Reovery in Aviation Activity

[Bill Greenwood]

What do people see in aviation related activity these days?
Has the recovery in most economic conditions carried over to gen aviation?
I am seeing quite a bit of corp jet and business flying, but not sure about light gen aviation.
Attendance at SUN N Fun in a few months will be one indicator.

[1600vw]

I wonder if the lack of responses to this thread has in indication as to the answer you are looking for?

Tony

[L16 Pilot]

I can't speak for others but our little airport owned by the flying club has probably tripled in membership size during the past few years. Where we had maybe 10 active members we now have around 35 and it's a place to fly into on Saturday morning for coffee and conversation. A few of us are there most of the time and being retired it's a place to hang out, work on the planes and even doing a little flying. Of course (and here's the kicker) most of us are well over 50-60 years old. What that does for the future it's hard to say. On the other hand I often visit a large community airport when I'm wintering in another state and see very little activity. Not to mention the airport up the road where the gate is locked and basically everyone is too busy to visit with a stranger. Here's what I think it gets into: a vested interest in your airport, a social place for pilots (and those who might be interested in flying) to hang out with a coffee pot, free water, drinks (so what if it cost the local club a few bucks over the long run) and good leadership. In addition, we all kicked in $500-1000 bucks this year and built a new club house. Politics aside this was all done without a dime from the government.

[Bill Greenwood]

Our local airport was super busy yesterday, as matter of fact there was no more parking, many corp and time charter jets so that planes were even waiting on the deice pad off the side of taxiway which was not needed with warm day.
Pres week is of course a busy time, more than normal.
Recntly had the x games which had tens of thousnads of vistiors but of course most were driving not flying in.
We dont have nearly as much light private gen av planes, but did see some.

[martymayes]

The FAA GA and Part 135 survey is currently underway. Once again, they didn't invite me to participate :(
The current FAA forecast shows GA will return to 2006 activity levels sometime around 2030. Maybe this yrs survey numbers will move that up a couple yrs?

[L16 Pilot]

I know one thing for sure the (bigger) airport up the road isn't as busy with flight training as it was when I was working on my license almost 40 years ago. They had probably 4 152's, couple of 172's and a 182 along with a 310 and you had to schedule your time or the plane wasn't available. Not so nowadays. Probably biggest reason is cost especially if you own. Hangar space costs of $250 and up is enough to drive the average owner to a smaller airport. I'd say we get at least an inquiry a week wondering if we have any hangar space available.

[Bill Berson]

I was sitting by the window through the full 8 hour I.A. Renewal at Boeing Field in Seattle. Of the 203 single engines based, I only saw two flying.
About 30 corporate jets arrived or departed.
One speakers talk was about ADS-B. After the talk one commenter said most of the underused derelicts at the field will be scrapped, rather than be upgraded with ADS-B in 2020.

[saber25]

I found this analysis interesting and you can draw your own conclusion.

ICAT REPORT SHETTY.pdf FAA statistics on pilots and planes.pdf

From my observation of and involvement in GA for nearly fifty years, it will take something short of a miracle to keep this sector dynamic. Right now it appears to be on life support and the FAA forecasts have always been far too optimistic. I don't even see kids flying at the RC field co-located at my airfield. Just a bunch of old butts flying their models with no young blood to carry on.

Unless the individual decides to make a career out of aviation, there are simply too many other activities that are less expensive and require less involvement than being a private pilot and perhaps aircraft ownership. For me to afford this hobby and lifestyle, I built my airplane and bring the cost of ownership to a reasonable level since I also do my own inspections and maintenance on an RV4 and a Pitts. I do my best to keep the yearly hours flown above average by exercising both planes weekly. :)

[L16 Pilot]

Agreed with the above. I see lots of folks who start flying and then realize the actual costs and lack of utility when is comes right down to it and drop out. Even renting at $100+ per hour doesn't take long to run up a pretty big bill and if one intends to fly say 25 hours a year that money could be spent for the family elsewhere. I'm lucky as I fly a cheap plane (Champ), can do a lot of my own maintenance (have an understanding IA) and own my hangar on a club owned grass strip but many people are not in those circumstances. It just seems that many are priced out.

[nrpetersen]

The FAA GA and Part 135 survey is currently underway. Once again, they didn't invite me to participate :(
The current FAA forecast shows GA will return to 2006 activity levels sometime around 2030. Maybe this yrs survey numbers will move that up a couple yrs?Log-Log and Semi-Log graph paper is dangerous stuff to put in the hands of long range planners without an engineering or math degree:rollseyes:.....

[DaleB]

It just seems that many are priced out.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.

I think at least some of it is lagging outreach & education. Most non-pilots I talk to are unaware that they can just show up at the local airport and hang out, watch the planes and ask questions. The ones that do show up to let their kids watch the planes often act like they expect to be chased off by the cops. My non-flying friends are very surprised to hear that I can drive to the airport, go through the gate, pull my own plane out of the hangar, take off, fly somewhere (with a - gasp - FULL BOTTLE OF LIQUID if I want to), land, and not have to get permission, pay a fee, fill out paperwork in advance, file a flight plan or even talk to ATC. They're used to watching every move and word around the the TSA/Big Brother airport experience and are surprised to learn that it's not like that if you are not self loading cargo in a passenger terminal. It's hard to get people interested in something that they view as unapproachable.

[Bill Greenwood]

This has kind of gone away from what I was trying to ask, so I think Ill start another topic and try to make it more specifir to recent experience. Of course all replies are welcome.

[saber25]

To be succinct, at the non towered airport I'm based at, the flying tempo has not increased! Most of the non towered GA airfields I stop at show something similar or a decline. We don't have a impenetrable fence surround our field and people can more or less show up and look around. With my hangar door wide open and two neat homebuilts up front and center, I don't get many visitors inquiring about them. A lethargy of inquisitiveness I'm afraid. Maybe it's a generational thing.

[Gil]

Last year was incredibly busy at the FBO where I work as an instructor. I am part time, but I managed more than 300 hours of dual and turned out more than a couple of new pilots. This year the weather kept us slow in January, but with some better wx and more daylight, February has really picked up. We are considering buying another trainer and possibly adding another CFI.

[DaleB]

More on topic, I suppose: I have noticed a definite uptick in small GA activity at our airport. The FBO and flight school is under new ownership and had a complete overhaul. All new everything. Offices, self serve pumps, even the tired old Cherokee trainers have been replaced with Luscombe 11Es. The new owners are doing a lot to bring in business, and it's definitely showing.

The new FBO and increased activity are related, I'm sure. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg.

[bigdog]

The FAA GA and Part 135 survey is currently underway. Once again, they didn't invite me to participate :(
The current FAA forecast shows GA will return to 2006 activity levels sometime around 2030. Maybe this yrs survey numbers will move that up a couple yrs?

I got invited and with 6 N-numbers in my name there's a good chance I will every year. 5 of them are projects and one is a Navion I fly 200+ hrs/yr. This year, and last, I got asked to report on a project aircraft. Oh well...

[martymayes]

I guess I'll put my comments in the diluted thread......
Did some takeoff's and landings today to get my 90 day recent experience up to date for single engine. Had the airport all to myself. Not much activity. I don't go to the airport on weekends so not sure how that compares.


Some collected news stories from around the country:

Recreational golfing is in decline. ~150 courses are closing per yr over the past 4 yrs. One article blamed Tiger...??
Nascar says race attendance is down 40% from the high in ~2007.
Recreational motorcycling is holding steady- HD introduces a couple models specifically targeting groups in a refining market.
Recreational boating stats are similar to motorcycling - slowly getting back to mid 2000's levels.
Bombardier says biz jet delivery was down 18% in 2016.
Recreational aviation has been in a slump, another 15 yrs to get back to yr 2000's levels of activity.

The question is - If people are not flocking to any of the above activities, what is everyone doing for recreation / hobbies these days? Sitting at home? Protesting? Just curious more than anything.......

[DaleB]

Squabbling on Facebook, judging from recent experience.

(says the guy with no Facebook account)

[1600vw]

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.

This is why I say if the EAA wants more activity on sites such as this, they need to change their way of thinking. If you look at this site, there are days that maybe two threads are active. Sometimes a few more and its the same people posting. There a hand full of us who post. But if you look at the EAA membership how many members do we have? Then lets look at the numbers for the FAA. Lets take a look at how many NEW pilots we have in the forum of drone pilots now that they must be certified or registered. But yet we can not draw new numbers into aviation.

Seeing how it's not the FAA's job to promote aviation, the promotion of aviation lies with each and every one of us in aviation today. But more so with the EAA. But the folks or powers at be at the EAA have their minds closed to these new group of people whom only look at tablets or computer screens. These people are connected to the web like no other group. But how many come here?

IMHO the EAA is dropping the ball by not having a Simulator site. Or a portion of this site where one can log in and fly with other EAA Members. from what I have read on this subject those powers at be believe these sims are nothing more then a game. They do not want people coming here to play a game. That is closed mind thinking. If you want new blood in aviation it should start with the EAA with little steps like this. How many new drone pilots do we have today registered at the FAA. But yet we cannot draw any of these new found aviation nuts into aviation. If the powers at be would look at programs like FSX as a training device and not a game and then open this up to their website, IMHO they would draw in some of these techno group who are always on-line or connected.

Now you could say I went way off topic into outfield with this talking about simulation and not aviation. But it will be this simulation that will bring new pilots into aviation. IMHO. To stand on the tarmac and say as loud as you can. WERE ARE ALL THE AVIATORS, that will get you nothing but a echo of your own voice.

When you see numbers on sites like this increase you will see an increase in the real world. Until then its us few who keep coming back that will try and hold things together. Once we are gone who knows what will happen. Hopefully someone will be there to take up the slack. But if we loose three and gain one, someday this will be done.

As too the question posted. I have been flying for under 10 years. In my area in this time I have seen 5 airfields shut down and completely removed, all in the last 3 years. They are no more. That right there says a lot.

Tony

[1600vw]

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.

I think at least some of it is lagging outreach & education. Most non-pilots I talk to are unaware that they can just show up at the local airport and hang out, watch the planes and ask questions. The ones that do show up to let their kids watch the planes often act like they expect to be chased off by the cops. My non-flying friends are very surprised to hear that I can drive to the airport, go through the gate, pull my own plane out of the hangar, take off, fly somewhere (with a - gasp - FULL BOTTLE OF LIQUID if I want to), land, and not have to get permission, pay a fee, fill out paperwork in advance, file a flight plan or even talk to ATC. They're used to watching every move and word around the the TSA/Big Brother airport experience and are surprised to learn that it's not like that if you are not self loading cargo in a passenger terminal. It's hard to get people interested in something that they view as unapproachable.


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.

Tony

[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

[martymayes]

STILL way cheaper than owning an airplane.

Which is why there needs to be more rental, flying club and other joint ownership options. If I want to rent a plane it's a lot of work. My local airport has NO rentals and probably the closest is an hrs drive. Compared that to the late '70's -- I flew often because there were rental planes everywhere. Overnight trip? No problem and no daily minimum. There were too many options to penalize people for that. Something to be said for flying a couple hrs, dropping a $200 bill on the counter and walking away.

Owning is expensive and not realistic for a lot of people but renting or clubbing open up a lot of options.

EAA is sitting on a volcano of potential growth if they would allow chapters to operate flying clubs and it's ridiculous not to acknowledge this.

[1600vw]

Which is why there needs to be more rental, flying club and other joint ownership options. If I want to rent a plane it's a lot of work. My local airport has NO rentals and probably the closest is an hrs drive. Compared that to the late '70's -- I flew often because there were rental planes everywhere. Overnight trip? No problem and no daily minimum. There were too many options to penalize people for that. Something to be said for flying a couple hrs, dropping a $200 bill on the counter and walking away.

Owning is expensive and not realistic for a lot of people but renting or clubbing open up a lot of options.

EAA is sitting on a volcano of potential growth if they would allow chapters to operate flying clubs and it's ridiculous not to acknowledge this.

There are many area's the EAA is dropping the ball. Today one needs to think outside the box to get the younger generation interested. But getting them interested is not enough. You must then hold their interest.

[L16 Pilot]

On another note: owning a boat is expensive too but unless you happen to keep it a slip you can hook it on to your pickup, haul it home and stick it in a shed if you happen to have one or your garage or cover it up outside. Plus, you can do as much maintenance as you are comfortable with doing and no annual inspection. After rebuilding several tube and fabric aircraft (usually at a loss but it keeps me busy) I've often thought about building something like an RV but the dollar outlay is out of sight.

[1600vw]

On another note: owning a boat is expensive too but unless you happen to keep it a slip you can hook it on to your pickup, haul it home and stick it in a shed if you happen to have one or your garage or cover it up outside. Plus, you can do as much maintenance as you are comfortable with doing and no annual inspection. After rebuilding several tube and fabric aircraft (usually at a loss but it keeps me busy) I've often thought about building something like an RV but the dollar outlay is out of sight.

One could argue it cost a lot to own anything. My auto cost a lot in upkeep. My Home cost a lot in upkeep. Owning anything is expensive. Its a priority thing. Very good example. Last year we had an older gent who had a J3 cub look-a-like he just purchased. I was helping this man work on this airplane. This man would not put 100 bucks into that airplane. If I mentioned something needed replaced he would take anything he could find and try to fix said whatever it was. He then spends 20 bucks and buys a boat and trailer. This boat was sitting in a tree line for over 30 years. The very first thing this man does is spend 100 bucks replacing tires and wheels. I walked away from this man and would not lift one more finger working on his airplane. He sold the airplane. I was so happy he sold the airplane and went away.

But none of this has a hill of beans to do with the recovery of aviation or the lack there of. But nice way of diverting the conversation away from the EAA dropping the ball. How does that saying go.......It's a fool who keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome....

Times are a changing. The EAA needs to change with the times.

Tony

[DaleB]

But none of this has a hill of beans to do with the recovery of aviation or the lack there of. But nice way of diverting the conversation away from the EAA dropping the ball. How does that saying go.......It's a fool who keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome....

Times are a changing. The EAA needs to change with the times.
I'm not clear on why you seem to have come to the conclusion that the decline in GA is in any way the fault of EAA. I would say that a good deal of the activity at our local airport is because of EAA and EAA members. At least one other close by is the same.

Last summer we had one event that brought a couple thousand people to our airport, and over 500 took rides on one of the Tri-Motors. Lots of publicity and lots of people seeing that airport close up for the first time. We also flew a couple hundred Young Eagles, and got their parents exposed to general aviation and EAA as well. None of that would have happened without EAA.

EAA is certainly not perfect. No organization that large will be, but the organization is shaped by the people who are willing to go out of their way and put forth the time and effort to shape it. The ones who aren't willing to invest that time and effort (and yes, money too) effectively let others set the direction. The flying club thing is an example. If you want EAA to allow chapters to operate flying clubs, all you have to do is gather enough support to get EAA to change their policy. If the current directors and management won't, replace them with people who will. If you can't get enough support to do that, then it could be argued that the organization is operating according to the wants and needs of the members (as it should).

[1600vw]

I'm not clear on why you seem to have come to the conclusion that the decline in GA is in any way the fault of EAA. I would say that a good deal of the activity at our local airport is because of EAA and EAA members. At least one other close by is the same.

Last summer we had one event that brought a couple thousand people to our airport, and over 500 took rides on one of the Tri-Motors. Lots of publicity and lots of people seeing that airport close up for the first time. We also flew a couple hundred Young Eagles, and got their parents exposed to general aviation and EAA as well. None of that would have happened without EAA.

EAA is certainly not perfect. No organization that large will be, but the organization is shaped by the people who are willing to go out of their way and put forth the time and effort to shape it. The ones who aren't willing to invest that time and effort (and yes, money too) effectively let others set the direction. The flying club thing is an example. If you want EAA to allow chapters to operate flying clubs, all you have to do is gather enough support to get EAA to change their policy. If the current directors and management won't, replace them with people who will. If you can't get enough support to do that, then it could be argued that the organization is operating according to the wants and needs of the members (as it should).

I love it when people put words in ones mouth. Not once did I say the EAA was responsible for the decline in aviation. Not once. The point I was making and what I said was the EAA could do more today to promote aviation to the younger generation. The generation we are looking at to take over activities such as this in the future when we are all gone and forgotten.

[raytoews]

Be careful what you wish for. The truth is flying a real airplane will never be a mainstream sport. It's dangerous it takes a relatively high commitment it's expensive,, well depending on how you do it.
Having said that there is always a good segment of people who have a strong desire to fly.
That group predominately does not include young people.
For the above stated reasons it attracts those of us who have made a little money, aren't bulletproof anymore.
In canada we don't seem to spend the time stressing about the declining numbers, they probably are but the biggest thing I see is the govt is much farther away.
Sure we have regulations but I don't know any Canadian pilot who can quote chapter and verse of the aim or the cars.
The other thing you can do is tear down the damn fences. I spend winters in southern California and I can tell you it is hard to get near most airports.
Our ultralight regs are less onerous than yours and many are ignored. Thanks to the last govt and lots of retirements TC has no time to pay much attention. The main thing is don't hurt an innocent. And we have OM. That has made a big difference in keeping the old birds in the air.
Stop fighting to keep the air space away from the airlines. They don't give a damn about 99% of it. The part most of us use. In exchange get the govt off your backs.
That all I have to say about that.

[Mayhemxpc]

This has been a very interesting thread. It has wandered one way and another, but I think that there has been a general theme. So here are my contributions.
1: The original thread...Where I am I think that there has been a slow but steady increase in activity. I fly out of Manassas (HEF) which is a towered airport at the edge of the SFRA. There are three or four flight schools that are all very active. The busiest one seems to be the helicopter flight school. On a good weather day, I can waste a lot of time at the hold short line waiting for permission to launch because of the traffic.
2: That said, at 59 years old, I still find that I am well below the median age of the pilots I encounter. That is a scary thought. Our EAA YE program is very active and flies several hundred kids a year. Many of them are repeat attendees, which is great as it means we are keeping the interest up. We also have a very active CAP program, with at least 50 to 60 cadets on a given evening and lots of activity. Nonetheless, aviation is a VERY expensive hobby. CAP recently asked if I was willing to fly my plane on CAP missions and what my pro-rated costs would be. I figured it out, was momentarily depressed, and then promptly made the effort to forget that number. I don't know what we can do to address that. I used to be the ops officer for an Army Flying Club. This was a great way to make flying affordable for younger soldiers (especially enlisted.) Morale Welfare and Recreation disagreed and started demanding overhead and administrative fees that shut down the activity.
3. Choppergirl. There is one thing that simulators don't do that is absolutely critical to learning about flying: The possibility of serious injury and death -- or at least breaking something VERY expensive. I used to teach CAP cadets during our national flight encampments (I just don't have the time anymore, otherwise I would still do it.) Most of the boys came to me as microsoft flight simulator aces. Their major challenge was UN-learning everything they thought they knew. Most of them were able to admit to themselves that they didn't really know how to fly about hour 4. Then learning can begin. The girls were better as they didn't come in thinking that they had to show me that they already knew how to fly.
4. Absolutely agree that we need to make airports more accessible. EAA YE programs are a great start. So many people still think that airports, flying, and even pilots are unaccessible. Here around Manassas we have several airshows or other events (including Air and Space Museum's Innovations in flight: call out to FlyingRon) that bring in LOTS of young people. HEF has an observation area open to the public with picnic benches, which is another nice start. The interest is there, but I thinks more can be done to get the information out.
5. Back to CAP: One of the ways we get and keep interest is that aircrew does not just mean pilots. Observers, scanners, and aerial photographers do not have to be pilots and most are not. However, they get to participate in flying, learn more about it, and maybe move towards becoming a pilot -- if that interests them. (And it means I have someone else to manage that @#$% Garmin MFD!)

Already an overly long post, but, to sum up: Things are getting better, but slowly. We have to reach out to the young, after all that is our future. There is no one solution, we need to figure how how to maximize the different possibilities exist to address the problem.

[1600vw]

Look at the FAA registry. There are over 100,000 new pilots in the forum of drone pilots. But you do not see any of these new pilots at EAA or very very few.

Then lets look at this cost of ownership. I was always under the impression that aviation was for the rich. I am not rich. I never had any idea about the lower end of aviation. Everyone said it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fly. This is a myth and one of the biggest killers of aviation. We have an RC club here at my field, I spoke at one of the meetings about experimental airplanes and the cost. I told this group that 60% of them had more money in their rc gear and airplanes then I have in my experimental airplane. I heard people say that I had no idea what I was saying. If one wants to fly a p-51 or a 172 or how about a 747, now those cost a lot to own and operate. But a single seat eab is not that expensive to own and operate. This is one of the biggest turn-off to aviation. The next time someone asks about the cost of aviation don't just say, its expensive. Explain like anything else there is the low cost side of things. Not all airplanes cost tens of thousand of dollars. Some don't even cost 5 thousand dollars.

But to say we have the YE program, we have Oshkosh and we have this and that. Well like the saying goes...Its the fool who keeps doing the same thing and expects different results.

IMHO we need to draw in the younger crowd or drone pilots and IMHO this could be done by offering a simulation area on the EAA website. Make it training oriented or competition oriented. You would find thousands of people visiting EAA site. If just 1% of these people became involved in aviation because of it everyone in aviation is ahead.

But to do nothing but what has been done for the past how many years. Well as the saying goes.....But please the next time speaking to newbies about aviation, don't make out like one needs to own gold to fly. It's just false info being spread. There are ways to get this cost down. Unless you are just dead set on owning and flying a P-51. That will cost you and cost you a lot.

Tony

[DaleB]

I love it when people put words in ones mouth. Not once did I say the EAA was responsible for the decline in aviation. Not once. The point I was making and what I said was the EAA could do more today to promote aviation to the younger generation. The generation we are looking at to take over activities such as this in the future when we are all gone and forgotten.Maybe I misunderstood when you said EAA is "dropping the ball". I'm not trying to argue, friend, Just asking a simple question. No need to cop an attitude.

[1600vw]

Maybe I misunderstood when you said EAA is "dropping the ball". I'm not trying to argue, friend, Just asking a simple question. No need to cop an attitude.

I copped no attitude my friend. But as the saying goes...It is the fool who believes doing the same thing will give one different results.

[DaleB]

OK, so correct me if I'm wrong... are you just objecting to the fact that EAA does not allow chapters to operate flying clubs, or is there more that you think they (more properly "we", since we're all EAA members) should be doing?

On the subject of chapters operating flying clubs, how do you think that would help? There is certainly nothing stopping a group of like minded EAA members from starting a flying club. I'm not clear on how having EAA involved in some way would help. I would think that if a chapter were to operate a flying club, membership would have to be restricted to EAA members. I don't see that benefiting non-members, and simply expanding EAA membership isn't the goal here.

[L16 Pilot]

"Then lets look at this cost of ownership. I was always under the impression that aviation was for the rich. I am not rich. I never had any idea about the lower end of aviation. Everyone said it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fly. This is a myth and one of the biggest killers of aviation. We have an RC club here at my field, I spoke at one of the meetings about experimental airplanes and the cost. I told this group that 60% of them had more money in their rc gear and airplanes then I have in my experimental airplane. I heard people say that I had no idea what I was saying. If one wants to fly a p-51 or a 172 or how about a 747, now those cost a lot to own and operate. But a single seat eab is not that expensive to own and operate. This is one of the biggest turn-off to aviation. The next time someone asks about the cost of aviation don't just say, its expensive. Explain like anything else there is the low cost side of things. Not all airplanes cost tens of thousand of dollars. Some don't even cost 5 thousand dollars."


Tony makes a good point. It depends on what you want to fly and able to afford. On a community college teachers salary (now retired) no way I could afford a Bonanza so I bought a 1966 Cherokee 140, flew it for 25 years and actually made some money when I sold it. After I retired I started rebuilding tube and fabric aircraft. I broke about even on the first one and from there on I'm not sure money wise but it's a hobby, keeps me busy and my hand in aviation even though I don't fly as much as I used to (40 hours a year would be a lot). As I posted previously I would love to build a RV but it's strictly out of my price range not to mention more of a plane than I really need. More to the point I know folks that have more in their boats and/or motorcycle collection or a time share they hardly use than I do in my Champ. My wife of 52 years says "If it keeps you busy it's worth it" :cool:. All in your perspective, I guess.

[C 172 Pilot]

Marty,
I for one can attest to not having any extra money. Let me say I'm making more money now than I ever have but the costs of gas/aircraft/maintenance are higher now than ever. No I'm not retired yet but when I do, I certainly won't have any extra income to fly with. I think it is a bigger picture issue. I know my dad didn't make this much money before he retired in 1986, yet he was able to rent aircraft, put two boys through school. Buy a boat and an RV and find time to travel 130 miles each way to a lake for RVing/fishing/gas most weekends. Yes I make more but it doesn't seem to go as far.... This I think is the biggest issue.






I guess I'll put my comments in the diluted thread......
Did some takeoff's and landings today to get my 90 day recent experience up to date for single engine. Had the airport all to myself. Not much activity. I don't go to the airport on weekends so not sure how that compares.


Some collected news stories from around the country:

Recreational golfing is in decline. ~150 courses are closing per yr over the past 4 yrs. One article blamed Tiger...??
Nascar says race attendance is down 40% from the high in ~2007.
Recreational motorcycling is holding steady- HD introduces a couple models specifically targeting groups in a refining market.
Recreational boating stats are similar to motorcycling - slowly getting back to mid 2000's levels.
Bombardier says biz jet delivery was down 18% in 2016.
Recreational aviation has been in a slump, another 15 yrs to get back to yr 2000's levels of activity.

The question is - If people are not flocking to any of the above activities, what is everyone doing for recreation / hobbies these days? Sitting at home? Protesting? Just curious more than anything.......

[martymayes]

OK, so correct me if I'm wrong... are you just objecting to the fact that EAA does not allow chapters to operate flying clubs, or is there more that you think they (more properly "we", since we're all EAA members) should be doing?

On the subject of chapters operating flying clubs, how do you think that would help? There is certainly nothing stopping a group of like minded EAA members from starting a flying club. I'm not clear on how having EAA involved in some way would help. I would think that if a chapter were to operate a flying club, membership would have to be restricted to EAA members. I don't see that benefiting non-members, and simply expanding EAA membership isn't the goal here.

A chapter I was in received a donation, a cub type airplane. The donor's wish was to have the plane used in a flying club. Since a chapter can't operate a flying club, the plane was immediately sold before anyone could formulate a plan for a flying club with EAA members, not affiliated with the chapter. The value of using EAA is that a chapter brings like minded people together better than one could do from scratch. Not everyone joins because they are building a plane. Of course, to benefit the chapter the higher the sale price of the donated plane, the better. How could the plane be sold to benefit the members wanting a club vs the members wanting to raise cash for the chapter? The third party club has to buy it at market value. That's not helping.

Here's the kicker. Several years ago, an EAA employee flying club was formed at HQ. This was going to be the model for EAA chapter flying clubs. What happened? The silence is deafening. Did it work good for HQ but we're not going forward with chapter flying clubs?

[Mark17]

Hey Marty- I'll put my 2 cents in here. I really enjoy pretty much every recreational category that you had data on and I think the answer comes down to time and money. Young people today who have the resources to fly don't have the time and those who have the time, don't have the money. I was talking to my Dad about this just the other day. He started flying in 1961 and he could rent a Beech 18 for 32 bucks an hour wet with instructor. Are you kidding!?! 32 bucks wet on a Beech 18 with the instructor!?!?! I couldn't believe that even if you factor in for today's absolutely bat sh$&& crazy inflation. He has all kinds of awesome stories about what was available to rent back in the day- brand new Mooneys, 180's on floats, T-34s you name it he flew it. Those opportunities just don't exist today or if they do the cost would be prohibitive. Bottom line is inflation, insurance requirements, incomes and job responsibilities have all worked very well to kill general aviation as we once knew it. The opportunities that used to be readily available have fallen off the planet and in many ways, this has done real damage to general aviation. I have a buddy who is a lawyer for a major international consulting firm. He's under 35, makes 200k a year. He would love to learn to fly, buy an airplane and fly to all the amazing destinations we take for granted. It's never going to happen for him though because for the income he gives up his time in nation wide travel. The demands that employers make today are way out of line in comparison to what was considered acceptable when my Dad was my age. Somewhere along the line I think we lost what was truly important as Americans. Time for our families, our selves, our passions and our communities. If you want time today, you completely sacrifice a good income and if want the money, you have no time to enjoy it. Flying takes time to master, more time to remain proficient and even more time to climb the aviation ladder. Among my friends who dream of flying, it's just too much. I love flying. Get up as much as I can. Love racing, boating, wake boarding, jet skiing and fishing. Spend as much time as I can at my cabin doing those things as well. Most young professionals my age tend to stick with one hobby that doesn't cost a lot and they really devote their extra time to it. Mountain biking, diving, paddle sports, travel and those kinds of things. Activities that don't break the bank but are really fun for them. They would love to fly but it's too time intensive and too expensive to fly an airplane that gives good performance. Sure you can go by an old 172 or something like that but to them when they look at the tech that's in their 45k dollar Audi and compare it to an ancient 172 for maybe the same money, they just don't get it. It makes zero sense. Back in the day it wasn't like that. Just the written today has many parts that don't apply to real world flying. I get in the cockpit, flight plan already filed, run my checklist program my GTN 750 and take off. I get excellent service from ATC all around the country and not once am I plotting a course on a calculating a wind triangle. A lot of what is on the test doesn't apply to the way a lot of us fly and I think if we gave students the option to select a modernized IFR track for example that might encourage more people to start and they would be safer for it. Another glimmer of hope for me is seeing experimentals like Raptor Aviation with their 130k raptor. Near stuff and if they can make it work, that would be a real game changer as well. Just some places to start.


I guess I'll put my comments in the diluted thread......
Did some takeoff's and landings today to get my 90 day recent experience up to date for single engine. Had the airport all to myself. Not much activity. I don't go to the airport on weekends so not sure how that compares.


Some collected news stories from around the country:

Recreational golfing is in decline. ~150 courses are closing per yr over the past 4 yrs. One article blamed Tiger...??
Nascar says race attendance is down 40% from the high in ~2007.
Recreational motorcycling is holding steady- HD introduces a couple models specifically targeting groups in a refining market.
Recreational boating stats are similar to motorcycling - slowly getting back to mid 2000's levels.
Bombardier says biz jet delivery was down 18% in 2016.
Recreational aviation has been in a slump, another 15 yrs to get back to yr 2000's levels of activity.

The question is - If people are not flocking to any of the above activities, what is everyone doing for recreation / hobbies these days? Sitting at home? Protesting? Just curious more than anything.......

[martymayes]

Everyone said it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fly. This is a myth and one of the biggest killers of aviation. We have an RC club here at my field. I told this group that 60% of them had more money in their rc gear and airplanes then I have in my experimental airplane.


Tony makes a good point.

And it's corollary to your point. It's not the money. There is something for everyone provided flying, owning, tinkering with airplanes is what they want to do. If somebody has made up their mind they won't fly unless the can have a Bonanza and they make $40k a yr, probably not going to happen without a lot of sacrifice.

I would say the perfect storm of events occurred in the '70's that made flying popular and we may never see that level of activity again. If that's the case, all I can say is I'm glad I got to experience that. There has certainly been a shift in cultural paradigm and today people are not that drawn to flying aircraft beyond simulations. In the virtual world you can go anywhere and do anything and never get off the couch.

[1600vw]

And it's corollary to your point. It's not the money. There is something for everyone provided flying, owning, tinkering with airplanes is what they want to do. If somebody has made up their mind they won't fly unless the can have a Bonanza and they make $40k a yr, probably not going to happen without a lot of sacrifice.

I would say the perfect storm of events occurred in the '70's that made flying popular and we may never see that level of activity again. If that's the case, all I can say is I'm glad I got to experience that. There has certainly been a shift in cultural paradigm and today people are not that drawn to flying aircraft beyond simulations. In the virtual world you can go anywhere and do anything and never get off the couch.

Marty you hit the nail right on the head. This is why simulation should come to the EAA website that we are on right now and the point I am trying to make. This new generation love simulation. If we could draw in half of those new registered drone pilots the FAA is collecting registration fee's from to this site and lets say 1% became involved in aviation because of it, aviation in a whole will benefit. But to do nothing but what has been being done for the last decade or so, we all see this is not working. But those powers to be shut out this new generation by saying simulation is nothing but a game. If they would change their way of thinking to simulation is a tool for not only training but getting new people involved in aviation, all of aviation again would benefit.

But nothing will change until the way of thinking changes. It's a shame because I believe by the time the powers at be wake up it will be to late. Until then it's the same old as we have done year after year after year. Again how does that saying go....Time to change the way we look at aviation and how we can draw in new people. With these tools we have today because of technology this should be easy, if we would just give it a chance. But nope not going to happen. Why because we do not play games on this site. But we are all about training and learning and exactly what these new simulations are about, training and learning. Not playing a game. Nothing about these flying simulators we are talking about is a game. if you treat it as such you will get bored real fast with these simulators I speak of. Use them for training and practicing and you will not get bored. Try just flying around and treat it as a game. It gets old really fast.

Tony

[martymayes]

is there any evidence to suggest a simulator game will lead to flying real airplanes? Should EAA branch off into video gaming? Have an annual gathering called SimVenture? Nah, not seeing it.

[Mark17]

I am a millennial or just outside of that. I have friends that range from 25 to 40. The one common theme throughout their interests is adventure. They seek adventure in all aspects of their lives. I can't think of anything that offers more adventure than aviation. The thing is though they demand technology, performance and value for their hard earned dollar and that's where general aviation really needs to change to attract new blood and maintain it. I mentioned the Raptor experimental that Pete Mueller is working on. If he can get that really going, I can see many of my peers being attracted to that in a big way. If I can buy a state of the art car or boat for 130k, I should be able to buy a state of the art airplane for the same. A cirrus shouldn't cost a million dollars for a single engine piston, but it does. If we can get back to reasonable and fair prices, we're going to see a huge influx in new people entering aviation. It's not that they don't want to. Everyone who looks skyward when they hear an airplane above wants to. We just have to make that dream feasible.

[Mark17]

is there any evidence to suggest a simulator game will lead to flying real airplanes? Should EAA branch off into video gaming? Have an annual gathering called SimVenture? Nah, not seeing it.

And just to add some value to sims. One of my good friends growing up loved the early versions of Microsoft flight simulator and every computer based flight simulator. He spent hours with them. He's now an IP with VFA-122 on Rhinos. So clearly it sparked an interest for him.

[1600vw]

is there any evidence to suggest a simulator game will lead to flying real airplanes? Should EAA branch off into video gaming? Have an annual gathering called SimVenture? Nah, not seeing it.

It's only a game because you treat it as a game. In other words. You get out of it what you put into it. Like I said in a earlier post. Fly one of these simulators as a game and in 5 mins you will be saying things like this is boring and I hear this all the time. But treat it as a training tool and the boredom will go away. See who can post the best numbers.

Something like this but with a flight plan everyone flies. This was my little flight plan in 2016:

Tony piloting Piper Cub ended Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 09:36
FSFlyingSchool Pro 2016 (Apr 30 2016)
Using: FSX
Visibility: 49.71 Miles Wind: 6 Knots

Aircraft: Piper ID: N8053H Airline: Flight:
Flight plan: 3IS5 TO 5LL1 Moweaqua:Hilvety NAV1:
Failure(s): None at landing
Failure Event(s) (Zulu Time): None
Failure Bonus:0% Flight Duration:00 Hours 30 Mins 29 Secs

Landing Score:95.00

Landing was successful in the following areas:

Good glideslope on visual approach. [90%]
Good alignment with runway on visual approach. [50%]
Gentle touchdown. [10 FPM]
Good landing speed - not too fast. [31 KIAS]
Wings were level.
Distance from runway threshold (visual approach): [742 feet]
Landed on runway surface.
Glideslope held until flare.
Good pitch control after touchdown.
Good pitch at landing. [8 degrees]
Heading aligned with runway.
Throttle(s) idle.
Good controlled final descent to touchdown.


Landing included the following problems:

Poor steering after landing - stay on the centre line.

Definite room for improvement...


Flight Score:90.82

Flight commended in the following areas:

Smooth turns.
Nice banking.
Comfortable G forces.
Smooth pitch control.
Flown within aircraft's maximum speed limit.
Gentle taxi turns.
Good take off steering.
Safe taxi speed.
Smooth braking during taxi.
Wings level near ground.
Well coordinated turns.
No stalls.
No flying dangerously close to stall speed.
Smooth comfortable descent rate.
Pitch not too high.
Pitch not too low.
Approach speed not too fast.
Good clearance of obstacles.


Flight included the following problems:

Late rotation - when Vr is reached - take off.
Loss of altitude during takeoff - climb smoothly.
Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed.

Definite room for improvement...

[1600vw]

Here is one more. I bet others can do better.


Harold piloting Learjet 45 ended Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:40
FSFlyingSchool Pro 2017 (December 15 2016)
Using: FSX
Visibility: 6.84 Miles Wind: 3 Knots

Aircraft: BOMBARDIER ID: JA-068X Airline: Flight:
Flight plan: KTAZ TO KSPI Springfield:Abraham Lincoln Capital NAV1: ISPI
Failure(s): None at landing
Failure Event(s) (Zulu Time): None
Failure Bonus:0% Flight Duration:00 Hours 29 Mins 48 Secs

Landing Score:114.64

Landing was successful in the following areas:

Good glideslope on ILS approach. [80%]
Good alignment with runway on ILS approach. [70%]
Gentle touchdown. [49 FPM]
Good landing speed - not too fast. [99 KIAS]
Wings were level.
Landed on runway surface.
Glideslope held until flare.
Good pitch control after touchdown.
Good pitch at landing. [12 degrees]
With flaps - good job. [40 degrees]
Heading aligned with runway.
Throttle(s) idle.
Good controlled final descent to touchdown.


Landing included the following problems:

Without spoilers armed - arm them before landing.
Poor steering after landing - stay on the centre line.

Definite room for improvement...


Flight Score:105.88

Flight commended in the following areas:

Smooth turns.
Nice banking.
Gear deployment at safe speed.
Comfortable G forces.
Smooth pitch control.
Flown within aircraft's maximum speed limit.
Gentle taxi turns.
Good take off steering.
Rotation was not late.
Safe taxi speed.
Smooth braking during taxi.
Smooth climb during takeoff.
Wings level near ground.
Well coordinated turns.
No stalls.
No flying dangerously close to stall speed.
Pitch not too high.
Pitch not too low.
Approach speed not too fast.
Good clearance of obstacles.


Flight included the following problems:

Exceeding flap speeds - your flaps may be damaged: have them checked.
Rapid descent - dangerous and uncomfortable.
Flaps not down on time - plan your landing next time.
Excessive speed at low altitude - several complaints have been filed.

Definite room for improvement...

[1600vw]

Why does this site have a simulator section, is it to just talk about simulators? That gets old just as fast as using a flying simulator as a game.

Tony

[raytoews]

It's the govt. 30 yrs ago I made a lot less money, but I got to keep most of it.
It's not a monkey on our backs, it's an elephant!

[Bill Greenwood]

The simulator flight results are interesting, but in the case of the Piper Cub, not fully accurate. Ssayingf it lands at "31knots ignores the fact that I have never seen a genuine Cub speedometer in knots, my J 3 stalls at 38 Miles per hour. But the really silly one is that this flight "excessive speed at low altitude, to the point that "Several complaints have been filed"
If a Cub went over about 90 mph it would likely be on the back of a truck.

[rwanttaja]

It's the govt. 30 yrs ago I made a lot less money, but I got to keep most of it.
It's not a monkey on our backs, it's an elephant!
30 years ago, I ended up in the 49% tax bracket due to some (fortunate) circumstances. At the time I retired, I was making about 3X what I did that happy year...and my tax bite was significantly less than that.

As a 2nd Lieutenant in the late 70s, my annual pay was X percent of a new 172. After 40 years in Aerospace, as a very senior engineer, I was STILL making that same X percent of a new 172.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

I dont knoe if taxation is really part of this topic, but just out of curiosity I looked up the facts. I dont know Canadian rates, but 30 years ago in the U S taxes were virtually the same as now, Max fed income tax in 1987 was 38.5%m dont know how Ron got 49% unless he is adding on sales or local taxes. Max U S federal rate is now 39,5%.

[rwanttaja]

I dont knoe if taxation is really part of this topic, but just out of curiosity I looked up the facts. I dont know Canadian rates, but 30 years ago in the U S taxes were virtually the same as now, Max fed income tax in 1987 was 38.5%m dont know how Ron got 49% unless he is adding on sales or local taxes. Max U S federal rate is now 39,5%.
Mine was in 1984, max federal rate was 50%.

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/69/1984
https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-History-1862-2013
http://www.wanttaja.com/1984_tax.jpg

I wrote a computer game, and my royalties that year were almost twice what my Boeing salary was. You can see the whole sordid story of my windfall at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/ifr.html

Actually can't remember if I truly paid 49% that year...remember qualifying for the bracket, but they still allowed income averaging and the five year window included two years of Lieutenant's pay.

Ron Wanttaja

[lnuss]

It's the govt. 30 yrs ago I made a lot less money, but I got to keep most of it.
It's not a monkey on our backs, it's an elephant!

In the FSim Cub, it's also in mph. But if you turn on the red "HUD" (text in upper left corner), it shows knots.

[DaleB]

Actually can't remember if I truly paid 49% that year...remember qualifying for the bracket, but they still allowed income averaging and the five year window included two years of Lieutenant's pay.
Income averaging was the best thing ever for recently separated military folks. I got out in '84 and more than doubled my salary... not hard to do, really... and income averaging saved us a whole lot of money in taxes over the next few years.

[1600vw]

30 years ago, I ended up in the 49% tax bracket due to some (fortunate) circumstances. At the time I retired, I was making about 3X what I did that happy year...and my tax bite was significantly less than that.

As a 2nd Lieutenant in the late 70s, my annual pay was X percent of a new 172. After 40 years in Aerospace, as a very senior engineer, I was STILL making that same X percent of a new 172.

Ron Wanttaja


I dont knoe if taxation is really part of this topic, but just out of curiosity I looked up the facts. I dont know Canadian rates, but 30 years ago in the U S taxes were virtually the same as now, Max fed income tax in 1987 was 38.5%m dont know how Ron got 49% unless he is adding on sales or local taxes. Max U S federal rate is now 39,5%.


Mine was in 1984, max federal rate was 50%.

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/69/1984
https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-History-1862-2013
http://www.wanttaja.com/1984_tax.jpg

I wrote a computer game, and my royalties that year were almost twice what my Boeing salary was. You can see the whole sordid story of my windfall at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/ifr.html

Actually can't remember if I truly paid 49% that year...remember qualifying for the bracket, but they still allowed income averaging and the five year window included two years of Lieutenant's pay.

Ron Wanttaja


In the FSim Cub, it's also in mph. But if you turn on the red "HUD" (text in upper left corner), it shows knots.


Income averaging was the best thing ever for recently separated military folks. I got out in '84 and more than doubled my salary... not hard to do, really... and income averaging saved us a whole lot of money in taxes over the next few years.





Please explain to me how this has a hill of beans to do with the recovery of aviation and aviation activity?

[rwanttaja]

Please explain to me how this has a hill of beans to do with the recovery of aviation and aviation activity?
1. Argument made that aviation simulation helps interest the younger persons in aviation, and thus may lead to more participation.
2. Argument made that current levels of taxation inhibit recovery by reducing the available disposable income for those who wish to fly.

Other than that, thread drift happens.

Ron "Oooo, a squirrel" Wanttaja