Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:28:51 -0500, "N93332"
wrote in ::

As far as buying an aircraft, there are many good used aircraft available
for the price of a car, pickup, SUV, or boat. These aren't the
bigger/faster/newer planes but they're good for general flying.

Right. You can purchase a used C-152 for ~$20k, but a new LSA will
set you back ~$80k to ~$100k. :-(

Jose wrote:
He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

Reset button. Thunderstorms. Simulated emergencies.


No reset button. Thunderstorms. Real emergencies. G



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring.

Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies, and the more creative
the cfi or safety pilot, the more fun. I guess that's what makes people
like us "special."

-- dave j

Owning an aircraft is not the end-all be-all of aviation.

According to FAA numbers there are 618,633 total pilots and 209,700
aircraft.

Now to answer your questions.

How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these
new planes?

Probably a number close to zero.

How many would ever start flying when they realized they may never be able
to afford to own one?

I'd guess a number fewer than learn now but most who learn to fly won't ever
either be to afford on or choose not to afford one.

As far as that goes, how many stop training because of having to rent a
plane?

I'm sure that is one of the factors in the drop-out rate.

If the majority of us had to rent a car "all the time" would we bother
driving in the ?first place?

If I only had to drive 2 or 3 times a month AND the cost and maintenance of
a car were anywhere close to that of a plane hell yes I'd just rent.




"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
How many young pilots would there be if they all had to buy one of these
new planes? How many would ever start flying when they realized they may
never be able to afford to own one? As far as that goes, how many stop
training because of having to rent a plane? If the majority of us had to
rent a car "all the time" would we bother driving in the first place? Just
something to ponder...

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsnlOe.2847$Ix4.463@okepread03...

"John Doe" wrote in message
nk.net...



Aviation is getting old. I'm 40 now, and for 12 years have been the
youngest person hanging out at airport and the youngest person in my
EAA chapter. When a new guy shows up who's 28, he sees all the old
farts (maybe I'm one too in his eyes), and looks for a younger crowd to
hang with. This doesn't help.

KB


That's because the planes they're flying in are just as old. Some new
teenager or college student doesn't see much excitement when they come
out to the airport and they have to look at 1960s era Cessnas and they
wonder what's keeping the wings on.

Go to another FBO that has a fleet of new Cirrus or Diamond trainers and
you'll see a younger crowd.

This industry needs a major investment to retire all planes older than
20 years old and get some new metal on the ramp.


I think you are putting the effect before the cause. The FBO with the new
planes has them because the have pilots coming through. The fact that
they are young is just luck.

Yes, that's a perfect example. Those holes are perfectly legal, valid
repairs, but.... people don't want to see them. The pilots in the club
might know they're okay, but their spouses and children find that kind
of thing disturbing!

And here's the kicker that I was not able to explain to the powers that
be in my club: it *really* matters what the spouses and children
think!

-- dave j

wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
best "investment."

If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
to tweak it.


You're right he has several hundred hours of simulator time. Basically he
learned to fly in a 747. I think it is all a matter of instant gratification
he has no interest in spending the time in the "little planes" as he calls
them even if it meant he would later get to fly 747s for AA.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring.

Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies, and the more creative
the cfi or safety pilot, the more fun. I guess that's what makes people
like us "special."

-- dave j


I think he was saying those things made the simulator NOT boring. And I
agree.

Okay, so file those latter two under "unpleasant," but not boring.

Actually, I really enjoy practicing emergencies,

What I meant was that you could safely fly through thunderstorms while
two engines were on fire, your gyros were spinning down, and the
approach plate fell on the floor, if you were in a simulator. You won't
get that excitement in ordinary flying. (or at least you shouldn't.

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.

Ah, I get it now. In the sim, he can fly through thunderstorms, etc.
Yeah, that's kind of cool.

Damn!

There's something else going on here. Real flying has a physical aspect:
it's sensuous in the same way that sports are sensuous. You use depth
perception, proprioception, "seat of the pants." That's why the world's
best fighter pilots are athletes -- yes, I'm thinking of Ted Williams. If a
computer nerd kid has no interest in doing sports, the sim is going to be a
lot more interesting -- it's a broader range of challenges than he'd ever
get in a real airplane, thus it's a better intellectual challenge and more
fun. But if he's a physical guy, he'll want to fly for real.

Let's not forget that the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss started as
bicycle racers. There's a lesson in that.

Seth
Comanche N8100R
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:VToOe.2865$Ix4.2257@okepread03...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't mean to psychoanalyze, but your son's friend's statement seems
suspect. He apparently has spent some time practicing simulated ILSes
into JFK (not to mention paying for and assembling a spiffy flight
simulator), so he must have found it somewhat entertaining on the
computer. How could it have been less entertaining in a real aircraft?

I guess the cost benefit of fun/effort may be better on a computer sim
than in a real aircraft, but that doesn't make it boring, just not the
best "investment."

If that's the case, the GA needs to understand that equation, and start
to tweak it.


You're right he has several hundred hours of simulator time. Basically he
learned to fly in a 747. I think it is all a matter of instant
gratification he has no interest in spending the time in the "little
planes" as he calls them even if it meant he would later get to fly 747s
for AA.