View Single Post
  #7  
Old May 12th 06, 03:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How much has GA traffic dropped?

I know, that's why I said LSA/SP, meaning the combination of an SP in an
LSA.

I have nothing against the LSA or the SP, I just don't think they have
enough practicality to catch on. I would really like to see more people
flying, I just don't think that this will affect the decline in GA. It
looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
bling.

Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a resurgence in the interest
in GA. I don't see any new investment in anything related to general
aviation, except from government. Private airports are now housing
developments. Businesses depending upon GA are folding up. The only "new"
buildings or improvements I see in my area have been put up by state or
local government. That's better than nothing, but I'd rather see the engine
of private enterprise doing these things.


"Ken Hornstein" wrote in message
...
In article ,
LWG wrote:
I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least
without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).


You (as a private pilot) could have flown a LSA out of class D airspace
without any additional training, endorsements, or whatever. Not all
LSA's come with radios and transponders (the ones I've seen in the
"cheaper" end do not), but you could have departed NORDO if you were
really trying to economize and didn't want to spring for a handheld
radio.

I don't understand your objection to LSAs. If they are successful,
they will get more people flying ... that means airports get more
utilization, more money gets pumped into the aviation industry, there's
a general overall awareness of flying, and that's only good things for
the industry as a whole. They may not be right for your mission, and
that's okay ... they're not designed for everyone. But the more people
flying, the better the industry is ... the more people that use an
airport, for example, the harder it is to close.

If your issue is with the Sport Pilot rating, well, I guess I see two
purposes to the rating. One is to keep old farts who are in danger of
losing their medicals in the air; these old farts are still allowed to
fly into class D airspace, they just can't flying big planes, or at
night. Seems reasonable. The other is to get new pilots into the air
quicker. The limitations of the rating seem reasonable given the
amount of training you get. I think the hope is that new Sport Pilots
will get bitten by the flying bug, and go on to get the necessary training
(which means that they're spending more money on aviation, which is
always a good thing).

--Ken