Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:03:15 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in DF9Pe.5727$Ck2.3269@trndny04::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Oh yeah. That was the year he was impeached, wasn't it.

Nixon was never impeached.


Right. It's been a while. After his Vice President was caught taking
bribe money, and Nixon with his henchmen burglarizing etc. he resigned
under threat of impeachment, so that he wouldn't further disgrace the
office.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, I don't think a Corvette is going to appreciate as much as a
common single engine plane.

A used Corvette will appreciate just as fast as a used Piper, and a new Piper
will depreciate just as fast as a new Corvette.

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.

I can't help thinking that if we made learning to fly a lot easier, and made
airplanes a lot simpler to fly safely, and made them as cheap as cars --
then they'd be as common as cars and we'd be bitching about all the newbies
cluttering up our airspace. We'd have midair collisions every day, across
the country. A lot of us would quit in frustration.

Like the man said, "It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy, everyone
would do it."

Seth

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:BjQOe.2824$SW1.387@trndny09...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, I don't think a Corvette is going to appreciate as much as a
common single engine plane.

A used Corvette will appreciate just as fast as a used Piper, and a new
Piper will depreciate just as fast as a new Corvette.

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.

Seth Masia wrote:
I can't help thinking that if we made learning to fly a lot easier, and made
airplanes a lot simpler to fly safely, and made them as cheap as cars --
then they'd be as common as cars and we'd be bitching about all the newbies
cluttering up our airspace. We'd have midair collisions every day, across
the country. A lot of us would quit in frustration.

I believe you're right. Since the FAA is tasked with improving safety, that's
probably the reason for a lot of what they do. "If too many of 'em get into the
air, it ain't hard enough -- write some more regs."

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s.

And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

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.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Gasoline is only now getting back to the price it was (in real terms)
back in the 1980s.

And that's producing more of the crazy "gas-saver" products. I ran into this one
today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L15F25BAB

Yah know, when I was a teen ager my dad had suggested just such a
thing. BTW, the winning bid was $41. Did some one actually pay that?
IF so PT Barnum was right.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
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.

Jay Honeck wrote:
You'll notice I've not mentioned the Number One reason people mention for
quitting: Money.

To ignore the money issue is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Right. However, we can't change the money situation. We CAN change
the other variables that are causing the appallingly high student drop
out rate in aviation.

IMHO this is the wrong problem to focus on solving. Up through solo,
flying is all fun and no work. Then you get into the written test and
all the crap to prepare for the checkride. Now it's a chore. I'll bet
getting rid of the written would reduce the attrition rate by at least
25%, perhaps more, but it won't happen anytime soon.

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

-cwk.

wrote:

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

Ok. You help me find a job within an hour's drive of my home that requires less
than 60 hours a week and pays at least 60K a year (much more if I have to
commute to Manhattan). Preferably involving computers, since that's what my MS
is in. I'll be flying again soon after I find that job.

One friend of mine probably will never fly again, but you never know. He quit
because of lack of time and money, but I think he's lost interest to the point
that he wouldn't start again if he won the lottery.

Another friend of mine quit when the kids started arriving. He was also upset
because he could never find the time to study for the instrument rating (he'd
get maybe two weeks of study and then work would ramp up again). That's a man
who may be back when the kids get through college.

On second thought, maybe these people don't have to be attracted back into
actively participating in aviation. As I understand it, Jay's main issue is that
we need more flyers to allow us to apply more political pressure. It is to be
hoped that that pressure will prevent airport closings and harsh restrictions.
With a few exceptions, most former aviators are likely to be friendly to our cause.

Perhaps the way to go is to start up a non-profit that will concentrate on
informing and/or pressuring non-active pilots about political issues. Go after
people who used to fly and now don't, former AOPA members, former EAA members,
etc.. I suppose that funding would have to come from active aviators, but you
never know.

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.

George Patterson wrote:
wrote:

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

Ok. You help me find a job within an hour's drive of my home that requires less
than 60 hours a week and pays at least 60K a year (much more if I have to
commute to Manhattan). Preferably involving computers, since that's what my MS
is in. I'll be flying again soon after I find that job.

Move out of New Jersey. Work as a consultant and you can live anywhere
you can get a high-speed internet connection. No commute necessary and
real estate costs a lot less. I hire developers and sales people almost
without regard to location these days. If you're good, you can probably
do more than 60k and no job really offers security anymore unless it's
for the gummint.

On second thought, maybe these people don't have to be attracted back into
actively participating in aviation. As I understand it, Jay's main issue is that
we need more flyers to allow us to apply more political pressure. It is to be
hoped that that pressure will prevent airport closings and harsh restrictions.
With a few exceptions, most former aviators are likely to be friendly to our cause.

True, but former aviators do not help to keep small airports, FBOs, and
mechanics from closing for lack of business.

-cwk.

wrote:

Move out of New Jersey.

Out of the question, unfortunately.

I hire developers and sales people almost
without regard to location these days.

Fine. How 'bout hiring one in New Jersey? Drop me a line telling me your
development needs. If I believe I am qualified, I will attempt to convince you
of that. Alternately, I'd be happy to mail you a resume.

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.