Help with survey for Master's thesis

Building an RV-7, while also trying to complete your Master's degree, guarantees that both will take longer than they should. In order to finish the degree, and hopefully start spending more time building, I would like to ask for your help.

As part of the final requirements for my Master of Science in Management degree at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, I am conducting research that will attempt to identify factors that have influenced the decline of the GA pilot population. It is my hope that identifying these factors will help reverse the on-going decline in the number of new pilots certified annually.

The survey should only take 5-10 minutes to complete and it will allow me to collect a portion of the data necessary for my research. In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years old, and be a FAA certified pilot or have serious interest in becoming a pilot. Please be assured that your responses will be completely anonymous.

The survey can be accessed at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TZW7DL8

Thank you for your participation and please feel free to share the survey link with others.

Done, but I think you're missing why the decline in new pilots is happening and hitting on why current pilots are flying less.

My theory has nothing to do with aviation so much as the maturity of the Interstate Highway System.

For big absolutely-have-to-be-there long range travel, commercial air is so fast, dependable and inexpensive that it wins over the Interstate.

But for mid range travel of 200 miles, the Interstate beats the GA aircraft. It's fast, works day and night in almost all but the worst weather, and is inexpensive.

If one was a kid in the 1950's or 1960's, chances are one got to see the Interstate system get built, but it wasn't ingrained into you. Mom and Dad still thought in terms of state highways and county roads. The uncle with an aircraft could always beat the car pre-Interstate. When was the highpoint of GA pilot populations? When those kids grew up and the economics grew with them, but their perception of driving was long trips on what we now think of as secondary roads.

Commercial air has made flying the opposite of sexy or fun, and the public perception of a privately owned aircraft is a Gulfstream V owned by either a corporation or some super wealthy guy. The only time average GA aircraft ever get talked about in the public sphere is when they crash.

When a GA aircraft is in a movie or a TV show, it's invariably some poorly maintained hangar queen that manages to carry our heroes to safety despite all odds....but just as likely to engine-out as an added plot twist.

I believe the 3 main factors leading to reduced flying and the reduced number of people interested or entering into an aviation career are:

#1--Cost: I took my first flight lesson with a $5 discover flying coupon and $5 earned by mowing two lawns. Additional flying lessons (rental aircraft and instructor fees) cost the equivalent of 6 lawn mowings. As a teenager, I could easily pay for one flight lesson each week with money leftover. The cost of learning to fly is unreachable by most young people. Existing pilots fly less because of the high cost. Flying a GA aircraft is rarely an economical alternative to airline travel or travel by private auto, primarily because of the high cost of avgas.

#2--Lack of a viable career path: An individual with a commercial pilots license could make money and build flying time in a variety of ways that are no longer legal today due to greatly increased FAA regulation restricting commercial operations. Once hired by an airline, the pay was great, working hours and conditions were exceptional, and you were treated as a professional, respected by all. Now, a pilot must accumulate a huge debt to qualify for an entry-level airline pilot position that pays less than the pay for pizza delivery boys. When you finally reach an adequate pay level, you're still harassed by TSA on a daily basis as an untrustworthy individual, always subjected to inspection and suspicion, and you must work for years before you can pay off your education and training loans.

#3--Lack of access and awareness: Today's youth have very limited access to airports and aviation in general. EAA and other organizations are doing great things in their youth programs, but very few kids are aware of them unless they know someone in aviation. Sky King and the Whirly Birds are not on daily TV and it's nearly impossible for kids to ride their bike to the airport and talk to pilots and mechanics or touch airplanes.

Bottom line, the cost is too great for the pitiful rewards and FAA regulations hinder aviation's growth.

+1 to Duster Pilots remarks.

I have been flying for 60 years both recreational and as an airline pilot. I also am an A&P with I.A., and in my opinion, the biggest hindrance to growth is that "wonderful" bureaucracy known as the FAA and their gestapo ways. A lot of the old time FAA guys are disgusted with how things are and I know several who are planning early retirement. As one of them said when we were talking about Field Approvals, "we used to be able to look at something and in most cases could approve something right there on the spot". Now, the FAA has a form that must be filled out requesting a Field Approval, make an appointment with an inspector. Show him what you want to do, submit all the paperwork, and then he has to research and maybe get permission from higher ups to approve it. Have you ever seen a bureaucracy that doesn't just love paperwork? There seems to be no common sense from FAA headquarters in Washington at all. And, by the way, I totally agree with Duster Pilot.

I would agree with DusterPilot on #1 and #3 but not on #2 as I don't think the average GA pilot choses to fly based on a pilot's potential commercial career. There has to be an interest in airplanes and flying as a youth when dreams are formed and may come to life later. Most older pilots built model planes as a kid and never forgot the hope that you might someday become a pilot flying a real one. But I think that desire has been reduced by a different set of youth interests more aligned with electronic games/videos rather than physically creating a model and working with your hands. Couple that with high flying costs and young people just don't have the interest or resources to learn flying.
We fly about 250 Young Eagles every year in an effort to instill a desire to fly. In 5 yrs of doing this, I know of only 2 kids who moved on to take lessons and obtain a license. Wish it were a higher ratio.
Bob H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

...

Bottom line, the cost is too great for the pitiful rewards and FAA regulations hinder aviation's growth.

---

I've been flying for over thirty years. If I were to fly today from here in Arizona to the little bitty airport in Wisconsin where I learned to fly in 1980, I can't see how FAA regulations, by themselves, have made it anymore difficult or expensive to make that flight than in 1980 in a GA aircraft. By the way, there's no fence around that airport. Its just as easy to get into today as it was 34 years ago and even looks the same with allowances for 34 years wear and tear. Its in an area with a population of 1.57 million, not out in the boonies somewhere. Subdivisions everywhere. But the number of airplanes based there is way down and the pilots have aged just as I have.

If you believe flying has "pitiful rewards," then you should take up another hobby. I'm building an experimental because I still love it and its just as much fun to fly as it always was.

Ethan,
I have been flying since 1959. I earned the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award in 2011. As a humorous way
of describing flying, I tell people that it costs exactly the same now as it did then. It still takes all the money
you have.
i have a Commercial Certificate, with Multi-Engine, Instrument and LTA Ratings.
i fly for the pure pleasure of flying, not to make money or achieve fame.

I added all of the ratings to make me a better, safer pilot. I held a CFIA for a while, but did not enjoy the
the things that got between me and the student.

My take on the future of GA is that the retired airline pilots will fly the corporate jets, the Embry Riddles and
UND's will train airline pilots and UAV operators, and anyone wanting to fly for the sheer pleasure of it as a
hobby will be faced with costs and regulations such that only the extremely wealthy or those who live many
miles away from Class B airspace and fly LSA or that type airplanes will be able to.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I think your Masters thesis should take into account all of the factors that
will become significant.

Jim Klick

I think I could only add one only needs to compare sectional charts of today and the 1970s for some graphic evidence as to how restrictive regulations have become.

Those of us who flew in the '60s really knew a lot more freedom. Freedom is a huge factor in aviation, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyhook

I think I could only add one only needs to compare sectional charts of today and the 1970s for some graphic evidence as to how restrictive regulations have become.

Those of us who flew in the '60s really knew a lot more freedom. Freedom is a huge factor in aviation, IMHO.

---

In Wisconsin, the MOAs were about the same in the 70s as today. We had the Volk and Falls East and West MOAs and the Big Bear MOA just as we do today. There is even a bombing range, the Hardwood Range, that has been around since 1955. The only other MOA is the Minnow MOA, which I never worried about since I never, with a single engine, crossed Lake Michigan. So my flight planning of a route is the same today as it was in 1980. I remember avoiding those MOAs and bombing ranges as a student pilot just as I would today. So I'm as free today as I was then.

Here in Arizona, we have a lot, lot more MOAs, but who wants to run into an A-10, F-16, AV-8B, B-1, or Tornado, etc., especially if they're weapons free. One of the plaques on the wall of a local fighter squadron says, "Every other airplane is a target." Of course, we could ground all military aircraft, if you want.

Today, the biggest reason I don't fly more for recreation is $6.00/gal avgas. Lots of cheap, readily available airplanes to choose from, insurance is cheap, maintaining/storing/access is reasonable, the regulations are occasionally onerous but not always so (with the exception of preflight duties, it's still as easy to fly today as it was in the '70's and I think I can still fly a NORDO airplane across the country without too much hassle). If silly TFR's were deleted, that would relieve 75% of the stress.

Before someone says auto fuel; (1) the plane I fly has other owners who are not interested in the the auto fuel option; (2) Auto fuel is not readily available at my home airport (i.e. there is no pump at the airport; handling fuel in jerry cans + the alcohol mandate kills the incentive); (3) The price of all fuel is squeezing my budget. Auto fuel where I live has surpassed the $4/gal threshold for the summer, so even a day of jet skiing at the lake has been cut back to 1/2 day. :(

Now, I know not much I can do about the price of fuel other than fly airplanes that have small engines. And if fuel prices were cut in half, something else would become the single biggest expense and that would be my excuse for not flying more. So for now I'll just suck it up and fly when I can. I would still choose a Fly Baby over a Honda Gold Wing for my recreation, although the choice is getting harder to sustain.

Many thanks to those of you that have completed the survey. I do understand that the survey has some shortcomings, but I have to keep the project manageable in order to complete my degree. All comments are appreciated, and some have me thinking about different ways that I can analyze the data.

Again, thanks for your help.

I think I was alluding to limitations other than MOAs- although they are in some cases more prevalent. Why you focused on just that one factor is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyhook

I think I was alluding to limitations other than MOAs- although they are in some cases more prevalent. Why you focused on just that one factor is interesting.

---

What are those limitations? I was being specific instead of indulging in vague generalities. For my kind of flying, as I mentioned, its almost as easy today as it was when I was a student except for having to check for TFRs, and even that's not hard with the Internet. Today, I usually use flight following instead of filing an IFR or VFR flight plan. I think that is even easier That may not be true for your kind of flying. To me, the chief difference in the evolution of GA is cost, specifically the cost of fuel.

Everyone can make excuses. If fuel costs were really the issue (in the US), we would have quit driving a long time ago. A very active for-pleasure pilot flies 100 hrs/year @ 8 gal/hr with the price of fuel $2/gal higher, equates to $1,600/year. I wouldn't give up flying for that ... flying allows me to do so much more than I can do driving or going commercially. The initial purchase price of a used airplane is less than most people pay for their cars/minivans/SUVs today. Something that does bother me, though, is the price of a new airplane. Why are OEMs only producing Lamborghinis when most of the airplanes being flown today are Chevy Impalas? Do we all need the glass, leather, FADECs, big engines, etc.? No one that I run around with can even dream about owning a new airplane. As an ERAU student, can you afford to buy the airplane that you are training in? Another item is that we (the pilot community) are only talking to ourselves. How can we grow if we only talk to those that are/were already flying? The Young Eagles program is a good program (for the older ones), and the new, EAA "Bald" Eagles program is even better. When is the last time we invited a friend to go flying with us? Or took another couple/person on a vacation or business trip? EAA and the pilot organizations are all getting older because we're not inviting the next generation to participate. My uncle inspired me, as I am sure this is true of most of the other people on this thread had someone introduce and encourage them. The benefits of flight are many; a main one being time ... something none of us can make more of.

In no particular order:

1. Cost. While old planes are not super expensive, new planes are a quarter to half a million dollars. So lets look at older planes. Yeah, you can buy one for about the cost of a nice new car. But now we also have to store it and feed it. The airports near my house want 700-900/month for a hangar. So my planes are parked 1.5 hours away from my house where the hangar rent is 250/mth. Now lets talk maintenance. I just paid 900 dollars for my annual on my Citabria since it needed plugs. My Pitts last annual was 2400 dollars. So paid 3300 dollars just to having flying planes and another 3000 to hangar them. So 6300 dollars without making a SINGLE flight. And I have a minor issue with my Citabria. I am going to have to pay a mechanic 75/hr to fix it when I could fix it in about an hour by myself.... But that's not legal, so 75/hr to fix a minor issue.

Flight training costs. When I learned to fly the planes were 40/hour and the instructor 10-15/hr. Now while working on my inst rating the plane is 105/hr and the instructor 50/hr. AND they add a fuel surcharge to the 'wet rate'.
40 hours at 50/hr = 2000 dollars
40 hours at 150/hr = 6000 dollars

And guess what? the plane is a 1970ish 150.... Just like the one I flew in 1993 when I got my license.

2. The FAA. The regulations are insane. Someone mentioned where they live it has not changed all the time they have been flying. How many TFR's were there in 1970? The "next gen" transponders are going to cost some money as well.

Lets not even touch on the medical issues the FAA pushes. I am a type II diabetic. I have over 6K skydives, cave SCUBA dive, deep wreck dive (200+ feet), fly aerobatics, and can drive a 4 ton truck on the interstate right next to you. I have to jump through so many hoops to be allowed to keep my medical. Things most general practitioners shake their head at when they hear about it.... Guess what, I had kidney stones once. The FAA mandated I have a cystoscopy procedure done... Look it up, not exactly fun. The worst part? Not a single Dr from the med examiner, to the Dr doing the procedure thought it was actually worth doing.... But I had to have it done or I would not get a medical. Also, the medication that my Dr suggested for me is not approved by the FAA. So I had fantastic A1C numbers, but I had to change to something else with worse results because the FAA will not bless off on the other drug.

The FAA attitude? Well, it seems they ENJOY pulling someones ticket. I had a local FAA guy here that participates in another hobby with me (competitive shooting) BRAGGING about how he wrote up a student pilot for violating a TFR on a solo XC by METERS since the student didn't want to fly over the big ass lake. He even admitted that it was the smart thing to do, but STILL made the student do a 709 ride. He asked me why I don't hang out with him more..... Uh, hello! He bragged to me that when the FAA comes after you that you can take them to court, but he is PAID to be there and you are PAYING to be there.

Oh how about this. A buddy had his prop OFF of his plane and an FAA guy came to the airport and tried to write him up for flying a non-airworthy plane.... His plane is from the 30's and they wanted to see the manuals and PMA numbers.... Huh? Same state, different airport an FAA guy comes out to a fly in and starts ramp checking peoples planes. He finds one that the registration is out and grounds the plane. Now, when you look online the FAA's very own website said the plane was in date, but somehow the FAA guy said it is out of date and therefore grounded. The FAA guy said that the owner would have to fill out a new registration and send it to him. So the guy filled one out and tried to HAND it to him and the FAA guy said it had to be MAILED to his office. So he was stranded and had to leave his plane till later in the week and come back and get it. There was an issue at Sun n fun where a guy had an RV that the N number was too small for the speed of the plane.... That right there made me scrap my plans to fly to Sun n Fun *EVER*. Sure, I think my plane is legal, but as Cardinal Richelieu is quoted as saying, "Qu’on me donne six lignes de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre (Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him). So why tempt fate?

Now that I think about it.... I'd put dealing with the FAA as the number one PITA and cost second. I fly in the middle of nowhere not only for the cost savings, but also that it would be a XC to find a B/C/D airspace.

I still fly because I love it.... But in a world filled with activities that people can enjoy, why are we surprised when people see flying as too expensive and too big of a hassle? Look at it like this, I have a 1974 Citabria and a 1986 Pitts. Lets say the Citabria is worth 35K and the Pitts 35K (I would not sell either at that price). So I have 70K dollars in planes. I have a buddy that bought a 2008 Maserati GranTurismo S for 60K. I have another buddy that has an amazing boat for 40K. Another buddy travels all over the world heli skiing and BASE jumping.... People find other ways to spend discretionary funds and with less hassle for most of these pursuits.

ssmdive,

Your rant made me laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. But I gotta tell ya, your FAA guy anecdotes make me glad that I live and fly in Canada. I've been flying for 41 years, live in the biggest city in the country, fly out of one of the top 10 busiest GA airports in the country and I have never been ramp checked, never seen or been within a 2 foot radius of a Transport Canada guy/official at any airport, ever. From so many posters here over the years, it's quite clear that the FAA is Machiavellian intrusive. Transport Canada just doesn't appear to be going after us here as if they had quotas to fill. At least that's my experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssmdive

... 2. The FAA. The regulations are insane. Someone mentioned where they live it has not changed all the time they have been flying. How many TFR's were there in 1970? ...

---

How many TFRs were there in the 70s: zero. How many TFRs are there in the entire state of Arizona right now: zero. Effective difference on my flying today: zero.

When we do have TFRs here in AZ, they're generally for forest fires or somebody flying a drone around. I really want to know about, and avoid either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

How many TFRs were there in the 70s: zero. How many TFRs are there in the entire state of Arizona right now: zero. Effective difference on my flying today: zero.

When we do have TFRs here in AZ, they're generally for forest fires or somebody flying a drone around. I really want to know about, and avoid either of them.

---

TFRs in FL in the 70's: ZERO
TRF's in FL today: Three

TRF's in the US in 1970: Zero
TFR's i the US today: Fifty four.

Personal anecdote != Data.
So while it may not personally affect you, it does affect others. Six dollar gas does not really affect me, but that does not mean I can't see how it can impact others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssmdive

TFRs in FL in the 70's: ZERO
TRF's in FL today: Three

TRF's in the US in 1970: Zero
TFR's i the US today: Fifty four.

Personal anecdote != Data.
So while it may not personally affect you, it does affect others. Six dollar gas does not really affect me, but that does not mean I can't see how it can impact others.

---

Lets look at the data for Florida just to keep it manageable. First of all, there is only one TFR in effect today, that's the Orlando TFR for Disney World, which has a radius of 3.45 statute miles up to a height of 3000 ft. AGL and will probably be there until Disney World crumbles or people come to their senses. I don't know which happens first. So the aeronautical volume of the Orland TFR is pi*3.45^2*0.284 = 131.6 cubic statute miles. The area of Florida is 65,760 square miles give or take a little bit depending on the tides. Up to an altitude of 10,500 ft AGL, the volume of Florida airspace is about 131,520 cubic statute miles, so a simple estimate of the likelihood of encountering a TFR in Florida today is the ratio of the volumes of the TFR and Florida airspace or 131.6 / 131,520 = 0.001, which a tenth of a percent, which isn't much.

The other two Florida TFRs you alluded to are for Kennedy Space Center. One, on June 20th, is effective for less than two hours. The other, on June 21st, is also effective for less than two hours. Those TFR is almost entirely over the ocean, so they will have little effect on the volume of TFR airspace over Florida airspace and be approximately the same percentage.

The right way to estimate the effect, of course, is to do a Monte Carlo simulation of flights in the Florida airspace below 10,500 ft., or what ever altitude you choose and see what percentage of the simulated flights pass through the TFRs. I'd even let you pick the probability density functions to be used in the simulation. Back in the days when I was designing fighters, that what we did to learn the truth about performance, or the best estimate to the truth, and it didn't always turn out as we expected.

What I've learned from these discussions is that some people aren't happy until they're unhappy. If a ten of a percent chance of encountering a TFR impedes your fly, then just do the same calculation for the Florida weather and see what you get. The problem with these sort red herrings is that they distract us from the real problems and their solutions.

One way to get around the avgas cost and the A&P mechanic requirement for certificated planes is to own an experimental plane that uses mogas and allows owner to do most maintenance. If you build it yourself, you can obtain a Repairman's Certificate that's good for life on that plane. If you buy one second-hand, you can still do the maintenance work but need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection, still much cheaper than paying a mechanic for routine maintenance. My Pulsar with a 912 Rotax engine burns 4 gal mogas/hr at 135 mph cruise. And I do all the maintenance on it.
Bob H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

Lets look at the data for Florida just to keep it manageable......

---

OK lets look at the number of TFRs in 1970 and number of TFR's today. That's manageable. Further you want to talk about logical fallacies, you took an example of a larger issue and tried to make it the TOTAL issue (Straw man).

I mentioned as examples:
1. TFR's
2. "Next gen" transponders
3. FAA medical issues
4. FAA employee attitude against GA

Yet you ignored almost all of the examples I gave, and they were just examples, and instead focused on one issue instead of the larger point.

Then lets talk about another logical fallacy.... Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.
So instead of discussing the topic you decided to make a personal attack claiming:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

What I've learned from these discussions is that some people aren't happy until they're unhappy. If a ten of a percent chance of encountering a TFR impedes your fly, then just do the same calculation for the Florida weather and see what you get. The problem with these sort red herrings is that they distract us from the real problems and their solutions.

---

You want to talk red herring? You just did that by bringing weather into the equation. The weather factor is about the same today as it was in 1970. So weather as a factor has not INCREASED the places and times not able to fly like TFR's have.

1. You ignored the examples and the INTENT on the examples and instead focused on one specific example (strawman)
2. You made personal attacks claiming some people will never be happy (Ad hominem)
3. You brought up weather into a discussion were weather is not a factor being discussed (FAA, not nature) and where it is relatively constant (weather in FL has not changed significantly in 40 years).

Care to try again without all the logical fallacies and sticking to the whole topic and not cherry picking one example?

Well, now that you have seen the good/bad and ugly/beautiful. You need to make your own conclusions. The best you can do is to be there. As an example, in college, one of our group got to fly right seat in a Learjet. All of the others complained. But Bob was a flight instructor, and he was at the airport all the time. He got a lot of those opportunities. In other words, if you are out there flying, you will know why people are flying or not. Surveys will only get answered by those of us that are more aggressive ... and definitely not by those that are no longer flying. Thanks, Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob H

One way to get around the avgas cost and the A&P mechanic requirement for certificated planes is to own an experimental plane that uses mogas and allows owner to do most maintenance. If you build it yourself, you can obtain a Repairman's Certificate that's good for life on that plane. If you buy one second-hand, you can still do the maintenance work but need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection, still much cheaper than paying a mechanic for routine maintenance. My Pulsar with a 912 Rotax engine burns 4 gal mogas/hr at 135 mph cruise. And I do all the maintenance on it.
Bob H

---

This points to a notion I have for the future of general aviation, which looks an awful lot like the 1930's.

Aviators will be the rich with the planes that cost more than the average house and the clever who either nurse old aircraft or build their own. With some overlap in the Venn diagram, of course.

Simple governmental inertia will keep the rural county airport open, though I can also foresee restrictions that are related to maintenance issues on an airport-by-airport basis - like a "no night operations" when the money for lighting upkeep dries up.

Guys like me with an aircraft that is closer to ultralight than the top end of LSA without lights (let alone a transponder, glass panel, automagick bubble pump actuated engine leaning propellor trim boosters, or doors) are, and will be, invisible to the FAA.

Plus it's a lot cheaper to run and maintain a 1915cc VW engine than a Continental A-65.

Then again, we aren't pilots because it's an inexpensive, easy hobby.

Maybe potential pilots have too many alternate interests to occupy time and money and flying a plane isn't one of them. I think the desire to fly starts at an early age as a kid, and grows with time until funds are available later in life to fulfill such dreams. But if the desire was never instilled when young, there is no compelling force to fly as an adult. The Young Eagles program tries to do this and EAA has hands-on programs to teach kids plane building. Yet my own grandkids don't have a great push to fly on their own and get involved with planes. When I was a kid, I couldn't wait to see planes up close and hopefully flying one someday. Made free-flight models of balsa and doped paper with small engines or rubber bands and most got lost somewhere so we scrounged up materials and built more. And that led to an enginering career in the aerospace business. I don't regret any of it. Just wish I could pass it on.
Bob H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob H

Just wish I could pass it on.
Bob H

---

I think that you hit the nail on the head with "pass it on." This topic comes up a lot between me and the older EAA generation (I'm an "old school" 50-year-old that is considered a youngster within EAA circles). Building wooden wing ribs is a thing of the past ... unless you look at (non-labor) cost. Few younger people know who Charles Lindberg was, airline travel is every day transportation today and World War II ended nearly 70 years ago! (Sidebar Note: WWII airplanes don't thrill me either. Don't get me wrong, I highly respect what was accomplished. My dad took a swim in the English Channel when the Leopoldville troopship he was on was sunk, killing 900 on Christmas Eve 1944.) But if we only teach the youth what we think is cool and what we did as a youth, they will checkout long before we get to what excites them. We need to capitalize on other industries' products to lower our costs. The iPad is a great example. For a $600 device and $60/year in maps, you have all the VFR navigation that you need. I think that it's long past due that we ask the next generation what they want, and then use our knowledge and history to make the road easier for them to get there. Radio-controlled, electric model airplanes and quadcopters are cheap and easy; perfect for an introduction to flight. BTW, the T-38/F-5/F-20 excite me ... and are from my generation. Though I have a little over 15 hours in a T-38, I will never own one :o( I do love to dream about it, though. :o)