I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the way
of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the party
AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it :) ) and a newly
re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to do this
thing we love.

....But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in our
country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly breakfast
at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was one of the
youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65 and the
remainder even older.

As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages of
most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that came
with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed to be
a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it went up
from there.

Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same problems.
Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying doesn't make it in
the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget on. But I think what
we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't making it BACK into the
budget once money and time become more available. Things like Harley
Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible to the masses than
flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's hobby...right? (said in
jest...sorta).

So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich (e.g
Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money to buy
a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an annual.

I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had I
won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I would
loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but the point
is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying. Call me
crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.

I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be money,
time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most of them
have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as something
they can't afford.

Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never had
time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young. We have
great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into aviation, but
now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's has it
generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to figure out if
that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible to have EAA/AOPA
to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their license? If you granted
them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19 PPL Scholarships for the
money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation to my license fund would
have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I would think you could get
vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the cause just like they do to
the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More business.

I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Thoughts?

Jeff Franks
Summertown, TN

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
> I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the
> way of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the
> party AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it :) ) and
> a newly re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to
> do this thing we love.
>
> ...But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in
> our country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly
> breakfast at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was
> one of the youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65
> and the remainder even older.
>
> As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages
> of most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that
> came with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed
> to be a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it
> went up from there.
>
> Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same
> problems. Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying
> doesn't make it in the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget
> on. But I think what we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't
> making it BACK into the budget once money and time become more available.
> Things like Harley Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible
> to the masses than flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's
> hobby...right? (said in jest...sorta).
>
> So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
> like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
> Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich
> (e.g Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money
> to buy a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an
> annual.
>
> I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
> for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had
> I won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I
> would loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but
> the point is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying.
> Call me crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.
>
> I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
> always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be
> money, time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most
> of them have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as
> something they can't afford.
>
> Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
> How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never
> had time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young.
> We have great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into
> aviation, but now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's
> has it generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to
> figure out if that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible
> to have EAA/AOPA to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their
> license? If you granted them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19
> PPL Scholarships for the money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation
> to my license fund would have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I
> would think you could get vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the
> cause just like they do to the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More
> business.
>
> I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally
> about my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same
> time, I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff Franks
> Summertown, TN

The most important thing (IMO) is that flight schools need to use primary
flight instruction as a "loss leader", cut the cost to the bare bones, and
<hopefully> bring more people into flying. My local FBO doubled its
instructor rates a few years ago at the same time they sold all the C-152's
and replaced all of 'em with C-172's. The cost/hr for primary flight
instruction went from about $60/hr to about $110/hr in their doggiest C-172.
That alone probably added $2,000 to the cost of getting a private ticket.

And the result is that they do very little flight training for people
wanting a private ticket and are creating virtually no new pilots. In a few
years, the FBO will be asking itself "why isn't anyone renting our C-172's
and Arrow anymore?" The answer... Because all the old guys who were renting
'em are gone and there is nobody to take their place.

On the other hand, there is a guy at my field who is busy virtually every
day teaching LSA and Ultralight lessons. I bet he has taught more people to
fly in the last year than the FBO has in the last 3 years.

The bottom line is that FBO's and Flight schools need to work very hard to
create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi, etc.
ratings (and aircraft) or we'll wake up one day and aviation as we know it
will be gone.

KB

> I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
> my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
> I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Great post, Jeff. You're on the right track.

Kyle's point about flight training is also critical. We've got the
same situation in Iowa City, saddled with an FBO that sees flight
training as a "loser" and has raised rates accordingly. The result is
precisely what they desired: Less flight training.

This short-term thinking is going to have very bad results in the near
future. When asked about using LSAs for training, to keep costs down,
their answer was blunt and to the point: We don't do that.

My advice? Mentor your friends. I've personally mentored two people
from zero to Private, and am working on the third -- my son. IMHO if
we don't individually take responsibility for this situation -- each
of us, right now -- GA is going to die right before our eyes.

Congrats on being back in the sky -- and hope to see you at NEXT
year's HOPS party!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:51:57 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> The bottom line is that FBO's and Flight schools need to work very hard to
> create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi, etc.
> ratings (and aircraft) or we'll wake up one day and aviation as we know it
> will be gone.

The problem with this reasoning is that the FBO has little control over
its stream of new/upgrading pilots. The case cited of an FBO that
[effectively] ditched flight training, for example, may be more savvy than
you think. If I were an FBO owner, I'd know what percentage of renters
were from my flight school, what percentage of graduates I lost, and what
percentage of renters were trained elsewhere.

If I found that my stream of students wasn't helping my rental business, I
could easily see myself ditching training (or at least not losing money on
it) for the obvious business reason.

For example, I did my PPL at an FBO where I rarely rented afterward. I
shifted to an FBO with better gear (and then joined a member-owned club).
On the other hand, I did my IR with that second FBO (the one with the
nicer gear). Even though I don't rent there now, I still recommend them
for both training and rental.

Another factor is MX. It may be cheaper to rent a long-suffering 152, but
that aircraft may cost more in MX than something newer and more expensive
to rent. Where should the FBO allocate its dollars?

That second FBO I mentioned, for example, ditched its older 172s (in favor
of SPs, a DA-40 or two, etc.). I wondered how this would do for them;
they do seem to be flying their aircraft with some regularity.

I guess my point is that there are a lot of variables, and - from outside
- its hard to judge exactly how factors balance out. But [cheap] flight
training may not be the income generator we'd all hope.

- Andrew

On a typical sunny sunday afternoon, the FBO at my airport may schedule as
many as 4 90-120 minute lessons back to back in a 172. They will bill 4-6
hours of time for the day, plus they get a "vig" on the instructor's bill.

On the other hand, if I rent the plane for a day trip, I may only fly it 2
hours. If I take the plane overnight, I may further reduce their billings.
When I used to rent at that particular FBO, I used to get a hard time about
renting overnight, and in one instance was instructed to request permission
from the leaseback holder. They didn't want my paltry 4 hours when they could
get 12 elsewhere.

I believe the FBOs want students more then renters. The key incentive for
them to "create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi,
etc." is to hire them or train them or both. If they go fly for American or
United it doesn't really do the FBO any good...

I too belong to a flight club. It's been a great experience, and it has kept
my aviation costs in check. My annual aviation costs have gone up, but not
nearly as much as the FBO's. This particular club has Archers, Arrows, and
Bonanzas, so over time I have built up the necessary experience and training
to fly the whole gamut. I pay about the same hourly price for a Bo that
cruises 170kts as I would for a 172 at the FBO. But I can go almost twice as
far in that time, and I can take my whole family in the plane with full
tanks. I can take the plane for multi-day trips even if I only fly an hour
away, and if I want to go somewhere, even at the last minute, there's almost
always a plane available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a
little bit busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help
ensure availability.

For renters, I think it's the perfect scenario. We've had some members buy
their own planes or partner on a plane and leave the club, but to be honest,
I think they're crazy. If their plane goes in for service, they're SOL. If
one of the club planes goes in for service, there are several others to
choose from...

Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way to go
to keep this industry alive. Every club is a little bit different, but there
are many flight clubs out there. And if there isn't one near you, find a
couple of owners and start one! One of the members of our club did that when
he moved to the next state.

Clubs. It's the next plastics.

The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to kill
all the lawyers and insurance companies.



Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:51:57 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that FBO's and Flight schools need to work very hard to
>> create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi, etc.
>> ratings (and aircraft) or we'll wake up one day and aviation as we know it
>> will be gone.
>
> The problem with this reasoning is that the FBO has little control over
> its stream of new/upgrading pilots. The case cited of an FBO that
> [effectively] ditched flight training, for example, may be more savvy than
> you think. If I were an FBO owner, I'd know what percentage of renters
> were from my flight school, what percentage of graduates I lost, and what
> percentage of renters were trained elsewhere.
>
> If I found that my stream of students wasn't helping my rental business, I
> could easily see myself ditching training (or at least not losing money on
> it) for the obvious business reason.
>
> For example, I did my PPL at an FBO where I rarely rented afterward. I
> shifted to an FBO with better gear (and then joined a member-owned club).
> On the other hand, I did my IR with that second FBO (the one with the
> nicer gear). Even though I don't rent there now, I still recommend them
> for both training and rental.
>
> Another factor is MX. It may be cheaper to rent a long-suffering 152,
> but that aircraft may cost more in MX than something newer and more
> expensive to rent. Where should the FBO allocate its dollars?
>
> That second FBO I mentioned, for example, ditched its older 172s (in
> favor of SPs, a DA-40 or two, etc.). I wondered how this would do for
> them; they do seem to be flying their aircraft with some regularity.
>
> I guess my point is that there are a lot of variables, and - from outside
> - its hard to judge exactly how factors balance out. But [cheap] flight
> training may not be the income generator we'd all hope.
>
> - Andrew

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:03:18 +0000, Judah wrote:

[...]

>
> I believe the FBOs want students more then renters.

You raise some excellent points about which I'd forgotten. Every FBO from
which I rented had some type of "daily minimum" for this reason.

On the other hand, at least once I'd a plane rented out from under me by
someone planning a long trip. It was the one 172SP at that FBO at the
time, and it was for my IR checkride. So rather than having a plane with
GPS and without ADF, I'd a plane without GPS and with ADF. Unpleasant!

[Fortunately, I'd a thorough CFII that had made me learn real NDP
approaches anyway. I did pass.]

The big difference, I'd guess, is that the long trip included a lot of
weekdays during which there's less student activity.

> The key incentive for
> them to "create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR,
> Multi, etc." is to hire them or train them or both. If they go fly for
> American or United it doesn't really do the FBO any good...

Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?
In my "aviation social circle", we're all GA-ers. But that's the result
of the selection process; I've no idea what people pass through training
and then "move on".

> I can take the plane for
> multi-day trips even if I only fly an hour away, and if I want to go
> somewhere, even at the last minute, there's almost always a plane
> available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a little bit
> busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help ensure
> availability.

I'm curious: what rules?

But you're right about multi-day trips. I'd forgotten about FBOs' daily
minimums because clubs (certainly mine, and I presume most if not all)
don't have that.

[Although: I once rented from an FBO and deliberately planned the trip for
"inside" the daily minimum (so I'd not have to pay one). Weather delayed
my return such that I should have paid it, but the FBO said "no". That
was decent of them.]

>
> For renters, I think it's the perfect scenario. We've had some members
> buy their own planes or partner on a plane and leave the club,

That's the way most people "graduate" here too.

> but to be
> honest, I think they're crazy. If their plane goes in for service,
> they're SOL. If one of the club planes goes in for service, there are
> several others to choose from...

That's my reasoning!

On the other hand, though, there are 45 (or whatever size club you have)
to satisfy when making decisions in a club. If most are VFRers, for
example, will they all want to spend money for backup vacuum and WAAS?
Most of the people that graduate to their own planes do so for "more
plane" (in one way or another) than the club has (ie. one fellow left for
a twin, another left for a brand new SR-22, etc.).

On the other other hand, we get to share the work too in the club which
helps keep the "costs" down in a complete different way.


> Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way
> to go to keep this industry alive.

That's a very interesting point (and one which naturally appeals to me {8^).

[...]

> The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to
> kill all the lawyers and insurance companies.

Don't forget the FAA mouthpieces for the airline industry trying to push
for a tax break for them funded by GA fees.

I read in some magazine a funny aside: from where are all those VLJs going
to come given the shrinking pilot population?

- Andrew

On Jul 30, 11:10 pm, "Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus >
wrote:

> Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case.

You post is interesting since I am the same age and got me to reflect
on why I'm a student pilot (about 30 hours in for a PPL). It really
was a combination of a bunch of things:
1. My grandfather was a private pilot with his own C-150. It kind of
scared me as a little kid, but I did go for rides and got used to
small planes.
2. My neighbor is an A&P and a pilot. He's taken me up on rides and
we talk flying a lot.
3. My father has become quite ill over the last year and his
prognosis is poor. Since he isn't even at the traditional retirement
age, it's made me think how we don't really know how much time we have
left in our lives.
4. We have no kids and my wife is understanding.

I guess if #4 wasn't true, I wouldn't be flying at all!!

I am reluctant to talk about flying to other people I know (mostly my
co-workers) since I don't want my employer to think I make too much
money, and the brother of one of the senior managers was involved in a
serious small plane crash that killed his wife and children and left
him disabled with burns.

I am part of a flying club now. I am also in a position where I
couldn't keep any plane "given" to me via a contest (AOPA, Sporty's,
etc), since I couldn't even afford the fixed costs of hanger rental,
insurance, maintenance, etc, let alone the taxes. I do think that
flight training "scholarships" would be a far better way to promote GA
than plane giveaways.

Several good points have been made about how other lifestyle choices
interfere with and compete for a potential students time and income. A
thought that has been running through my head concerns the "Big Box Store
Generation's" fixation with immediate satisfaction without impediments nor
at the expense of anything else in their lives. Today's potential pilots
who have the money to spend on aviation want things NOW and they don't want
any new hobby to interfere in any way with their existing hobbies or
lifestyles.

If we dare mention to a potential student that he may have to drive a used
car for a couple extra years in order to afford flight lessons and/or that
it may take him as long as 6 months to get his PPL, many of today's
potential pilots counter with "wow, that's too much money and takes too way
long, I think I'll go buy a boat/motorcycle/race-car/ATV/big screen TV, I'll
keep it at home, and I can have it by 4pm today. Our worst competition is
this instant gratification mentality. Aviation takes more than money, it
takes time and dedication before satisfaction can occur. Today's Big Box
Store generation wants to skip the time and dedication part and simply trade
money for satisfaction.

Now.... what to do about it. A couple things come to mind.

First aviation is social and is largely based on sharing opportunities and
experiences with others. If we want to create more pilots, we need to
invite more people into the aviation. EAA and OSH are good examples of where
and how we can show a potential enthusiast what the aviation lifestyle
includes and that it isn't "just" flying. You might know someone who is an
awesome mechanic, author, novelist, painter, artist, teacher, photographer,
carpenter, mason, web designer, computer tech, etc etc AND they have shown
an interest in aviation... GET THEM INVOLVED!!! Show them where and how
they can add their skills and talents to their interest in aviation.
Aviation enthusiasts can breed more pilots than pilots alone! Look at all
the volunteers at OSH or at the EAA Museum. I've never once entered the EAA
Museum without a volunteer, mostly retired individuals, rush forward to ask
me if I've ever been to the Museum or if I know about the Young Eagles
Program. I almost feel bad telling them how often that we visit because it
cuts their speech short.... they live and breathe aviation enthusiasm and so
can YOU!

Next choose your victim, learn their abilities and their goals. Maybe you
know someone that just loves to hang out around airplanes but has no
interest or lacks the financial or physical ability to become a pilot. Next
time you need help with your plane or volunteer for an airport event, ask
this person to tag along. Introduce him to fellow pilots, your CFI, your
A&P, your Pilot's Association etc Nothing brings people to airports more
than people at airports. They all don't have to be pilots! Flying is
largely social. We ALL spend more time talking or typing about it than we
actually spend executing it. The next time you go to the airport, take
someone along.

If your friend has the interest and ability to become a pilot, of course
take him flying! But don't BORE HIM!!! Show him what you enjoy about
flying but leave him with a hunger for more! Make your flight short, don't
load him up on a 5 hour cross country when it's 95 degrees with light
turbulence and insist to him that flying is wonderful. He won't think so.
Leave him excited, happy, and hungry for more. Offer him back and the next
time he brings up the subject of aviation, immediately get him back to the
airport or take him flying with you. Once he's hooked, offer him your
assistance through the maze of ground instruction, testing, fight
instruction and flight tests. Make sure he knows that any person of average
intelligence and ability can become a private pilot. Make sure he knows
that it's a process made up of small but frequent steps leading to major
events. Offer individual and confidential help away from the airport
experts so your friend doesn't feel inadequate, unaccomplished, or stupid.
Offer him encouragement ALWAYS! Give him an audience to expound upon HIS
hanger flying stories. Cultivate both his ego and his yearning for
knowledge. Offer to loan him examples from your aviation library.

Include his/her spouse or significant other. Make sure this person knows
the ups and the downs and that their support and encouragement are CRUCIAL.
Make sure they both know the real world costs and timelines. Don't set
either of them up with unrealistic ideas only to have reality dash their
dreams. The significant other must support and encourage every effort and
accomplishment without a glairing eye of guilt for the financial costs.
Nothing can dash a student that is finally "getting it" faster than the
guilt placed upon him/her by a loved one saying "you've spent $$$ for what?"
With support from his/her friends and loved ones knowledge + hard work +
budget + realistic goals WILL = Success

Borrow Greg Brown's book "The Saavy Flight Instructor". It's not about how
to become or be a flight instructor, it's about how to survive AS a flight
instructor.... and behind most of his methods is an underlying theme.... how
do we bring more people into aviation?

Later, I've got to take someone to the airport.

Jim







"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
> I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the
way
> of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the
party
> AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it :) ) and a
newly
> re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to do this
> thing we love.
>
> ...But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in
our
> country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly breakfast
> at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was one of the
> youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65 and the
> remainder even older.
>
> As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages
of
> most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that came
> with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed to
be
> a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it went up
> from there.
>
> Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same
problems.
> Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying doesn't make it
in
> the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget on. But I think what
> we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't making it BACK into
the
> budget once money and time become more available. Things like Harley
> Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible to the masses than
> flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's hobby...right? (said
in
> jest...sorta).
>
> So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
> like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
> Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich
(e.g
> Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money to
buy
> a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an annual.
>
> I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
> for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had
I
> won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I
would
> loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but the
point
> is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying. Call me
> crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.
>
> I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
> always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be
money,
> time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most of them
> have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as
something
> they can't afford.
>
> Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
> How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never
had
> time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young. We
have
> great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into aviation,
but
> now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's has it
> generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to figure out
if
> that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible to have
EAA/AOPA
> to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their license? If you
granted
> them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19 PPL Scholarships for the
> money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation to my license fund would
> have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I would think you could get
> vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the cause just like they do to
> the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More business.
>
> I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally
about
> my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
> I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff Franks
> Summertown, TN
>
>

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:51:57 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that FBO's and Flight schools need to work very hard
>> to
>> create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi, etc.
>> ratings (and aircraft) or we'll wake up one day and aviation as we know
>> it
>> will be gone.
>
> The problem with this reasoning is that the FBO has little control over
> its stream of new/upgrading pilots. The case cited of an FBO that
> [effectively] ditched flight training, for example, may be more savvy than
> you think. If I were an FBO owner, I'd know what percentage of renters
> were from my flight school, what percentage of graduates I lost, and what
> percentage of renters were trained elsewhere.
>
>>>good stuff snipped>>>
>
> I guess my point is that there are a lot of variables, and - from outside
> - its hard to judge exactly how factors balance out. But [cheap] flight
> training may not be the income generator we'd all hope.
>
> - Andrew

As you say, ditching flight training may be savvy, but only for a short
period. If a particular FBO's business horizon is 5 years, then (maybe)
doing away with flight training makes sense. On the other hand, if they plan
on being in business for the long haul, they are gonna have a tough time.
They won't have students, renters, or even owners to deal with once the
supply of pilots ages out.

Again, it is a short vs long term thing. Too many FBO's are taking a short
term approach and effectively killing the industry's future.

KB

Jeff wrote:
>
> Thoughts?

What I try to do is give guys my age (still less than 40)
flights just so they can see what its like, how fast you
can get from point A to B, the great view, etc. I'm blatantly
trying to create an addiction (in some of them anyways)
including "the first one is always free."

Another thing one might do to lower cost that I've considered
but not done yet, is take the airplane that you've already
purchased, found a home for, etc. and make a flying club
out of it. Your investment/debt/outlay will go down, and others
who otherwise wouldn't have made that investment will get into
flying.

> Later, I've got to take someone to the airport.
>
> Jim

WOW! Jim, I couldn't have said it better (and I didn't, because I couldn't
put it into words). This is exactly the type of mentality that I would hope
many of us would have. Growing up in the 70's, my dad used to take me to
the airport with him. There was always folks kicking tires and telling lies
up and down hangar row. Now days, at the same airport, you're lucky to find
someone just "hanging out". Most of the flyers are corporate or utility
pilots that aren't real interested in the love of flight....it's just their
job.

My brothers-in-law both have Harley's. For the money that just one of them
have put in their bike, I could have bought a 150. Put their money together
and we can have a Warrior or 172. And other than hangar rent, I'd bet money
that they spend more on their bike than I do on my 172 per year (gas not
included :) ). The point is, you're absolutely right. we have to build the
community and culture back. I have been into areas and airports where this
exists, but not often.

I grew up around aviation. I've always had a way to get my flying "fix". In
fact, I'm 37 and still working on my PPL. I learned to "fly" at an early
age, but never did it right or on my own until I had "time" and "money".
But, I have spent 25+ years around this same social group your talking
about. I guess part of the reason I didn't get too bothered about not
finishing my certificate was that I enjoyed the gatherings as much as I did
the flying. So, point well taken.

Now, how do we get this same attitude out to the masses? I've thought of
forming my own EAA chapter just to get the 5-10 folks that I know locally
re-involved. That's a start, but it's gonna take much more than just us.

jf

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:03:18 +0000, Judah wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I believe the FBOs want students more then renters.
>
> You raise some excellent points about which I'd forgotten. Every FBO
> from which I rented had some type of "daily minimum" for this reason.

Neither FBO on my field had a daily minimum as recently as 2001. One of
them subbed out their flight school/rental operation to American Flyers in
2001 (just before 9/11) and stopped renting planes altogether. The other
one continued without daily minimums (on Millenium SPs no less!) through at
least 2003 or 2004. I remember shortly after joining the flight club I
belong to that I got a letter from the FBO introducing the daily minimums
and indicating they would now be enforced. Even with minimums, I tend to
believe that student flights are the top revenue source for airplane rental
for FBOs... I don't believe it's anywhere near the highest revenue item on
their Income Statement, as compared with Tiedown/Hangar rentals, Fuel, and
service.

> The big difference, I'd guess, is that the long trip included a lot of
> weekdays during which there's less student activity.

Most of my travels are during the week as well, and it may have been why I
got some leeway with the FBO even for overnight and two night trips. But
anything longer, even during the week, drew quite a bit of attention. And I
don't remember ever taking a plane over a weekend night.

> Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?
> In my "aviation social circle", we're all GA-ers. But that's the result
> of the selection process; I've no idea what people pass through training
> and then "move on".

I'm not certain. My guess is that most of the young student pilots that
fall into the under-30 category are working their way toward a career as a
pilot, and most of the over-30's are not. I also suspect that most under-
30s are getting their primary training at Aeronautical Colleges and
organized, accellerated programs (like American Flyers, perhaps) and not at
the local FBO. My guess is that of the ones that go to College for it, a
relatively high percentage go all the way to at least the regional jet
level, and of the ones that start at a local Part 61 FBO, a much smaller
percentage go all the way.

But that's my perception and opinion, based on observations that mostly
include bigger cities like HPN where I am based.

>> available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a little bit
>> busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help
>> ensure availability.
>
> I'm curious, what rules?

Basically, any one member can only make 4 total weekend reservations
significantly in advance during the summer. From Wednesday at noon on you
can make a reservation for the following weekend and it does not count
toward the advance reservation restriction. It seems to work, but I could
be wrong because I don't really rent much on the weekends. On the few
occassions when I have rented on the weekend, I was pretty much able to
make the reservation the day before or the same day. I didn't always get
the plane I wanted, but I didn't get totally blocked out either.

> On the other hand, though, there are 45 (or whatever size club you have)
> to satisfy when making decisions in a club. If most are VFRers, for
> example, will they all want to spend money for backup vacuum and WAAS?
> Most of the people that graduate to their own planes do so for "more
> plane" (in one way or another) than the club has (ie. one fellow left
> for a twin, another left for a brand new SR-22, etc.).

Certainly there are still some people out there with "unlimited" budgets
for buying a new SR-22. But what's another couple-of-hundred a month to
continue to have a backup plan?

Our club has 8 planes (2 Archers, 3 Arrows, and 3 Bonanzas) and is
chartered for 80 people. We actually only have about 70 members right now,
in some sense because of exactly what you described above. When I joined
the club a few years ago it was smaller (60 members, 6 planes, IIRC) and
had 2 of each type of plane. In the last few years, our club has certainly
faced some challenges, especially with respect to the growth, and to the
differing opinions of priorities. In the end, though, things have worked
out.

>> Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way
>> to go to keep this industry alive.
>
> That's a very interesting point (and one which naturally appeals to me
> {8^).
>
> [...]
>
>> The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to
>> kill all the lawyers and insurance companies.
>
> Don't forget the FAA mouthpieces for the airline industry trying to push
> for a tax break for them funded by GA fees.

Aren't they lawyers? Or just Lobbyists?

"Not anyone can become a Lobbyist. You have to have a
moral flexibility that goes beyond most people."
- Nick Naylor

> I read in some magazine a funny aside: from where are all those VLJs
> going to come given the shrinking pilot population?

More importantly, who's going to train the pilots?

I see a lot of good ideas in this thread about promoting aviation from
within. The problem is, our numbers are so few that it would be tough to
even make a dent unless the majority of current pilots brought in at
least one new pilot.

One thing that's really stood out to me, is that FBO's make very little
effort to promote themselves. The FBO where I earned my PPL is
professionally managed and very friendly, but I never knew they existed
until I got serious about learning.

Who knows how many are out there dreaming about flying and just need a
little nudge to take that next step.

I realize in aviation, there probably isn't a lot of room in the budget
for advertising. But I'd really like to see what happens if an FBO (or
group of FBOs) got serious about promoting their business.

In a decent sized town (100-300K), I don't see why an FBO couldn't bring
100 or so qualified new students per year. It it may end up costing $500
to acquire each new student, but even if with a high dropout rate, I
would guess the remaining new customers would be well worth the effort.

- bill


In article >,
"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote:

> I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the way
> of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the party
> AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it :) ) and a newly
> re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to do this
> thing we love.
>
> ...But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in our
> country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly breakfast
> at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was one of the
> youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65 and the
> remainder even older.
>
> As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages of
> most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that came
> with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed to be
> a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it went up
> from there.
>
> Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same problems.
> Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying doesn't make it in
> the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget on. But I think what
> we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't making it BACK into the
> budget once money and time become more available. Things like Harley
> Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible to the masses than
> flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's hobby...right? (said in
> jest...sorta).
>
> So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
> like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
> Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich (e.g
> Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money to buy
> a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an annual.
>
> I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
> for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had I
> won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I would
> loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but the point
> is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying. Call me
> crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.
>
> I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
> always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be money,
> time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most of them
> have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as something
> they can't afford.
>
> Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
> How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never had
> time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young. We have
> great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into aviation, but
> now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's has it
> generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to figure out if
> that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible to have EAA/AOPA
> to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their license? If you granted
> them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19 PPL Scholarships for the
> money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation to my license fund would
> have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I would think you could get
> vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the cause just like they do to
> the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More business.
>
> I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
> my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
> I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff Franks
> Summertown, TN

I believe LSA is the way to go, but that does not necessarily mean
operating under the sport pilot rules. This could be the single most
important factor for rescuing GA from dying. Anyone can fly the LSA,
even under IFR, and is a much more economical option than the normal
category airplanes. Our club recently got rid of the 172 and bought a
brand new LSA, with a fully loaded panel, and the response has been
very positive. The airplane is being flown significantly more than the
other airplanes. The hourly cost is $50/hr tach which is almost half
that of the 172. For two people flying, you can't beat the price to
performance ratio. With more LSA coming into the scene, I see a bright
future ahead.




On Jul 31, 8:53 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
> > my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
> > I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.
>
> Great post, Jeff. You're on the right track.
>
> Kyle's point about flight training is also critical. We've got the
> same situation in Iowa City, saddled with an FBO that sees flight
> training as a "loser" and has raised rates accordingly. The result is
> precisely what they desired: Less flight training.
>
> This short-term thinking is going to have very bad results in the near
> future. When asked about using LSAs for training, to keep costs down,
> their answer was blunt and to the point: We don't do that.
>
> My advice? Mentor your friends. I've personally mentored two people
> from zero to Private, and am working on the third -- my son. IMHO if
> we don't individually take responsibility for this situation -- each
> of us, right now -- GA is going to die right before our eyes.
>
> Congrats on being back in the sky -- and hope to see you at NEXT
> year's HOPS party!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:08:50 +0000, Judah wrote:


> Neither FBO on my field had a daily minimum as recently as 2001.

Wow.

> One of
> them subbed out their flight school/rental operation to American Flyers in
> 2001 (just before 9/11) and stopped renting planes altogether.

This certainly backs up your idea that training and rental aren't much as
compared to the services provided to other aircraft.

[...]

>> Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?

[...]
> My guess is that of the ones that go to College for it,
> a relatively high percentage go all the way to at least the regional jet
> level, and of the ones that start at a local Part 61 FBO, a much smaller
> percentage go all the way.

That's my guess too. So the FBOs aren't [mostly] training people that are
going to go on to aviation careers. Thus, at least in the aggregate (over
all FBOs), they are training the "next generation" of GA-ers.

And that makes them "important" in the task of raising more GA pilots.

[...]

>> I'm curious, what rules?

[...]

We've a very different mechanism which may work out about the same. It's
a point-based system. A long booking "costs" 2 points; a short "costs" 1.
Bookings "today" are free, and when a booking rolls around to "today" the
points it cost return to the pilot.

So we can have on the schedule at any moment two long bookings, four
short, or one long and two short.

The "free today" rule means that even someone maxed out can "grab an
available plane and fly".

Like you, I've had little difficulty grabbing a plane for when I wanted
it. More, I've had a two-point booking (a vacation {8^) on the system for
a while, and I've not felt constrained by the fact that I'm running at
only two available points.

Also, frankly, everyone is pretty good about it. I'd a booking that was
immediately followed by someone else's once. I found I wanted to stay
away longer, and a quick call to the other member made it possible.

[...]

> Certainly there are still some people out there with "unlimited" budgets
> for buying a new SR-22. But what's another couple-of-hundred a month to
> continue to have a backup plan?

<Heh> Good point. I'll have to remember that if I ever come across my own
unlimited budget <grin>.

In fact, now that I consider it, we've had and have members that owned
their own aircraft as well. Hmm.

>
> Our club has 8 planes (2 Archers, 3 Arrows, and 3 Bonanzas) and is
> chartered for 80 people. We actually only have about 70 members right
> now, in some sense because of exactly what you described above. When I
> joined the club a few years ago it was smaller (60 members, 6 planes,
> IIRC) and had 2 of each type of plane. In the last few years, our club
> has certainly faced some challenges, especially with respect to the
> growth, and to the differing opinions of priorities. In the end, though,
> things have worked out.

I just recognized you: WFC-HPN.ORG? You're one of the few clubs in the
"neighborhood" with six-seaters. I've noticed that; we have only
four-seaters.

I've also long admired what little I can see about your finances, in that
you seem to keep your aircraft very well equiped for a rather low price.

[...]

>>> The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is
>>> to kill all the lawyers and insurance companies.
>>
>> Don't forget the FAA mouthpieces for the airline industry trying to
>> push for a tax break for them funded by GA fees.
>
> Aren't they lawyers? Or just Lobbyists?

I don't know. Some run the FAA, but it doesn't preclude membership in
either/both of those two sets.

[...]

>> I read in some magazine a funny aside: from where are all those VLJs
>> going to come given the shrinking pilot population?
>
> More importantly, who's going to train the pilots?

Yet everyone (certainly the VLJ-manufacturers) are expecting the boom.

Perhaps this isn't going to end up being related to GA ("small GA") but
instead airlines. That is, perhaps VLJs will take clients and pilots away
from the airlines (ie. the "air taxi" model)?

But the number of pilots would still need to increase significantly. Yet,
if these are "career" pilots then they'll come though the universities and
rush programs.

- Andrew

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:46:06 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Again, it is a short vs long term thing. Too many FBO's are taking a
> short term approach and effectively killing the industry's future.

It's a variation of the prisoners' dilemma or a tragedy of the commons, I
think: they expect the other FBOs to "raise" the new pilots.

- Andrew

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I believe LSA is the way to go, but that does not necessarily mean
> operating under the sport pilot rules. This could be the single most
> important factor for rescuing GA from dying. Anyone can fly the LSA,
> even under IFR, and is a much more economical option than the normal
> category airplanes. Our club recently got rid of the 172 and bought a
> brand new LSA, with a fully loaded panel, and the response has been
> very positive. The airplane is being flown significantly more than the
> other airplanes. The hourly cost is $50/hr tach which is almost half
> that of the 172. For two people flying, you can't beat the price to
> performance ratio. With more LSA coming into the scene, I see a bright
> future ahead.
>


I agree that LSA is the best hope we have, but I worry about how much hope
there is with it. When the idea of the LSA came out a few years back, I was
pumped. I thought *THIS* will save GA, but browsing OSH this year and
noticing that the average LSA pricetag is $100k+ for an entry model, again
puts ownership out of the reach of most people. Now in 10 years, those same
LSA's will be used airplanes that someone might be able to buy for $35k (in
today's money), but that's 10 years down the road.

What is sad (and I'm preaching to the choir here), is that I know a guy who
was an air traffic controller in 1974 and bought a brand new 182 loaded for
$28k. At the time, he was a GS13 making $23k. Traslate that into today's
prices and salaries, an ATC at that level now makes $100kish, so the same
182 *should* run in the $130-$150k range. 150's should be sold for the
$40-$50k. I guess looking back doesn't help, but it now makes sense as to
why there are less pilots than there used to be. We're squeezing out the
average guy.

"RVlust" > wrote in message
...
>I see a lot of good ideas in this thread about promoting aviation from
> within. The problem is, our numbers are so few that it would be tough to
> even make a dent unless the majority of current pilots brought in at
> least one new pilot.
>
> One thing that's really stood out to me, is that FBO's make very little
> effort to promote themselves. The FBO where I earned my PPL is
> professionally managed and very friendly, but I never knew they existed
> until I got serious about learning.
>
> Who knows how many are out there dreaming about flying and just need a
> little nudge to take that next step.
>
> I realize in aviation, there probably isn't a lot of room in the budget
> for advertising. But I'd really like to see what happens if an FBO (or
> group of FBOs) got serious about promoting their business.
>
> In a decent sized town (100-300K), I don't see why an FBO couldn't bring
> 100 or so qualified new students per year. It it may end up costing $500
> to acquire each new student, but even if with a high dropout rate, I
> would guess the remaining new customers would be well worth the effort.
>
> - bill



The Be A Pilot program hits all around this area, but like you are saying,
it's not getting out to the masses. I know several people who have an
interest in flying, but have never seen anything like the Be A Pilot
program.

another good thing I've used in the past to encourage new flyers is getting
the to sign up for the 6 month free subscription to AOPA's Flight Training
magazine. In my opinion, that is one of the best aviation mags out there,
even if you have 10000 hours logged...

jf

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
>> Later, I've got to take someone to the airport.
>>
>> Jim
>
> WOW! Jim, I couldn't have said it better (and I didn't, because I couldn't
> put it into words). This is exactly the type of mentality that I would
> hope many of us would have. Growing up in the 70's, my dad used to take
> me to the airport with him. There was always folks kicking tires and
> telling lies up and down hangar row. Now days, at the same airport,
> you're lucky to find someone just "hanging out". Most of the flyers are
> corporate or utility pilots that aren't real interested in the love of
> flight....it's just their job.
>
> My brothers-in-law both have Harley's. For the money that just one of
> them have put in their bike, I could have bought a 150. Put their money
> together and we can have a Warrior or 172. And other than hangar rent,
> I'd bet money that they spend more on their bike than I do on my 172 per
> year (gas not included :) ). The point is, you're absolutely right. we
> have to build the community and culture back. I have been into areas and
> airports where this exists, but not often.
>
> I grew up around aviation. I've always had a way to get my flying "fix".
> In fact, I'm 37 and still working on my PPL. I learned to "fly" at an
> early age, but never did it right or on my own until I had "time" and
> "money". But, I have spent 25+ years around this same social group your
> talking about. I guess part of the reason I didn't get too bothered about
> not finishing my certificate was that I enjoyed the gatherings as much as
> I did the flying. So, point well taken.
>
> Now, how do we get this same attitude out to the masses? I've thought of
> forming my own EAA chapter just to get the 5-10 folks that I know locally
> re-involved. That's a start, but it's gonna take much more than just us.
>
>

Are the AOPA and EAA not getting along? I was planning on joining AOPA at
Arlington, but didn't see an AOPA booth. I'm sure they have been there in
the past, unless I just missed them this year, for them not to be there
verges on the criminal. The EAA is supposed to be announcing "some major
efforts" to recruit pilots. I have a suggestion, once this user-fee thing
is killed, the group they have formed to fight it, the AAAA, should be used
as the vehicle to promote aviation.

Ken Finney wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Now, how do we get this same attitude out to the masses? I've
>> thought of forming my own EAA chapter just to get the 5-10 folks
>> that I know locally re-involved. That's a start, but it's gonna
>> take much more than just us.
>
> Are the AOPA and EAA not getting along? I was planning on joining
> AOPA at Arlington, but didn't see an AOPA booth. I'm sure they have
> been there in the past, unless I just missed them this year, for them
> not to be there verges on the criminal. The EAA is supposed to be
> announcing "some major efforts" to recruit pilots. I have a
> suggestion, once this user-fee thing is killed, the group they have
> formed to fight it, the AAAA, should be used as the vehicle to
> promote aviation.


Have I missed something? What's the AAAA?

Also, as some of you might remember I floated the idea in this newsgroup of
the AOPA working with FBOs to work with students that for what ever reason
don't finish training. It was suggested that I send the idea to AOPA. I did
via e-mail and haven't heard back from them.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> Now, how do we get this same attitude out to the masses? I've
>>> thought of forming my own EAA chapter just to get the 5-10 folks
>>> that I know locally re-involved. That's a start, but it's gonna
>>> take much more than just us.
>>
>> Are the AOPA and EAA not getting along? I was planning on joining
>> AOPA at Arlington, but didn't see an AOPA booth. I'm sure they have
>> been there in the past, unless I just missed them this year, for them
>> not to be there verges on the criminal. The EAA is supposed to be
>> announcing "some major efforts" to recruit pilots. I have a
>> suggestion, once this user-fee thing is killed, the group they have
>> formed to fight it, the AAAA, should be used as the vehicle to
>> promote aviation.
>
>
> Have I missed something? What's the AAAA?
>
> Also, as some of you might remember I floated the idea in this newsgroup
> of the AOPA working with FBOs to work with students that for what ever
> reason don't finish training. It was suggested that I send the idea to
> AOPA. I did via e-mail and haven't heard back from them.
>

http://www.aviationacrossamerica.com/

There have been a couple of threads recently bemoaning the lack
of young pilots, and the perhaps-related impending death of GA,
and questioning how to revive GA.

This is my perspective (spoiler: no solutions offered):

I earned my PP-SEL license on June 30 2007, about 30 years after I
first
entertained the notion of learning to fly (but only about 7 months
after
starting to learn). Why? It's a challenge, and it is fun.
But it is expensive and it took time.

I first rode in a small plane about 30 years ago. A couple of my
colleagues flew out of Oakland. One day I got to fly in the
right hand seat to Mendocino for lunch. Later I flew with more of a
daredevil doing whalewatching interspersed with some close-to-zero-g
maneuvers (in a C-172). It was great fun. But it would have
cost me over one year's salary (as a grad student) to learn to fly.

In the intervening 30 years I've ridden close to 1 million miles on
United Airlines, almost always in a window seat, while spending my
money on a house and college tuition. I drive an 18 year old Toyota
(A professor's salary doesn't go very far in New York).
Now that I'm almost done with my children's college tuition (3
semesters
to go), and the mortgage balance is under 5 figures, I can see the
light at
the end of the tunnel.

Call it a pre-emptive strike at my mid-life crisis. I don't have a
hankering
to ride a Harley, and I can't afford a mistress. I gave up sailing
years ago,
and don't have the patience to play golf on crowded public courses.
I stopped my own brewing beer as the supply of good microbrews
expanded.
Some $10,000 later, I'm glad I learned to fly. But $80/hr (for a
C-150)
makes flying an expensive hobby.
And the cost will go up when I start renting a 172, so I can
take the family places. Buying a plane (if that ever proves
economical)
will have to get in line after a new car and a kitchen floor...

What have I learned? Maybe I am, as my wife has opined, a frustrated
astronaut. Flying is still fun, and it is still a challenge. And it's
something different: nobody in my family, and none of my close
friends, flies.
But GA is an expensive hobby (emphasis on any of 3 words - your
choice).
GA is not dependable transportation (hence the need for a new car).
GA is not for everyone (Maybe this is good - I don't
like waiting at the end of a long line of planes on the taxiway).

Is there a future for GA? I certainly hope so. The time committment
does not bother me - you have to weed out people at some level. Flying
is just like driving - but in 3 dimensions rather than one - and it
always will and should require a commensurate committment of time and
effort.
Do we want the skies near uncontrolled airports looking like
Long Island Sound on a warm summer afternoon - full of bozos with
their
powerboats?
At the ripe young age of 53, I am one of the youngest pilots I've seen
at my airport.

Now that I've been through the process,
I don't understand how anyone in their 20s or 30s, with a family and
not independently wealthy, can afford to learn to fly as a hobby
without
financial assistance. Will scholarships and grants help?
Maybe, because reeling them in while they are young is always
worthwhile.
But you've got those continuing expenses...
And I don't know, but I've been told, that GA is no longer as much fun
as it used to be, what with security hassles, the ADIZ, bizjets at
small
airports, etc (it's almost enough to turn a liberal into a
libertarian!).

We live in a society where it is (and always has been) better to be
affluent than not.
It costs $200,000+ to buy a parking space in Manhattan. Boats and
their
maintenance are expensive. A round of golf is no longer cheap in most
places
(if you can get a tee time). Sunday driving is no longer relaxing. You
can't fix
your own car anymore. Why should flying be different?

But I'm not going to worry about the future of GA right now - I'm
going to
enjoy this opportunity while I can. I'll take my wife, my children,
my nieces and nephews, and friends, up to show them the sights, and
if the bug bites, I've done my part. I'll consider buying a plane when
the
time is right (anyone near ISP or HWV interested in sharing
ownership?)
And then I'd like to fly a plane west next summer, stopping off at
Jay Honeck's motel on the way to wherever.

Clear skies,
Fred

"First star to the left, then straight on till morning."
J.M. Barrie

<proffmw> wrote

> But GA is an expensive hobby (emphasis on any of 3 words - your
> choice).

What, like, "is an hobby?" <g>
--
Jim in NC

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> That's my guess too. So the FBOs aren't [mostly] training people that
> are going to go on to aviation careers. Thus, at least in the aggregate
> (over all FBOs), they are training the "next generation" of GA-ers.
>
> And that makes them "important" in the task of raising more GA pilots.

Absolutely. And the fact that they generate revenue from it is significant
as well. But I think a better argument is that they need to create pilots
who will buy planes to park at their tiedowns, and bring in to their
service stations.

> We've a very different mechanism which may work out about the same. It's
> a point-based system. A long booking "costs" 2 points; a short "costs"

[..]

> Also, frankly, everyone is pretty good about it. I'd a booking that was
> immediately followed by someone else's once. I found I wanted to stay
> away longer, and a quick call to the other member made it possible.

That's a pretty cool system. It might be worth exploring if we ever
increase our members-to-plane ratio. Right now, with fewer than 10 members
per plane, scheduling is pretty good... Of course, now I recognize you as
Paramus Flying Club, but admittedly I had to hop online to double check. :)

> <Heh> Good point. I'll have to remember that if I ever come across my
> own unlimited budget <grin>.
>
> In fact, now that I consider it, we've had and have members that owned
> their own aircraft as well. Hmm.

Yeah, those are the best members too because they contribute to the fixed
costs without cluttering up the schedule. :)

> I just recognized you: WFC-HPN.ORG? You're one of the few clubs in the
> "neighborhood" with six-seaters. I've noticed that; we have only
> four-seaters.

Well I'm not personally the whole club (although I did personally do some
work on the home page and the brochure <grin>). But yes, that's us. No six-
seaters though. All of our planes currently have 4 seats, but the two V-
Tail Bonanzas have the ability to have a fifth "child seat" installed.

> I've also long admired what little I can see about your finances, in that
> you seem to keep your aircraft very well equiped for a rather low price.

One of the priorities of the club that almost all members agree with is the
need to keep consistent and useful avionics in the planes. To the point
that when we bought our last two planes, we immediately switched their
avionics to match the rest of the fleet (GNS-480s). There's only one plane
in the fleet that doesn't have a GNS-480, and it's been a topic of debate
because for a while we thought we might be trading it in with the last
purchase instead of just buying the 8th plane. People didn't want to invest
to upgrade the avionics on a plane that wasn't going to be with the club
much longer. There's still an undercurrent of people who think we may end
up selling off that plane... But the club seems to waffle on it.