What GA needs

On Sep 11, 8:02 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might be the
real root cause of the downfall of aviation.

Okay, this is also interesting, but let me take the devil's advocate
positions for a little while.

*Should* it require so much training and time to learn to fly safely?
Exactly what should the "gratification curve" look like? I'll give
you, there's something depressing about people who want to get all the
fun and utility out of something the moment they take it out of the
box. But, learning to fly is a pretty serious investment of time and
effort. Is it reasonable of us to expect the average joe/jane with 101
other priorities to follow this undertaking?

Maybe at least part of the "fault" here is simply that planes have not
gotten better enough? They don't (practically) fly themselves, there
are too many rules to know, the aircraft will "let you" crash it, etc.

I mean, admit it, you sort of like knowing all the FARs (especially
controversial or commonly misinterpreted ones). You dig the tricks
that aerodynamics play on pilots. It's actually cool information!

I bet you that every certificated pilot on this board has at least a
shelf full of aviation books. I've noticed that a good fraction of my
plane books are really all about decision-making. Is that "normal?"
Most drivers don't have a shelf of car books. They don't think too
hard about whether they should drive today.

I dunno. We may have to face facts. Aviation may just be different.
More of an affliction than a sport/hobby.

-- dave j

On Sep 11, 8:54 am, B A R R Y wrote:

I see it in woodworking, craft hobbies, even bicycling.

I can tell you that among photographers, the people who really get
into it get into it with a mad passion, debating each and every little
minute detail. The other day I read a thread on another group that
went on for days and got into the elementary physics of how digital
imaging sensors work. This is a hard-core group. (These are dSLR
people, not point-and-shooters, for the record.)

Similarly, here in Silicon Valley, I know lots of people who bicycle
with an odd ferocity. A century ride every weekend, a few hundred
miles during the week, constant tinkering and upgrading, all dinner
party conversation about the next race or triathlon. As a recreational
rider who has not gotten bitten by this particular bug, I can tell
you, it can be pretty boring to hang out with these guys!

My wife, also a youngster by aviation standards is really into dance.
She did ballet since forever, and now, even though she has a career
that has nothing to do with dance, she still goes to take classes a
several times a week. Easily enough time to become and remain
proficient in an aircraft. So here's a counterexample showing that
commitment still does exist!

Interestingly, the first two of these hobbies can easily cost a
serious amateur $5000/yr. That is very close to, if not well into
flying territory.

I would definitely extend the need for instant gratification to the
sub-prime mortgage debacle. Nothing down? Ridiculously low payment?

Don't get me started on that! I agree with you. That we are starting
to bail these people out makes me wretch. Everyone who knew their
limits and did not participate is punished, and the people who
overstretched get free help from Uncle Sam. This is not going to
encourage healthy behavior.

-- dave j

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:01 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:22:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:


You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been
around for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in
the past.

You are obviously unaware of the recent regulation changes concerning
fractional ownership. You can start your research he



I'm well aware of it.

Well then you've probably noticed that, unlike in the past decades, in
the last few years there are many commercial enterprises and aircraft
manufacturers offering fractional GA aircraft ownership and management
programs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership
Aviation
The term fractional ownership originally became popular for
business jets. Richard Santulli of NetJets pioneered the concept
of allowing businesses to purchase shares in a jet to reduce costs
— other companies such as Citation Shares, Flight Options and
Flexjet soon followed. With a fractional jet plan, members will
typically fly in any jet available, not necessarily the one in
which they own shares. The management company will reposition jets
as necessary and provide flight crews. Companies with greater
needs purchase larger shares to get access to more time.

The fractional-ownership concept has since been extended to
smaller aircraft and has now become common for single-engine
piston aircraft like the Cirrus SR22, which are beyond the
financial means of many private pilots. The same concepts apply,
except that the management company may not provide flight crews
nor reposition the aircraft.

Fractional ownership has played a significant role in revitalizing
the general aviation manufacturing industry since the late 1990s,
and most manufacturers actively support fractional ownership
programs.

http://www.netjets.com/
http://www.aircraftinvestmentgroup.com/article_01.htm
http://www.tsbureau.com/fractionalaircraftownership.htm

That doesn't really change the fact that fractional
ownership is an evolution of partnerships and clubs as opposed to a
revolutionary change in ownership. In fact what you posted pretty much
explained how one came from the other.

The reasons regulations had to be propagated was because you basically had
one partnership leasing planes to members of other partnerships. This
basically made fractional ownership a sort of hybrid of clubs and
partnerships.

Dave J wrote:

Snip


But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up. Lately, I
have rediscovered digital photography. I can't help but notice that it
also is a skill and craft, with plenty of technical stuff to nail
down, and even at its most expensive, it's a lot cheaper than
aviation. And my wife does not worry about me getting killed taking
photos. There's an appeal to that.

-- dave j




Just be careful of what you take pictures of....
--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:42:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:


While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
to the current airplanes to even see the technology.



So the next time the local municipal airport holds an open house for
the public, they should be sure ample leaflets are available at the
local K-12 student campuses. Even better would be a brief
presentation personally inviting everyone to take a reasonably priced
introductory flight.

And there need to be large 'Public Welcome' banners flying around the
airport to attract motorists. Too often these sorts of inexpensive,
but effective marketing are overlooked.

From what I've seen, usually the attendance at these events is largely
made up of aviators and others associated with the airport, not new
blood.

This is why the EAA has been promoting the Young Eagles for the last 10
years, to get the young exposed to aviation. Not all kids that fly will
be pilots, but maybe a few will get the bug and continue on.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Dave J wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:02 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might
be the real root cause of the downfall of aviation.

Okay, this is also interesting, but let me take the devil's advocate
positions for a little while.

*Should* it require so much training and time to learn to fly safely?
Exactly what should the "gratification curve" look like? I'll give
you, there's something depressing about people who want to get all the
fun and utility out of something the moment they take it out of the
box. But, learning to fly is a pretty serious investment of time and
effort. Is it reasonable of us to expect the average joe/jane with 101
other priorities to follow this undertaking?

Maybe at least part of the "fault" here is simply that planes have not
gotten better enough? They don't (practically) fly themselves, there
are too many rules to know, the aircraft will "let you" crash it, etc.

I mean, admit it, you sort of like knowing all the FARs (especially
controversial or commonly misinterpreted ones). You dig the tricks
that aerodynamics play on pilots. It's actually cool information!

I bet you that every certificated pilot on this board has at least a
shelf full of aviation books. I've noticed that a good fraction of my
plane books are really all about decision-making. Is that "normal?"
Most drivers don't have a shelf of car books. They don't think too
hard about whether they should drive today.

I dunno. We may have to face facts. Aviation may just be different.
More of an affliction than a sport/hobby.

-- dave j


They have shortened the time it takes to get a certificate that will let you
do what 90% of the private pilots do by about half. So that is a start.

As far as planes not flying themselves neither do cars. I'll bet you can
take the average driver from today and put him in a car from the 30's and
they won't have to much trouble. Except maybe with the manual transmission.

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.

On Sep 11, 9:49 am, Ross wrote:

Just be careful of what you take pictures of....

Ah, yes, there's always the possibility of getting killed as a
consequence of having taken certain pictures.

-- dave j

On Sep 11, 9:59 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

They have shortened the time it takes to get a certificate that will let you
do what 90% of the private pilots do by about half. So that is a start.

Agreed.

As far as planes not flying themselves neither do cars. I'll bet you can
take the average driver from today and put him in a car from the 30's and
they won't have to much trouble. Except maybe with the manual transmission.

Yeah, but cars are easy to drive. Actually, as far as basic
transportation, I think airplanes are pretty easy to fly, too. What
makes airplanes different are the squirrely corners of their
envelopes, and the fundamentally fail-unsafe failure mode that comes
from being in the sky, in vehicle that cannot be "pulled over."

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.

Right! But why must aviation be so complex? It requires a level of
training commensurate with, say, some trades and para-professional
degrees. Should that level of training be the necessary cost of entry?

There is a spectrum between instant gratification, and a long, hard
slog uphill. It's not so black and white. People do *learn* to drive.
It doesn't happen instantly, and in fact, if you've watched teenagers
drive recently, I'm sure you realize that it actually takes years to
get really good at it. So people do put in some level of effort.

I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.

-- dave j

Andrew Sarangan writes:

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

I seriously doubt that any teen is discouraged from aviation by the age of the
design of the airplanes used. Most teens have no idea how old the designs
are, and in fact could not draw any kind of airplane with any significant
accuracy if requested to do so. This being so, they cannot reject aviation on
the basis of information they don't have. Besides, fancy vehicles appeal
mostly to young males, not to the population in general.

Things like cell phones and iPods didn't exist fifty years ago. Today there
are a great many things competing for our attention that simply were not there
a few decades ago. It's only natural that our attention is more thinly spread
than before. People who might have turned to aviation in the days when
options were fewer have a much greater choice today, and therefore a much
greater chance of picking something else.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

I don't know if this fascination is that widespread.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows?

How many kids do you see hanging around at car shows, period?

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.

It's more than ambitious; it is straddling the jagged edge of impossible.

What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.

I will grant that powerplants are archaic. I think that the overhead of
certification is a major obstacle to seeing newer developments. And the cost
of having certified powerplants makes even the archaic 50-year-old designs
expensive, to say nothing of anything more modern.

Even a modern-style piston engine would be an improvement. But it would be
hugely expensive.

Ken Finney writes:

2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
and deserved to be assissinated.

There are lots of them right here on this newsgroup.