Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

[Jay Honeck]

In another thread, we have been hashing out whether some pilots in training
quit flying because of a hair-raising event, such as a brush with disaster,
or getting lost.

Few ex-students seem to admit that this was a reason for quitting, but the
drop-out rate seems to be far higher than it should be, and we all need to
do our level best to get more people into flight training. The World War II
and Korean War era pilots are dropping like flies, and formerly bustling
airports, especially in the vast reaches of the MidWest and Western states,
are turning into ghost fields.

We need more pilots, pronto, or we won't have anywhere to land in 20 years!
No municipality is going to pay to keep an airport open that is used by
fewer and fewer pilots every year -- and I can't blame them.

Off the top of my head I can think of three reasons (other than being scared
out of the cockpit) for the continuing drop-out conundrum:

1. CFI shuffling - You just get comfortable with an instructor, and off to
the regionals they go, leaving you to start all over with a new CFI...
2. Airport "snobbery" -- You walk into an FBO, prepared to spend thousands,
and you feel like an alien being on a strange world.
3. No Syllabus -- Too many CFIs work off the seat of their pants, without a
formal lesson plan. This drove me nuts, when I was getting my ticket.

You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and (for
the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to fly
is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this, for
now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.

That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate of
student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to those
who dream of piloting an aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> In another thread, we have been hashing out whether some pilots in training
> quit flying because of a hair-raising event, such as a brush with disaster,
> or getting lost.
>


Add job and family pressures that that list. I pretty much had to quit
flying back in 1986 due to a horrendous work/school schedule that
lasted for years. I finally got to where I could afford the time again
and the company set me up for a job transfer that kept me going in a
holding pattern for over a year.

Got married in 1997 and the wife wants us to be able to fly, but
combining taking care of her disability needs, corralling our 4 year
old, working up to 100 hour work weeks and lastly trying to get our
final aircraft project home, has put time way up on the rareity scale.
Fortunately when the last aircraft gets home, the need to work as much
overtime goes away and the luxury of a few free hours a week returns.

[Jose]

> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate of
> student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to those
> who dream of piloting an aircraft?

I'll think about it later on, but for now, ask the same question of any
other activity. For example, ham radio, motorcycling, boating, fishing,
hiking, parachuting, community theater, choir...

Granted, flying has a larger PE barrier than most, but there will
probably be a common thread. You can't do everything, and choices have
to be made.

Time is a big factor. This involves sheer quantity of time, and the
necessity for committing significant chunks of time in a world that
makes it difficult. Some activities require time from others as well.
Boating, for example, has a siginificant time impact on the rest of the
family (whether they come or not).

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Well I have had a few close calls that required some manuevering,
however the love of aviation is just so strong for me, it will never go
away.

I let my certificate lapse in the winter due to money constraints, but
flying will always be a part of my life.

I may never own my own plane and be destined to be a life long renter,
but at least I will be flying.

[Ben Hallert]

I've heard anecdotaly there are a disproportionate number of dropouts
immediately after soloing, and the suspicion is that for some, the main
goal to conquer is flying alone. Once they do that, they feel 'done',
even if it means that they never fly again, or don't ever get their
ticket.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Greg Farris]

I don't have any evidence to support this, but I bet there is some
disillusionment involved for many dropouts. They may have been prepared for
the cost, and the learning curve, but for any number of reasons, flying just
isn't what they thought it would be.

In our world today we have enough rules and regulations just in everyday
living to push borderline people over the edge. The amount of responsability,
liability and vulnerability we feel in just driving to work today is daunting.
To complete a pilot certificate and maintain it, one has to volontarily dish
oneself a heaping portion of extra rules, regulations and responsibilities.
For one who imagined flying to be a "free as a bird" sensation, this may be a
hard reality check.

Others, who may have imagined it would be "practical" to use private aviation
in personal or business transportation have to face the fact that there are
few cases where this is realistic. Airplane manufacturers have always used the
argument of how much time you'll save, whilst enjoying the experience and
spending little more than the cost of other transportation, but with the state
of roads and low cost air transportation today there are few cases where this
argument is valid.

People fly for many different reasons - and people take up flying with as many
hopes and expectations. I'll bet more than e few students, after 20 sweaty
hours in a C-152 begin to realize how many years and dollars separate them
from the publicity image of the guy in designer suits climbing leisurely into
his private KingAir at the end of a business day for the relaxing flight home,
and they decide it isn't worth it.

G Faris

[Greg Farris]

Asude the above comment about disillusionment, I would be willing to bet that
wife/girlfriend problems are very high on the list. Of course, it doesn't have
to be the guy who wants it and the girl who is opposed - but it's often that
way. What the guy sees as challenging, enjoyable and possibly useful, the girl
sees as costly, useless and possibly dangerous.

Greg

[Brien K. Meehan]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> I've heard anecdotaly there are a disproportionate number of dropouts
> immediately after soloing, and the suspicion is that for some, the main
> goal to conquer is flying alone. Once they do that, they feel 'done',
> even if it means that they never fly again, or don't ever get their
> ticket.

I place the blame squarely upon that one Andy Griffith Show episode.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:48:39 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<rEcNe.42126$084.40784@attbi_s22>::

>That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate of
>student pilots?

They realize they are not qualified to pilot an aircraft in the NAS
due to their inability to meet the demands to do so safely,
competently and without stressful fear of disaster.

>What can we do to make flying more accessible to those
>who dream of piloting an aircraft?

Those in the category I mentioned above would need a brain transplant.
:-)

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:rEcNe.42126$084.40784@attbi_s22...

<<snip>>
>
> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate
> of student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to
> those who dream of piloting an aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Even to people who grew up in the 50's and 60's had pilots as heroes. The
guys at Edwards, the Astronauts, etc. Before then, the WWII generation of
pilots had a laundry list of aviation heroes. This brought people into
flying. In today's society, there are no pilot-heroes, and flying isn't
generally regarded as glamorous or as a grand adventure.

It has already been mentioned, but there are too many FBO's that don't care.
You sign up for an airplane and instructor for Saturday morning, only to
arrive and either the instructor has taken a charter flight elsewhere or the
airplane is broken. Even better, nobody bothered to call you, so you've
wasted a trip. Beyond that, the person behind the desk at the FBO doesn't
apologize.

There are some great FBO's out there, but there are a lot of not-so-good
ones too. The smart ones realize that without pilots, they are out of
business. The dumb ones jack up the cost of getting a PPL to the point
where there are no new pilots. In 20 years, they will wonder what happened
to all of their business and why they are closing the doors. The FBO at my
airfield is one of those. They sold their C-152's, so there is no
inexpensive airplane rental option for training. Also, they doubled their
instructor cost (not pay). The effect of these two items has more or less
doubled the cost of getting a PPL through that FBO. In the old days, they
used to crank out quite a few new pilots. I'm not aware of a single person
who completed their PPL using the services of this FBO in the last 2-3
years.

Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts (maybe
I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with. This
doesn't help.

KB

[kontiki]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Even to people who grew up in the 50's and 60's had pilots as heroes. The
> guys at Edwards, the Astronauts, etc. Before then, the WWII generation of
> pilots had a laundry list of aviation heroes. This brought people into
> flying. In today's society, there are no pilot-heroes, and flying isn't
> generally regarded as glamorous or as a grand adventure.
>
I agree with this... societal changes have a lot to do with it. When I was a
kid I was in awe of the "aces" of WWII and Korea. Heck, my Dad was a naval
aviator, flying TBF's and Hellcats in the Pacific in '44 and '45. As a kid I
used to watch Sky King (I still love the looks of a C310!). I could name every
one of the old war movies I used to watch that had an airplane in it.

There are pilot hero's today but they seem to get lost in the noise level of
Rap music and Video games. Why bother to learn to fly when you can fly a
video game or simulator.

>
> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts (maybe
> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with. This
> doesn't help.

We need to do more as a group to encourage the younger generation. I wish
there were more inspiring movies about aviation... but alas, we're more likely
to see a movie about BTK than some interesting aviator or aviation story.
I am doing the best I can, and have taken several people on their very first
airplane ride in my airplane. My payment was the look on their face as we
left the runway and climbed into the sky.

[[email protected]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts (maybe
> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with. This
> doesn't help.

I agree with that. Most under 30 at our airport are only there to get
whatever ratings they need to get to the airlines and then they're outta
there. Nearly everyone that "hangs out" there, socializes there, flies
together for *fun* outside of training, is at least 40 and up, and the
40-60s are the "younger" ones. The majority are 60+ ... not that there's
anything wrong with that!!

[Jay Honeck]

> I've heard anecdotaly there are a disproportionate number of dropouts
> immediately after soloing, and the suspicion is that for some, the main
> goal to conquer is flying alone. Once they do that, they feel 'done',
> even if it means that they never fly again, or don't ever get their
> ticket.

That's odd, to me -- the solo flight was never the be-all and end-all. I
remember that flight as if it were yesterday (who doesn't?), and all I could
think of was that the prelude was finally over. *NOW* I could really start
learning to fly.

Perhaps that's something the CFI must learn to teach?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Trent Moorehead]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...

> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
(maybe
> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with.
This
> doesn't help.

Maybe there needs to be a aviation sector of the "X" games. I'm only half
kidding.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[john smith]

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate
>>of student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to
>>those who dream of piloting an aircraft?

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Even to people who grew up in the 50's and 60's had pilots as heroes. The
> guys at Edwards, the Astronauts, etc. Before then, the WWII generation of
> pilots had a laundry list of aviation heroes. This brought people into
> flying. In today's society, there are no pilot-heroes, and flying isn't
> generally regarded as glamorous or as a grand adventure.

I grew up watching RIPCORD, SKY KING and WHIRLYBIRDS. The X-15 program
was in full swing and the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs continued
to evolve. The Air Force was making nightly sonic booms during the
summer. The then new Boeing 727's were crashing at irregular intervals
at KCVG (Cincinnati). My Dad was taking me flying when stars lined up
properly.

> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts (maybe
> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with. This
> doesn't help.

I was 25 when I got my PPL, so I was hanging with the EAA chapter guys
in their 50's+, as well.
Probably one of the differences was that our chapter did monthly flyouts
for lunch and invited anyone who wanted to go.
I took advantage of the opportunity to learn from the greybeards.
We fly in and out of alot of private grass strips of all shapes, sizes
and obstacles.
I got involved in a restoration project and learned how to do fabic work.
I ride shared a trip to Sun N Fun and learned how to fly Chinese style
(One-Wing-Low) to get all the fuel out of a tank for max range.
I got my tailwheel endorsement and got to fly several Vintage
taildraggers that I otherwise would not have had the opportunity to.

I learned to fly at a university with a flight school, so there were
numberous younger pilots to hang with all the time. Sure, they were in
aviation for the job, while I was in it for the enjoyment and knowledge,
but we still found common ground and had fun.

[Jim Burns]

I've seen that happen locally time after time. We've got a rather weak
support system for new students at our airport. We have no full time flight
school, but rather part time CFI's that devote every free moment of their
time to help people learn to fly.

The CFI's lease a couple planes, nothing fancy, and do their best to keep
them flying, we have no FBO.
Scheduling is done online, no FBO services to help the student, only the CFI
and when the CFI is at his/her full time job, the student is left to fend
for himself. The only support available for him is through telephone calls
to the CFI. What I have seen is that prior to solo, the student has a
terrific support system. Every flight is with a CFI, typically there are
other students and pilots around during these times to encourage them. The
student is typically also going to ground school and feels comfortable in
the presence of other novices. After solo, the student feels "lost" or
alone. The student experiences the "cold shoulder" of the experienced
pilots, IF he even sees any other pilots at all, often our airport is
deserted. Everything becomes less predictable, the support fades away, and
it is no longer fun. Other things become more fun and soon their love of
aviation is replaced by something that they may not love as much, but have
more fun doing.

Jim

[RNR]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:48:39 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

snipped...
>Off the top of my head I can think of three reasons (other than being scared
>out of the cockpit) for the continuing drop-out conundrum:
>
>1. CFI shuffling - You just get comfortable with an instructor, and off to
>the regionals they go, leaving you to start all over with a new CFI...
>2. Airport "snobbery" -- You walk into an FBO, prepared to spend thousands,
>and you feel like an alien being on a strange world.
>3. No Syllabus -- Too many CFIs work off the seat of their pants, without a
>formal lesson plan. This drove me nuts, when I was getting my ticket.
>
>You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
>quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and (for
>the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to fly
>is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
>buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this, for
>now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
>could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.
>
>That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate of
>student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to those
>who dream of piloting an aircraft?

Jay, you cannot remove cost from the analysis. It is probably the
most significant factor. You are correct that it cost less than an HD
motorcycle to learn to fly and you are also correct that there are
millions of Americans who could easily afford to fly. Those issues
are more relevant to the recruiting effort than they are to drop-out
rate.

I believe that the reason that cost is such an impediment is because
many, many students enter into the learning process without having a
clear understanding of what the costs are. Some of them are
delusional and simply don't want to acknowledge the true costs to
their concious minds. Others, I beleive, have been lured in by very
misleading advertising and/or promotional materials from flight
schools. Many of these list the FAA requirements for obtaining a PP
certificate and imply that those minimums will get the job done.
Typically, 50%, or more, flying time is required. Combine those with
the folks that simply miscalculated the impact that this would have on
their household budgets and you have a serious issue. Remember, we're
talking about drop-outs, not the untapped resource of affluent
candidates.

There are other issues that impact this problem, as well. Many
students begin the process without a clear understanding of the level
of commitment and work that is involved. They think that learning to
fly would be cool, but when faced with the books and work involved,
they bolt. This obviously implies a lack of commitment, but I think
that the lack of commitment (and understanding of the required effort)
is another major factor in students abandoning the dream.

Yet another factor is the phenomenon of the student who aspires to
solo an airplane but is not committed to following the process to its
prescribed end. I have trouble understanding this, but that doesn't
make it a less viable option for those that think this way.

Still others, begin with the proper attitude and expectations but
along the way they realize that it is not all that they expected it
would be. They begin to wonder what they're going to do with the
license and eventually determine that their money would be better
spent elsewhere. Again, I cannot imagine thinking that way, but they
are not me.

I think all of the above factors are larger contributing factors to
the drop-out rate than being scared out of the cockpit. Finally, I
know that I've said this already, but I think it's critical that we
not confuse factors that contribute to the drop-out rate with those
that are keeping new qualified potential pilots from beginning the
process in the first place.
Rich Russell

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-19, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> In another thread, we have been hashing out whether some pilots in training
> quit flying because of a hair-raising event, such as a brush with disaster,
> or getting lost.

My pet theories.

Many people think about learning to fly as it'd be a great way to
travel. They are used to at least a modest new car, which is
comfortable, quiet and airconditioned and breaks down so infrequently
you may never personally experience one. They are used to all sorts of
modern technologies.

Then they start.

They discover on their first flight that the aircraft was probably built
before they were born. They discover that if an aviation mechanic from
1945 was transported forwards in time to 2005, that mechanic would be
almost completely at home with the trainer. They find the aircraft is
about half the width of a compact car, and as for air conditioning,
forget it. They discover that unlike their state's driving handbook
which is a slim volume, the FAR/AIM is a massive tome that makes Tom
Clancy look like a concise and interesting writer by comparison. They
discover the weight limitations of even a fairly powerful single engine
plane like a Beech Bonanza is so low that they can't take three adult
friends flying with them if they have full tanks - let alone their
trainer! And they can't even fly that Bonanza until they have 500 total
time and 25 in type. They find that to even fly through relatively
benign clouds, they are going to have to do another rating that's even
more work than the private. The trainer they are flying has seen better
days - it has a poor paint job, the interior is worn, a radio is
placarded inop, it leaks oil.

They hang on for a bit because they boasted to their friends how they
were going to become a pilot, and therefore don't want to lose face by
immediately giving up - so they make it to solo so they can say they've
done it.

The result? Only the really passionate about flying for the sake of
flying continue, or those who want to become an airline pilot continue.
Those who enjoy flying, but equally well enjoy sailing or golf go
sailing or golfing instead. The environment is set up that only the most
passionate will ever go onto getting their private and continue flying
for years to come.

Even if you instantly did away with the knackered old trainers and had
brand new, state of the art trainers with AC and glass cockpits, the
amount of time needed just to get the private and to be able to fly only
in nice weather would mean that mainly just the passionate would
complete their training.

[Jose]

Getting to solo may be a sufficient goal to satisfy some, once they
realize that flying isn't as useful as they thought it might be, or as
fun as they thought it might be. So, getting to solo "proves
themselves", but once there, they are happy.

Are you any different? You stopped at one engine. All this noise about
trailers at Oshkosh and you are still flying a slow, single engine
airplane with a growing family. What is keeping you, who love aviation
so much, from getting a twin rating and buying something that can
acutally =haul= the stuff you want to take to OSH along with six
friends, and at three hundred knots to boot, icing be damned?

Scale down those reasons, and I think you'll see why some other people
stop at solo, or at their certificate and a few hours, or just fade away.

Another thing to consider is that the romance of flying has changed in
the last fifty years. In the early days, it was a true adventure to get
into one of those contraptions, and you would be one of the few who
dared. Nowadays, flying is pretty ordinary - people get in the aluminum
tube all the time. Granted, those aren't airplanes, they are apartment
buildings with wings on them, but the public sees them as aircraft. GPS
takes the fun out of navigation, there's a lot more air traffic and
alphabet airspace to weave through, and while flying is still as much
=fun= as it used to be, it is also less =special= in the eyes of the
public (from whom we draw our students). Subtlely this may also have
something to do with the dropout rate.

Money and time are important reasons too, but to this I add distraction
- the myriad other things to do that there didn't used to be, that are
easy to do and beckon people's time away from them. Flying takes more
oomph (especially when you live half an hour from the airport) than just
sitting at the internet.

And the FAA doesn't help things at all when they don't even let you take
passengers any more except if you have "common purpose" and a "previous
relationship" and aren't "holding out" (say by telling your dorm friends
that you'd love to take any of them home for the holidays just because
you love to fly) and at that can't share your expenses fully. And (as
evidenced in another thread) it's a good idea to brief your passengers
on what not to say in case you get "caught" by the FAA giving rides.

I'd say that number one on the list of things that should be done to
help increase the number of pilots is to roll back the FAA's silly
compensation rules to the way it was twenty years ago, and encourage
private pilots to share the joys of flight. I bet we'd get a mix of new
students with more lasting enthusiasm for flight to begin with.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate
> of student pilots?Â*Â*Â*Â*

Are you sure that this is the right question? Perhaps the drop-out rate is
fine, and what we need to do is get more people "through the door".

I noticed a blurb this morning in the current IFR on a course for HS
students designed to use aviation to increase interest in science. I don't
know anything about this, but I plan to learn. It sounds like a very
exciting avenue for getting more people interested in aviation.

- Andrew

[Gene Seibel]

Flying is boring to the generation that has been raised on action
filled TV, movies, and video games.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:
> Are you any different? You stopped at one engine. All this noise about
> trailers at Oshkosh and you are still flying a slow, single engine
> airplane with a growing family. What is keeping you, who love aviation
> so much, from getting a twin rating and buying something that can
> acutally =haul= the stuff you want to take to OSH along with six
> friends, and at three hundred knots to boot, icing be damned?


Huh? I don't see how flying a twin or a single relates to Jay's
question at all. Jay's question deals with why people who have an
initial interest in flying apparently lose interest, not why someone who
flies a Cherokee doesn't run out and buy a Baron. By your measurement,
I guess the only people who love flying are those who can afford to
prance around in Gulfstream Vs.

I do agree with your observation about the romance of flying--I think
that flying is one of those things that is now taken for granted, even
demanded, by the public. It is no longer respected as it once was.

I agree with your observation about the commitment--to remain proficient
and safe, so that flying is truly useful, you have to commit to flying
on a regular basis. This takes discipline that many aren't willing to
provide just so that they can take the family away once or twice a year.

For families, I think that financial commitment is a big issue. Both
adults have to see the value in flying and be willing to sacrifice other
things in order to do it. There are quite a few husbands with an
interest who have less enthusiastic wives. Who is going to willingly
strain a personal relationship over something so unimportant in the big
picture?

Personally, I don't think those pilots who learn to fly because it's a
rich kid's hobby, or so they can boast to their neighbors, do the rest
of us any good, and I'd rather that they not set foot in an airplane at
all.


JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:38:46 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >::

>We need to do more as a group to encourage the younger generation.

Imagine being a young person today faced with the high cost of
automobiles, ever increasing cost of insurance and gasoline, and the
astronomical cost of a home, and then you'll realize why adding the
cost of aviation instruction and operation is totally out of the
question for the vast majority.

[Michael]

> You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people
> mention for quitting: Money.

That's because it is indeed the number one reason. Or, more precisely
- flying does not offer good value for the money. Most students quit
once they realize this. The ones who don't are a handful of aviation
addicts - the kind of people who will tell you that flying is life, and
everything else is just details. Those people will always find a way
to fly, and little things like being shuffled between CFI's,
disorganized and often incompetent instruction, and airport snobbery
won't stop them - just like it didn't stop you, or me for that matter.

If we're ever going to get more pilots in quantity, we need to attract
a demographic other than "will go to any lengths to fly, regardless of
what it costs or what sacrifices must be made." Right now, that's
pretty much the only demongraphic we're attracting.

Flying is expensive. You mentioned that getting a private license is
no more expensive than a semester at college. This is questionable -
it depends on the college - but in any case, a college degree these
days is job training, not something you do recreationally. There are
as many kids learning to fly as ever, shooting for a career in
aviation. They're not dropping out unless they just totally run out of
money or discover that's not what they want to do for a living. But
for someone who is college-age and not going for a career in aviation,
flying is just too expensive a hobby. Wrong demographic.

So let's revisit the Harley thing again, since that's the demographic
we're going for. Someone willing and able to shell out big bucks for
an expensive and dangerous toy is indeed the person we're looking for.
For the price of a brand-new loaded Harley, you can get an old
ragged-out two-seater. Your cost of ownership for the plane will be
ten times what it is for the Harley. Is the plane ten times more fun?
Is it ten times more useful? You're losing students who realize that
for a fraction of what they're spending on aviation, they coud be
having more fun on a Harley.

Aviation will recover when (a)
You can buy a brand new, ready-to-fly, two-seat airplane with a
reasonable warranty and service plan for what a new Harley costs, and
have comparable operating costs, and (b)
The bull**** factor associated with aviation falls off to what it is
with a Harley, and the fun factor comes up to what it is with a Harley.

I'm somewhat hopeful that (a) will happen under the LSA rules. When I
was in the Keys, I saw a two-seat UL trainer on floats. It was open
cockpit (very open), and had a Rotax engine and Dacron-sailcloth
covered wing, but it was $25K new. Sell it as an LSA at that price and
people will buy it. It also comes in a landplane version.

As for (b), we need a change in attitude.

I met an avid scuba diver and business owner who could afford an
airplane, and actually went up with a friend of his on a lesson. The
process of walking around the plane for 10 minutes with a written
checklist, and then spending 5 more minutes in the plane reading a
checklist, was enough to turn him off. I routinely get a twin
preflighted for IFR and launched in less time than that, and they were
just going on a local day-VFR flight in a Cherokee. We need to
understand that if we're going to attract the Harley demographic, that
kind of bull**** is unacceptable.

For that matter, the whole fascination with rules has to stop. We
don't religiously follow every traffic law in our cars (and god knows
it doesn't happen on motorcycles), and we certainly don't spend hours
debating the fine points of what it and is not legal. Why should this
be acceptable with airplanes? The Harley demographic is not going to
stand for it.

How would the motorcycle community react to a rider who turned in one
of their own to the police for a traffic violation? Or even suggested
that it might be OK to do? Do riders worry about what's actually legal
- or just what they can get busted for? Why is it different for
airplanes? It doesn't need to be. Motorcycles are loud, they're
dangerous, but the biggest restrictions placed on bikers are helmet
laws - and even this is far from universal. They don't police their
ranks, but they have something we don't - they have numbers. That's
much more useful. If policing our own ranks costs us numbers (and it
does) then it's counterproductive to keeping aviation alive.

So bottom line - if you want to see fewer people dropping out, we need
lower costs and fewer rules. Otherwise, we're going away.

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:36:32 -0400, RNR >
wrote in >::

>you cannot remove cost from the analysis. It is probably the
>most significant factor.

I have no idea if the cost of flight training is still covered by the
GI Bill, but it was a strong motivating factor in the past. The
problem was, as I recall, that only those instruction costs beyond the
Private Pilot certificate were covered. If there was a loan program
in place to cover the initial training costs, it might motivate more
veterans to become pilots.

[Jose]

> I don't see how flying a twin or a single relates to Jay's
> question at all. Jay's question deals with why people who have an
> initial interest in flying apparently lose interest, not why someone who
> flies a Cherokee doesn't run out and buy a Baron. By your measurement,
> I guess the only people who love flying are those who can afford to
> prance around in Gulfstream Vs.

The point is that in both cases, somebody who is attracted to aviation
goes "just so far" and then is satisfied. Jay doesn't understand how
this can be so. For the person who is satisfied by having mastered
enough to solo, he's happy in a way that Jay doesn't understand, because
he has the drive to go further. But Jay too has "stopped"... albeit at
a different place. The reasons that Jay has for stopping are reasons
that Jay understands, since they are =his= reasons, despite the
arguments I've given for continuing on.

My point is that the reasons on both sides and in both places may well
be the same, differing only in perspective. For example, despite the
usefulness of the higher performance aircraft, maintaining currency in a
twin is a commitment, twins cost significantly more to operate, they
operate out of fewer fields, and all these look sneakingly like the
arguments against airplane flight over highway travel for somebody who
thought flying would be =so= handy.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Nearly everyone that "hangs out" there, socializes there, flies
> together for *fun* outside of training, is at least 40 and up, and the
> 40-60s are the "younger" ones.

That isn't a problem. As long as new 40-year-olds keep showing up to keep the
population steady.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike Rapoport]

His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
difference between stopping at solo or at PP.

Mike
MU-2


"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>> Are you any different? You stopped at one engine. All this noise about
>> trailers at Oshkosh and you are still flying a slow, single engine
>> airplane with a growing family. What is keeping you, who love aviation
>> so much, from getting a twin rating and buying something that can
>> acutally =haul= the stuff you want to take to OSH along with six
>> friends, and at three hundred knots to boot, icing be damned?
>
>
> Huh? I don't see how flying a twin or a single relates to Jay's
> question at all. Jay's question deals with why people who have an
> initial interest in flying apparently lose interest, not why someone who
> flies a Cherokee doesn't run out and buy a Baron. By your measurement,
> I guess the only people who love flying are those who can afford to
> prance around in Gulfstream Vs.
>
> I do agree with your observation about the romance of flying--I think
> that flying is one of those things that is now taken for granted, even
> demanded, by the public. It is no longer respected as it once was.
>
> I agree with your observation about the commitment--to remain proficient
> and safe, so that flying is truly useful, you have to commit to flying
> on a regular basis. This takes discipline that many aren't willing to
> provide just so that they can take the family away once or twice a year.
>
> For families, I think that financial commitment is a big issue. Both
> adults have to see the value in flying and be willing to sacrifice other
> things in order to do it. There are quite a few husbands with an
> interest who have less enthusiastic wives. Who is going to willingly
> strain a personal relationship over something so unimportant in the big
> picture?
>
> Personally, I don't think those pilots who learn to fly because it's a
> rich kid's hobby, or so they can boast to their neighbors, do the rest
> of us any good, and I'd rather that they not set foot in an airplane at
> all.
>
>
> JKG

[Mike Rapoport]

All good points but a huge difference between flying and riding a Harley is
the amount of time from when you start spending money until you start having
fun. Americans, at least, are not very interested in delayed gratification.
Consumer products that require reading the manual before use usually flop.

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people
>> mention for quitting: Money.
>
> That's because it is indeed the number one reason. Or, more precisely
> - flying does not offer good value for the money. Most students quit
> once they realize this. The ones who don't are a handful of aviation
> addicts - the kind of people who will tell you that flying is life, and
> everything else is just details. Those people will always find a way
> to fly, and little things like being shuffled between CFI's,
> disorganized and often incompetent instruction, and airport snobbery
> won't stop them - just like it didn't stop you, or me for that matter.
>
> If we're ever going to get more pilots in quantity, we need to attract
> a demographic other than "will go to any lengths to fly, regardless of
> what it costs or what sacrifices must be made." Right now, that's
> pretty much the only demongraphic we're attracting.
>
> Flying is expensive. You mentioned that getting a private license is
> no more expensive than a semester at college. This is questionable -
> it depends on the college - but in any case, a college degree these
> days is job training, not something you do recreationally. There are
> as many kids learning to fly as ever, shooting for a career in
> aviation. They're not dropping out unless they just totally run out of
> money or discover that's not what they want to do for a living. But
> for someone who is college-age and not going for a career in aviation,
> flying is just too expensive a hobby. Wrong demographic.
>
> So let's revisit the Harley thing again, since that's the demographic
> we're going for. Someone willing and able to shell out big bucks for
> an expensive and dangerous toy is indeed the person we're looking for.
> For the price of a brand-new loaded Harley, you can get an old
> ragged-out two-seater. Your cost of ownership for the plane will be
> ten times what it is for the Harley. Is the plane ten times more fun?
> Is it ten times more useful? You're losing students who realize that
> for a fraction of what they're spending on aviation, they coud be
> having more fun on a Harley.
>
> Aviation will recover when (a)
> You can buy a brand new, ready-to-fly, two-seat airplane with a
> reasonable warranty and service plan for what a new Harley costs, and
> have comparable operating costs, and (b)
> The bull**** factor associated with aviation falls off to what it is
> with a Harley, and the fun factor comes up to what it is with a Harley.
>
> I'm somewhat hopeful that (a) will happen under the LSA rules. When I
> was in the Keys, I saw a two-seat UL trainer on floats. It was open
> cockpit (very open), and had a Rotax engine and Dacron-sailcloth
> covered wing, but it was $25K new. Sell it as an LSA at that price and
> people will buy it. It also comes in a landplane version.
>
> As for (b), we need a change in attitude.
>
> I met an avid scuba diver and business owner who could afford an
> airplane, and actually went up with a friend of his on a lesson. The
> process of walking around the plane for 10 minutes with a written
> checklist, and then spending 5 more minutes in the plane reading a
> checklist, was enough to turn him off. I routinely get a twin
> preflighted for IFR and launched in less time than that, and they were
> just going on a local day-VFR flight in a Cherokee. We need to
> understand that if we're going to attract the Harley demographic, that
> kind of bull**** is unacceptable.
>
> For that matter, the whole fascination with rules has to stop. We
> don't religiously follow every traffic law in our cars (and god knows
> it doesn't happen on motorcycles), and we certainly don't spend hours
> debating the fine points of what it and is not legal. Why should this
> be acceptable with airplanes? The Harley demographic is not going to
> stand for it.
>
> How would the motorcycle community react to a rider who turned in one
> of their own to the police for a traffic violation? Or even suggested
> that it might be OK to do? Do riders worry about what's actually legal
> - or just what they can get busted for? Why is it different for
> airplanes? It doesn't need to be. Motorcycles are loud, they're
> dangerous, but the biggest restrictions placed on bikers are helmet
> laws - and even this is far from universal. They don't police their
> ranks, but they have something we don't - they have numbers. That's
> much more useful. If policing our own ranks costs us numbers (and it
> does) then it's counterproductive to keeping aviation alive.
>
> So bottom line - if you want to see fewer people dropping out, we need
> lower costs and fewer rules. Otherwise, we're going away.
>
> Michael
>

[Michael]

> All good points but a huge difference between flying and riding a Harley is
> the amount of time from when you start spending money until you start having
> fun.

I'm not convinced that's true. I know that most people (at least in
Houston) who buy a Harley who have never ridden before take a course
that starts Friday evening, goes all through the weekend, and I think
there's some finishup Monday. That would be enough time to solo a
tri-gear LSA.

For those who really must have the one-day training course, there is
always the powered parachute.

Michael

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
But Jay too has "stopped"... albeit at
> a different place. The reasons that Jay has for stopping are reasons
> that Jay understands, since they are =his= reasons, despite the
> arguments I've given for continuing on.

That's ridiculous. It's not stopping at all. By your logic we should
all be driving semis, or have a garage full of cars to meet every
driving need. Moving up to larger planes is not a natural progression.
One trip a year that can't be handled by your current plane doesn't
mean you have stopped.

[Mike Rapoport]

i think the point is that Jay's ambitions were realized when he became a PP,
he chose not to persue an instrument or other, more advanced, rating. Many
people's ambitions are apparently reached when they solo. Other people get
the PP rating and then quit.

Mike
MU-2



"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jose wrote:
> But Jay too has "stopped"... albeit at
>> a different place. The reasons that Jay has for stopping are reasons
>> that Jay understands, since they are =his= reasons, despite the arguments
>> I've given for continuing on.
>
> That's ridiculous. It's not stopping at all. By your logic we should all
> be driving semis, or have a garage full of cars to meet every driving
> need. Moving up to larger planes is not a natural progression. One trip a
> year that can't be handled by your current plane doesn't mean you have
> stopped.

[Jose]

> That's ridiculous. It's not stopping at all. By your logic we should all be driving semis, or have a garage full of cars to meet every driving need.

Exactly!

So why is it so unfathomable (to Jay) that some people stop before
getting the license to operate an aircraft, which has rather specialized
needs and limited uses compared to a car? The reasons for continuing
(on to a twin) are the same kinds of reasons for continuing past solo.
Their apparant validity depends on perspective, and is not an absolute.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

"Michael" > wrote:
> I met an avid scuba diver and business owner who could afford an
> airplane, and actually went up with a friend of his on a lesson. The
> process of walking around the plane for 10 minutes with a written
> checklist, and then spending 5 more minutes in the plane reading a
> checklist, was enough to turn him off. I routinely get a twin
> preflighted for IFR and launched in less time than that, and they were
> just going on a local day-VFR flight in a Cherokee. We need to
> understand that if we're going to attract the Harley demographic, that
> kind of bull**** is unacceptable.

So this other guy who could afford to fly vetoed learning to fly because
his friend spent 15 minutes assuring their safety as best he could
before they left the ground? How much time does he spend checking his
gear before he scuba dives? what if something doesn't check out just so?
does he spend a few minutes correcting it, or just dive in anyway?

JMO, but I don't consider 15 minutes to do a preflight/cockpit check
"unacceptable bull****".

That's society today -- we've been conditioned, by all the "no wait",
"no lines", now-now-now advertising that the prevailing attitude is that
if you have to wait for *anything*, it's not worth it. That instant
gratification attitude has created a generation of people who get
"turned off" spending 15 minutes of their precious time for the PILOT to
be satisfied that they'll have a safe flight--he must be fun to go on a
commercial flight with! Have him try boating!

JMO, but a person who is too impatient to spend 15 minutes on a
preflight/cockpit check isn't someone I'd be kicking myself for turning
off to flying! Good for you if you can preflight and launch a twin in
less than 15 minutes ... I'm sure not gonna hurry-up my
preflight/cockpit routine just so my non-pilot passenger doesn't get
"turned off"!

Side note from a person who came from a Harley family: Harley people
generally keep their bikes at home in their garages where they can go
tinker, check and correct things whenever they feel like it ... so
things are usually ready-to-go when they have a ride planned. If you
added up all the time it takes to put on all the gear, stow away
whatever you're bringing (like you do when you fly), and the few minutes
the checking oil and making sure you have fuel the night before, it
would add up to around 10 or 15 minutes, too. And if you had to drive to
another location and do all that elsewhere, like you do with an
airplane, you'd also spend at least that much time before riding away as
well.

The whole experience is supposed to be enjoyable. If the wealthy scuba
diver doesn't like to wait, a bicycle would be a better choice.

[RomeoMike]

I know of two WW II vets who got their private certificates under the GI
Bill.



Larry Dighera wrote:

>
>
> I have no idea if the cost of flight training is still covered by the
> GI Bill, but it was a strong motivating factor in the past. The
> problem was, as I recall, that only those instruction costs beyond the
> Private Pilot certificate were covered.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> I don't see how flying a twin or a single relates to Jay's question at
>> all. Jay's question deals with why people who have an initial interest
>> in flying apparently lose interest, not why someone who flies a Cherokee
>> doesn't run out and buy a Baron. By your measurement, I guess the only
>> people who love flying are those who can afford to prance around in
>> Gulfstream Vs.
>
> The point is that in both cases, somebody who is attracted to aviation
> goes "just so far" and then is satisfied. Jay doesn't understand how this
> can be so. For the person who is satisfied by having mastered enough to
> solo, he's happy in a way that Jay doesn't understand, because he has the
> drive to go further. But Jay too has "stopped"... albeit at a different
> place. The reasons that Jay has for stopping are reasons that Jay
> understands, since they are =his= reasons, despite the arguments I've
> given for continuing on.
>
> My point is that the reasons on both sides and in both places may well be
> the same, differing only in perspective. For example, despite the
> usefulness of the higher performance aircraft, maintaining currency in a
> twin is a commitment, twins cost significantly more to operate, they
> operate out of fewer fields, and all these look sneakingly like the
> arguments against airplane flight over highway travel for somebody who
> thought flying would be =so= handy.
>
> Jose
> --


While I don't fully agree with your analogy I understand what you are
saying. But you are missing the point. Yes there are reasons that are beyond
the flying community's ability to correct or deal with when it comes to the
drop-out rate among flight students and this thread has touched on many of
them.

We need to look for the reasons that we can change. A small improvement
would increase the number of pilots significantly.

[RomeoMike]

I agree. We all have run into people who seem to feel that they joined
the flying fraternity by soloing, eventhough it was their last flight.
They got some bragging rights, and the interest or resources for more
advancement were not there; so they quit.


Mike Rapoport wrote:
> His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
> used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
> fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
> difference between stopping at solo or at PP.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[Jose]

> While I don't fully agree with your analogy I understand what you are
> saying. But you are missing the point. [...]
>
> We need to look for the reasons that we can change. A small improvement
> would increase the number of pilots significantly.

I agree with your last statement. But I don't think I'm missing the
point, I'm just making a different one, to Jay, that might help him get
his head around the phenomena of other people stopping doing something
that (to him) is so wonderful.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
> used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
> fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
> difference between stopping at solo or at PP.


Stopping at solo doesn't make you a certificated pilot. Jay's question
seemed to ask why many folks bail out before they become pilots.

Once you have taken the tests and become a certificated pilot, there is
little reason to progress beyond that point unless you intend to fly for
a living or fly an airplane that requires more advanced certificates and
ratings. The fact is, a private pilot is a certificated pilot--who can
do anything a commercial pilot can do except fly for hire. An airplane
is pretty much an airplane, and unless I have a need for a twin, or an
instrument rating, why would I want to obtain them?

I hold advanced certificates and ratings, but most of the time the type
of flying I do requires nothing more than a basic private pilot
certificate. If I were just a student pilot, I wouldn't have the skills
nor the legal authority to use aviation as a beneficial tool or hobby.
Sounds like a pretty big difference to me.



JKG

[Jose]

> Stopping at solo doesn't make you a certificated pilot. Jay's question
> seemed to ask why many folks bail out before they become pilots.

No, but it does make you a =pilot=. You are demonstrably capable of
flying an airplane, and the FAA will let you do so by yourself. Just
like with certificated private pilots, there are some restrictions.
(yes, they are different restrictions).

Once you have soloed, there is little reason to progress beyond that
point unless you intend to fly others, and without requring a CFI
signoff. But that's not my point.

From the POV of somebody at any prominent stopping point, the view
looks the same. "Did I do what I set out to do... does it make sense to
continue so that I can do 'other stuff'".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:
> The point is that in both cases, somebody who is attracted to aviation
> goes "just so far" and then is satisfied. Jay doesn't understand how
> this can be so. For the person who is satisfied by having mastered
> enough to solo, he's happy in a way that Jay doesn't understand, because
> he has the drive to go further. But Jay too has "stopped"... albeit at
> a different place. The reasons that Jay has for stopping are reasons
> that Jay understands, since they are =his= reasons, despite the
> arguments I've given for continuing on.



My point is that there is a huge difference between dipping your feet in
the water and then bailing out, and actually finishing your certificate
to become a certificated pilot. Once you become a certificated pilot,
you are a pilot--obtaining a commercial, multi, etc. doesn't make you
any more of a pilot, just as obtaining a commercial driver's license
doesn't make you any more of a driver.

Those who bail before obtaining a pilot certificate are not pilots, and
may not exercise the privileges of a pilot certificate.



JKG

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point.
>> He
>> used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single
>> engine,
>> fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
>> difference between stopping at solo or at PP.
>
>
> Stopping at solo doesn't make you a certificated pilot. Jay's question
> seemed to ask why many folks bail out before they become pilots.
>
> Once you have taken the tests and become a certificated pilot, there is
> little reason to progress beyond that point unless you intend to fly for
> a living or fly an airplane that requires more advanced certificates and
> ratings. The fact is, a private pilot is a certificated pilot--who can
> do anything a commercial pilot can do except fly for hire. An airplane
> is pretty much an airplane, and unless I have a need for a twin, or an
> instrument rating, why would I want to obtain them?
>
> I hold advanced certificates and ratings, but most of the time the type
> of flying I do requires nothing more than a basic private pilot
> certificate. If I were just a student pilot, I wouldn't have the skills
> nor the legal authority to use aviation as a beneficial tool or hobby.
> Sounds like a pretty big difference to me.
>
>
>
> JKG

All true, I was thinking of the person who quits flying shortly after
completing the flight test. To some, learning to fly is a challenge and
when they percieve that the challenge has been met, they move on.

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> I have no idea if the cost of flight training is still covered by the
>> GI Bill, but it was a strong motivating factor in the past. The
>> problem was, as I recall, that only those instruction costs beyond the
>> Private Pilot certificate were covered.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:20:15 -0600, RomeoMike
> wrote in >::

>I know of two WW II vets who got their private certificates under the GI
>Bill.
>

I wonder if that's possible now. If so, it would seem that pitching
GA to veterans might be productive.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Michael" > wrote:

> > You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people
> > mention for quitting: Money.
>
> That's because it is indeed the number one reason. Or, more precisely
> - flying does not offer good value for the money.

Words are going to fail me here, but I couldn't disagree more.
Flying offers unbelievable value for the money. I can't properly
express why I love flying and what I love best about flying. Some
might call my flying boring (e.g., no aerobatics), but it brings great
joy to me. Far more joy than riding a motorcycle, or hiking, or
music (real music). When I can no longer fly because of health
reasons I will treasure the time I spent flying or futzing with
my airplane.

Of course, as you implied later, for those not addicted to aviation,
flying isn't a good use of money.


[snip]

to go way OT...
> Motorcycles are loud, they're
> dangerous,

Not all motorcycles are loud. For example, mine isn't.
Motorcycles are not inherently loud. Just yesterday I was
behind a pickup with a modified exhaust that was louder
than any motorcycle I've heard.

And a signicant source of danger for the motorcycle rider
comes from the idiots who drive cars.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Gene Seibel" > wrote:

> Flying is boring to the generation that has been raised on action
> filled TV, movies, and video games.

they don't have a clue.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jay Honeck]

> His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
> used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
> fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
> difference between stopping at solo or at PP.

I understand Jose's point completely, although the analogy is
imperfect.

Unfortunately, however, you have both missed the point, which is this:
Flying is a magical, almost spiritual experience for thousands of
people just like me. To be floating in the heavens, far above the
earth's troubles, is the "magic" that these pilots apparently aren't
"getting" -- it has nothing to do with any "progression" from solo to
private to instrument to multi-engine.

Now that I think about it, THAT is the part that I truly don't "get".
How anyone can take the controls of an airplane and not feel that magic
is simply beyond me -- and how anyone can simply choose to never
experience it again (by quitting flying) is proof that they never felt
the magic in the first place.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Clear]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, however, you have both missed the point, which is this:
>Flying is a magical, almost spiritual experience for thousands of
>people just like me. To be floating in the heavens, far above the
>earth's troubles, is the "magic" that these pilots apparently aren't
>"getting" -- it has nothing to do with any "progression" from solo to
>private to instrument to multi-engine.

Being under the ocean's surface while scuba diving is also a magical
and spiritual experience for thousands of people. I did my scuba
training, did a few dives on my honeymoon 7 years ago, and haven't
dove since. It isn't because I don't want to, but making the time
to do that would take away from other things I want to do. Now that
the divorce is almost final, maybe I'll have the time to get back to
scuba diving.

I've jumped out of a perfectly good airplane. Floating in the air
without a plane is very magical, but it has been 15 years since I
did that.

>Now that I think about it, THAT is the part that I truly don't "get".
>How anyone can take the controls of an airplane and not feel that magic
>is simply beyond me -- and how anyone can simply choose to never
>experience it again (by quitting flying) is proof that they never felt
>the magic in the first place.

You can feel the 'magic' and still be able to walk away from it.
I still remember looking over at the jumpmaster as I hung onto the
strut of the jump plane for that first jump. I also still remember
my first solo. Both are magical experiences.

There are too many 'magical' things in this world to be able to
experience them all on a regular basis. One needs to choose which
ones they concentrate on. For some people, that is flying, for
others, it is scuba diving, parachuting, or golf.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[gregg]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> I've heard anecdotaly there are a disproportionate number of dropouts
>> immediately after soloing, and the suspicion is that for some, the main
>> goal to conquer is flying alone. Once they do that, they feel 'done',
>> even if it means that they never fly again, or don't ever get their
>> ticket.
>
> That's odd, to me -- the solo flight was never the be-all and end-all. I
> remember that flight as if it were yesterday (who doesn't?), and all I
> could
> think of was that the prelude was finally over. *NOW* I could really
> start learning to fly.
>
> Perhaps that's something the CFI must learn to teach?


Hi Jay,

may seem odd to you but you can't measure other people's
responses/reactions by your desires.

I think one reason some people quite is boredom.

Perhaps they had this incredible romantic, awesome, free-as-a-bird notion of
what flying was like, and when faced with the reality, the romance etc
didn't measure up to *their* fantasy.

Or maybe what they dreamt of was aerobatic jet jockeying, and the work to
get there seemed too long once they began.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate of
> student pilots?

I've known three people closely who took lessons and quit. One took an
introductory lesson, agreed that the feeling was great, took one look at the
bill, and said "maybe after Peter graduates from college." (Peter was at that
time about 12). One took one or two lessons and then moved to Vermont -- far
enough out that wood is the preferred heating method for the houses in his area.
That also involved a job change with lots less money, so flying went back down
to a "maybe someday" status item. The third guy took several lessons and was
doing pretty well. Then things got a little hectic at work, and he couldn't fly
often enough for the lessons to do any good. His wife is also terrified of light
aircraft. She was very good (so he says) about not pressuring him to quit, but
I'm sure it played some small part.

I obtained the AOPA "mentor" packages for all three of these people. I sort of
gave up after that.

When I was in training myself, two other people at work got their tickets. One
later bought a "fixer-upper" of a house. About the same time, a relative left
him an old Mercedes. What with fixing those items, he didn't have any time or
money to spare on aviation. Last I heard, he doesn't even find flying
interesting. The other guy kept studying for his instrument rating. Two years
later, he was still studying for his instrument rating. Got married and when the
kids started to arrive, he gradually quit flying.

Shortly after I got my ticket, a young lady at work expressed an interest in
flying, and my boss introduced us. I drove her out to the airport, showed her
around, marched her up to the counter, and let them take over from there. When I
next asked, she had gone for an eye exam and discovered that she had no depth
perception. I could not convince her that it probably wouldn't make a difference
in her flying. My personal suspicion is that she was disappointed by the spartan
interior of light aircraft (as another poster has mentioned).

Basically though, in nearly every case it's lack of time and/or money.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> All true, I was thinking of the person who quits flying shortly after
> completing the flight test. To some, learning to fly is a challenge and
> when they percieve that the challenge has been met, they move on.

I wonder if the frequently-voiced old saying "Now you have a license to learn"
is counter-productive? Maybe we shouldn't put so much emphasis on this.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Seth Masia]

I had to quit several times before I finally had the time and money to get
the ticket, but each lapse was heart-rending. I started in the Air
Explorers, paying for lessons with a paper route. That was not sustainable
while in college -- I managed to log only two hours dual during those years.
Later I scraped together $500 for a solo course in gliders, and then
couldn't afford to continue after solo. When I finally went out on my own,
living near an uncontrolled field and with no real responsibilities, I dove
in and got the PP in 41 hours flat (including the time logged in Boy Scouts
and college). Built hours flying for CAP. Couldn't afford to buy (and
maintain!) my own airplane until after the ex quit spending my money.

I introduced one good friend to flying. She immediately dedicated her life
to it and within three years was a CFI and owner, with her newly-minted PP
husband, of a rag-wing C-170.

The important element is passion. Only a small proportion of the population
possesses passion for anything, but where it lives you can't hold it back.

Seth
Comanche N8100R


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qavNe.134$Fq2.14@trndny03...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate
>> of student pilots?
>
> I've known three people closely who took lessons and quit. One took an
> introductory lesson, agreed that the feeling was great, took one look at
> the bill, and said "maybe after Peter graduates from college." (Peter was
> at that time about 12). One took one or two lessons and then moved to
> Vermont -- far enough out that wood is the preferred heating method for
> the houses in his area. That also involved a job change with lots less
> money, so flying went back down to a "maybe someday" status item. The
> third guy took several lessons and was doing pretty well. Then things got
> a little hectic at work, and he couldn't fly often enough for the lessons
> to do any good. His wife is also terrified of light aircraft. She was very
> good (so he says) about not pressuring him to quit, but I'm sure it played
> some small part.
>
> I obtained the AOPA "mentor" packages for all three of these people. I
> sort of gave up after that.
>
> When I was in training myself, two other people at work got their tickets.
> One later bought a "fixer-upper" of a house. About the same time, a
> relative left him an old Mercedes. What with fixing those items, he didn't
> have any time or money to spare on aviation. Last I heard, he doesn't even
> find flying interesting. The other guy kept studying for his instrument
> rating. Two years later, he was still studying for his instrument rating.
> Got married and when the kids started to arrive, he gradually quit flying.
>
> Shortly after I got my ticket, a young lady at work expressed an interest
> in flying, and my boss introduced us. I drove her out to the airport,
> showed her around, marched her up to the counter, and let them take over
> from there. When I next asked, she had gone for an eye exam and discovered
> that she had no depth perception. I could not convince her that it
> probably wouldn't make a difference in her flying. My personal suspicion
> is that she was disappointed by the spartan interior of light aircraft (as
> another poster has mentioned).
>
> Basically though, in nearly every case it's lack of time and/or money.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[cjcampbell]

Money is the main reason, but I think that most people who quit start
asking themselves why they are learning to fly in the first place. They
begin to get the idea that you can't just get into a plane and go, and
the logistical problems of using general aviation for transportation
are daunting. A good CFI, of course, will ask those questions before
the person even starts, so the best CFIs have lower dropout rates.

[Andrew Gideon]

George Patterson wrote:

> Got married and when the
> kids started to arrive, he gradually quit flying.

I guess I'm lucky in my timing.

My instrument checkride had to be put off as my wife was busy giving birth
at the time. A month or so later, I was rated.

My more recently arrived son put a real crimp in my commercial training.
But to be honest, work pressure's probably done more.

On the other hand, I've been a pilot for longer than my youngest has been
alive. And all comments about the poor utility of GA as transportation
aside, we've managed a number of trips (with our eldest) that would have
been tough w/o flying.

I also hold out the hope that we'll be doing more and farther as the kids
age.

If I weren't a pilot yet? I don't know. I like to think it wouldn't make a
difference, but...?

- Andrew

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
> quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and (for
> the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to fly
> is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
> buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this, for
> now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
> could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.

I don't really mean to try to drag the discussion back to the cost,
because that's something individuals can't do much about. However,
your comparison to a Harley is interesting. How many
twenty-somethings buy Harley's these days? Aren't they more in the
used Honda market? My impression, largely from a few people I know
who own Harley's, is that the new sales of those are to older richer
people almost exclusively these days.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
> used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
> fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
> difference between stopping at solo or at PP.

Well, if you "stop at PP" (as in Jay's case) *he's still flying*.
Frequently. If you stop at solo, you're *not* flying any more. That
does seem like a significant difference.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down

[Earl Grieda]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention
for
> > quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and
(for
> > the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to
fly
> > is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
> > buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this,
for
> > now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
> > could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.
>
> I don't really mean to try to drag the discussion back to the cost,
> because that's something individuals can't do much about. However,
> your comparison to a Harley is interesting. How many
> twenty-somethings buy Harley's these days? Aren't they more in the
> used Honda market? My impression, largely from a few people I know
> who own Harley's, is that the new sales of those are to older richer
> people almost exclusively these days.
> --

The Harley analogy isn't perfect either. Granted the cost between learning
how to fly and buying a Harley might be similar, but once you get the Harley
you don't have to pay $100/hr to rent it.

[Jay Honeck]

> Even if you instantly did away with the knackered old trainers and had
> brand new, state of the art trainers with AC and glass cockpits, the
> amount of time needed just to get the private and to be able to fly only
> in nice weather would mean that mainly just the passionate would
> complete their training.

I'll agree with you on the old rental trainer issue -- GOD, I flew some
dogs -- but the limitation of "only flying in nice weather" stuff is a bit
silly.

Mary and I have flown over 1500 hours in the last ten years, all VFR. We've
been from one end of the North American continent to the other, and seen
everything in between, on hundreds of flights, yet I can count on one hand
the number of trips that have been delayed more than a few hours due to
weather.

The one that really got us -- Sun N Fun '04 -- was when we spent three days
stuck in Nashville, in the snow. And I can assure you that NO ONE with
anything less than a King Air was flying, IFR ticket or not.

The private ticket is all one needs to reliably see America from the air --
and we're proof of it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> There are too many 'magical' things in this world to be able to
> experience them all on a regular basis. One needs to choose which
> ones they concentrate on. For some people, that is flying, for
> others, it is scuba diving, parachuting, or golf.

I would love to scuba dive, but have never had the opportunity. When I
lived on the shores of the Great Lakes, watching guys dressed up for polar
diving just didn't excite me enough to try it (Brrr!), and now that I live
in Iowa, well, the primordial ocean that once covered the Midwest has been
gone for a few years...

:-)

And anyone who calls golf "magical" has clearly not sliced the ball into the
woods, or hooked it into the water over, and over, and over...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> My point is that there is a huge difference between dipping your feet in
> the water and then bailing out, and actually finishing your certificate
> to become a certificated pilot. Once you become a certificated pilot,
> you are a pilot--obtaining a commercial, multi, etc. doesn't make you
> any more of a pilot, just as obtaining a commercial driver's license
> doesn't make you any more of a driver.
>
> Those who bail before obtaining a pilot certificate are not pilots, and
> may not exercise the privileges of a pilot certificate.

I disagree with all these points.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Flying is boring to the generation that has been raised on action
> filled TV, movies, and video games.

Nonsense. They merely need to be shown the way.

And we're the only ones that can do it, Gene!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Imagine being a young person today faced with the high cost of
> automobiles, ever increasing cost of insurance and gasoline, and the
> astronomical cost of a home, and then you'll realize why adding the
> cost of aviation instruction and operation is totally out of the
> question for the vast majority.

Let's see, in 1994 I was a working father (at a small, local newspaper) with
a 4-year old and a new-born baby. Mary had reduced her hours to part-time
after our first child was born, so we were living on 1.3 very modest
incomes.

THAT was the time that aviation thrust itself upon me (my boss was a pilot,
and gave me the kick start I needed to get off my butt and do it!) -- when I
could least afford it. I had just enough money saved to get my ticket --
and not one nickel left over to fly on when all was said and done. But I
did it.

If I could do it, anyone can do it. It just took eating at home, forgoing
new cars, concerts, and movies, and an understanding wife (who, unbeknownst
to me at the time, was soon to become as hopelessly hooked on flying as I
was!).
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Now that I think about it, THAT is the part that I truly don't "get".
> How anyone can take the controls of an airplane and not feel that magic
> is simply beyond me -- and how anyone can simply choose to never
> experience it again (by quitting flying) is proof that they never felt
> the magic in the first place.

An airplane is truly a magic carpet. I say that to my wife sometimes
after a flight.

I would disagree that it is impossible for somebody to feel the "magic"
(of any endeavor) and then subsequently have the magic die. I do agree
that to go as far as solo and quit tells me they didn't find it magical.

Can you name anything that others think is 'magical', but that you just
don't get anything out of?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Icebound]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
>> You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
>> quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and
>> (for
>> the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to
>> fly
>> is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
>> buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this, for
>> now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
>> could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.
>
> I don't really mean to try to drag the discussion back to the cost,
> because that's something individuals can't do much about. However,
> your comparison to a Harley is interesting.

Nevertheless, a Harley (or a Hondo or a Suzuki, for that matter) has way
more utility than an airplane. I can use it to go to work every day, and it
will cost me LESS than other modes of transport. I can use it to go on an
extended trip, alone or with 3 other Harleys, and if I only drive for 2
hours, it won't cost me 4 hours of minimum per-day airtime. If I see
something interesting, I can stop on a dime and go back to see it in detail.

*Most* of our big toys have way more utility than an airplane. A Porsche or
a Corvette can get the groceries for about the same price as a Chevy (once
it is paid for). With a brand new 300,000 dollar boat, I can entertain two
small families for a weekend without leaving the dock. With a brand new
300,000 airplane, I can get one or maybe 3 other persons to sit very still
for a couple of hours, have lunch at a nice restaurant, then sit very still
for another couple of hours on the way back.


So flying is relegated to the truly dedicated, or the rich, or the business
flyer (more correctly: the business tax write-off.... Hey, Jay, what
percentage of the OSH trip is a personal "taxable benefit" and what
percentage is a "business expense"? :-) but I digress
:-) ).

Unfortunately, flying can have no lasting appeal for the casual pilot
masses, until it DOES have some reasonably economic utility, and right now
it simply does not.

[Jay Honeck]

> Side note from a person who came from a Harley family: Harley people
> generally keep their bikes at home in their garages where they can go
> tinker, check and correct things whenever they feel like it ... so
> things are usually ready-to-go when they have a ride planned. If you
> added up all the time it takes to put on all the gear, stow away
> whatever you're bringing (like you do when you fly), and the few minutes
> the checking oil and making sure you have fuel the night before, it
> would add up to around 10 or 15 minutes, too.

It's worse than that. I've got several acquaintances who "rode" their
Harleys to Sturgis this year -- except, they didn't really "ride."

Rather, these pansies trucked their bikes half-way (or, in one case, 99% of
the way) and then "rode into Sturgis" as if they had just survived a 1000
mile IronButt ordeal.

As a long-time cyclist, I find this approach laughable -- but, hey, they had
fun. (Several of these guys are pilots, BTW.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The important element is passion. Only a small proportion of the
> population possesses passion for anything, but where it lives you can't
> hold it back.

Well said.

So many people I meet have no spark, no life -- seemingly no soul. There
simply is no light in their eyes, and there may never be...

It's terribly sad, but that's life, I guess.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Can you name anything that others think is 'magical', but that you just
> don't get anything out of?

From the standpoint of an endeavor that requires personal commitment,
aptitude, and effort, no. I think it would be magical to play a concert
piano, or scuba dive.

Now if you start talking about listening to opera, or ice fishing, I'll
argue with you. Those are two things I simply don't understand, yet I
know people who love them dearly.

But those are entirely passive exercises...a whole different line of
conversation from something like piloting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no idea if the cost of flight training is still covered by the
>>>GI Bill, but it was a strong motivating factor in the past. The
>>>problem was, as I recall, that only those instruction costs beyond the
>>>Private Pilot certificate were covered.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:20:15 -0600, RomeoMike
> > wrote in >::
>
>
>>I know of two WW II vets who got their private certificates under the GI
>>Bill.
>>
>
>
> I wonder if that's possible now. If so, it would seem that pitching
> GA to veterans might be productive.


I don't know if it still works, these two got theirs in the late '40s.

[Jose]

> Now if you start talking about listening to opera, or ice fishing, I'll
> argue with you. Those are two things I simply don't understand, yet I
> know people who love them dearly.
>
> But those are entirely passive exercises...a whole different line of
> conversation from something like piloting.

I would disagree that these are passive activities. True, in ice
fishing you sit around a lot while the fish nose your bait in the flag
trap. However, in piloting, you sit and wiggle the yoke every now and
then, and some people just sit back and let the autopilot fly the thing.

I don't know what goes into ice fishing (or any other kind of fishing
for that matter) but I bet it takes some study of the fish and their
feeding habits and such in order to be successful. There are legitimate
parallels.

Pretend somebody is extolling the "magic" of ice fishing to you. I can
intellectually understand how some people might feel this way, but I
don't "get it". By your admission, neither do you. What should they do
to help you see the light?

Because that is what you are asking w/r/t flying.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:43:29 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<BFxNe.266694$_o.53979@attbi_s71>::

>It just took eating at home, forgoing new cars, concerts, and movies, and ...

Enough money in a savings account to fund your flight training.

[gregg]

Jose wrote:


> Can you name anything that others think is 'magical', but that you just
> don't get anything out of?
>
> Jose

Scuba Diving. I got certified about 8 years ago but have only gone twice.
As a kid I thought it would be "magical". I didn't find it so as an adult.
But I know people who craft all their vacations around diving.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Jay Honeck]

> Pretend somebody is extolling the "magic" of ice fishing to you. I can
> intellectually understand how some people might feel this way, but I don't
> "get it". By your admission, neither do you. What should they do to help
> you see the light?
>
> Because that is what you are asking w/r/t flying.

I'm from Wisconsin, so I know more than a few ice fishermen.

I used to have an employee who was absolutely ga-ga about fishing of all
kinds. She even sat out on frozen lakes for hours at a time, in a glorified
canvas outhouse, waiting for the fish to bite. Amazingly, she didn't even
drink (which seems to be a prerequisite to ice -- or any other -- fishing),
so God only knows what she did in that little confessional for all that
time...

I get your point, but I don't think we're talking apples to apples here.
Flying is one of the pinnacles of mankind's achievements, while ice fishing
represents...well, to put it kindly, mankind's stubbornness.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>It just took eating at home, forgoing new cars, concerts, and movies, and
>>...
>
> Enough money in a savings account to fund your flight training.

True enough.

But it was a paltry amount, really, compared to what my neighbor's kid just
spent on his 2005 Japanese Crotch Rocket...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

>>The important element is passion. Only a small proportion of the
>>population possesses passion for anything, but where it lives you can't
>>hold it back.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Well said.
> So many people I meet have no spark, no life -- seemingly no soul. There
> simply is no light in their eyes, and there may never be...
> It's terribly sad, but that's life, I guess.

Back in my high school and college days, I was heavily involved in
smallbore rifle competition. We had shirts that had printed on the back,
"It's not just a sport, it's a way of life!"

[Jim Burns]

Did she go with her boyfriend or husband? I'm convinced that ice fishing is
what many consider the ultimate escape from their significant other. One is
crazy or desperate enough to endure the snow, ice, wind, sub zero
temperatures, sometimes dangerous ice, and utter boredom just to escape from
the other one, knowing that the other won't be so brave as to follow them
(or knowing that the other one isn't that stupid)

When they go together, it isn't ice fishing anymore, it's either called
relationship building or revenge.

Jim

[Andrew Gideon]

gregg wrote:


> Scuba Diving. I got certified about 8 years ago but have only gone twice.
> As a kid I thought it would be "magical". I didn't find it so as an adult.
> But I know people who craft all their vacations around diving.

I was certified when young, and rediscovered it as an adult. It's actually
a good example in that it is still magical to me...but not something I can
do around home.

Flying wins.

My hope is that, eventually, we'll fly to where we can dive.

Noteworthy is that I turned my wife onto diving just as I've been doing with
flying. The first time was a stupid resort course, and she was justifiably
nervous. But after training, she used less air than I and found it just as
magical.

I actually find flying and diving quite similar, with the 3D mobility,
freedom combined with precision, fascinating sights, etc.

- Andrew

[Jose]

> Flying is one of the pinnacles of mankind's achievements

Objectively, it's not even much of an achievement. Creatures with
brains the size of a walnut have been doing it for years, and come
Oshkosh, you are cursing even smaller-brained creatures that do it
naturally. Objectively, flying is just a fancy way to get blown around
by the wind.

Non-objectively, we are talking opinion, and it's not fair to expect
that your opinion be shared by the rest of the world. Even if it's
right. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>His point is that all people decide to stop progressing at some point. He
>>used Jay as an example of someone who stopped progressing at single engine,
>>fixed gear VFR flying. Others may stop at solo. I don't see much of a
>>difference between stopping at solo or at PP.
>
>
> I understand Jose's point completely, although the analogy is
> imperfect.
>
> Unfortunately, however, you have both missed the point, which is this:
> Flying is a magical, almost spiritual experience for thousands of
> people just like me. To be floating in the heavens, far above the
> earth's troubles, is the "magic" that these pilots apparently aren't
> "getting" -- it has nothing to do with any "progression" from solo to
> private to instrument to multi-engine.
>
> Now that I think about it, THAT is the part that I truly don't "get".
> How anyone can take the controls of an airplane and not feel that magic
> is simply beyond me -- and how anyone can simply choose to never
> experience it again (by quitting flying) is proof that they never felt
> the magic in the first place.

Well, Jay, you need to realize that the whole world isn't made up of
people just like you. Some folks get their magic climbing a high
mountain, some get it kayaking across a wilderness lake, etc. Flying is
magical for many of us, but it is shear terror for others.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Even if you instantly did away with the knackered old trainers and had
>>brand new, state of the art trainers with AC and glass cockpits, the
>>amount of time needed just to get the private and to be able to fly only
>>in nice weather would mean that mainly just the passionate would
>>complete their training.
>
>
> I'll agree with you on the old rental trainer issue -- GOD, I flew some
> dogs -- but the limitation of "only flying in nice weather" stuff is a bit
> silly.
>
> Mary and I have flown over 1500 hours in the last ten years, all VFR. We've
> been from one end of the North American continent to the other, and seen
> everything in between, on hundreds of flights, yet I can count on one hand
> the number of trips that have been delayed more than a few hours due to
> weather.

Here in the northeast, I found that getting my instrument rating allowed
me to make about 30% more flights on my schedule than I could otherwise.
It is very common to have a low overcast that is 3,000 feet thick and
then clear blue on top.

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Here in the northeast, I found that getting my instrument rating allowed
> me to make about 30% more flights on my schedule than I could otherwise.
> It is very common to have a low overcast that is 3,000 feet thick and
> then clear blue on top.

I'll agree that there are parts of the country that darned-near require
an IR. I'm happy to report that (a) I don't live in one, and (b) I
don't fly there very often, either.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[bdl]

Well, I was almost one of them that quit. Several times. Actually,
almost never started.

My Backround:
I've always been interested in aviation in some form or another. I
remember my father taking me to the local airport (the same airport I
would solo from nearly 25 years later) and looking at "new" airplanes
on the ramp in the mid 70's. I still remember the desire in his eyes
as we walked around the airplane.

I did the Flight Simulator thing from mid-1980's until I started flight
training in late 2002. Occasionally would buy an aviation magazine
when I was waiting for a commercial flight. There was something about
reading a piloting magazine aboard an airliner traveling at 30,000,
also a desire to be noticed by a pilot and to belong to the fraternity
of pilots, etc.

Never took a ride on a GA plane, never had an acquaintance who had even
been on a small plane, until I went to college, and they were on an
airline track.

I lurked on various aviation newsgroups. Read plenty of documentation
on flight training due to my interest in making my "simulated" flights
more realistic.

Yet, despite all this interest, for almost 15 years from the time I
realistically could have expended the financial and time requirements
to begin flight training, I did nothing but look up in the skies. I
didn't even long for joining the ranks of pilots. It just seemed
unrealistic.

Why?

1. Stigma of GA airplanes as being dangerous. When I was younger, my
parents would have been cautious about flight training. Later, my wife
was. Instead of recognizing my interest (even if I couldnt' recognize
it myself) and encouraging me, they kept silent if they even did
notice. I suppose I knew instinctively, I would have a decidedly
negative reaction to overcome before I even took the first BeAPilot
ride. As it was, my first training flight ride took a birthday present
request from my wife, and 2 months of research and convincing.

2. Cost. Cost is a decided factor, although when compared to the
amount of money I have expended over the years in various joy sticks,
graphics cards, software, computer equipment, sim charts, etc to
satisfy my flight simulator habit, I'm sure I could have acquired a PP
certificate for similar amounts of money. The perception is that its
"too expensive" rather than detailing what the expense includes, and
the reason for that expense (fuel costs, regulation, etc). In
addition, the ability to rent an airplane was foreign to me before I
started my training. My understanding was that one would rent an
airplane to get their certificate, then buy an airplane. The
significant cost of an airplane was certainly well known. Those flight
magazines highlighted the multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars of
cost for a brand new plane. I never was exposed to trade-a-plane, or
ASO, or controller.com where I could see the cost of used airplanes
could be more realistic. Nor was I exposed to cost sharing
arrangements, such as partnerships, flying clubs, or even the details
of renting: renting wet, hobbes meter timing (you mean I only get
charged for the time the engine is actually running?), block rates,
etc.

3. Complexity. I couldnt' be a pilot. I didnt have good enough eyes.
I didn't have good enough hand-eye coordination. I would never be
able to land a real plane on a real runway, I had a terrible time
trying to land that 737 on the ILS into San Francisco! I just couldn't
do it. Besides, I'm scared of heights!

So I sat on the ground. Never could actually complete this, so why
even start? Why expend the effort if I would never succeed?

In my case, a smattering of events brought about the path to getting my
certificate. A helicopter flight on an Alaskan cruise, revealed that
even though im scared of heights, it was different actually being
aboard an aircraft. And oh, the views! September 11th brought
aviation back into the topic of public conversation because it was in
the news. A casual conversation with a co-worker revealed he was a
pilot. Really? How could he be a pilot? He certainly wasn't smarter
than me. He wasn't coordinated. And he probably made even less than
me, wasn't wealthy, and he had 3 kids! And not only that he had a
multi-engine rating!

All the above combined with an arguably early mid-life crisis at 32,
and I decided that if I didn't at least take one flight I would be
kicking myself later. Why not now? So I arranged that birthday
BeAPilot flight (2 months after my birthday) and took my first flight
aboard one of those "deadly little airplanes".

I had a good instructor, although younger than myself. He let me have
a free reign, we did takeoffs, turns, stalls (after I said that that
was probably the scariest thing I was worried about in training, and he
suggested we try it) and even a landing.

I was hooked and signed up for a Part 141 package (thereby avoiding
your syllabus problem Jay, I agree that a syllabus certainly helped
knowing what was next and having a path to follow).

In some stories this would end here with a "and the rest is history".
But not in this case. I started training on Oct 1, 2002 and soloed
right before Thanksgiving.

I didnt' go back up until almost February and almost never went back.

Why? Well the holidays, weather, and work issues made flight time
unavailable. My wife was still not real comfortable with me flying
,and the fact that I soloed made it worse. I was now alone on the
plane after all who would save it if I became distracted or something
happened?

And in some sense, I had achieved a goal. I had piloted that machine
from takeoff around the pattern and back to a safe landing. Not once
but 3 times! It was anti-climactic. I was a pilot. I would always
have that solo. Did I need more?

Luckily I got the bug again, I still had all that money I still had on
account, and so I went back up in late January. My flight instructor
never called. Never asked why after seeing me 2-3 times a week he
stopped seeing me for almost 2 months. If I had waited until March or
April, I'm sure I would have been too embarassed to come back to the
flight school. This despite the fact that I had effectively already
paid for the flights!

I finished my training in June, and now I was a pilot. I took my wife
up, I took my Dad. I took my brother. Went on cross countries.
Went by myself. Went, went, went. Then it got hot in August, work
intruded again in September, Thunderstorms would pop up. My wife
still wasn't totally happy with me flying.

And now I was out of the cockpit for almost 8 weeks. Could I still
really land that plane? What if a crosswind came up? What if I ran it
off the runway and damaged it? Was I still safe enough to fly? I would
put off scheduling a flight because I wasn't sure. Luckily I decided I
needed to go back up, and scheduled some dual, 15 minutes with the
instructor in the right seat, and any worries I had were gone. But the
barrier was there.

So in my own experience, I almost quit 2 or 3 times. Not because I
didn't sense the magic, not because I didn't love doing it. It was
hard to arrange a plane, it was easy to not go today, I'll go next
week. And before long it was 2 months since I was in a plane, and I
didnt' feel comfortable doing it safely anymore.

I agree with you Jay, that this is a major issue in aviation today. I
went to an AOPA meeting a while back here in St. Louis and the room was
full of gray hair. And I worried what that meant for the next 10-20
years. I also hope that the new LSA's will at least get younger people
into the cockpit and past the solo stage. Especially with those that
have a desire, but can't finance an entire private pilot certificate.

So what do we need to do?

1. Reduce the "dangerous airplane" perception. The book "The Killing
Zone" makes the argument that real danger is not in training. ASF
reports bear this out as well. In your conversations with the public
stress how safe student flying is. ASF and AOPA can help here. When
accidents such as John Denver's, John Kennedy, etc come out discuss the
issues as knowledgeable experts. Discuss the fatal flaws. Express how
their problems do not worry you for your own flights because of the
safety steps you take. Sometimes this is seen as denigrating those
pilots for the mistakes they made, but the alternative is that the
public walks away seeing them as helpless victims struck down in their
prime.

2. Reduce the cost of first flights, especially if you own an
airplane. In almost every one of my conversations with friends
acquaintances, etc, I offer a free flight. I don't discuss the costs.
I've glossed over the glaring $70/hour on the billboard in the FBO. I
don't let them see my bill. I don't let them pay. They're my guest.
If asked about the cost I'm honest, but explain some of the finer
points. Wet rates, block rates, hobbes meters, etc. To reduce the
nature of the cost. Now that I own a plane I talk about partnerships
and how my partnership really drives down the cost of flying. In
today's high price gas environment, I talk about how aviation fuel
tends to be stably priced over the short term and how you can find low
price of gas at various fields if one shops around. I only do that if
asked directly though.

3. Complexity. In my conversations with the non-flying public I
always stress that it isn't that hard. That there really aren't that
many things to learn to become a full fledged private pilot, and in
retrospect there aren't, just a few maneuvers, a few rules, and your
done. It sure didnt' seem that way when I first looked at the
syllabus. Looking back, I don't know why I fretted my flight test so
much. I don't talk about ILS's to minimums, safety pilots, GPS
approaches, etc. I talk about how a vast majority of airports are
small airports that don't have tower's, and don't require a new
vocabulary on the radio, etc. I think a lot of pilots are scared away
about having to talk on the radio with all the big pilots and feeling
foolish.

4. Utility. In my conversations with the public I talk about the
utility of being able to fly. I note that its not better than the
airlines, unless your going to out of the way places, but its certainly
more scenic, and you get to decide where to go, and the schedule. I
cite many of your trip reports Jay, and talk about the fun your family
is having (as my family builds up trips, I plan to do the same).

5. Downplay emergencies. I always get asked about "being scared" and
what do you do if the engine quits, and all that stuff. I discuss the
one engine out situation I've had already, and how the plane doesn't
fall out of the sky. I make it into a non-event. The prop stopped,
it was unusual, but it restarted, and even if it didnt there was a
perfectly good field below us, and we train for it, etc. I talk about
how airplanes used to not have paved runways at all, its called a field
sometimes, because that's exactly what it was. A big grass field that
airplanes landed in. Landing in the grass doesn't mean fire and
explosion, and propellers stopping doesn't mean an automatic crash. If
they are mechanically inclined I stress how simple the engine's are.
Air cooled, no water pump, etc. Extremely reliable. Most common cause
of engine failure is simply running out of gas.

What else?

1. Training goals. CFI's should get a feel for what their student is
after. What are their goals. If its just to solo thats fine, but
start talking to them about other opportunities beyond soloing. The
flight school should be a check on the CFI and have similar
conversations. If the student isn't making their goal, not showing up
for 2 months for example, a simple phone call saying that they got a
C172 available this weekend and how about going back up?

2. Build flying relationships, especially during training. I
self-studied for ground school (I'm not real good in a classroom
setting). One thing I think I missed is the ability to build a
relationship with other pilots. My CFI didn't encourage those
relationships, even though he knew everybody on the field. One of my
current partners had the same CFI I did, and she was encouraged to form
relationships (I'm pretty sure because she's a she, and single). Those
relationships make it easier to fly. Sharing trips, becoming partner's
in an airplane, someone to notice your not at the airport anymore, and
followup, etc.

3. Flying clubs, FBO's, etc. They can encourage inactive pilots to
come back into the fold, or to bring new members. Strike a deal where
you get $5-10/hour rebate if you take a passenger up and he then signs
up for an hour of dual or a Discovery flight. If your FBO sells
planes, encourage those relationships. For every plane your trying to
sell, see if your existing customer base is a potential for a
partnership for that plane. Help the prospective buyers in partnership
issues. I know I lucked into the partnership I'm in now. It didnt'
have to be that way. Open Houses also allow those airport restaraunts
that are dwindling to get extra revenue.

4. Airports need more activities. Fly-in's, public open houses, etc.
When you have an event, advertise to the non-flying public. Let the
public walk around your airplane. I know before I started flying, I
would usually go to the air show that Spirit (SUS) has locally. But GA
planes were mostly non-existant. Military aircraft dominated. If GA
aircraft were around, they were typically experimentals. Your Cherokee
or Cessna is just as interesting to a prospective pilot. Especially if
you let them look inside, or sit inside, etc. Every airport, should
have at least one public open house per year. And not just a fly-in,
but an open house, inviting the public to come out and see where the
airport is, and who's there etc. Most people in my area don't even know
the airport my plane is based at, much less the one I trained at. They
know of the towered airports, and of course Lambert (STL). When they go
to those events all they see is security and tall fencing and an elite
air. They won't go onto an airport, just like they wouldn't stride
into a country club they didnt belong to. We need to put the public
back into our local public airports. After 9/11, people are much more
shy about coming onto airport property.

5. Medical. The FAA needs to speed up the medical issues. In today's
magical drug for everything culture, almost everybody is prescribed
something. Some of which are not able to be flown on for good reasons,
and others simply because the beuracracy hasn't gotten around to
looking into it yet. LSA's with self-certifying medicals will help, but
they need to address the already certificated pilots who may need to be
brought back into the fold.


Wow, I rambled more than I planned to. But I'm with you Jay, this
needs to be improved. I'm only 35 and I don't want to be 55 and be the
only pilot around.

Brian
Archer N9093K

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> If I could do it, anyone can do it.

Bull.
The median income in the U.S. today is about $50,000. *LOTS* of people in the
States cannot afford flight training. Many more regard it as a complete waste of
money, and for them, it probably would be.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Earl Grieda wrote:
>
> The Harley analogy isn't perfect either. Granted the cost between learning
> how to fly and buying a Harley might be similar, but once you get the Harley
> you don't have to pay $100/hr to rent it.

Actually, a better way to put it is that the Harley doesn't cost you $60 to $200
an hour to take it out every other weekend. For most of us, the cost per hour of
owning is far higher than the cost per hour of renting.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

This thread is incredibly depressing. More so, because I just read it
this morning before heading out to my flying club's first-in-many-years
group BBQ in front of the club office. While there, I got to see the
makeup of my club for the first time, and to say that the strong
majority of 60+ (or even 70+) was distressing is putting it mildly.
Don't get me wrong, I like these guys a lot. Some of them taught me how
to fly, and they're fun to hangar fly with, as they just have more
stories. (Many that add the element of being shot at.) [ Extra aside,
the small number of women was also disturbing. ]

But, as many have mentioned, there were no young people, and that
spells disaster for GA. (I'm 32, by the way). What was especially so
disturbing was hearing everyone complain about the airports that are
closing, or are being encroached on, and about young people not liking
the noise, or developers not admitting that "the airport was here
first," etc.

And I just kept thinking that none of that really matters. Airports
will continue to close as long as aviation is a 400,000 person niche in
the US population. All organization like the AOPA can do is slow it
down.

I agree with those that believe that something substantial must be done
to increase the ranks of pilots. Not that I have solutions. :( But
identifying the issue is worth something. I have resolved to encourage
and/or seduce some friends of mine into flying.

I, by the way, am headed back to grad school and will be without income
for two years, minimum, which is going to put a crimp on my flying, to
say the least. So I can understand the financial difficulties. But,
being bitten by the bug, I have budgeted several thousand dollars to at
least finish my commercial rating. I have no intentions of flying for a
living. I do it for the love of it. (Eventually, I want my CFI, so I
can show someone else how to do it, which I know I will love even
more!)

-- dave j
-- PP-ASEL-IA
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- come

[Andrew Gideon]

bdl wrote:

> MyÂ*understandingÂ*wasÂ*thatÂ*oneÂ*wouldÂ*rentÂ*an
> airplane to get their certificate, then buy an airplane.

Now that you mention this, it was a mistaken impression I held as well. I
thought that complete entry into aviation did involve a purchase at the end
of the training.

If it weren't for knowing a person that rented airplanes, I might never have
made the leap.

- Andrew

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I'll agree that there are parts of the country that darned-near require
> an IR. I'm happy to report that (a) I don't live in one, and (b) I
> don't fly there very often, either.

So the fact is that you *can't* reliably see America from the air with just a
PPC. Just part of it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'll agree that there are parts of the country that darned-near require
>> an IR. I'm happy to report that (a) I don't live in one, and (b) I
>> don't fly there very often, either.
>
> So the fact is that you *can't* reliably see America from the air with
> just a PPC. Just part of it.

Well, I'd put the percentage at over 95%, if you exclude Alaska.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I agree with those that believe that something substantial must be done
> to increase the ranks of pilots. Not that I have solutions. :( But
> identifying the issue is worth something. I have resolved to encourage
> and/or seduce some friends of mine into flying.

Bravo, Dave! GA needs more folks like you ...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, I'd put the percentage at over 95%, if you exclude Alaska.

Then you and I have extremely different ideas of what constitutes "reliably."
You, apparently, mean that one can fly somewhere and, sooner or later, fly back.
Most people should be able to do that. If, however, they can't count on being
able to come back when they want or need to be back, that's not reliable
transportation. And you can't do that 95% of the time anywhere around here.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[gregg]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> I agree with those that believe that something substantial must be done
>> to increase the ranks of pilots. Not that I have solutions. :( But
>> identifying the issue is worth something. I have resolved to encourage
>> and/or seduce some friends of mine into flying.
>
> Bravo, Dave! GA needs more folks like you ...


Isn't one of the objectives of the Sport ticket trying to do just that?

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[John Doe]

>
> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
> (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang
> with. This doesn't help.
>
> KB
>

That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come out
to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they wonder
what's keeping the wings on.

Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
you'll see a younger crowd.

This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than 20
years old and get some new metal on the ramp.

[AJ]

you wrote: "We need to put the public back into our local public
airports. After 9/11, people are much shyer about coming onto airport
property."

Actually, they're not so much shy as intimidated by security guards who
treat everyone at the gates as terrorists. The casual observer in most
cases can't even stand outside the fence and watch landings and
take-offs.

Not much to applaud there.

AJ

[[email protected]]

"John Doe" > wrote:
> This industry needs a major investment to retire
> all planes older than 20 years old and get some
> new metal on the ramp.

Tell it to the insurance companies.

[bdl]

Except there are lots of airports that don't have gates or fences or
anything. They still are shy about coming on the property. Why?

For the same reason I don't walk onto someone elses property, I wasn't
invited.

Let's invite them. Specifcally targeting the younger crowd. An Open
House at the nation's airports, advertising fly-in's to more than just
other pilots, etc.

It may already be like this in other areas of the country. Just not in
mine.

[Bob Fry]

Flight training is fairly hard work. That is, each flight (and the
study to prepare for the flight) is physically and mentally tiring,
even exhausting. This actually appeals to a few geeks who like the
challenge, but the majority of people will be shocked at the work
required. This is very unlike high school and even college where you
can coast by most courses. Furthermore in school there is only
abstract feedback, a score on an exam or term paper. In an airplane
you get real feedback very quickly when you screw up.

Even today I remember the strange feeling around my first solo,
realizing that I couldn't just stop driving to rescue myself; if I
felt suddenly afraid or ill I would have to work several more minutes
to get myself safely to the ground.

All of this is very foreign to the young generation coming of age and
wealth. They're used to TV dramas where everything is resolved in an
hour, or video games where if you screw up you just hit reset. That
mentality doesn't work in flying.

Jay is right: money is not a real cause for dropping out for most
people, but it is a handy excuse. The Sport Pilot will help some, but
with people in post-industrial America and Europe being raised to
avoid risk and not make their own decisions, flying is a strange world
to enter.

[ls]

gregg wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>>I agree with those that believe that something substantial must be done
>>>to increase the ranks of pilots. Not that I have solutions. :( But
>>>identifying the issue is worth something. I have resolved to encourage
>>>and/or seduce some friends of mine into flying.
>>
>>Bravo, Dave! GA needs more folks like you ...
>
>
>
> Isn't one of the objectives of the Sport ticket trying to do just that?

I was actually just about to chime in with a Sport Pilot citation......

Indeed, this is one of the main intents of the new rule, to attempt to
revitalize general aviation, particularly the light plane side of it.
How successful it'll be is unclear and the results so far are mixed.

Currently, the persons able to take advantage of it right away are
pilots like myself - privates who own light aircraft that fit into the
Light Sport Aircraft limitations, but for one reason or another can't
maintain a class III medical. I'm actually flying 99% legal under the
rule right now with my private (still need a tailwheel endorsement since
my airplane is a taildragger, then I'll be 100% legal).
The infrastructure for the rest of it is still a long ways away..

In any case, whether this will make aviation more accessible remains to
be seen. I think in some ways it will and in others it won't.

Regardless of what happens, I still don't think it'll make learning to
fly an _easy_ process. It might be easier than before, but it's still a
tough thing to learn to do no matter what route you take.

I agree with the other posters who cited that as probably the main
reason for the high dropout rate. It certainly isn't the money -
there're a lot of rich folks out there with 5 or 10 hours here and
there. I think it's just a lot of work that requires a lot of
commitment. And it's just not a lot of people's bag for that reason....

LS
N646F

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
>>
>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
>> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
>> (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang
>> with. This doesn't help.
>>
>> KB
>>
>
> That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
> teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come out
> to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they wonder
> what's keeping the wings on.
>
> Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
> you'll see a younger crowd.
>
> This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than 20
> years old and get some new metal on the ramp.
>

I think you are putting the effect before the cause. The FBO with the new
planes has them because the have pilots coming through. The fact that they
are young is just luck.

[W P Dixon]

How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these new
planes? How many would ever start flying when they realized they may never
be able to afford to own one? As far as that goes, how many stop training
because of having to rent a plane? If the majority of us had to rent a car
"all the time" would we bother driving in the first place? Just something to
ponder...

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:onlOe.2847$Ix4.463@okepread03...
>
> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
>>> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
>>> (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang
>>> with. This doesn't help.
>>>
>>> KB
>>>
>>
>> That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
>> teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come
>> out to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they
>> wonder what's keeping the wings on.
>>
>> Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
>> you'll see a younger crowd.
>>
>> This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than 20
>> years old and get some new metal on the ramp.
>>
>
> I think you are putting the effect before the cause. The FBO with the new
> planes has them because the have pilots coming through. The fact that they
> are young is just luck.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cBxNe.263911$x96.7975@attbi_s72...
>> Flying is boring to the generation that has been raised on action
>> filled TV, movies, and video games.
>
> Nonsense. They merely need to be shown the way.
>
> And we're the only ones that can do it, Gene!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


My son has a friend that has a truly awesome computer set up as flight
simulator. Alienware Area 51, Three 19" monitors and every flight sim you
can buy. The kid can shoot an ILS approach into JFK with 0/0. He can
probably out fly most Air Force and Navy pilots in anything from a Spitfire
to a Raptor.

He has zero interest in REAL flying. I don't understand it. I took them up
once and with zero coaching he was able to fly the plane. While I didn't let
him do take off or landing he was capable of perfectly coordinated flight in
S turns, turns around a point you name it.

When we landed he was very polite and thanked me for taking him up. BUT he
has zero interest in REAL flying. He later told my son it was just boring
and he couldn't imagine doing for a living much less for fun.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I agree with those that believe that something substantial must be done
>>> to increase the ranks of pilots. Not that I have solutions. :( But
>>> identifying the issue is worth something. I have resolved to encourage
>>> and/or seduce some friends of mine into flying.
>>
>> Bravo, Dave! GA needs more folks like you ...
>
>
> Isn't one of the objectives of the Sport ticket trying to do just that?
>

That's the objective. But te real outcome will be more old guys who are
scared they are going to loose their medicals.

[N93332]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these
> new planes? How many would ever start flying when they realized they may
> never be able to afford to own one? As far as that goes, how many stop
> training because of having to rent a plane? If the majority of us had to
> rent a car "all the time" would we bother driving in the first place? Just
> something to ponder...

True. I had stopped flying for several months at times while I was renting
aircraft after getting my certificate. I had to force myself to go out to
rent a plane and get back into it.

As far as buying an aircraft, there are many good used aircraft available
for the price of a car, pickup, SUV, or boat. These aren't the
bigger/faster/newer planes but they're good for general flying. The bad part
is that the hangar rent, maintenance, insurance, etc., for owning a plane is
higher than owning a regular vehicle.

My most expensive purchases have been my car, my current house and my
plane-- in descending order. The annual costs for each would be the house
(taxes, utilities, repairs, etc.), the plane(hangar, maintenance, fuel,
etc.), then the car (insurance, gas, etc.), also descending.

--
-Greg B.
<remove dot to reply>

[Andrew Gideon]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> That's the objective. But te real outcome will be more old guys who are
> scared they are going to loose their medicals.

In other words: a holding action.

- Andrew

[Jose]

> My most expensive purchases have been my car, my current house and my
> plane-- in descending order.

Sheesh! What do you drive? Where do you live?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

> That's the objective. But the real outcome will be more old guys who are
> scared they are going to loose their medicals.

That's going to be a major consitutuency of the Sport Pilot rule --
people with PP's and other advanced ratings who "retire" into LSAs.

This will change when the LSAs start showing up (which, in reality,
they have not. J3 Cubs are not going to attract the younger crowd), the
CFIs are ready to teach the new standard (with they are not. obviously,
they have the skills, but they don't have the syllabi, etc.), and most
importantly, the insurance companies know what to do with the LS rule,
which they don't.

That latter one could sink the whole deal. So far, reports from people
who run FBOs do not sound so good.

-- dave j

[[email protected]]

In this vein, I'd also say that flight training can be frustrating.
There are... setbacks. For example, you might not learn a maneuver as
quickly as you thought you would. Or, you're busy for a while, don't
make it to the airport, and when you do get back in the plane, you're
relearning things you thought you had done.

In my flight training there were a couple of plateaus. These were
frustrating. I wonder how many people drop out, not after solo, but
after hitting one of those and starting to wonder when they're finally
going to 'finish'. It doesn't help that CFIs (at least the three I've
worked with) are loathe to offer encouragement. For some reason, CFI
don't like to say "you'll get it next time."

I will say that I think I'm seeing some real ageism from the oldsters
on this board who think that kids today are somehow made of lesser
stuff than kids in their day. That's ridiculous.

For one, it's not like everyone in their 70s today has learned to fly
-- far from it. And the economics (military and otherwise) were
different when most of them learned. And finally, kids today have many
more activities competing for their attention. That's not the kids
fault. It's just life.

-- dave j

[[email protected]]

I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
best "investment."

If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
to tweak it.

-- dave j

[W P Dixon]

Actually ,
The insurance companies are having trouble with insurance on taildraggers
for ALL pilots not just sport pilots. But the flight schools insurance is
covering sport pilot students as well as other students...and no one is
covered in a taildragger. If flight schools buy Ercoupes is solves the
problem ;) I'll keep driving 5 and a half hours to fly a taildragger . Maybe
they will buy one eventually. I had no trouble getting my own insurance as a
sport pilot student and they just can't wait to do more biz with me when I
buy my own plane. I don't see any difference in my first hours of flight
training and a PPL's training. Risky for all new pilots.
CFI's are more than willing to teach sport pilots I have found. yep the
rules need some ironing out, but sport pilot training is happening.
The biggest hurdle is the AIRPLANE! When insurance balks the old
taildraggers from any pilot soloing in them, it leaves a flight school with
it's hands tied. Most flight schools won't chunk out 80G for a new sport
plane , and few sport pilot students will buy their own at that price. So
either some cheaper sport planes come on line or the whole thing will just
be a retirement program for the rich type private pilots who can not get a
medical anymore. Not alot of flight schools go out and buy the Diamonds and
such either, they have the good old all purpose trainers that they pick up
relatively cheap.
True some areas may have the high tech stuff just over flowing but that
is the exception rather than the rule. In NE TN I know of one Cirrus that is
available for rent....still lots and lots of C150's C172 and Cherokee and
Warriors . When everyone that wants to fly builds their own plane then maybe
the prices will come down ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> That's the objective. But the real outcome will be more old guys who are
>> scared they are going to loose their medicals.
>
> That's going to be a major consitutuency of the Sport Pilot rule --
> people with PP's and other advanced ratings who "retire" into LSAs.
>
> This will change when the LSAs start showing up (which, in reality,
> they have not. J3 Cubs are not going to attract the younger crowd), the
> CFIs are ready to teach the new standard (with they are not. obviously,
> they have the skills, but they don't have the syllabi, etc.), and most
> importantly, the insurance companies know what to do with the LS rule,
> which they don't.
>
> That latter one could sink the whole deal. So far, reports from people
> who run FBOs do not sound so good.
>
> -- dave j
>

[[email protected]]

> Unfortunately, flying can have no lasting appeal for the casual pilot
> masses, until it DOES have some reasonably economic utility, and right now
> it simply does not

I think it is essentially true that flying has limited economic
utility. Pilots love to argue this point, but I think most of us know
this to be true. I can't tell you the countless hours I have spent
trying to plan flights that "show" how convenient and useful an
airplane is. It's work!

However, you can go two ways with this:
1. fix the economics, show how the family plane can be like the family
car
2. pitch flying as an avocation, something done for entertainment.

In the latter scenario, flying doesn't need to make economic sense,
just not be overly burdensome. However, I'm not sure how many people
you can recruit with 2.

I like the former scenario, but the economics, as near as I can tell,
are getting worse, not better.

-- dave j

[[email protected]]

It's not the age of the planes, per se. It's:

- the crappy cracked headliner, plastic trim, etc.
- minor bits of hangar rash that some A&P signed off as flyable.
- torn up seats
- musty "grandpa" smell (perhaps with cigar thrown in)
- powdering old paint job
- list of "minor" squawks that will *never* be addressed because
they're not "safety of flight"
- paleozoic avionics

If FBOs would just "spiff up" their planes, they could get much of the
benefit of new AC without the major investment. After all, the new AC
perform similarly. I don't understand why so many FBOs have an attitude
towards maintenance that is basically "maintain aiworthiness; nothing
else matters."

-- dave j

PS -- I've taken most of my friends and s.o.'s up over the years, and
everyone comments on that musty smell. What's the deal with that? Can't
something be done. I'm not kidding. A little can of "new airplane
smell" perhaps?

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee,
I laugh but it isOHHHH so true!!!! My pet peeve is the ailerons with stop
drilled cracks , not once mind you! Just replace the dang skin already
GEESH! 100 hour inspection my butt! I wouldn't sign half of them off.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> It's not the age of the planes, per se. It's:
>
> - the crappy cracked headliner, plastic trim, etc.
> - minor bits of hangar rash that some A&P signed off as flyable.
> - torn up seats
> - musty "grandpa" smell (perhaps with cigar thrown in)
> - powdering old paint job
> - list of "minor" squawks that will *never* be addressed because
> they're not "safety of flight"
> - paleozoic avionics
>
> If FBOs would just "spiff up" their planes, they could get much of the
> benefit of new AC without the major investment. After all, the new AC
> perform similarly. I don't understand why so many FBOs have an attitude
> towards maintenance that is basically "maintain aiworthiness; nothing
> else matters."
>
> -- dave j
>
> PS -- I've taken most of my friends and s.o.'s up over the years, and
> everyone comments on that musty smell. What's the deal with that? Can't
> something be done. I'm not kidding. A little can of "new airplane
> smell" perhaps?
>

[Jose]

> He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

Reset button. Thunderstorms. Simulated emergencies.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:28:51 -0500, "N93332" >
wrote in >::

>As far as buying an aircraft, there are many good used aircraft available
>for the price of a car, pickup, SUV, or boat. These aren't the
>bigger/faster/newer planes but they're good for general flying.

Right. You can purchase a used C-152 for ~$20k, but a new LSA will
set you back ~$80k to ~$100k. :-(

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
>> He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
>> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
>> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
>> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?
>
> Reset button. Thunderstorms. Simulated emergencies.


No reset button. Thunderstorms. Real emergencies. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring. ;)

Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies, and the more creative
the cfi or safety pilot, the more fun. I guess that's what makes people
like us "special."

-- dave j

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Owning an aircraft is not the end-all be-all of aviation.

According to FAA numbers there are 618,633 total pilots and 209,700
aircraft.

Now to answer your questions.

>How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these
>new planes?

Probably a number close to zero.

>How many would ever start flying when they realized they may never be able
>to afford to >own one?

I'd guess a number fewer than learn now but most who learn to fly won't ever
either be to afford on or choose not to afford one.

>As far as that goes, how many stop training because of having to rent a
>plane?

I'm sure that is one of the factors in the drop-out rate.

>If the majority of us had to rent a car "all the time" would we bother
>driving in the ?>first place?

If I only had to drive 2 or 3 times a month AND the cost and maintenance of
a car were anywhere close to that of a plane hell yes I'd just rent.




"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these
> new planes? How many would ever start flying when they realized they may
> never be able to afford to own one? As far as that goes, how many stop
> training because of having to rent a plane? If the majority of us had to
> rent a car "all the time" would we bother driving in the first place? Just
> something to ponder...
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:onlOe.2847$Ix4.463@okepread03...
>>
>> "John Doe" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>>>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my
>>>> EAA chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old
>>>> farts (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to
>>>> hang with. This doesn't help.
>>>>
>>>> KB
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
>>> teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come
>>> out to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they
>>> wonder what's keeping the wings on.
>>>
>>> Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
>>> you'll see a younger crowd.
>>>
>>> This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than
>>> 20 years old and get some new metal on the ramp.
>>>
>>
>> I think you are putting the effect before the cause. The FBO with the new
>> planes has them because the have pilots coming through. The fact that
>> they are young is just luck.
>>
>

[[email protected]]

Yes, that's a perfect example. Those holes are perfectly legal, valid
repairs, but.... people don't want to see them. The pilots in the club
might know they're okay, but their spouses and children find that kind
of thing disturbing!

And here's the kicker that I was not able to explain to the powers that
be in my club: it *really* matters what the spouses and children
think!

-- dave j

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
> suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?
>
> I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
> than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
> best "investment."
>
> If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
> to tweak it.
>

You're right he has several hundred hours of simulator time. Basically he
learned to fly in a 747. I think it is all a matter of instant gratification
he has no interest in spending the time in the "little planes" as he calls
them even if it meant he would later get to fly 747s for AA.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring. ;)
>
> Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies, and the more creative
> the cfi or safety pilot, the more fun. I guess that's what makes people
> like us "special."
>
> -- dave j


I think he was saying those things made the simulator NOT boring. And I
agree.

[Jose]

> Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring. ;)
>
> Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies,

What I meant was that you could safely fly through thunderstorms while
two engines were on fire, your gyros were spinning down, and the
approach plate fell on the floor, if you were in a simulator. You won't
get that excitement in ordinary flying. (or at least you shouldn't. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Ah, I get it now. In the sim, he can fly through thunderstorms, etc.
Yeah, that's kind of cool.

Damn!

[Seth Masia]

There's something else going on here. Real flying has a physical aspect:
it's sensuous in the same way that sports are sensuous. You use depth
perception, proprioception, "seat of the pants." That's why the world's
best fighter pilots are athletes -- yes, I'm thinking of Ted Williams. If a
computer nerd kid has no interest in doing sports, the sim is going to be a
lot more interesting -- it's a broader range of challenges than he'd ever
get in a real airplane, thus it's a better intellectual challenge and more
fun. But if he's a physical guy, he'll want to fly for real.

Let's not forget that the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss started as
bicycle racers. There's a lesson in that.

Seth
Comanche N8100R
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:VToOe.2865$Ix4.2257@okepread03...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
>> suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
>> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
>> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
>> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?
>>
>> I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
>> than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
>> best "investment."
>>
>> If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
>> to tweak it.
>>
>
> You're right he has several hundred hours of simulator time. Basically he
> learned to fly in a 747. I think it is all a matter of instant
> gratification he has no interest in spending the time in the "little
> planes" as he calls them even if it meant he would later get to fly 747s
> for AA.
>
>
>

[N93332]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> My most expensive purchases have been my car, my current house and my
>> plane-- in descending order.
>
> Sheesh! What do you drive? Where do you live?

Ok, my house and car were each about $25k. Living in the middle of nowhere,
there are cheap houses available. The problem is living in the middle of
nowhere. The 2 previous homes I've owned 'somewhere' were 3 to 4+ times as
much. My house, car and plane are all small compared to what a lot of people
care to have, but they're paid for and suit me fine. ;-)

[Jose]

> The problem is living in the middle of
> nowhere.

That's what the airplane is for. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
>> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
> (maybe
>> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with.
> This
>> doesn't help.
>
> Maybe there needs to be a aviation sector of the "X" games. I'm only half
> kidding.
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL
>
>

Why not make the Summer X-Games a stop on the Red Bull competition-aerobatic
tour...or add a Flugtag-esque event?

Just adding a couple of cents to this thought...

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[N93332]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> The problem is living in the middle of nowhere.
>
> That's what the airplane is for. :)

Yup! Of course, I'd be living here in the middle of nowhere even without a
plane -- but wouldn't enjoy it as much.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:rXpOe.124399$E95.107886@fed1read01...
>
> "Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
>>> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
>> (maybe
>>> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with.
>> This
>>> doesn't help.
>>
>> Maybe there needs to be a aviation sector of the "X" games. I'm only half
>> kidding.
>>
>> -Trent
>> PP-ASEL
>>
>>

Excellent idea. But the FAA makes them jump through so many hoops. If NASCAR
had to have the safety items in place that Redbll does you'd be watching
races at Daytona from the beach.
>
> Why not make the Summer X-Games a stop on the Red Bull
> competition-aerobatic tour...or add a Flugtag-esque event?
>
> Just adding a couple of cents to this thought...
>
> Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
> Arizona Cloudbusters
> Chandler, AZ
>

[Jay Beckman]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:VToOe.2865$Ix4.2257@okepread03...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
>> suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
>> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
>> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
>> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?
>>
>> I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
>> than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
>> best "investment."
>>
>> If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
>> to tweak it.
>>
>
> You're right he has several hundred hours of simulator time. Basically he
> learned to fly in a 747. I think it is all a matter of instant
> gratification he has no interest in spending the time in the "little
> planes" as he calls them even if it meant he would later get to fly 747s
> for AA.

This is a good point.

The subject of "How Do I Start?" comes up often over on the MSFS newsgroup
and without fail, the suggestion is made to start with the Cessna 172, fly
the canned Rod Machado lessons, read the articles about flight and flying
and work your way up to the 182, the Mooney, the Lear, the 737, etc...

And, also without fail, the newbie responds: "I want to fly the heavy iron
NOW!!!"

Instant gratification indeed...

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL (Sim Pilot Too)
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Ben Hallert]

I've heard it said that buying the plane is the cheapest part of the
aircraft ownership experience.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Dave Stadt]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> >
> > Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
> > youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
> > chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts
> > (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang
> > with. This doesn't help.
> >
> > KB
> >
>
> That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
> teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come out
> to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they wonder
> what's keeping the wings on.
>
> Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
> you'll see a younger crowd.
>
> This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than 20
> years old and get some new metal on the ramp.

You have that backwards. Get rid of all the planes 50 years old and newer
and keep all the older fun to fly planes. The new stuff is boring to look
at and even worse to fly. I'd quit flying in a micro second if the only
option was new spam or plastic.

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > That's the objective. But te real outcome will be more old guys who are
> > scared they are going to loose their medicals.
>
> In other words: a holding action.
>
> - Andrew


In other words less income for AMEs.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
> What I meant was that you could safely fly through thunderstorms while
> two engines were on fire, your gyros were spinning down, and the
> approach plate fell on the floor, if you were in a simulator. You won't
> get that excitement in ordinary flying. (or at least you shouldn't. :)


Probably not more than once, anyway.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> I've heard it said that buying the plane is the cheapest part of the
> aircraft ownership experience.


To borrow from the boating set, the two happiest days of your life are the day
you buy and the day you sell your airplane.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[AJ]

I don't know about that. It sounds like the newbie gets way too much
advice up front. All he/she wants is to get in the air. When he/she
asks "how do I start?", the advice should stop right after the part
where they get their license. After that, if they want to work their
way up, be available to advise.

AJ

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> PS -- I've taken most of my friends and s.o.'s up over the years, and
> everyone comments on that musty smell. What's the deal with that? Can't
> something be done. I'm not kidding. A little can of "new airplane
> smell" perhaps?

Rolls-Royce sells cans of stuff that give an interior the smell of a 1966 RR.
They did some research, and that was the year that smelled the best to most
people. They even spray their new cars with it.

If it works for them, maybe ...

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
> suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
> into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
> simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

I would guess that the real aircraft is long periods of more-or-less straight
and level flight, which he finds boring. He might find doing touch-and-goes at
JFK during a push exciting, but that could get a tad expensive.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[john smith]

Put foggles on the kid and tell him to fly for awhile.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Put foggles on the kid and tell him to fly for awhile.

Didn't have to. I couldn't get him to stop looking at the instruments when
he was up there.

[Jose]

> I couldn't get him to stop looking at the instruments when
> he was up there.

No wonder he was bored. Cover them all up and take him flying again.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[private]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:rEcNe.42126$084.40784@attbi_s22...
> You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
> quitting: Money. We've beaten the relative cost of flying to death, and
(for
> the purposes of this thread) I will just leave it at this: Learning to fly
> is about as expensive as a semester of college, and less expensive than
> buying a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Let's leave "cost" out of this, for
> now, as I think it's safe to say that there a millions of Americans who
> could easily afford to learn to fly, if the urge were to strike.
>
> That aside, can you name some other reasons for the abysmal drop-out rate
of
> student pilots? What can we do to make flying more accessible to those
> who dream of piloting an aircraft?

"If God had meant man to fly he would have given us more money", or the
corollary,
"Aviation is God's way of telling us to make more money".

To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room. Money
spent for education is usually justified as being an investment that will
earn a financial as well as a personal return. The cost of training to the
level where one can even begin to see a reduction in the cost (let alone see
an income) are substantial and certainly cannot be justified by the return.
When a close to minimum wage part time job requires an investment of time
and money similar to a university degree there is not much incentive. A
real piloting job will require more like 1000 hrs TT and 500 in type, that
will entail an investment similar to medical school or several years in the
minimum wage area. All of this investment can be lost with one bad medical.

An investment in a used Harley or Corvette will earn a greater return than a
similar amount invested in an aircraft, and both can be reconditioned in
your home garage, have cheaper (but often identical) parts and qualify for
"owner maintenance". I would love to have my own aircraft (and have the
cash) but have listened carefully to the experiences of other owners and
have run the numbers for myself and I just can not justify the cost (or the
financial risk), especially after considering that the ongoing burdens of
insurance, fuel, regulation, hangar and maintenance are going nowhere but
up. The private fleet is getting more than a little long in the tooth and I
must question where the new buyers are coming from to continue to subsidize
the keep of our aging hangar queens that we can not afford to fly due to the
rapidly increasing costs of fuel (approaching 6$C/usgal) and maintenance.

I continue to fly as much as possible but there are not many interesting
aircraft available for rent and the level of liability we assume as renters
is frankly scary. The liability issue is solved by flying dual and that
does not require a (wallet) checkout flight, but does raise my standards
regarding the types I wish to fly. One of the local schools has just
obtained a new Husky on amphibs that I am looking forward to flying but not
of paying for (250$C/hr dual). After getting accustomed to that price I
will be able to justify getting some multi time and probably a rating. Both
of these aircraft should provide me with a learning challenge which I am
looking forward to and I will also do some more acro with a Decathlon which
will seem cheap by comparison.

The cost of a PPL is not the final cost of learning to fly. We say that "we
are always a student in an aeroplane" and the cost of learning to fly
continues long after the PPL (or CPL). I find aviation study and training
personally rewarding and should probably be pursuing the instructor route in
order to minimize some of the cost but I recognize that being an instructor
has its own costs and requires a level of commitment to the student that I
am not keen to accept and also means that I would be spending a great deal
of time in order to sit in the right seat of an aircraft that I would not be
too excited about flying from the left.

Until I find a way to make the cost of flying more reasonable, I will
consider it a luxury that I will consume as long as I find it enjoyable and
in the amount that I can afford. None of my thoughts are likely to make any
of my friends wish to take up the addiction.

Just my .02 YMMV

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:36:50 GMT, "private" >
wrote:

>To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room.

There's another elephant. The instructor explains that flying is all
about risk management, and the student thinks, "Well, ****. Probably
90% of the people who died in airplanes thought they were managing
their risks to the extent that they didn't expect to die that day.
The instructor as much as said right now that only way I can
*completely* manage the risk of dying in an airplane is by staying out
of them. There's lots of risky things in life I can't avoid, but
flying is a lifestyle choice."

Don (Flying with that elephant since 1968. "So far, so good.")

[Jay Honeck]

> > You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
> > quitting: Money.

> To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Right. However, we can't change the money situation. We CAN change
the other variables that are causing the appallingly high student drop
out rate in aviation.

> An investment in a used Harley or Corvette will earn a greater return than a
> similar amount invested in an aircraft, and both can be reconditioned in
> your home garage, have cheaper (but often identical) parts and qualify for
> "owner maintenance".

Well, I don't think a Corvette is going to appreciate as much as a
common single engine plane. I bought my Warrior for $32.7 K and sold
it for $40 K, after flying the pants off of it for four years.

Now, of course, I put a TON of stuff into it -- mostly with sweat
equity. I think you are under-estimating the amount of stuff an owner
can do to enhance the quality and value of an airplane.

Cosmetics make a HUGE difference in the value of an airplane, and it's
one of the easiest areas for an owner to address. Replace the ratty
interior, fix the cracked plastic, reupholster the seats, buff out the
paint, put some ArmorAll on the rubber, and shazam -- you've got a MUCH
more valuable aircraft.

> I would love to have my own aircraft (and have the
> cash) but have listened carefully to the experiences of other owners and
> have run the numbers for myself and I just can not justify the cost (or the
> financial risk), especially after considering that the ongoing burdens of
> insurance, fuel, regulation, hangar and maintenance are going nowhere but
> up.

Sounds like you're a candidate for a homebuilt aircraft?

> The private fleet is getting more than a little long in the tooth and I
> must question where the new buyers are coming from to continue to subsidize
> the keep of our aging hangar queens that we can not afford to fly due to the
> rapidly increasing costs of fuel (approaching 6$C/usgal) and maintenance.

Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s. As painful as I'm finding it to refuel our plane
(and we burn car gas!), I must remind myself that the last 20 years
have really been a tremendous bargain.


> I continue to fly as much as possible but there are not many interesting
> aircraft available for rent and the level of liability we assume as renters
> is frankly scary.

In what way?

> Until I find a way to make the cost of flying more reasonable, I will
> consider it a luxury that I will consume as long as I find it enjoyable and
> in the amount that I can afford. None of my thoughts are likely to make any
> of my friends wish to take up the addiction.

Yes, you should probably keep them to yourself, lest we scare away any
new pilots!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TaxSrv]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> ...
> Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
> back in the 1980s.

Don't fall for that propaganda regarding "1981 prices, in today's
dollars." There was a spike in crude prices during the Iran-Iraq war.
Retail price, in real dollars, on either side of that spike (late 70's
and mid-80s) were significantly less than today.

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think a Corvette is going to appreciate as much as a
> common single engine plane.

A used Corvette will appreciate just as fast as a used Piper, and a new Piper
will depreciate just as fast as a new Corvette.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
> > All good points but a huge difference between flying and riding a Harley is
> > the amount of time from when you start spending money until you start having
> > fun.
>
> I'm not convinced that's true. I know that most people (at least in
> Houston) who buy a Harley who have never ridden before take a course
> that starts Friday evening, goes all through the weekend, and I think
> there's some finishup Monday. That would be enough time to solo a
> tri-gear LSA.
>
> For those who really must have the one-day training course, there is
> always the powered parachute.

Which raises an interesting question about focusing more effort on
making an airplane that is simpler to fly. Langewiesche talked about
designing out the need for the rudder and things like drag brakes that
made altitude/airspeed control easier.

I've thought that the magic formula would be if you had a course of
instruction that could be finished in 7 days. Then you set up schools
in vacation destinations. Dad (or mom) takes flying lessons during the
day while the SO plays golf or gets spa treatments and the kids splash
in the pool.

-cwk.

[Jose]

You need three things to fly: Time, money, and to live near an airport.

For most folks, only two are available at any given time.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:31:55 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> If I could do it, anyone can do it.
>
>Bull.
>The median income in the U.S. today is about $50,000. *LOTS* of people in the
>States cannot afford flight training. Many more regard it as a complete waste of
>money, and for them, it probably would be.

Yes, I agree with you that there are a lot of people who can not
afford flight training and most of them are not in a position to
expect to do so later on. I'm excluding that portion of the
population/work force in college or just a year or two out.

What's the average? I would expect the average to be quite a bit
below the median as there are just a few very high incomes that skew
the median up. The last Census (2000) put the household median at
$41,994 so I'd expect it to be close to $50,000 now. There is a 2002
survey that put it a bit over $42,000

What is exasperating is trying to find the average rather than the
middle number or median. The US keeps household income compared to a
median. Canada keeps it according to average. Whether higher or lower
the average is a much more meaningful number than median. I would
*guess* there are far more households making less than the median that
there are making more.

After nearly an hour and a half trying to find the average US income I
have given up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Roger]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:47:34 -0700, wrote:

>"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>> Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
>> youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my EAA
>> chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old farts (maybe
>> I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to hang with. This
>> doesn't help.
>
>I agree with that. Most under 30 at our airport are only there to get
>whatever ratings they need to get to the airlines and then they're outta
>there. Nearly everyone that "hangs out" there, socializes there, flies
>together for *fun* outside of training, is at least 40 and up, and the
>40-60s are the "younger" ones. The majority are 60+ ... not that there's
>anything wrong with that!!

We've had a number of teen agers get their PPL over the past few
years. We actively promote aviation in the schools and through EAA
Chapter 1093. Still the average age is probably around 40, give or
take some change.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> The last Census (2000) put the household median at
> $41,994 so I'd expect it to be close to $50,000 now. There is a 2002
> survey that put it a bit over $42,000

I would expect it to be considerably less after the off-shoring rush that got
rolling in 2003.

About 6 months ago, NPR reported that the number of jobs created for the quarter
had finally exceeded the number of jobs lost. For the first time, most of those
new jobs went to Spanish-Americans. That means that most of them pay diddly-squat.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:

> I would
> *guess* there are far more households making less than the median that
> there are making more.

huh?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Seth Masia]

Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.

In fact the average income is higher, because it's pulled up by the very
wealthy households making millions per year, and that's not offset by
households making negative income (we don't allow individuals to rack up
millions in debt -- only corporations). The mathematical average might be
around $60k or even higher.

Seth

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:31:55 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>> If I could do it, anyone can do it.
>>
>>Bull.
>>The median income in the U.S. today is about $50,000. *LOTS* of people in
>>the
>>States cannot afford flight training. Many more regard it as a complete
>>waste of
>>money, and for them, it probably would be.
>
> Yes, I agree with you that there are a lot of people who can not
> afford flight training and most of them are not in a position to
> expect to do so later on. I'm excluding that portion of the
> population/work force in college or just a year or two out.
>
> What's the average? I would expect the average to be quite a bit
> below the median as there are just a few very high incomes that skew
> the median up. The last Census (2000) put the household median at
> $41,994 so I'd expect it to be close to $50,000 now. There is a 2002
> survey that put it a bit over $42,000
>
> What is exasperating is trying to find the average rather than the
> middle number or median. The US keeps household income compared to a
> median. Canada keeps it according to average. Whether higher or lower
> the average is a much more meaningful number than median. I would
> *guess* there are far more households making less than the median that
> there are making more.
>
> After nearly an hour and a half trying to find the average US income I
> have given up.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>George Patterson
>> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
>> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Seth Masia]

I can't help thinking that if we made learning to fly a lot easier, and made
airplanes a lot simpler to fly safely, and made them as cheap as cars --
then they'd be as common as cars and we'd be bitching about all the newbies
cluttering up our airspace. We'd have midair collisions every day, across
the country. A lot of us would quit in frustration.

Like the man said, "It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy, everyone
would do it."

Seth

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:BjQOe.2824$SW1.387@trndny09...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
>> Well, I don't think a Corvette is going to appreciate as much as a
>> common single engine plane.
>
> A used Corvette will appreciate just as fast as a used Piper, and a new
> Piper will depreciate just as fast as a new Corvette.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Seth Masia wrote:
> I can't help thinking that if we made learning to fly a lot easier, and made
> airplanes a lot simpler to fly safely, and made them as cheap as cars --
> then they'd be as common as cars and we'd be bitching about all the newbies
> cluttering up our airspace. We'd have midair collisions every day, across
> the country. A lot of us would quit in frustration.

I believe you're right. Since the FAA is tasked with improving safety, that's
probably the reason for a lot of what they do. "If too many of 'em get into the
air, it ain't hard enough -- write some more regs."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
> I think you are putting the effect before the cause. The FBO with the new
> planes has them because the have pilots coming through. The fact that they
> are young is just luck.

Speaking as a pilot who started flying just after graduating university,
I can say for me (and other younger pilots) that the age of the plane
isn't necessarily a factor. Personally, I prefer older planes. I work
with technology all the time, and I quite enjoy getting away from it and
flying a simple VFR aircraft using simple, non-electronic navigation.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Jose > wrote:
>> computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?
>
> Reset button. Thunderstorms. Simulated emergencies.

I dunno. I've found real thunderstorms and real emergencies a lot more
exciting than the ones in MS Flight Simulator!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Seth Masia > wrote:
> There's something else going on here. Real flying has a physical aspect:
> it's sensuous in the same way that sports are sensuous. [...]
> get in a real airplane, thus it's a better intellectual challenge and more
> fun. But if he's a physical guy, he'll want to fly for real.

I'm not sure you're onto something there - as a group, the pilots I know
are probably the least athletic and least fit and eat the worst foods of
any group I know! Go to any fly-in and notice the propensity to being
rotund.

On the other hand, I like hanging out with fellow pilots on the
principle of 'never trust a skinny chef'. As a group we tend to eat the
nicest tasting food (and beer). (I only weigh 150lbs btw).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> You have that backwards. Get rid of all the planes 50 years old and newer
> and keep all the older fun to fly planes. The new stuff is boring to look
> at and even worse to fly. I'd quit flying in a micro second if the only
> option was new spam or plastic.

Having flown a couple of newer planes, I'd disagree with that. Some of
the plastic (especially the homebuilt new plastic, like the Europa) is a
lot of fun to fly. I also enjoyed the DA-40 a lot.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Mike Rapoport]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:lUQOe.2573$IG2.1726@trndny01...
> Roger wrote:
>>
>> The last Census (2000) put the household median at
>> $41,994 so I'd expect it to be close to $50,000 now. There is a 2002
>> survey that put it a bit over $42,000
>
> I would expect it to be considerably less after the off-shoring rush that
> got rolling in 2003.
>
> About 6 months ago, NPR reported that the number of jobs created for the
> quarter had finally exceeded the number of jobs lost. For the first time,
> most of those new jobs went to Spanish-Americans. That means that most of
> them pay diddly-squat.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

I don't think that median income is the relevent statistic. The question is
how many people is the economy creating that have enough money to buy or do
any particular thing like learing to fly AND want to do it. The economy
could still be producing record numbers of millionairs even if the average
were flat or declining. A few IPOs can significantly increase the number of
$100MM+ individuals in an area and not effect the median. You see this in
the ultra high end real estate market. The best business strategy I ever
heard was: "figure out what rich people want and provide it, they WILL buy
it. It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't
afford it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it,
desire and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of
those who can afford it.

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:20:21 -0400, "TaxSrv" > wrote
in >::

>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> ...
>> Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
>> back in the 1980s.
>
>Don't fall for that propaganda regarding "1981 prices, in today's
>dollars." There was a spike in crude prices during the Iran-Iraq war.
>Retail price, in real dollars, on either side of that spike (late 70's
>and mid-80s) were significantly less than today.
>

What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
the price of crude.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:20:21 -0400, "TaxSrv" > wrote
> in >::
>
>>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
>>> back in the 1980s.
>>
>>Don't fall for that propaganda regarding "1981 prices, in today's
>>dollars." There was a spike in crude prices during the Iran-Iraq war.
>>Retail price, in real dollars, on either side of that spike (late 70's
>>and mid-80s) were significantly less than today.
>>
>
> What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
> President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
> seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
> the price of crude.

Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
the right time? Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
markets? BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Mike
MU-2

[George Patterson]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> Speaking as a pilot who started flying just after graduating university,
> I can say for me (and other younger pilots) that the age of the plane
> isn't necessarily a factor.

True enough; it's the appearance of the plane that matters most. Unfortunately,
the plastic interiors of the 60s, 70s, and 80s do not hold up well under the
demands of a flight school or rental environment. They don't even look that good
when they're new.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Michael]

> Which raises an interesting question about focusing more effort on
> making an airplane that is simpler to fly.

Which is very doable - it merely requires that we give up some of our
cherished concepts about what the right way is.

Some thoughts:

Forget rudder pedals. Forget slips. Crosswind landings are made by
crabbing all the way down, then plopping the plane on the runway by
chopping the throttle. The gear will take it. It worked fine on the
Ercoupe, and it would work fine on a Cherokee. I've seen the way
students land those things in a crosswind - if they can take that, they
can take anything.

We can make it more effective by adding spoilers on the wings. They
activate when the throttle is pulled all the way out. They also
simplify glideslope control.

Navigation? What a waste of time. Every plane would have the
equivalent of a Garmin 396 (its failure would be considered an
emergency condition warranting a call to ATC for emergency handling)
and everyone would just follow the purple lines. VOR? NDB? DME?
Dead reckoning? Pilotage??? You gotta be kidding.

Weather? Why? That 396 has a satellite downlink. A little
reprogramming, and it will simply shade areas of the screed green (for
safe), yellow (for caution), or red (for hazardous) and you reroute
yourself. METAR? TAF? You gotta be kidding.

Engine failure? How often does that happen anyway? And if it does -
hey, let's just equip the planes with parachutes. If you can't get it
restarted by 2000 ft, pull the handle.

Ground reference maneuvers? Patterns? WHY? That 396 will zoom in on
the airport and guide you into a pattern entry. After all, it already
knows the winds and the traffic pattern direction. We can add
skywatch, and then it will even sequence you in with the traffic. No
transponder in the aircraft? Those guys are a hazard, shouldn't be
allowed.

With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend, never mind a
week. We wouldn't get the Harley crowd that way, but we might well get
the Mercedes crowd.

Michael

[Jose]

> With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
> airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend

What you just described is being a passenger. People can already do
that, and don't need training.

Hmmph. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
> back in the 1980s.

And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Andrew Gideon]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> I'm not sure you're onto something there - as a group, the pilots I know
> are probably the least athletic and least fit and eat the worst foods of
> any group I know! Go to any fly-in and notice the propensity to being
> rotund.

How odd. Maintaining my medical has become one of my exercise mantras. And
they're working. I'm in better shape now than when I started flying
several years ago.

It may be that I know a few people that lost their medicals (although at
least one got his back after a "final rejection" {8^).

My ex-CFII, who is quite well along in the maturity scale, runs five miles
most mornings. His example is another of my mantras, BTW <grin>.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
>::

>>
>> What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
>> President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
>> seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
>> the price of crude.
>
>Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
>the right time?

The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*

Think of it as the credit reporting companies making millions of
citizens' personal information public due to lax security procedures,
and then charging to insure those whose data they have compiled
against identity theft, as is currently occurring. While not the same
situation at all, it is another example of business victimizing the
people of this noble nation.

>Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
>markets?

Stock investors have their money at risk; think October 1988. Domestic
oil producers control a vital commodity without which this nation
would grind to a halt pronto. They should be regulated.

>BTW Nixon was president in 1972

Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

*
http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=39&d=2005-08-17+10%3A06%3A14

[TaxSrv]

"Larry Dighera wrote:
> The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
> prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
> wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
> unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
> just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*
>

It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't! *Your
reference is to Rep. Dennis the Menace Kucinich, our hometown, nut-case
legislator here, and his proposed tax. He has no problem with taxing us
(the tax would be passed through to us!) and spending it on pork-barrel
stuff and in effect a tax subsidy to foreign auto producers.

Fred F.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:50:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>>
>>> What I want to know is why the Windfall Profits Tax (implemented by
>>> President Carter in 1972 IIRC) hasn't been mentioned yet. It would
>>> seem that domestic oil producers' costs haven't risen anywhere near
>>> the price of crude.
>>
>>Why should they be taxed more just because they are in the right place at
>>the right time?
>
> The windfall Profits Tax was enacted as law when OPEC raised oil
> prices in 1979. If that policy made sense to lawmakers then, why
> wouldn't it be valid now? Why should domestic oil producers reap
> unearned millions in profits at the expense of the American people
> just because OPEC wants to price gouge?*
>
> Think of it as the credit reporting companies making millions of
> citizens' personal information public due to lax security procedures,
> and then charging to insure those whose data they have compiled
> against identity theft, as is currently occurring. While not the same
> situation at all, it is another example of business victimizing the
> people of this noble nation.
>
>>Should we tax stock investors at a higher rate during bull
>>markets?
>
> Stock investors have their money at risk; think October 1988. Domestic
> oil producers control a vital commodity without which this nation
> would grind to a halt pronto. They should be regulated.
>
>>BTW Nixon was president in 1972
>
> Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.
>
> *
> http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=39&d=2005-08-17+10%3A06%3A14

The US oil companies get crude either by buying it at market prices or
because they have taken the risk to find it. They *own* the oil reserves on
their books, the government does not. When oil went to $10 not so long ago
they didn't make anything on production. They are currently paying higher
taxes, production taxes and royalties are based on pricing. Also consider
that a lot of oil produced by US companies is produced in foriegn countries
or off their coasts, should we tax the profits on these too. How about
people selling their homes? The housing market has been strong and people
are reaping windfalls.

If it is avgas pricing that concerns you, it is the FBOs that are f*cking us
not the producers/refiners/OPEC. The cost of crude is a small percentage of
the cost of aviation fuel (jet or avgas) so there is no reason that a
doubling of crude prices should be accompanied by a doubling of aviation
fuel prices.

...and if you want to tax something, tax mining on public lands, they pay
zero for the resource. (My pet peeve)...yes thats zero.

Mike
MU-2


Mike
MU-2

[Michael]

> What you just described is being a passenger. People can already do
> that, and don't need training.

See, I wondered who would come out of the woodwork to say something
like that.

What I described is most emphatically NOT being a passenger. It's
being a driver. With modern technology, flying an airplane really can
be as simple as driving a car. Why shouldn't we make it that simple?
It would give us the advantage of numbers, and that of course would
reduce costs, regulation, etc.

Of course this would significantly devalue the skills of the existing
lightplane pilot, but so what? Do you really believe the skills
required to drive cross country in a 2005 Ford Focus with power
steering, antilock brakes, automatic transmission, the Neverlost
package, and OnStar on modern roads is even vaguely comparable to
making the same trip in a Model T in its heyday?

Flying can be expensive, or it can be difficult and inconvenient - but
if it's going to survive, it can't be both.

Michael

[Roger]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:55 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
>> back in the 1980s.
>
>And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
>today.
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

Yah know, when I was a teen ager my dad had suggested just such a
thing. BTW, the winning bid was $41. Did some one actually pay that?
IF so PT Barnum was right.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
> > Which raises an interesting question about focusing more effort on
> > making an airplane that is simpler to fly.
>
> Which is very doable - it merely requires that we give up some of our
> cherished concepts about what the right way is.
>
> Some thoughts:
>

Some time back Raytheon hacked up a Bonanza with all kinds of
electronic goodies including a fly-by-wire control system and synthetic
vision (highway in the sky) PFD. Reportedly they tested it by grabbing
the receptionist, sticking her in the cockpit, and in an hour she was
able to shoot an ILS to minimums within checkride standards.

Best piece I could find on it online:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA86994.html

I think the biggest challenge for this is integration into the NAS. You
really need two-way datalink with ATC and then you can have a
controller transmit a routing directly to the FMS. Well, we could
certainly get Boeing/Lockmar on board for this, especially if they get
to collect a "toll" for every flight. They'll have more of an incentive
to expand the market than the FAA I think...

> With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
> airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend, never mind a
> week. We wouldn't get the Harley crowd that way, but we might well get
> the Mercedes crowd.

I come from a boating family and it's enlightening to compare the two.
Boating is unregulated and almost solely recreational. Flying is
heavily regulated and has utility as a means of transportation.

In the boating world you have a choice of a million different vessels
offering every combination of cost and performance and mission. There
are boats designed for and primarily used by people who shouldn't be
allowed to drive a wheelbarrow, and "little ships" which are the equal
of any commercial vessel and whose owners adhere to the finest
standards of seamanship.

The big difference between flying, boating, and driving in my view is
what I call the "pull-over factor." A car can experience severe
mechanical problems and still easily limp to the side of the road if
not a service station at very low risk to occupants. You can drive
safely in nearly any weather in nearly any car, and if it gets really
bad, you can still pull over and just stop.

A boat raises the stakes in that some mechanical failures can cause
serious problems and there is no pulling over in bad weather. But, even
in sticky situations, you still often have time- minutes, if not an
hour or more to figure out what to do, and you can often call for help
when the bleep hits the fan.

Flying however offers no such outs. Once the wheels are off the ground,
all anyone can do is wish you good luck; if a problem develops, it is
up to the pilot to solve it. This is what scares most people away, and
while you an build many safety systems in to add options, there's still
no way to pull over.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
> > > quitting: Money.
>
> > To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room.
>
> Right. However, we can't change the money situation. We CAN change
> the other variables that are causing the appallingly high student drop
> out rate in aviation.

IMHO this is the wrong problem to focus on solving. Up through solo,
flying is all fun and no work. Then you get into the written test and
all the crap to prepare for the checkride. Now it's a chore. I'll bet
getting rid of the written would reduce the attrition rate by at least
25%, perhaps more, but it won't happen anytime soon.

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

-cwk.

[Earl Grieda]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
...snip
>
> I come from a boating family and it's enlightening to compare the two.
> Boating is unregulated and almost solely recreational. Flying is
> heavily regulated and has utility as a means of transportation.

Boats might be a source of fun, but they can be, and are, used for
transportation. Come visit the Chesapeake Bay area and you will see plenty
of boats out for fun, while also being used to go somewhere.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
> but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
> low-hanging fruit.

Ok. You help me find a job within an hour's drive of my home that requires less
than 60 hours a week and pays at least 60K a year (much more if I have to
commute to Manhattan). Preferably involving computers, since that's what my MS
is in. I'll be flying again soon after I find that job.

One friend of mine probably will never fly again, but you never know. He quit
because of lack of time and money, but I think he's lost interest to the point
that he wouldn't start again if he won the lottery.

Another friend of mine quit when the kids started arriving. He was also upset
because he could never find the time to study for the instrument rating (he'd
get maybe two weeks of study and then work would ramp up again). That's a man
who may be back when the kids get through college.

On second thought, maybe these people don't have to be attracted back into
actively participating in aviation. As I understand it, Jay's main issue is that
we need more flyers to allow us to apply more political pressure. It is to be
hoped that that pressure will prevent airport closings and harsh restrictions.
With a few exceptions, most former aviators are likely to be friendly to our cause.

Perhaps the way to go is to start up a non-profit that will concentrate on
informing and/or pressuring non-active pilots about political issues. Go after
people who used to fly and now don't, former AOPA members, former EAA members,
etc.. I suppose that funding would have to come from active aviators, but you
never know.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jose]

> What I described is most emphatically NOT being a passenger. It's
> being a driver.

Fair enough - you didn't mention an autopilot. But I can't concieve of
one of these being marketed without one. Lots of present day pilots
swear by George already.

> Why shouldn't we make it that simple?
> It would give us the advantage of numbers, and that of course would
> reduce costs, regulation, etc.

Don't confuse "simple" with "simplistic". It would most certainly NOT
reduce regulation; if anything with all the influx of barely trained
drivers climbing to ten thousand in some light midwinter rain, I
anticipate lots of new regulations, bringing flying down to the least
common denomenator. No, it's not anywhere near there now.

I most emphatically disagree that weather will not be a problem. No
matter what you do, you are still being held aloft on a blast of air by
a piece of something whose shape matters a lot.

> Every plane would have the
> equivalent of a Garmin 396 (its failure would be considered an
> emergency condition warranting a call to ATC for emergency handling)

1: Even if they don't fail much, with lots of them out there, they will
fail often enough to make ATC into AAA.

2: Even if they never fail, I don't see the average joe who can't
program their VCR making head or tail out of what it does when it dishes
out an "interface surprise", especially as it gets a tad bumpy up there
and they are threading their way through the frowny faces on the moving map.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >BTW Nixon was president in 1972
>
> Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

nope.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'm not sure you're onto something there - as a group, the pilots I know
>> are probably the least athletic and least fit and eat the worst foods of
>> any group I know! Go to any fly-in and notice the propensity to being
>> rotund.
>
> How odd. Maintaining my medical has become one of my exercise mantras.
> And
> they're working. I'm in better shape now than when I started flying
> several years ago.
>
> It may be that I know a few people that lost their medicals (although at
> least one got his back after a "final rejection" {8^).

Amen. After my recent high blood pressure scare, I lost 25 pounds. (And
I've been working out regularly for several years.)

Why? Because I want to live forever? Hell, no! I just want to keep my
medical for as long as possible, and there is simply no other way to do it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
> industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
> to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
> this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
> refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
> cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't!

Well said.

We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.

It's insane, but it's the law.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
wrote:

> IMHO this is the wrong problem to focus on solving. Up through solo,
> flying is all fun and no work. Then you get into the written test and
> all the crap to prepare for the checkride. Now it's a chore. I'll bet
> getting rid of the written would reduce the attrition rate by at least
> 25%, perhaps more, but it won't happen anytime soon.

I guess that depends on the order in which the student does things.
I passed my written and had my medical before the first lesson.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jay Honeck]

> With modern technology, it would be no problem to design and build
> airplanes that any idiot could learn to fly in a weekend, never mind a
> week. We wouldn't get the Harley crowd that way, but we might well get
> the Mercedes crowd.

NOW we're getting somewhere.

Maybe that's the ticket. Take the original Ercoupe concept (unstallable,
easy to fly), combine it with bullet-proof GPS navigation, and a ballistic
parachute.

I think maybe there might be a Light Sport Aircraft that fills this niche?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't afford
> it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it, desire
> and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those who
> can afford it.

WHY?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[W P Dixon]

Yep,
It's called an Ercoupe! ;) Model C and C/D both qualify as sport pilot
planes. But the company who owns the rights to the design has no plans to
make any more, though they may just sell like hotcakes:(

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xR5Pe.62775$084.46520@attbi_s22...
>
> NOW we're getting somewhere.
>
> Maybe that's the ticket. Take the original Ercoupe concept (unstallable,
> easy to fly), combine it with bullet-proof GPS navigation, and a ballistic
> parachute.
>
> I think maybe there might be a Light Sport Aircraft that fills this niche?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jose]

>> Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those who
>> can afford it.
>
> WHY?

For the same reason that fishing doesn't.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Amen. After my recent high blood pressure scare, I lost 25 pounds. (And
> I've been working out regularly for several years.)

I gave blood this past Monday.
When the nurse took my bp for the screening, it was 150/84.
I had been drinking ice tea all morning and had just walked 1/4-mile to
the church where the blood drive was.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
>> industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
>> to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
>> this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
>> refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
>> cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't!
>
>Well said.
>
>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>
>It's insane, but it's the law.

Nah. It's the Nimbys. Refineries lower property values. I like W's
suggestion to use old military bases for refineries. They're already
superfund sites.

Don
(Onizuka AFB's shutting according to this morning's news. Too small
for a refinery, though. I hope that eventually Moffet winds up as a
reliever and we can sneak in there when Palo Alto closes. We need to
keep Moffet operational for a few more years until the companies
around here start to need parking for their VLJs.).

[Michael]

> Fair enough - you didn't mention an autopilot. But I can't concieve of
> one of these being marketed without one.

I'm thinking full time wing leveler. Mooney used to do that. You had
to press a button to turn. I would add GPSS to it, and there you are.

> Lots of present day pilots swear by George already.

Yup. Some of them are airline pilots. The Airbus is a tribute to this
sort of thinking. At 400 ft the autopilot goes on, and MAYBE it gets
disconnected on short final.

> Don't confuse "simple" with "simplistic". It would most certainly NOT
> reduce regulation

Yes it would. Once people with money started flying in quantity, they
simply would not tolerate the heavy-handedness of the FAA and all its
rules. Too many of them would have the money to hire lawyers, the
connections to have the DOT inspector general investigate the FAA (and
we know that historically the FAA can't stand that sort of scrutiny -
too many skeletons in those closets), and pretty soon the FAA would
have to back off. Way off. Not because flying would get safer
(although with some serious technology it might - cars have) but
because numbers mean political clout.

Motorcycles are just as dangerous as GA, and how much regulation is
there on them?

>Even if they don't fail much, with lots of them out there, they will
>fail often enough to make ATC into AAA.

No doubt. They will deal. Or they will get outsourced to LockMar and
their replacements will deal. And pilots will pay $100/year for AAA (I
mean ATC) services.

> Even if they never fail, I don't see the average joe who can't
> program their VCR making head or tail out of what it does when it dishes
> out an "interface surprise"

The VCR was a perfect example of a lousy UI. That's why people STILL
can't program them. No need, though. We now have TiVo, and everyone
can use it.

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<ZJ5Pe.62754$084.27147@attbi_s22>::

>
>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>
>It's insane, but it's the law.

So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
wind of your abode?

[[email protected]]

Earl Grieda wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> ..snip
> >
> > I come from a boating family and it's enlightening to compare the two.
> > Boating is unregulated and almost solely recreational. Flying is
> > heavily regulated and has utility as a means of transportation.
>
> Boats might be a source of fun, but they can be, and are, used for
> transportation. Come visit the Chesapeake Bay area and you will see plenty
> of boats out for fun, while also being used to go somewhere.

This is a marginal case. The number of trips in which a boat can beat a
car are very limited. You can drive from anywhere on the Connecticut
coast to Newport RI faster than you can go by anything short of a
cigarette boat. If you want to go across the Sound, however, even a 6kt
sailboat can beat a car that has to cover 10x the distance. Geography
defines it.

Likewise, while no one would call a 172 a traveling airplane, I get a
lot of utility out of mine living in Boston. In the summer you can do
brunch on the Vineyard, then go shopping in Nantucket, and be back in
time for dinner. Rutland, VT is ~100nm as the crow flies or 150nm by
road, so you can beat a car there door-to-door if the winds aren't too
bad. But we're still just going next door, relatively speaking.

At 150 knots, Montreal becomes a day trip from Boston. At 180-200, you
fly to Florida on Friday afternoon and come back Sunday. This is the
kind of travel capability that really gets people excited. It's also
one that in the current system demands a relatively large amount of
pilot skill, whereas steering a boat across the Chesapeake is something
most 12-year-olds could do.

-cwk.

-cwk.

[Jose]

> Once people with money started flying in quantity, they
> simply would not tolerate the heavy-handedness of the
> FAA and all its rules.

I don't see that happening to the conclusion you draw. People with
money are =already= flying in quantity, just not as pilots. Air taxi
rules don't seem to have been affected.

> Motorcycles are just as dangerous as GA, and how much regulation is
> there on them?

Motorcycles are not as dangerous to other people as GA.

> The VCR was a perfect example of a lousy UI.

It has been superseded by the GPS.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

Nixon was never impeached.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
> > but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
> > low-hanging fruit.
>
> Ok. You help me find a job within an hour's drive of my home that requires less
> than 60 hours a week and pays at least 60K a year (much more if I have to
> commute to Manhattan). Preferably involving computers, since that's what my MS
> is in. I'll be flying again soon after I find that job.

Move out of New Jersey. Work as a consultant and you can live anywhere
you can get a high-speed internet connection. No commute necessary and
real estate costs a lot less. I hire developers and sales people almost
without regard to location these days. If you're good, you can probably
do more than 60k and no job really offers security anymore unless it's
for the gummint.

> On second thought, maybe these people don't have to be attracted back into
> actively participating in aviation. As I understand it, Jay's main issue is that
> we need more flyers to allow us to apply more political pressure. It is to be
> hoped that that pressure will prevent airport closings and harsh restrictions.
> With a few exceptions, most former aviators are likely to be friendly to our cause.

True, but former aviators do not help to keep small airports, FBOs, and
mechanics from closing for lack of business.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO this is the wrong problem to focus on solving. Up through solo,
> > flying is all fun and no work. Then you get into the written test and
> > all the crap to prepare for the checkride. Now it's a chore. I'll bet
> > getting rid of the written would reduce the attrition rate by at least
> > 25%, perhaps more, but it won't happen anytime soon.
>
> I guess that depends on the order in which the student does things.
> I passed my written and had my medical before the first lesson.

Planning ahead helps but my point stands. As a busy person, a flying
lesson was recreation that I looked forward to. Studying for the
written was just a PITA. It cost me at least 6 months, and I'm pretty
sure it put a friend of mine on ice who'd made it to unsupervised solo.
He just didn't have the time to get around to it, and then life got
crazy and he lost track. That was 2 years ago and it will probably be 2
more before he can start again, assuming he does. The medical is a
nuisance but if you don't need a special issuance it takes a lot less
time.

-cwk.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Move out of New Jersey.

Out of the question, unfortunately.

> I hire developers and sales people almost
> without regard to location these days.

Fine. How 'bout hiring one in New Jersey? Drop me a line telling me your
development needs. If I believe I am qualified, I will attempt to convince you
of that. Alternately, I'd be happy to mail you a resume.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually, it has almost nothing to do with the EPA. It is matter of cost and
time. You want your refinery near a large port and near a large market if
possible. Check out the price of a couple square miles of land in these
types of locations. It should preferably be safe from hurricanes.
Generally you couldn't even find a big enough piece of land in such a place.
If you build inland, you have to get a right of way for a pipeline from the
port. So real estate is a big part of the cost side. The time side is
permitting, design and then construction. Even if you had the land and
permitting today, it would be a long time before you were refining anything.

Refineries are like anything else, there are too many of them so nobody
builds any more. Eventually the market grows and there is a shortage. Then
everybody builds more and there is a glut again.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ZJ5Pe.62754$084.27147@attbi_s22...
>> It's not crude price increases which are causing the increase in oil
>> industry profits lately. It's world demand for refined product (we have
>> to import actual gasoline now, too), and limited refinery capacity in
>> this country -- a supply-demand problem. The gov't could easily cause
>> refineries to be built with changes in environmental regulations, so the
>> cause of the "windfall profits" is essentially -- our gov't!
>
> Well said.
>
> We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
> make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>
> It's insane, but it's the law.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LT5Pe.303876$xm3.74600@attbi_s21...
>> It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't afford
>> it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it, desire
>> and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those
>> who can afford it.
>
> WHY?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

The same reason that people have different favorite colors...personal
preference. I'm sure bungie jumpers can't understand why everyone doesn't
bungie jump either.

Mike
MU-2

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> WHY?

Same reason some people are meat bombs and some are wuffos.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[TaxSrv]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> Actually, it has almost nothing to do with the EPA.
> ...
> Refineries are like anything else, there are too many of
> them so nobody builds any more.

I'm not an expert on this industry either, but do you have a source for
the above? Is the industry lying when they say that at peak demand,
refineries are generally at capacity?

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

TaxSrv wrote:
>
>>Refineries are like anything else, there are too many of
>>them so nobody builds any more.
>
> I'm not an expert on this industry either, but do you have a source for
> the above? Is the industry lying when they say that at peak demand,
> refineries are generally at capacity?

From what I've read, we are at a period of running at capacity. Which means
that we are getting close to a period in which (as Mike put it) "the market
grows and there is a shortage." Which will be followed by a period in which (as
Mike put it) "Then everybody builds more and there is a glut again."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Roger]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:36:04 -0700, "Seth Masia" >
wrote:

>Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
>lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
>households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.

That sounds like an average rather than a median.
If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
order the number in the middle would be the median.

>
>In fact the average income is higher, because it's pulled up by the very
>wealthy households making millions per year, and that's not offset by

That would pull the median up more than the average.
Average is the total income of all the households divided by the
number of households. One family making $500,000,000 against several
million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
and a big hit on median.

>households making negative income (we don't allow individuals to rack up
>millions in debt -- only corporations). The mathematical average might be
>around $60k or even higher.

<snip>
>>
>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I could do it, anyone can do it.
>>>

There are many people out there who should never get near an airplane
and many who are just not mentally or physically equipped to think in
three dimensions safely.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Icebound]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> That's the objective. But the real outcome will be more old guys who are
>> scared they are going to loose their medicals.
>
> That's going to be a major consitutuency of the Sport Pilot rule --
> people with PP's and other advanced ratings who "retire" into LSAs.
>

Why do PP's have to retire into LSAs?

I have never quite understood why one would want the SP license (limiting
you to the lower gross-weight aircraft) over the *Recreational* license
which allows 180 hp 4 place aircraft (which I presume would include such
aircraft as the 2300 gross weight C172?)

Does not the Recreational, with a cross-country endorsement, give pretty
much everything the SP certificate gives, including the lesser medical
requirement?

Or did the onset of SP now remove the "recreational" license?

[W P Dixon]

A recreational Pilot still has to have the medical.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>>> That's the objective. But the real outcome will be more old guys who are
>>> scared they are going to loose their medicals.
>>
>> That's going to be a major consitutuency of the Sport Pilot rule --
>> people with PP's and other advanced ratings who "retire" into LSAs.
>>
>
> Why do PP's have to retire into LSAs?
>
> I have never quite understood why one would want the SP license (limiting
> you to the lower gross-weight aircraft) over the *Recreational* license
> which allows 180 hp 4 place aircraft (which I presume would include such
> aircraft as the 2300 gross weight C172?)
>
> Does not the Recreational, with a cross-country endorsement, give pretty
> much everything the SP certificate gives, including the lesser medical
> requirement?
>
> Or did the onset of SP now remove the "recreational" license?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:03:15 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <DF9Pe.5727$Ck2.3269@trndny04>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.
>
>Nixon was never impeached.
>

Right. It's been a while. After his Vice President was caught taking
bribe money, and Nixon with his henchmen burglarizing etc. he resigned
under threat of impeachment, so that he wouldn't further disgrace the
office.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:34:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in
> <ZJ5Pe.62754$084.27147@attbi_s22>::
>
>>
>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>
>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>
> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
> wind of your abode?
>

I wouldn't mind at all. As a matter of fact I'd welcome it. At this very
moment there is a very old refinery 1.13 miles (as the Skyhawk flies) away
from my house and I can't remember the last time I smelled anything from it.

Now, when I was growing up the place regularly put out an odor that would
curl your toes but over the last 20 years it has cleaned up nicely.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:03:15 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <DF9Pe.5727$Ck2.3269@trndny04>::
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.
>>
>>Nixon was never impeached.
>>
>
> Right. It's been a while. After his Vice President was caught taking
> bribe money, and Nixon with his henchmen burglarizing etc. he resigned
> under threat of impeachment, so that he wouldn't further disgrace the
> office.
>

Correct, Clinton was the only President impeached during our life times.

[Mike Rapoport]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>> Actually, it has almost nothing to do with the EPA.
>> ...
>> Refineries are like anything else, there are too many of
>> them so nobody builds any more.
>
> I'm not an expert on this industry either, but do you have a source for
> the above? Is the industry lying when they say that at peak demand,
> refineries are generally at capacity?
>
> Fred F.
>

I don't have a single source, but you will find many references to
refineries running at capacity today and you will find that most of the
major refiners are making large capital improvements to their existing
refineries (mostly more ability to handle heavy, high sulpher crude). The
process of adding capacity has begun but it takes a long time to complete.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about refining capacity or almost
anything else, the process is pretty much the same. I used to observe the
shortage to glut process in the San Francisco office space market.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

What is a "wuffo"


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:TFaPe.3192$IG2.188@trndny01...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> WHY?
>
> Same reason some people are meat bombs and some are wuffos.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Michael]

> I don't see that happening to the conclusion you draw. People with
> money are =already= flying in quantity, just not as pilots.

Which means they aren't concerned about what the pilot has to deal
with. If this one loses his ticket, plenty more where he came from.

> Air taxi rules don't seem to have been affected.

Actually, they have been. The fractionals are for all intents and
purposes air taxi, but operate under Part 91.

In any case, they are really only used by corporate execs who are not
spending their own money, thus don't really care what it costs.

Michael

[Michael]

Hit post too early...

> Motorcycles are not as dangerous to other people as GA.

Nuts. Motorcycle passengers are at just as much risk as GA passengers.
Innocent bystanders (primarily pedestrians) are way more at risk from
motorcycles than from planes falling out of the sky.

Michael

[Jose]

> That sounds like an average rather than a median.

No, that's the definition of median.

> One family making $500,000,000 against several
> million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
> and a big hit on median.

Nope. Backwards.

The "median" is the value of the sample in the middle. If you take the
highest number and increase it by a factor of a bazillion, the median is
unchanged.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> What is a "wuffo"

Derived from their usual question - "Wuffo you wanna jump out of a perfectly
good airplane?"

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
> order the number in the middle would be the median.

Correct.

> Average is the total income of all the households divided by the
> number of households. One family making $500,000,000 against several
> million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
> and a big hit on median.

Nope. If you had two families making $20,000, one making $40,000, and two making
$80,000, the median would be $40,000 and the average would be $48,000. If one of
those top-earners gets a raise to $100,000, the median is still $40,000, but the
average goes up to $52,000.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jim]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:36:23 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:36:04 -0700, "Seth Masia" >
>wrote:
>
>>Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
>>lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
>>households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.
>
>That sounds like an average rather than a median.
>If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
>order the number in the middle would be the median.

This is correct only if "the number in the middle" means half of the
sequence of numbers are below it and half are above it. Such a
"median" may or may not also be the "mean".

[George Patterson]

Jim wrote:
>
> This is correct only if "the number in the middle" means half of the
> sequence of numbers are below it and half are above it.

Actually half the numbers are less than or equal to it and half are greater than
or equal to it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Does not the Recreational, with a cross-country endorsement, give pretty
> much everything the SP certificate gives, including the lesser medical
> requirement?

Nope.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-24, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't afford
>> it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it, desire
>> and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those who
>> can afford it.
>
> WHY?

Aviation doesn't appeal, period.

Being in the air is NOT our natural habitat. I'm coming more to the
conclusion that myself and my fellow pilots, aviators, skydivers
(particularly skydivers), hang glider pilots, glider pilots - any sort
of aviator at all, aren't really wired quite the same way as everyone
else.

Everyone else instincively knows that being more than a few feet AGL is
not natural and rather dumb, and only tolerate airline travel because
it's the only way to get some places and you are so insulated fand
distracted from the actual going up in the air bit, they can ignore for
a few hours that they are not firmly attached to the ground. Anything
that reminds them of this (the tiniest bit of turbulence, for example)
makes them anxious (and makes some of them whimper). We didn't evolve as
an airborne species. It is totally alien. To subject yourself to this
voluntarily is, in the subconscious lizard-mind totally insane. So they
don't do it.

There is only a tiny proportion of the population who doesn't
subconsicously find the idea of flying around many thousands of feet
from their natural habitat deeply disturbing. When an aviator stands on
top of a large hill, at least part of them is thinking "Wouldn't it be
cool to run down here with a hang-glider...". When a normal person
stands on top of a big hill, they think "It'd really suck to trip right
now". At least subconsicously.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-25, > wrote:
> Move out of New Jersey. Work as a consultant and you can live anywhere
> you can get a high-speed internet connection. No commute necessary and
> real estate costs a lot less. I hire developers and sales people almost

Trouble is - if as a computer professional you have a job where you
telecommute (or can telecommute), so can someone from India at a tenth
of your salary. If you want work which gives you the stability to own
and continue to fly an aircraft, you need a job that requires at least
reasonable frequent physical presence so you don't get outsourced.

[john smith]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> What is a "wuffo"

"Wuffo" you jumpin outa that airplane?

[john smith]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> Aviation doesn't appeal, period.
> Being in the air is NOT our natural habitat.

I'm not even going to ask you opinion about submariners! :-))

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:LQaPe.3479$SW1.2859@trndny09...
> TaxSrv wrote:
> >
> >>Refineries are like anything else, there are too many of
> >>them so nobody builds any more.
> >
> > I'm not an expert on this industry either, but do you have a source for
> > the above? Is the industry lying when they say that at peak demand,
> > refineries are generally at capacity?
>
> From what I've read, we are at a period of running at capacity. Which
means
> that we are getting close to a period in which (as Mike put it) "the
market
> grows and there is a shortage." Which will be followed by a period in
which (as
> Mike put it) "Then everybody builds more and there is a glut again."

Except they haven't built a new one in about 30 years, and they've closed
(how many) in those 30 some odd years.

[Jim]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:46:58 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>>
>> This is correct only if "the number in the middle" means half of the
>> sequence of numbers are below it and half are above it.
>
>Actually half the numbers are less than or equal to it and half are greater than
>or equal to it.

Much better.

>
>George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2005-08-25, > wrote:
> > Move out of New Jersey. Work as a consultant and you can live anywhere
> > you can get a high-speed internet connection. No commute necessary and
> > real estate costs a lot less. I hire developers and sales people almost
>
> Trouble is - if as a computer professional you have a job where you
> telecommute (or can telecommute), so can someone from India at a tenth
> of your salary. If you want work which gives you the stability to own
> and continue to fly an aircraft, you need a job that requires at least
> reasonable frequent physical presence so you don't get outsourced.

The real-world picture is a bit more complicated than this. Working
with offshore resources costs a lot more than just the salary of the
guy in Bangalore. If you're contracting resources in small volume,
reasonably-skilled people can easily cost $2500/month, and in order to
get the job done you will probably need an in-country project manager
who costs another $2500. So a three-man shop costs $10k/mo.

In many cases you could do the same job here in the US with 2 good
coders who can manage themselves, live in your time zone, and
understand American business. You won't find good people for $60k/year
who live in the Manhattan area, but you might find them in Florida,
Texas, or Idaho where everything costs half as much and there's no
income tax.

Companies like GE or Accenture can push rates lower because of scale,
but most companies are not able to support those kinds of operations.
Not to mention that there are still many projects where cultural
knowledge that any American resident has will make things go much, much
easier. There is and always will be a place in the picture for American
IT workers.

-cwk.

[Skylune]

Excellent grammar and punctuation, but some wrong facts. Idaho's PIT kicks
in a $1,129 at a rate of 1.6% and rachets up to 7.8% at $22,577.

You were correct that Texas and FLA have no income tax.

[Icebound]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...

>A recreational Pilot still has to have the medical.
>

Ah.....

Thanks.

[Michael]

> The big difference between flying, boating, and driving in my view is
> what I call the "pull-over factor."

Not a bad way of looking at it.

So what's the pull-over factor like when your tire blows out or your
power brakes or power steering go out in 60 mph traffic (keeping in
mind that the latter two will happen if the engine dies)? How about
when you start skidding on ice or hydroplaning on water? Or when you
just realized you took a curve too fast? There are times when you
drive a car when just hitting the brakes doesn't get you out of that
ugly situation you're in, and can indeed be the worst thing to do.

Of course these days the engines, tires, brakes, steering, and all the
other equipment on cars is very reliable - but that's only because
volumes are large and manufacturers are reasonably free to make
improvements while government stays out of the way. If the FAA
regulated private cars and had done so since before WWII, I assure you
we would still be trying to certify automatic transmissions and digital
engine controls - and per-capita highway deaths would still be at
1960's levels.

So how do we improve the pull-over factor on airplanes? Well, for one
thing the parachute is a real step in the right direction. Sure,
pilots are using it when it's not necessary - but when it deploys,
they're living through the experience. If we're ever going to
mainstream personal flight so the people who have no business driving a
wheelbarrow can fly an airplane, the airframe parachute will have to
become a standard part of the aircraft.

Really, all the pieces are there. Cirrus has the parachute. Ercoupe
had the simplified control system. Mooney had the full-time autopilot.
Garmin has the navigation and weather all assembled into one package.
The airlines already have digital ATC datalinks. TKS has icing
protection that works. Put it all together, roll in some automation
and decision support (meaning let a computer make the decisions for the
pilot), and you can build a plane any idiot can fly - and actually go
places reliably and quickly. You can't do it cheaply, but if the FAA
would get out of the way it could be done for the price of a high end
Mercedes or BMW.

Michael

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:03:15 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote in <DF9Pe.5727$Ck2.3269@trndny04>::
>
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.
>>
>>Nixon was never impeached.
>>
>
>
> Right. It's been a while. After his Vice President was caught taking
> bribe money, and Nixon with his henchmen burglarizing etc. he resigned
> under threat of impeachment, so that he wouldn't further disgrace the
> office.

Unlike one of his successors.

[Blanche Cohen]

> wrote:
>Move out of New Jersey. Work as a consultant and you can live anywhere
>you can get a high-speed internet connection. No commute necessary and
>real estate costs a lot less. I hire developers and sales people almost
>without regard to location these days. If you're good, you can probably
>do more than 60k and no job really offers security anymore unless it's
>for the gummint.

Fine. Hire me. MS in computer science. high-speed DSL line. What
type of developer do you need?

[john smith]

The problem is you have top management who are only looking at short
term savings to justify their quarterly/annual bonus. They only plan on
staying around for two or three years, so why do they care about the
long term benefit to the company?

wrote:
> The real-world picture is a bit more complicated than this. Working
> with offshore resources costs a lot more than just the salary of the
> guy in Bangalore. If you're contracting resources in small volume,
> reasonably-skilled people can easily cost $2500/month, and in order to
> get the job done you will probably need an in-country project manager
> who costs another $2500. So a three-man shop costs $10k/mo.
> In many cases you could do the same job here in the US with 2 good
> coders who can manage themselves, live in your time zone, and
> understand American business. You won't find good people for $60k/year
> who live in the Manhattan area, but you might find them in Florida,
> Texas, or Idaho where everything costs half as much and there's no
> income tax.
> Companies like GE or Accenture can push rates lower because of scale,
> but most companies are not able to support those kinds of operations.
> Not to mention that there are still many projects where cultural
> knowledge that any American resident has will make things go much, much
> easier. There is and always will be a place in the picture for American
> IT workers.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> You won't find good people for $60k/year
> who live in the Manhattan area, ...

You can find some great coders for that in the Manhattan area since the Telecom
collapse a few years ago. Of course, you need to offer half again as much if you
want them to actually work *in* Manhattan, but the surrounding area is somewhat
depressed.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jay Honeck]

>>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>>
>> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>> wind of your abode?
>>
>
> I wouldn't mind at all. As a matter of fact I'd welcome it. At this very
> moment there is a very old refinery 1.13 miles (as the Skyhawk flies) away
> from my house and I can't remember the last time I smelled anything from
> it.
>
> Now, when I was growing up the place regularly put out an odor that would
> curl your toes but over the last 20 years it has cleaned up nicely.

Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
refinery.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>
>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>
> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
> wind of your abode?

Depends on how far upwind.

One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
for a new refinery or ten.

It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
restrictions be damned. Of course, it would be tied up in the courts for
the next 15 years, and nothing would get done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
> refinery.

At some point, petroleum products will cost enough to make it economically
feasible again.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jose]

> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
> refinery.

.... and that's a Good Thing.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote \

> One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
> after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
> stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
> for a new refinery or ten.

Problem there is the fact that a supertanker doesn't fit too well in the
Great Lakes locks, and that means no good way to get all of the crude up
there, needed for the refinery to work well. (or at all) :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:14:55 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:03:15 GMT, George Patterson
>> > wrote in <DF9Pe.5727$Ck2.3269@trndny04>::
>>
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.
>>>
>>>Nixon was never impeached.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right. It's been a while. After his Vice President was caught taking
>> bribe money, and Nixon with his henchmen burglarizing etc. he resigned
>> under threat of impeachment, so that he wouldn't further disgrace the
>> office.
>
>Unlike one of his successors.
>

If you're referring to Clinton, are you referring to this:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf
or this: http://www.alamo-girl.com/0041.htm ?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-26, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
> refinery.

I'd rather pay a bit more money for my avgas than have to smell the
stink of refineries.

Even with current regulations, the air in the area of Houston I used to
live turned green some days. The DE that I did my instrument ride with
told me it used to be much worse - the premature deaths, rivers catching
on fire, no fish in the bay etc. when he used to live in nearby Beaumont
(another refinery town). The EPA regulations if anything need to be
stricter still.

In any case, it's not economically impossible to build a new refinery.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-25, Michael > wrote:
> So what's the pull-over factor like when your tire blows out or your
> power brakes or power steering go out in 60 mph traffic (keeping in
> mind that the latter two will happen if the engine dies)?

On a point of pedantry (it is Usenet after all), many cars won't lose
power steering or the servo-assisted brakes if the engine quits. In the
case of a manual transmission car, so long as the engine is still
actually turning, so will the power steering pump. If the engine quits,
leave it in gear until you've scrubbed off most the speed. This will
also keep the vacuum that operates the brake servo.

The brake servo on most cars is still good for at least a couple of
brake applications even with the engine completely stopped.

In any case, you just need to stand on the brakes hard even when the
servo is completely exhausted and you can still get full braking action.
Loss of power steering at 60mph (where you're more than likely going in
a mostly straight line) isn't too difficult to deal with - you aren't
likely to need to make massive steering inputs at that speed anyway.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-26, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
> after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
> stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
> for a new refinery or ten.

Erm, there's a reason why all the oil refineries are in places like
Houston and Beaumont, and not in the mid-West.

> It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
> order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
> restrictions be damned.

Ah. Rape, pillage, poison the earth! And of course, cause premature
death to anyone living downwind.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ash Wyllie]

Jose opined

>> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
>> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
>> refinery.

>... and that's a Good Thing.

Nobody says that it is a bad thing... But it is an expensive thing ;).


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Michael]

> In the
> case of a manual transmission car, so long as the engine is still
> actually turning, so will the power steering pump.

And manual transmission cars are what, 10% of the US fleet?

I actually knew a pilot of a single engine airplane (a much-modifed
Swift) who had never made a power-off landing in his airplane, and
wasn't even sure it could be done. He was literally banking on the
engine (a Continental IO-360). It didn't help that he had (legally -
it is a long-standing field approval) covered up the slots in the wings
for speed, so the plane offered very little stall warning.

His engine crapped out on him while he was taking a relative for a
ride. He was about 50 ft above a rice field when he inadvertently
stalled the airplane and pancaked in. Killed himself and his
passenger.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-26, Michael > wrote:
>> In the
>> case of a manual transmission car, so long as the engine is still
>> actually turning, so will the power steering pump.
>
> And manual transmission cars are what, 10% of the US fleet?

Still, if your engine quits at 60 mph you're likely to be going in a
straight line anyway, so it's not going to be such a big deal. And as I
said, the brakes will still get servo assistance for at least one or two
applications. Both still work - I've had engines quit on automatic
transmission cars and still been able to steer and brake (and this was
in a large Dodge pickup, not some little econobox). I'm hardly the
world's strongest guy.

The pull-over factor was still there.

It wasn't for the pilot of the Swift.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:27:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote \
>
>> One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
>> after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
>> stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
>> for a new refinery or ten.
>
>Problem there is the fact that a supertanker doesn't fit too well in the
>Great Lakes locks, and that means no good way to get all of the crude up
>there, needed for the refinery to work well. (or at all) :-)

There's plans for a new/additional lock, but I don't think you can get
super tankers as far as the Great Lakes. Maybe, but I don't recall
any really wide boats/ships on them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:03:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>>
>>>It's insane, but it's the law.

And what would you run through them once you built them?
If you want to see the price of crude really go up, just add more
refinery capacity. Of course that would increase our dependency on
foreign oil even more.

We don't need more refinery capacity, we need to use less

>>
>> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>> wind of your abode?
>
>Depends on how far upwind.
>
>One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
>after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
>stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location

What do you mean used to? I flew down through there last summer and
it was darn near IFR on a sunshiny day. I was actually thinking about
filing when it started clearing up as I got to the south of Gary. It
was making me cough at 5,000 feet. Admittedly it's nothing like it
was back in the 60s and 70s but it's still a highly polluted area.
Yes, I'm familiar with what it used to be like as I had an uncle who
worked down there.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[sfb]

Can we say ice? The Great Lakes freeze up in the winter. For historical
reasons, all the oil and gas is barged up the Hudson River from New York
City to Albany. The Coast Guard makes a major effort to keep a channel
open in the winter.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:27:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote \
>>
>>> One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see
>>> mile
>>> after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and
>>> used to
>>> stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect
>>> location
>>> for a new refinery or ten.
>>
>>Problem there is the fact that a supertanker doesn't fit too well in
>>the
>>Great Lakes locks, and that means no good way to get all of the crude
>>up
>>there, needed for the refinery to work well. (or at all) :-)
>
> There's plans for a new/additional lock, but I don't think you can get
> super tankers as far as the Great Lakes. Maybe, but I don't recall
> any really wide boats/ships on them.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:krwPe.282197$_o.95907@attbi_s71...
>>>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>>>
>>> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>>> wind of your abode?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't mind at all. As a matter of fact I'd welcome it. At this very
>> moment there is a very old refinery 1.13 miles (as the Skyhawk flies)
>> away from my house and I can't remember the last time I smelled anything
>> from it.
>>
>> Now, when I was growing up the place regularly put out an odor that would
>> curl your toes but over the last 20 years it has cleaned up nicely.
>
> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost billions,
> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a new
> refinery.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Where do you get this stuff? AM radio?

Why would it be economical to retrofit all the existing refineries with
pollution controls (which has been done) but not economical to build new
refineries with the pollution controls?

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-08-26, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's that "nice odor" (or lack thereof) that cost
>> billions,
>> and has made it economically impossible for any oil company to build a
>> new
>> refinery.
>
> I'd rather pay a bit more money for my avgas than have to smell the
> stink of refineries.
>
> Even with current regulations, the air in the area of Houston I used to
> live turned green some days. The DE that I did my instrument ride with
> told me it used to be much worse - the premature deaths, rivers catching
> on fire, no fish in the bay etc. when he used to live in nearby Beaumont
> (another refinery town). The EPA regulations if anything need to be
> stricter still.
>

The total cost to society is less with the pollution controls than without.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

Why would this be good? Who would it be good for? How would you get the
crude to Gary Indiana?

You don't get it. It is not enviornmental regulation that is preventing new
refineries from being constructed.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LwwPe.279601$x96.198470@attbi_s72...
>>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>>
>>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>>
>> So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>> wind of your abode?
>
> Depends on how far upwind.
>
> One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
> after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
> stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
> for a new refinery or ten.
>
> It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
> order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
> restrictions be damned. Of course, it would be tied up in the courts for
> the next 15 years, and nothing would get done.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Why would this be good? Who would it be good for? How would you get the
> crude to Gary Indiana?

Barge up the Mississippi then Pipeline. At one time there were many
refineries in the area. Only one left is Mobil AIR. Most burned and it is
not economical to rebuild them for the reasons Jay mentioned.

> You don't get it. It is not enviornmental regulation that is preventing
new
> refineries from being constructed.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[Jimmy B.]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Why would this be good? Who would it be good for? How would you get the
> crude to Gary Indiana?
>
> You don't get it. It is not enviornmental regulation that is preventing new
> refineries from being constructed.

What is preventing new refineries? (Sorry, I keep getting lost in the
thread.)


>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:LwwPe.279601$x96.198470@attbi_s72...
>
>>>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA regulations
>>>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>>>
>>>So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>>>wind of your abode?
>>
>>Depends on how far upwind.
>>
>>One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
>>after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
>>stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect location
>>for a new refinery or ten.
>>
>>It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
>>order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
>>restrictions be damned. Of course, it would be tied up in the courts for
>>the next 15 years, and nothing would get done.
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Some are contending that enviornmental regulations are "preventing" the
constructions of new refineries.

Mike
MU-2


"Jimmy B." > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Why would this be good? Who would it be good for? How would you get the
>> crude to Gary Indiana?
>>
>> You don't get it. It is not enviornmental regulation that is preventing
>> new refineries from being constructed.
>
> What is preventing new refineries? (Sorry, I keep getting lost in the
> thread.)
>
>
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:LwwPe.279601$x96.198470@attbi_s72...
>>
>>>>>We are dangerously low on refinery capacity, and current EPA
>>>>>regulations
>>>>>make it essentially impossible to build any more in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's insane, but it's the law.
>>>>
>>>>So you wouldn't have any problem with a new refinery coming on-line up
>>>>wind of your abode?
>>>
>>>Depends on how far upwind.
>>>
>>>One idea: If you've ever driven past Gary, Indiana, you would see mile
>>>after mile of abandoned steel mills (that employed thousands, and used to
>>>stink to holy heaven when I was a boy). That would be a perfect
>>>location for a new refinery or ten.
>>>
>>>It would be nice if our supposed "oil president" would issue an executive
>>>order mandating construction of new refineries, pronto -- environmental
>>>restrictions be damned. Of course, it would be tied up in the courts for
>>>the next 15 years, and nothing would get done.
>>>--
>>>Jay Honeck
>>>Iowa City, IA
>>>Pathfinder N56993
>>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>>

[TaxSrv]

> Some are contending that enviornmental regulations are "preventing"
the
> constructions of new refineries.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

It's all about money. Environmental regulation costs, citizen lawsuits,
cost to just build. Meanwhile, they make money on tight supplies, and
the industry now is very happy. With the concentration in this industry
among a few big players, no one is motivated to make the first move,
which will put them at a competitive disadvantage, I guess. Make sense?

Fred F.

[Mike Rapoport]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
>> Some are contending that enviornmental regulations are "preventing"
> the
>> constructions of new refineries.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
> It's all about money. Environmental regulation costs, citizen lawsuits,
> cost to just build. Meanwhile, they make money on tight supplies, and
> the industry now is very happy. With the concentration in this industry
> among a few big players, no one is motivated to make the first move,
> which will put them at a competitive disadvantage, I guess. Make sense?
>
> Fred F.
>

No, it doesn't make much sense. The cost of enviornmental regulations are
already in their costs and refining margins are high (including the costs of
compliance). Most refiners are looking to add capacity over the next few
years although with expansions not "new" refineries. The idea that nobody is
motivated to make the first move because there are few players is silly.
Capital investment decisions are made based on the projected return.

Mike
MU-2

[TaxSrv]

> No, it doesn't make much sense. The cost of enviornmental regulations
are
> already in their costs and refining margins are high (including the
costs of
> compliance). Most refiners are looking to add capacity over the next
few
> years although with expansions not "new" refineries. The idea that
nobody is
> motivated to make the first move because there are few players is
silly.
> Capital investment decisions are made based on the projected return.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
There are considerable environmental regulation costs in building new
refineries, though. As to the effect of a few players, I'm only
parroting what industry analysts say about the situation. Soon it may
not be the case, but if current refining capacity can meet demand,
where's the return on investment now?

The following research by the Consumer Federation in 2003 appears to
adequately explain the odd situation in this industry:
www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/gasoline1003.pdf

Fred F.