Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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"

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.

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.

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