236,147 private pilots

[Dallas]

It's hard to believe the number is so low...

As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to the
AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This number
has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high of over
827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:

84,866 student pilots
242 recreational pilots
939 sport pilots
236,147 private pilots
130,234 commercial pilots
144,681 airline transport pilots
Within those groups, there were:

37, 837 glider pilots
10,511 balloon pilots
41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots

An active pilot is defined as one who holds both a pilot certificate and a
valid medical certificate, so this value omits pilots who do not have a
medical certificate (particularly glider and sport pilots).



--
Dallas

[Marco Leon]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It's hard to believe the number is so low...
>
> As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to the
> AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This number
> has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high of over
> 827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:
>
> 84,866 student pilots
> 242 recreational pilots
> 939 sport pilots
> 236,147 private pilots
> 130,234 commercial pilots
> 144,681 airline transport pilots
> Within those groups, there were:
>
> 37, 837 glider pilots
> 10,511 balloon pilots
> 41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots

Also, many commercial and ATP-rated pilots rarely if ever fly for
compensation and therefore operate the same way as a private pilot.

At least the Sport Pilot license is doing better than the Recreational
license holders. It would also be interesting to see how many of the Sport
Pilots got the ticket for reasons other than the lack of a 3rd Class medical
requirement.

Marco

[tom418]

"Also, many commercial and ATP-rated pilots rarely if ever fly for
compensation and therefore operate the same way as a private pilot"

True. Part of the reason for this is the change in Part 61, back in the
70's. It used to be that to qualify for an ATP (they wre called "ATR"s
then), one had to have 1200 hours of flight time within the preceding 8
years. Now it's 1500 hrs time, without a time constraint. The non-commercial
pilot seeking an ATP as a status symbol would have a somewhat difficult time
getting 1200 hours in 8 years.
"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
...
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > It's hard to believe the number is so low...
> >
> > As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to
the
> > AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This number
> > has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high of over
> > 827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:
> >
> > 84,866 student pilots
> > 242 recreational pilots
> > 939 sport pilots
> > 236,147 private pilots
> > 130,234 commercial pilots
> > 144,681 airline transport pilots
> > Within those groups, there were:
> >
> > 37, 837 glider pilots
> > 10,511 balloon pilots
> > 41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots
>
> Also, many commercial and ATP-rated pilots rarely if ever fly for
> compensation and therefore operate the same way as a private pilot.
>
> At least the Sport Pilot license is doing better than the Recreational
> license holders. It would also be interesting to see how many of the Sport
> Pilots got the ticket for reasons other than the lack of a 3rd Class
medical
> requirement.
>
> Marco
>
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dallas wrote:
> It's hard to believe the number is so low...
>
> As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to
> the AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This
> number has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high
> of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:
>
> 84,866 student pilots
> 242 recreational pilots
> 939 sport pilots
> 236,147 private pilots
> 130,234 commercial pilots
> 144,681 airline transport pilots
> Within those groups, there were:
>
> 37, 837 glider pilots
> 10,511 balloon pilots
> 41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots
>
> An active pilot is defined as one who holds both a pilot certificate
> and a valid medical certificate, so this value omits pilots who do
> not have a medical certificate (particularly glider and sport pilots).

There are 3 numbers above that interest me. The number of student pilots is
important. Those are folks that wanted to fly enough to at least start the
process. I'd really like to see the percentage of that 84,866 end up with a
certificate. The AOPA should start a program to contact those that don't an
find out why they didn't finish.

The other two numbers I find interesting are the rec and sports pilots. The
recreational pilot program has been around for years but in just a few the
sport pilot program has more than tripled it's numbers.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:28:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>The number of student pilots is
>important. Those are folks that wanted to fly enough to at least start the
>process. I'd really like to see the percentage of that 84,866 end up with a
>certificate. The AOPA should start a program to contact those that don't an
>find out why they didn't finish.

That's an excellent idea. You should send it to AOPA.

>The other two numbers I find interesting are the rec and sports pilots. The
>recreational pilot program has been around for years but in just a few the
>sport pilot program has more than tripled it's numbers.
>

One is about saving money; that's not very realistic, IMO.

The other is about saving money AND dodging the recurring medical
examination. That's significant to ageing baby boomers, I would
think.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:28:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> The number of student pilots is
>> important. Those are folks that wanted to fly enough to at least
>> start the process. I'd really like to see the percentage of that
>> 84,866 end up with a certificate. The AOPA should start a program to
>> contact those that don't an find out why they didn't finish.
>
> That's an excellent idea. You should send it to AOPA.


Ok I will.

>
>> The other two numbers I find interesting are the rec and sports
>> pilots. The recreational pilot program has been around for years but
>> in just a few the sport pilot program has more than tripled it's
>> numbers.
>>
>
> One is about saving money; that's not very realistic, IMO.
>
> The other is about saving money AND dodging the recurring medical
> examination. That's significant to ageing baby boomers, I would
> think.

That's a good theory. But if an RP, PP, CP or ATP is droping down to SP he
is still going to be counted at his old rating or not at all because they
only count RP, PP, CP and ATP if they have a medical. So old guy ATP who
just retired from flying 747s and decided he never wants a medical again
starts flying under SP rules he isn't going to be in that count.

So while I'm sure this first batch of SP holders in that count are mostly UL
pilots that have moved under the new rules and out of Part 103 that won't be
true at some point in the future.

[Montblack]

("Marco Leon" wrote)

>It would also be interesting to see how many of the Sport Pilots got the
>ticket for reasons other than the lack of a 3rd Class medical requirement.


Three


Paul-Mont

[S Green]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It's hard to believe the number is so low...
>
> As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active pilots, according to the
> AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates. This number
> has been declining slowly over the long term, down from a high of over
> 827,000 pilots in 1980. The numbers include:
>
> 84,866 student pilots
> 242 recreational pilots
> 939 sport pilots
> 236,147 private pilots
> 130,234 commercial pilots
> 144,681 airline transport pilots
> Within those groups, there were:
>
> 37, 837 glider pilots
> 10,511 balloon pilots
> 41,306 rotor (helicopter) pilots
>
> An active pilot is defined as one who holds both a pilot certificate and a
> valid medical certificate, so this value omits pilots who do not have a
> medical certificate (particularly glider and sport pilots).

Are these numbers of all FAA certificates or just those based in the US.

There will be a large number of foreign certificate holders at all levels
from private and above.

[Blueskies]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message ...
>
> That's a good theory. But if an RP, PP, CP or ATP is droping down to SP he is still going to be counted at his old
> rating or not at all because they only count RP, PP, CP and ATP if they have a medical. So old guy ATP who just
> retired from flying 747s and decided he never wants a medical again starts flying under SP rules he isn't going to be
> in that count.
>
> So while I'm sure this first batch of SP holders in that count are mostly UL pilots that have moved under the new
> rules and out of Part 103 that won't be true at some point in the future.
>

I was thinking the same thing. The feds gotta be pretty worried about not being able to track sport pilots... ;-)

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>>>The AOPA should start a program to
>>> contact those that don't an find out why they didn't finish.
>>
>> That's an excellent idea. You should send it to AOPA.
>
> Ok I will.

I'm interested too. Question: How does one determine that a given student
didn't finish or simply hasn't finished yet? Maybe by checking expired
medical certificates, but that might get them tangled up in a privacy of
medical records debate.

Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.


-c

[Ken Finney]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>The AOPA should start a program to
>>>> contact those that don't an find out why they didn't finish.
>>>
>>> That's an excellent idea. You should send it to AOPA.
>>
>> Ok I will.
>
> I'm interested too. Question: How does one determine that a given
> student didn't finish or simply hasn't finished yet? Maybe by checking
> expired medical certificates, but that might get them tangled up in a
> privacy of medical records debate.
>
> Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.

I'd think the FBOs/flight schools would be willing to cooperate here. If a
flight school calls someone that has stopped training, the person's response
might be "I just had some financial issues. I'll restart real soon. Don't
call me, I'll call you." If a third party (like the AOPA) calls them, they
might be more forthcoming. Everyone would benefit. IT IS A GREAT IDEA.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>> The AOPA should start a program to
>>>> contact those that don't an find out why they didn't finish.
>>>
>>> That's an excellent idea. You should send it to AOPA.
>>
>> Ok I will.
>
> I'm interested too. Question: How does one determine that a given
> student didn't finish or simply hasn't finished yet? Maybe by
> checking expired medical certificates, but that might get them
> tangled up in a privacy of medical records debate.
>
> Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.
>
>
> -c

I sent a note to the PR folks at AOPA and made the suggestion. I haven't
hear back.

As far as how to track it, do a merge/purge of year A's student list and the
new pilots list and do your outreach to those that aren't on both. Sure
you'd get some "not finished" but even those that are taking a long time to
get the rating are at risk for not getting it at all.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.
>
> I'd think the FBOs/flight schools would be willing to cooperate here.

If only that were the case. In my experience, most FBOs only offer
flight training because their contract with their governing body (in
our case, an Airport Commission) requires it of them.

Over a beer, FBO owners will tell you that flight training is (at
best) a "break-even" affair, and they aren't going to spend an extra
dime on what they see as a business revenue drain. And, in the
forever-employee-short world of small FBOs, I fear that no one is
going to spend time tracking former students -- even if it's in their
long-term best interests to do so.

The real question is "How do we make flight training profitable for
FBOs, and affordable for students?"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Gatt wrote:

>> Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.

> I sent a note to the PR folks at AOPA and made the suggestion. I haven't
> hear back.

Way to be proactive! Looking forward to hearing whether they reply. If
they don't, maybe we'll have to send reenforcements.

Have a great weekend.
-c

[Gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> The real question is "How do we make flight training profitable for
> FBOs, and affordable for students?"

The most successful seem to have things like gift (small, but still retail
revenue), a classroom and a comfortable lounge area.

The effect to the person coming through the door is that the place is
organized and competent. The merchandise yanks at the wallet -and- even
draws in non-pilots. For example, for years my grandfather purchased
rechargeable aviation flashlights from the FBO without ever taking a lesson.
On a couple of occasions, inspiration struck and he sprung for a scenic
flight. When you walked into that building it made you want to fly. Having
a student and instructor standing around demonstrated that it was possible.

I think students consider pencils, flight logs, sunglasses and P-38 hats as
outside of their flight training money, so you get some of that too. Having
a student and instructor standing around demonstrated that it was possible,
and also made us feel like we didn't have to be a pro to be there.

It seems pretty basic, but the two examples I have involve my pre- and
post-flight lessons with my first instructor being in a crowded portable
office, and the simulator was up on a bare-plywood platform in the corner of
a bare-plywood-walled hangar. In Baton Rouge, my girlfriend quit flying
because the owner/CFI was an uneducated jackass who--for example--frequently
argued with his wife about their domestic in and out of the trailer they
lived in next to the hangar.

The FBO I've been using for the last several years has all of the things I
mentioned, bought some of the other operations' fleets and recently acquired
the BP fuel operation. I haven't even considered another FBO since.

-c

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Nevertheless, it would be very useful information for GA.
>>
>> I'd think the FBOs/flight schools would be willing to cooperate here.
>
> If only that were the case. In my experience, most FBOs only offer
> flight training because their contract with their governing body (in
> our case, an Airport Commission) requires it of them.
>
> Over a beer, FBO owners will tell you that flight training is (at
> best) a "break-even" affair, and they aren't going to spend an extra
> dime on what they see as a business revenue drain. And, in the
> forever-employee-short world of small FBOs, I fear that no one is
> going to spend time tracking former students -- even if it's in their
> long-term best interests to do so.
>
> The real question is "How do we make flight training profitable for
> FBOs, and affordable for students?"
>

Another excellent point. And it explains a lot of the "attitude" that some
FBOs/flight schools have. The best way to chase away students is to have
disinterested instructors.

What was the name of that Congressional Act in the 1930s that trained a
bunch of pilots and funded the creation of a bunch of airports, supposedly
for civilain use, but really to prepare for WWII?