The frustrating economics of aviation

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


That was the original idea for the recreational certificate and it is also
a
big part of the driving force behind Sport Pilot. Recreational Pilot never
worked because it saved almost nothing off the cost of a Private Pilot.
Sport Pilot may prove much more popular because it allows medical
self-certification. I have had half a dozen students now who took more
than
a year just to get a medical certificate. I think Sport Pilot may be
tailor
made for such people.



The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous efforts.
I seriously doubt that having an increase in accidents by these coddled
students will help the public's desire. That would do far more harm. No
matter what the current rules allow or what new rules are adopted, one can
argue if they were just a bit more relaxed the results would be astounding.
I don't see any evidence in that direction. It seems more a faith-based
desire.

Not everything some of us like to do is a good candidate for mass public
participation.

--
Scott

In article , tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous efforts.

This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
nearly pointless.

--
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" wrote in message
...
In article , tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students. If the big problem keeping the public from flocking to CFIs
was
the difficulty in licensing, any lessening of that difficulty should
produce
significant increases. It seems clear that Rec Pilot is producing
almost no
results. It seems foolish to to keep making the process easier and
easier,
when the public doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the previous
efforts.

This is because the Recreational Pilot certificate is almost as hard to
get as the full private, but a lot more restricted. There is virtually
no savings in time, difficulty or cost in getting the Rec over the
Private. You have to take the same medical, and the only thing you
really save is a few hours cross country and night - it's barely above
being a newly-soloed student pilot when it's done privilege-wise, yet
takes almost as long as the full PPL to complete. In short, the Rec. is
nearly pointless.

Nevertheless, Sporty's uses the Recreational Pilot certificate as a waypoint
towards Private Pilot. This makes some sense; for the cost of a check ride,
the student gains considerably more flexibility than he would have as a solo
student. Personally, I would rather my solo students not have that
flexibility (in fact, I usually have quite a few more restrictions than the
regulations require), but apparently some instructors find it a useful tool.

tscottme wrote:

The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students.

They would have been right if the proposal had passed as originally written. The
original proposal removed the requirement for a medical certificate. The Department
of Transportation added that requirement in the last revision. If the final version
of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
will bother with that one either.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
tscottme wrote:
The adviocates of Rec Pilot thought it would produce a flood of new
students.

They would have been right if the proposal had passed as originally written.

I doubt it. It would have allowed some old guys to keep flying a
while longer, and that's about it. Getting a medical is a non-issue
for 99% of those under 45. That's not exactly the future of aviation.

If the final version
of the Sport Pilot rule contains a requirement for a medical certificate, few people
will bother with that one either.

Nonsense. The real issue that keeps sport aviation small is not the
medical requirement - it's the cost of the airplane. The sport pilot
certificate itself is pretty meaningle - but a category of aircraft
that you don't have to build yourself that don't have to be FAA
certified is going to be very important.

Michael

C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

I think we need to keep looking.



Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

No, I am saying that because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.

That may well be true, but it does impose a cost for the rest of us
nonetheless.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:


...because it takes a year to become a pilot, people are
unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane. The time investment is far
more
expensive than the monetary cost. Always has been.

People for whom that is a problem do us all a favor by staying away from
aviation.

Then again, that also may not be true. It would be interesting to know
whether pilots as a group contain a smaller percentage of bozos than
automobile drivers, for example. Back when I was riding regularly and
competing in the occasional triathlon I learned that bicyclists behave
little differently than they do when driving; you see the same idiots doing
the same idiotic things. I have no real good reason to believe that pilots
are any different. We still seem to have a significant number of us who fly
while under the influence of various substances, buzz their girlfriends'
houses, try to join the mile high club, etc. It may well be that the reason
we don't run into each other more often is because there are not very many
of us, not because we are trained to any particularly high level of skill or
judgment.

Another thought: an inordinate amount of flight training consists of the
equivalent of learning to parallel park a car -- and nothing has been done
about it. Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
altitude, and navigate. Why is that? It seems that little progress has been
made in more than fifty years. Even the so-called advanced technology
airplanes -- the Cirri, the Diamonds, the new Cessnas (and make no mistake,
just giving an airplane a plastic body does not in and of itself make it any
more advanced than a Cessna 140) -- have made most of their progress in the
area of navigation. They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
even harder to land. One would think that flying could be made a lot easier
than it is now.