Reovery in Aviation Activity

[martymayes]

It does not have to be this way. Just the other day I was speaking with a young man. He told me he has a friend who is a CFI. This friend of his offered him a PP ticket for under 2 grand. I had to explain to this young man that if he passed this up he would regret it the rest of his life. I told him that most will ask 7-10 grand for this ticket.

My point, if aviators would help other aviators like this young man's friend, all of aviation would benefit. There are those in this world who will help you and not break the bank. But they are few and far between. But it does not have to be this way.

If a CFI is offering someone a PP certificate for under $2k, that simply means CFI is subsidizing the other $5-8k out of his own pocket. Not many CFI's can afford to be that generous.

So I'll make a deal with you Tony - You purchase a training airplane, Cessna 150 or equivalent. Rent it at the rate of $40/hr. Use the income generated from rental to maintain the plane, i.e. pay fixed and d.o. cost. If it comes up short you'll have to make up the difference from your own pocket or take up a collection from other aviators (I hear gofundme works good for that). I'll provide all the flight / ground training on a pro bono basis. Using the $2k number as total cost, $40/hr would be just enough for the 40 hr minimum aeronautical experience required by the regs with some leftover $$$ for computer testing fee and examiner fee.

[martymayes]

Very true. Tell the new guy he's going to spend $6-10K getting his license, THEN he'll have to pay well upwards of $100 per hour to rent a 1970s vintage plane that will get him places a little faster than driving for several times the cost, and he can't fly in anything but good weather unless he doubles his investment. Or he can buy an old plane and spend thousands per year keeping it flying and keeping it in a hangar. It's no wonder that experimentals are the only segment of the market that are really doing well. But, most new pilots are not keen on homebuilts... and for valid reasons.

You might be overthinking it Dale. I never gave a minute's thought as to what I would do once I got a PP certificate and had no utility purpose for doing it (after 4-5 lessons I thought "Wow! I'll be able to take someone for a ride!"). To me flying the airplane was like a hit of synthetic opiate. I slaved all week at my $4 hr job so I could go to the airport on the weekend and "get high." I had no idea whatsoever that people built airplanes in their garage; that alone would have suckered me in. Curiosity to understand how this machine worked and how to operate it was all the motivation I needed. Getting through the training and getting that PP cert. was as far forward as I could see, lol, typical teen.

[1600vw]

If a CFI is offering someone a PP certificate for under $2k, that simply means CFI is subsidizing the other $5-8k out of his own pocket. Not many CFI's can afford to be that generous.

So I'll make a deal with you Tony - You purchase a training airplane, Cessna 150 or equivalent. Rent it at the rate of $40/hr. Use the income generated from rental to maintain the plane, i.e. pay fixed and d.o. cost. If it comes up short you'll have to make up the difference from your own pocket or take up a collection from other aviators (I hear gofundme works good for that). I'll provide all the flight / ground training on a pro bono basis. Using the $2k number as total cost, $40/hr would be just enough for the 40 hr minimum aeronautical experience required by the regs with some leftover $$$ for computer testing fee and examiner fee.

I know a CFI doing this now at a little less then what you posted. He charges around 80 bucks an hr. That is airplane and his time or hobbs time. 40 bucks for 30 mins. He is as local as I can find who does this or charges these rates. Its a 4 hr drive for me round trip. By air about 45 mins each way dependent on weather. In the time I have known this CFI he has purchased two airplanes for training. One of his airplanes he sold to a student and a very good friend of mine. He then bought another. He is also an A&P IA. He is always busy as is his airport. He is the FBO for this airfield or airport.

But I do thank you for the offer. If you asked this man if aviation is thriving he would say yes. More work then he can keep up with. If I lived closer this old man would be working and hanging at his place, like a little kid. I needed some engine work done and drove some parts to this man at another airfield were he was performing an Condition inspection on a Piper J3 Cub look-a-like. I asked him what do you charge for these Condition Inspections. He said 150 bucks and I drive to you. They do not come any better then this. But he is getting up in years and not sure how long this man will be doing this. Old school is what he is and how the old school folks treat each other. Not like what you find today. But don't get me started on that.

Tony

[martymayes]

But I do thank you for the offer.

So is that a yes or no??

[1600vw]

So is that a yes or no??

You are in Clarklake Mi. Are you going to move? The 4 hr drive is tough that would be impossible to pull off. But offer the rates I mention to your locals maybe aviation would turn around if more did this.

[choppergirl]

Am I the only one who thinks a PP should cost $20 or less... to print out a laminated card, and be done with it?


Take a written test or two online, pass it, and pass a few essential flight simulator check rides maybe (the kind you sit in and it moves around perhaps), and you are good to go.

I watch the King Aviation Video Courses to become an A&P mechanic "just for the hell of it", and the government tests they show in the videos looks just like a test set up with some old version of dBase or something...

I am not going to, nor ever will pay $XXXX for an instructor, or that amount of gasoline, just to demonstrate I can fly around. It's just absolutely ludicrous. Maybe if you wanted a commercial license to fly a big old bus in the sky loaded with passengers... sure... but a little GA plane... pfft.

What next, a license just to go fishing? To fly a toy drone? To walk across a street? To drive a car? To take your kid hunting? To set up a Lemonaide stand in your front yard?

I got some license I'm running off here on my lasar printer to breathe air. Get yours now, before the introductory price runs out.

[DaleB]

I'm completely serious when I say this, and it's meant with absolutely no disrespect. You, Choppergirl, are the reason we have ultralights and powered parachutes and that sort of thing. Go forth and fly, and have fun. You don't need a license or a lot of expensive training, and that's perfectly fine.

I will share my experience, just to put it in perspective. I started flying RC models with my father when I was 8 or 9 years old. He was an engineer; most of what we flew, he designed and we built from scratch. I was very familiar with the principles of flight, CG, all that fun stuff. I played around with a couple of flight simulators, but it was before you had the systems we have now. I certainly knew how mechanical things worked, including a lot of aircraft systems. Heck, I taught my CFIs a bit while they were teaching me to fly (like why radio interference from distant airports is much worse some days than others, for example).

Regardless of what I knew, if I'd chosen to "learn" to fly the same way I "learned" to ride a motorcycle... hop on and try not to kill yourself... I don't think it would have ended well. A person who did that could very well be, and many would be, a serious deadly threat to everyone flying and a lot of people on the ground. Especially during that awkward, "Despite what I thought before I got in, I have no clue how the hell to fly this thing" phase during which we have the benefit of a CFI in the right seat. And I'm sure the airborne bus drivers whose path I know how to stay out of with my little bug smasher probably appreciate the fact that there were at least a few little hoops I had to jump through before getting up into jousting territory.

I've seen a video or two of yours, I think. It's appropriate that you don't need a license to fly whet you do, where you do, the way you do. It's equally appropriate that I am required to do a lot more training and certification to fly what I do, where I do, the way I do. And more so for those bus drivers, too.

[rwanttaja]

From what I have seen in the younger generation they can not keep their eye's off a tablet of some sort. There are a lot of older folks who are in the same boat. They can not even put these devices down to, drive, use the bathroom, eat, or sleep. So if you do not offer something in the forum of a app for a tablet good luck getting this generation to even notice.

Well...I really don't think modern folks are that different.

Fifty years ago, our parents complained bitterly on how many hours we spent in front of that damn television. There were huge studies on the effect of TV viewing on our intellectual growth, and predictions that the next generation were just going to be a bunch of couch potatoes. And note this was a family activity to a great extent; a lot of families built their evenings around what was on the TV.

The smart phone and tablet is no different as a distraction.

So, why has GA tapered off?

1. Lack of utility for most people. With modern automobiles and highways, the private light aircraft is not that good of an alternative. It took me about 140 minutes from my front door (Auburn, WA) to my In-Law's house in Vancouver, WA. My Stinson would make the flight in about 90 minutes. But...it took another 15 minutes to drive to the airport, another fifteen to preflight and load the airplane. Then fifteen minutes to unload the plane in Vancouver and drive to the in-law's house.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, light aircraft became popular in the '30s because even Cubs were a good alternative to driving on two-lane gravel roads for any distance. Today, though, unless one really starts spending the money, the average lightplane can't match the comfort, quiet, baggage capacity, and convenience of even a basic car.

2. High ownership costs. I own a cheap airplane, I do almost all my own maintenance, I carry just liability insurance, and my plane uses just five gallons of autogas an hour.

Yet my yearly ownership costs are about HALF THE VALUE OF THE AIRPLANE.

Sure, folks can manage it cheaper. They can rent tiedowns instead of hangars, or go to a remote airport to run the costs down quite a bit (though the utility goes further out the wazoo due to the long drive to the airport).

But even so, the other factors will rise and bite. The majority of owners can't maintain their own airplanes, so while they might find cheaper hangars/tiedowns, their mechanical expenses rise quite a bit.

And yes, folks, I know that there are some of you out there who live in the country and get by really cheaply. The point is, MOST of the potential new aircraft owners are urbanites who have the sort of salaries needed to allow them to buy $50,000 airplanes. They aren't going to be living anywhere with cheap hangarage.

3. Risks. Yes, the media distorts GA accidents. But the fatality rate for driving is less than a tenth of that of GA. The fact is, the smallest mechanical problem can cause an accident. Think about how much you trained for engine failures during your pilot training. How much does attention does this get in driver's ed? None, because it's almost literally a non-event.

4. Difficulty to Operate. We all know the physical flying itself is pretty easy. But the rules are complex, the airspace is complex, and the physics involved scare people off. Just the radio work alone scares off some folks.

The fact is, most of us in EAA own airplanes because we like flying airplanes. An ultralight will satisfy many of us, but if you want something to carry the family you have to dig a bit deeper. Some of us do use them for transportation, but as was mentioned by an earlier poster, if you want to rely on them for travel, you need to buy more expensive airplanes and get more complex ratings.

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Well...I really don't think modern folks are that different.

Fifty years ago, our parents complained bitterly on how many hours we spent in front of that damn television. There were huge studies on the effect of TV viewing on our intellectual growth, and predictions that the next generation were just going to be a bunch of couch potatoes. And note this was a family activity to a great extent; a lot of families built their evenings around what was on the TV.

The smart phone and tablet is no different as a distraction.

So, why has GA tapered off?

1. Lack of utility for most people. With modern automobiles and highways, the private light aircraft is not that good of an alternative. It took me about 140 minutes from my front door (Auburn, WA) to my In-Law's house in Vancouver, WA. My Stinson would make the flight in about 90 minutes. But...it took another 15 minutes to drive to the airport, another fifteen to preflight and load the airplane. Then fifteen minutes to unload the plane in Vancouver and drive to the in-law's house.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, light aircraft became popular in the '30s because even Cubs were a good alternative to driving on two-lane gravel roads for any distance. Today, though, unless one really starts spending the money, the average lightplane can't match the comfort, quiet, baggage capacity, and convenience of even a basic car.

2. High ownership costs. I own a cheap airplane, I do almost all my own maintenance, I carry just liability insurance, and my plane uses just five gallons of autogas an hour.

Yet my yearly ownership costs are about HALF THE VALUE OF THE AIRPLANE.

Sure, folks can manage it cheaper. They can rent tiedowns instead of hangars, or go to a remote airport to run the costs down quite a bit (though the utility goes further out the wazoo due to the long drive to the airport).

But even so, the other factors will rise and bite. The majority of owners can't maintain their own airplanes, so while they might find cheaper hangars/tiedowns, their mechanical expenses rise quite a bit.

And yes, folks, I know that there are some of you out there who live in the country and get by really cheaply. The point is, MOST of the potential new aircraft owners are urbanites who have the sort of salaries needed to allow them to buy $50,000 airplanes. They aren't going to be living anywhere with cheap hangarage.

3. Risks. Yes, the media distorts GA accidents. But the fatality rate for driving is less than a tenth of that of GA. The fact is, the smallest mechanical problem can cause an accident. Think about how much you trained for engine failures during your pilot training. How much does attention does this get in driver's ed? None, because it's almost literally a non-event.

4. Difficulty to Operate. We all know the physical flying itself is pretty easy. But the rules are complex, the airspace is complex, and the physics involved scare people off. Just the radio work alone scares off some folks.

The fact is, most of us in EAA own airplanes because we like flying airplanes. An ultralight will satisfy many of us, but if you want something to carry the family you have to dig a bit deeper. Some of us do use them for transportation, but as was mentioned by an earlier poster, if you want to rely on them for travel, you need to buy more expensive airplanes and get more complex ratings.

Ron Wanttaja

The problem our tv's were at home. You did not carry them in your pocket. Its 100 times worse today then what our parents dealt with. How many people 50 years ago was hit by a car while watching tv in their living rooms? But today people can not get their head out of their tablet even long enough to walk on a sidewalk. You really can not compare the two for the TV was not mobile. A television really can not be compared to a tablet just for this reason. The tablet is mobile and people just will not put them down, and our parents were right. If we would have used the television like people today use a tablet nothing would have got done for we all would never have left the house.

Tony

[rwanttaja]

The problem our tv's were at home. You did not carry them in your pocket. Its 100 times worse today then what our parents dealt with. How many people 50 years ago was hit by a car while watching tv in their living rooms? But today people can not get their head out of their tablet even long enough to walk on a sidewalk. You really can not compare the two for the TV was not mobile. A television really can not be compared to a tablet just for this reason. The tablet is mobile and people just will not put them down, and our parents were right. If we would have used the television like people today use a tablet nothing would have got done for we all would never have left the house.

Certainly, the modern obsessions with microdevices has ramifications beyond what TV addiction had 50 years ago.

However, I do not think the situation is worse in regards to an alternative to aviation. I don't think aviation has lost adherents due to the siren beep of the smart phone, any more than TV addiction affected student starts in the '60s.

It's just another cost issue. For $250 and a pair of rabbit ears, a new Philco in the '60s was still way cheaper than owning an airplane. For the same equivalent value, someone today can buy an iPhone and a year of service. STILL way cheaper than owning an airplane.

Ron Wanttaja