![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Everyone here understands that learning to fly is a huge endeavor that
takes money, commitment, time, energy, and the support of whoever you live with. It also requires access to a CFI that you work well with that is available when you are, and reliable, well-maintained equipment. The absence of any *ONE* of those elements is enough to make it impossible to complete the training ... or even to continue after the rating is achieved (except the presence of the CFI). That said, not everyone who *has* all those elements sees it through to completion, either. Without meaning to sound arrogant, I'm not sure there is, or should be, a way to fix that. This is, of course, all true. Heck, I know perfectly intelligent adults that can't ride a bicycle -- so there's even a "drop-out rate" for that seemingly universal endeavor. That said, it is incumbent upon those of us who *have* made it through to help those who haven't -- whether we want to or not. Why? Because at the current rate of pilot population decline, it will be impossible to convince municipalities (like Iowa City) to maintain an airport that is used by fewer and fewer people. We NEED to get every possible body into the cockpit, no matter what our personal feelings about aviation may be, purely through enlightened self-interest. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The point is there is a HUGE drop-out rate. It means that there are a number
of people who thought "I'd like to learn to fly," Flew at least a few flights and then quit. What is AOPA, EAA, FAA and GA in general doing to figure out what the reasons for the drop-out rate? Just because there has always been a drop-out rate and it has stayed pretty steady doesn't mean there is nothing that could be done to reduce it. Sure some and maybe most of the reasons are things that the flying community can't fix but I'd be willing to bet that 10% of the problem could be addressed by the community and as I said in my original post 10% is a lot of new pilots every year. wrote in message ... "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote: [snip] If you use these numbers you would get a pretty good feel for the number of people who start and then don't get their license. If only 10% of the drop-outs were retained that would be more than 3600 more private pilots. Maybe I'm missing the point ... ??? There will *always* be a drop-out rate. The only way to say that aviation has a high(er) drop-out rate is to compare it to other activities with at least *some* expense, risk-factor, high mental demand and time commitment similarities, where you train to fill requirements and test for a license. Then compare those current numbers to two, five or ten years ago to see if those other activities currently are experiencing a higher drop-out rate, too. How high is the drop-out rate for student sky-divers? What percentage of med school students actually become doctors? The state of the economy could play a part in drop-out trends, too. Everyone here understands that learning to fly is a huge endeavor that takes money, commitment, time, energy, and the support of whoever you live with. It also requires access to a CFI that you work well with that is available when you are, and reliable, well-maintained equipment. The absence of any *ONE* of those elements is enough to make it impossible to complete the training ... or even to continue after the rating is achieved (except the presence of the CFI). That said, not everyone who *has* all those elements sees it through to completion, either. Without meaning to sound arrogant, I'm not sure there is, or should be, a way to fix that. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:38:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in tI3Ne.262425$_o.202397@attbi_s71:: Why? Because at the current rate of pilot population decline, it will be impossible to convince municipalities (like Iowa City) to maintain an airport that is used by fewer and fewer people. Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. If the municipal airport is closed, and the property developed for other purposes, it will be difficult or impossible for most municipalities to re-establish a replacement airport once SATS is implemented due to the lack of available real estate and NIMBY resistance to airport operations. So closing the municipal airport effectively shuts the municipality out of participation in the aviation infrastructure of the 21st century. * http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html http://ncam-sats.org/ The SATS benefits include improved standards of living and quality of life for the nation in the new global economy. SATS technology innovations will provide the nation with: Economic development for communities of all sizes enabled by localized air accessibility Choices to bypass highway and hub-and-spoke transportation systems delays An efficient means for intermodal connectivity between small airports and the global aviation system An exportable transportation revolution with affordable "instant infrastructure" for developing nations around the world |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry Dighera" wrote:
... Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. The FAA doesn't implement beyond rule changes; the private sector must implement. I'm trying to find a site which discusses the economics and therefore market demand for SATS type transportation for what it will cost the traveler. Do you know of one? Fred F. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:25:51 -0400, "TaxSrv" wrote
in :: "Larry Dighera" wrote: ... Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. The FAA doesn't implement beyond rule changes; the private sector must implement. Perhaps I should have said the US DOT instead of FAA. I'm trying to find a site which discusses the economics and therefore market demand for SATS type transportation for what it will cost the traveler. Do you know of one? You might try he http://tinyurl.com/7kau7 |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate
their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point. 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. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay, as a flight instructor with something approaching five hundred
students, I'd appreciate it if you would modify your statement to that we NEED to get every possible QUALIFIED body into the cockpit, ... I've gently counseled about a dozen (including some with certificates) that this might not be the avocation for them. Jim "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:tI3Ne.262425$_o.202397@attbi_s71... We NEED to get every possible body into the cockpit, no matter what our personal feelings about aviation may be, purely through enlightened self-interest. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:21:26 GMT, Jose
wrote in : : Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point. If the City Council members choose to deprive their city's residents of the means of shuttling to the region's international airport so that another strip mall can be built, that is their prerogative, but I wouldn't re-elect them. :-( And today's smaller turbofan powered aircraft aren't significantly more noisy than piston powered aircraft especially when you consider the shorter time they are nearby as they climb out on departure. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"RST Engineering" wrote:
Jay, as a flight instructor with something approaching five hundred students, I'd appreciate it if you would modify your statement to that we NEED to get every possible QUALIFIED body into the cockpit, ... I've gently counseled about a dozen (including some with certificates) that this might not be the avocation for them. Jim, that's exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread from having worked at the flight school (I'm not a CFI, but was there to observe just the same)...about there being a (good) reason for some who "drop out" of flying, either before or after the rating. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:54:06 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:21:26 GMT, Jose wrote in : : Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*. But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point. Ahhh... No they don't. It's a point based on ignorance as today's small jets are quieter than many older prop planes and pretty much on par with most of the newer prop planes. No, many can't match one of the new 172s, but they do a good job. Now, when you get up to the Falcon 900 you are pretty much reaching the break even point compared to an old Bonanza with a two blade prop, but the smaller jets with turbofans are much quieter. The don't burn all the grass off the end of the runway when they run up the engines either. That 900 pretty much cleaned the grass from the end of the runway to the fence by the road. Good thing it was green grass and not dry. :-)) Here the residents were afraid if we lengthened 18/36 and 06/24 to 4000 they'd be inundated with jet noise. What they didn't realize was we have a number of jets in and out and they never notice then. What we couldn't convince them was on 18/36 going from 3000 to 4000 feet would make it quieter. On a hot day I'm only a few hundred feet over their heads, but at least I went to a 3-blade prop. When I had the 2-blade they used to complain I was rattling the dishes in the cupboards and I have no doubt I was. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com If the City Council members choose to deprive their city's residents of the means of shuttling to the region's international airport so that another strip mall can be built, that is their prerogative, but I wouldn't re-elect them. :-( And today's smaller turbofan powered aircraft aren't significantly more noisy than piston powered aircraft especially when you consider the shorter time they are nearby as they climb out on departure. Roger |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry? | BUFDRVR | Military Aviation | 151 | September 12th 04 09:59 PM |
Vietnam Veterans for the Truth About Deferments | Riddick | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 04 03:23 AM |
~WHO FEARS THE TRUTH? ~ | MLenoch | Military Aviation | 0 | April 4th 04 01:00 AM |
Truth behind "Flight Academies"??? | Sam | Piloting | 0 | February 29th 04 10:01 PM |
TRUTH OF THE MINI-500 TURBINE CONVERSION | Dennis Chitwood | Rotorcraft | 10 | January 7th 04 05:33 PM |