What GA needs

On Sep 10, 3:07 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Any comments?

First, my "kid" credentials: 34 years old, heavy internet user, geek
extraordinaire. I'm an instrument-rated private pilot. I think it's
also relevant that my pilot training was self-financed starting at the
age of 26 or so. I am not a home owner, not an aircraft owner, not a
business owner, not independently wealthy.

I learned to fly because it was a dream I had since I was a boy, and
during the boom years in Silicon Valley I was making enough (salary,
not equity) to be able to learn to fly. I rent from a local club in
Palo Alto (Sundance) that, like almost all such clubs, has mostly the
so-called grumpy old men members. I have never taken the controls of
an aircraft that did not smell like somebody's grandpa.

Even as someone who is *into* aviation, it is simply not affordable,
and its also not all that useful. I live in California, and there are
airports galore (I've been to a *lot* of them!) but when I get to the
airport I am usually stuck. Renting a car is a necessity, and often
enough not even a possibility. Cost and utility are interrelated, of
course. I've got the instrument rating, and I keep it up -- legally --
but seriously, it would cost a lot of money to keep it up to a level
of proficiency to make it truly useful. And the equipment that I can
rent for $100/hr isn't exactly hard-IFR faith inspiring, either. I
have never flown behind a panel mount GPS. I dutifully pop all those
new RNAV approaches into my book every two weeks, and wonder who the
hell is able to use these? Nobody in my club!

Of course, it's easier to come up with problems than solutions. I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA. This trend to
make new, high tech, high-end toys will only speed the erasure of GA.
On the other hand, Garmin *is* doing something to help GA. The fact
is, the new glass cockpits are much more capable than the old steam
gauges (or so I've read ) but cost about the same -- or less. That
is real progress -- getting aircraft back onto a technology curve.

If Ly/Co could somehow get back on a real product improvement curve,
that would be something to hope for, too. I don't know if turbine is
the solution. I'd say something more akin to Jabiru/Rotax is.

The LSAs, well, since they're all hovering around six figures and
above, I'm not sure who they're supposed to appeal to, either.

There is another thing that could help GA. Imagine this (admittedly
not particularly well thought-out) scenario:
-- wealthy boomers eventually die out
-- without stream of wealthy customers, GA airframe manufacturers
also die out
-- industry goes into a coma for a decade or so
-- investors re-discover aviation, buy assets of said manufacturers
for pennies on the dollar
-- new, more modest A/C designs emerge that more people can
participate in
-- GA, reborn as something that the reasonably affluent (not just
rich) can participate in

This only works if in the meantime airport closures, user fees,
insurance requirements, etc, don't make a revival impossible.

My $0.0n,
-- dave j

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:21 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA.

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

-- dave j

"Dave J" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Air taxi is going (IMO) in the dorection of VLJs. The Cirrus and Columbia's
are not aimed at the entry level market, but they, too, will be within reach
of many pilots once they get a few years depreciation on them.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Fractional ownership might change that.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Fractional ownership might change that.

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.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

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.



And now, it's for hot rods, too!

http://www.velocity-club.com/index.cfm

I got handed a brochure for this while checking out the new Lotus models
and a GT-40 at Lime Rock two weeks ago.

B A R R Y wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

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.


And now, it's for hot rods, too!

http://www.velocity-club.com/index.cfm

I got handed a brochure for this while checking out the new Lotus
models and a GT-40 at Lime Rock two weeks ago.

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

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

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/fractional/
Fractional Aircraft Ownership Regulation Background & Rulemaking

Fractional ownership operations began in 1986 with the creation of a
program that offered aircraft owners increased flexibility in the
ownership and operation of aircraft. This program used current
aircraft acquisition concepts, including shared or joint aircraft
ownership, and provided for the management of the aircraft by an
aircraft management company.

The aircraft owners participating in the program agreed not only to
share their own aircraft with others having a shared interest in that
aircraft, but also to lease their aircraft to other owners in the
program (dry lease exchange program). The aircraft owners used the
common management company to provide aviation management services
including maintenance of the aircraft, pilot training and assignment,
and administration of the leasing of the aircraft among the owners.

During the 1990's the growth of fractional ownership programs was
substantial and this growth is expected to continue. As these programs
grew in size, complexity and number, there was considerable
controversy within the aviation community as to their appropriate
regulatory structure. Additionally, the FAA had evolving concerns
regarding issues of accountability and responsibility for compliance
(operational control).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Amends Regulatory Compliance Date for Fractional Operations
On December 14, 2004 the FAA issued a notice that corrects the date by
which all fractional operations must be in compliance with FAR Part
91, Subpart K. NBAA was expecting the correction that changes an
incorrect December 17, 2004, compliance date to February 17, 2005. All
fractional operations will be in compliance with the new rule by the
February 2005 deadline.

Download the notice as it appeared in the Federal Register (52 KB,
PDF)
Federal Register Publishes Fractional Ownership Final Rule
September 17, 2003
On September 17, the FAA's final rule "Regulation of Fractional
Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-Demand Operations" was published.
The rule sets regulatory standards for fractional ownership operations
(Part 91, Subpart K) and updates requirements for on-demand charter
operations (Part 135).

Download the rule as it appeared in the Federal Register (404 KB, PDF)

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. 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.