation.

Precisely. And while this was going on for coast-to-coast trips, cars are crushing other modes at short haul. A trip from Albuquerque to Austin is only 13 hours, and that's on 2-lane roads. Albuquerque to Vegas is 10-11 hours realistically. Albuquerque to Denver is only 7! Flying VFR you just can't compete with this. A car's way more comfortable, safer, has better mechanical and weather reliability. My Mooney is only 2 times faster, but I only fly during the daytime. That kills the schedule, because I spend the same number of days traveling -- and then I have a car at my destination that not a puked-in rental.

The price of flying itself is not all that bad. When I flew from NY to TX, I only burned about $220 worth of gas. It's the rent that's killing me. I pay $300/month for a spot in a shared hangar. Meanwhile, my house has a built-in garage.

I actually looked at an airpark. Didn't want to deal with what passes for Internet there, and with the septic tank. Wife didn't like the house's architecture, specifically the lack of storage.

 

[Silvaire]

I guess if you're in the flatlands and following an interstate highway. It takes 3 hours to drive to Lake Tahoe from here, 40 minutes in a 172.

 

[Bill Watson]

@Tantalum that’s an excellent point re: the experimental market. As I’ve begun the “hmmmm, what would I like to own one day” phase I’m sure we all go through, I continue to gravitate back to that space and I’ve spent way too much time on Velocity’s website the past week or so.

I probably have more freetime than most as children weren’t really an option for us and we’ve structured our life around a “weekend” place in the country that keeps our weekends 90% recreational. STILL, with that luxury, the idea of carving out 1000 hours for a “quick build” on top of everything else we want to do, including you know, actual flying, is a difficult proposition and I am pretty handy guy who welds, has a woodshop, renovated the house, etc. Hell, we even have a barn where I could build the damn thing but unless one is retired, time is a really precious thing.

Thing is, in theory at least, a 1000 hour build should only add $50,000 to the cost of a plane and that is paying the builder $100,000 per year. Add in some streamlining and efficiencies for multiple similtanious builds, streamlining, experience, etc. and I’m sure that time could be lowered. I’m not that familiar with all the regulations but I’m suprised a cottage industry hasn’t popped up of people who buy and build kits, certify them, and then resell them for what would/should, in theory at least, compensate them well for their time. Hell, if I could legally buy a “new”, ready to fly Velocity for $50 grand more than the build costs, I’d be all over that.

That is a small but well established marketplace. On one hand there are many people out there more interested in the joys of building than flying. They support their hobby selling the results. Even without the builders Repairman’s certificate the new owner can do most of any maintenance work subject to an annual inspection by an IA (I think I have the details right.). On the other hand there was/is an underground of builders and buyers that try present the finished product as owner built. The FAA has been clamping down on that for reasons this builder now fully understands.

And what will probably get me drawn and quartered, but capital has been fleeing out of the middle class and into a few hands of the wealthiest. I suspect his has more to do with the collapse of organized labor than anything else, but that'll be for the historians to decide. Still, there's no denying that money and property are more and more concentrated into the control of fewer and fewer. Fewer people with money means fewer pilots, period.

Relative to GA, the white collar middle class is the thing that has shrunk precipitously. The reasons are related to the jumps in productivity that IT technology has been delivering for the past 40-50 years. Buildings full of well paid middle management bean counters and paper pushers just aren’t needed. There are people on the line doing the work required for the product or service. The people at the top move capital to the most productive opportunities. Everything in between is being automated to such a degree that precious few levels of clerks, counters and pushers are required to move the information around. That’s what has happened in my lifetime.

29 y/o perspective here. I like the steampunkness of GA. When carb heat, mixture, flap settings, etc were first explained to me I love it. It was evocative of pilots in leather helmets, goggles, and jackets (see the cat in my avatar), and it seemed to be a brilliant escape from the electronic modern world. I enjoy paper flight planning. I'd always run a GPS if I had the option but I enjoy having the chart and the E6B. Then again I also enjoy camping and I seek out cars that I can still get with a manual transmission and without lane departure and automatic "helpers" on it. So maybe I'm a relic trapped in a modern casing.

Absolutely not! That’s why I’ve been infatuated with making 200 mile flights without an engine, or purposely handicapping myself by flying a tail wheel aircraft. I treasure my skills at flying cross country using pilotage. Now I marvel at what this homemade machine I built can do... it was particularly enjoyable when I had synthetic vision in my cockpit when most airliners didn’t. Or for the short period when I had NEXRAD imagery aboard that let me fly around a line of storms (in a Maule!) when the high priced spread could only sit in a hold.

That’s a rather good summary. Over-regulation has killed many industries and GA is going to be one of them.

Under regulation would have already killed GA. It’s all about striking the right balance and aviation has some very special challenges.

But what about litigation and the need for regulatory fences around it? That has a more destructive influence on ga than the FAA.

It is myth that there have been major strides in technology in the last 50 years. The advances have been limited mostly to information technology. Other areas have been nearly stagnant. Transportation has remained the same - we use piston engines, fossil fuels and driving/flying times have remained the same. Sure, the cars today have more eye-candy dashboards and comfortable seats, but in many respects, it takes longer to get from A to B today than it did 50 years ago. The exception is Uber, but that is really an IT development and not a transportation thing. Health and medical care has not improved (some would say it has declined), except you can see your physician on your computer (which, again is an IT development). The jet engine was invented in 1930. The integrated circuit was invented in 1959, we landed on the moon in 1969, TCP/IP was developed in 1970, and GPS in 1970. What has happened since then? I don't consider the iPAD and the likes, Foreflight or even ADS-B as disruptive innovations. An electric airplane would be a disruptive innovation, but that seems so far out of reach despite massive R&D expenditures and false promises.

Not sure why you dismiss IT. The fact that I built an aircraft in 2006-11 that 1 minute after takeoff can be flown almost 1,000 miles, in the clouds, and be brought down to within 200’ of most runways, accurately and precisely without my hands touching the stick is what has happened. Yes there’s some button pushing and throttle work but the main challenge is not going to sleep between radio calls. How’s that self driving car coming?

Electric airplanes have some challenges but the fact that electric model airplanes out perform their older gas powered brethren show the possibilities. They are coming but I don’t know if we’ll want them.

materials is the only major improvements on the aerospace front. The facilitation of composite construction is where most of the weight shavings have come from, thence fuel efficiency. Beyond that, we're at a plateau, as established by the white flag we threw as a civilization when we agreed high subsonic flight is pretty much where we will be for the next 100 years.

As to recreational GA, sure, the point about stagnation is valid. But that one is because there's no market demand for said innovation. The trappings of low-volume markets. But the technological know how does exist to implement the materials efficiencies we've seen in commercial and military aviation. No buck, no Buck Rogers, per usual.

Those material innovations have come down to GA but perhaps not where you are looking to see them. Though aluminum monocoque construction has been around and matured since before WWII but CNC technology is what has allowed Vans to go from modest beginnings to having over 10,000 amateur built aircraft finished and flying.

The finest airframes I will ever pilot incorporated the very lightest and strongest composites; they were high performance sailplanes starting back in the late 60s. What many miss about the advantages of composites is the ability to manufacture working examples of the very best airfoils and low drag airframes that computers can design. The build quality, efficiency and performance of these aircraft is breathtaking.

We.could do more with fly by wire in GA but who wants that right now?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[hindsight2020]

7 hours is no picnic. I can do it in 2.5 block hours in the Arrow with a headwind. I'm also rested while the AP does the flying whereas I'm beat after pushing through traffic that long in a car.

 

[jmp470]

When I owned a plane, many would ask me about it. Several of my friends took lessons of some sort, but, in the end they all moved on, including myself. We are late 30’s and early 40’s. For us, it was the inconvenience of flying. For me owning only happen because it was a Cirrus and state of the art at the time. And I truly enjoyed my ownership experience.

What I mean by inconvenience is, the time commitment to it. Airports are not very welcoming today. From the fence, to having to be screened for this and that, etc. it’s almost impossible to just get in your plane and go. Whereas, an RV and a boat you can.

What my friends and I are looking at now are either helicopters or gyrocopters. Leaning towards the gyrocopters. Are they practical. No, but, they allow you to fly for the sake of flying.

Two types of flying for my group. To get somewhere ( go airlines) or for fun. And really fixed wing certified planes are not that much fun. Whereas, utility category, light acrobatic plans, helicopters, gyrocopters or STOL are.

Unless you have big money, forget trying to compete with the airlines.

 

[Bill Watson]

Precisely. And while this was going on for coast-to-coast trips, cars are crushing other modes at short haul. A trip from Albuquerque to Austin is only 13 hours, and that's on 2-lane roads. Albuquerque to Vegas is 10-11 hours realistically. Albuquerque to Denver is only 7! Flying VFR you just can't compete with this. A car's way more comfortable, safer, has better mechanical and weather reliability. My Mooney is only 2 times faster, but I only fly during the daytime. That kills the schedule, because I spend the same number of days traveling -- and then I have a car at my destination that not a puked-in rental.

The price of flying itself is not all that bad. When I flew from NY to TX, I only burned about $220 worth of gas. It's the rent that's killing me. I pay $300/month for a spot in a shared hangar. Meanwhile, my house has a built-in garage.

I actually looked at an airpark. Didn't want to deal with what passes for Internet there, and with the septic tank. Wife didn't like the house's architecture, specifically the lack of storage.

You kind of have to want to do it.

10 to 13 hours behind the wheel fighting drowsiness? Visiting truck stops at 1am to watch the tweekers? Flying VFR to try and get somewhere on your schedule?

I may never spend even 3 hours behind the wheel ever again. The airlines are the way to go for coast to coast or international trips but are far less comfortable than my little plane unless I’m flying in front of coach.

And how do go fly fishing in the outer islands of the Bahamas using a car or commercial airlines? I go down to FL, spend the night slowing down and stocking up on all the stuff that cost an arm and a leg on an island. Then wake up when we feel like it, feed Customs and Border Control the necessary forms from my iPad, and fly to the island of our choice to start stalking the Bones rowing our inflatable or snorkeling with our own gear. Steaks from Whole Foods and my favorite Single Malt at night under the clouds of the Milky Way. Didn’t stand in a line or wait for anything the whole trip down. You have to want the benefits.

When we looked at our Airpark the only house on the runway was one I was ready to buy but was told only over my wife’s cold and dead body. I found a lot that wasn’t on the market but got it for a song nonetheless and built the little house of our dreams besides the giant hangar of my dream. The lot didn’t have cable or internet so I paid 1,500 for the cable company to add the drop so I could work from home and build my plane. The owner of the airstrip had died before we got there and the family was fighting over the estate so we took an informed chance and paid a discount. It’s in better shape than ever and I pay an obscenely small fee for access to the strip. My monthly nut for everything is less than the nut for our first NJ home in the 80s. It’s all about location. You have to want it.

Not aimed at any particular poster here but one can either ***** and moan or try and go make it happen. You have to want to do it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[cowman]

When I owned a plane, many would ask me about it. Several of my friends took lessons of some sort, but, in the end they all moved on, including myself. We are late 30’s and early 40’s. For us, it was the inconvenience of flying. For me owning only happen because it was a Cirrus and state of the art at the time. And I truly enjoyed my ownership experience.

What I mean by inconvenience is, the time commitment to it. Airports are not very welcoming today. From the fence, to having to be screened for this and that, etc. it’s almost impossible to just get in your plane and go. Whereas, an RV and a boat you can.

Screening? At a GA FBO? The most I've ever had to do is walk into the FBO and tell them I need to get to my plane so they'll push the button to unlock the doors. But I will concede there are a lot of other factors like weather delays, all the various stuff we have to keep up to date, etc that can make make it a PITA at times. Maybe that's the problem, maybe back in the golden days they really believed the promise of fast personal travel... or maybe their other options were so much worse then that it was all worth it.

I will say it has to be something you genuinely enjoy because if it wasn't it would be a horrible experience.

 

[steingar]

I've done car trips in place of the airplane, and I think the price is actually a wash. If you only think about the gas, the airplane looses. But in a car it takes so long that you usually need meals and often a hotel that you wouldn't with the aircraft.

Of course, if you factor in the fixed costs the airplane looses, big time.

 

[ircphoenix]

I have ignored all of the replies in order to answer this question. I'm sure the other answers have been largely the same.

It is in decline because it is friggin' expensive.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It is in decline because it is friggin' expensive.

Exactly. And that is due to over-regulation, which always slows progress and drives up costs.

 

[chartbundle]

Precisely. And while this was going on for coast-to-coast trips, cars are crushing other modes at short haul. A trip from Albuquerque to Austin is only 13 hours, and that's on 2-lane roads. Albuquerque to Vegas is 10-11 hours realistically. Albuquerque to Denver is only 7! Flying VFR you just can't compete with this. A car's way more comfortable, safer, has better mechanical and weather reliability. My Mooney is only 2 times faster, but I only fly during the daytime. That kills the schedule, because I spend the same number of days traveling -- and then I have a car at my destination that not a puked-in rental.

I think you need a faster Mooney. My drive to Seattle ended up being 8 hours due to traffic for what would have been a 1.5 hour flight if the plane wasn't in the shop.

 

[USAF JD]

It's not just GA. Motorcycles are also on the decline. A lot of younger folks just can't accept ANY risk with hobbies. Fortnight is pretty safe....besides the brain melting.

 

[Pascal Forget]

It's not just GA. Motorcycles are also on the decline. A lot of younger folks just can't accept ANY risk with hobbies. Fortnight is pretty safe....besides the brain melting.

True. And kids are playing with their ipads these days, unlike 40 years ago when they would be making kites and radio controlled airplanes and other manual arts and crafts. They now have the attention span of brocoli.

 

[simtech]

Sooo... what it really seems like its boiling down to is we want to be lazy and let the plane do everything while we sit back and look cool And not to mention we want all this for cheaper than a average priced car. So really the new peeps just want to be passengers and not pilots.

Look I'm not from back in the old days, I'm 40 and started flying in 2012. Aviation is as expensive as you make it, you can fly for under $10k or you can complain how much that new cirrus cost and say it aint for me. Whatever, I drive an old truck that gets me from point A to B so I can fly an airplane that is even older for fun and to get from A to B. The problem today is people place priorities on needless items. Do I need my car to adjust for my lazy lane keeping?? Heck no my 2004 Z71 makes me work to keep it going. Automation is fine and dandy and I'm into it just as much as the next person. But I want to fly because its what I want to do and ill gladly pull, push, wrestle, think about emergencies, and all that good stuff any day of the week. Its all priorities, if you want to fly you can make it happen. For me GA is going fine and suits me and no Im not rich!