Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

Mxsmanic wrote:
A continuation rate of 0.26%--not very encouraging. An interesting
article:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/flyin...re-young-eagle
s-become-pilots

The 4 out of 1500 (~0.27%) value concerns a "free" Sporty's Pilot Shop
ground school program. In fact the number only includes those who
eventually passed a written exam. The number who took the exams and failed
isn't mentioned.

There is no reason to believe that that number correlates with the fraction
of Young Eagle participants that eventually earn a pilot license.

That said, if those ~0.27% go on to become pilots, it would be comparable
to, but slightly better than, the fraction of the U.S. population that are
certificated pilots (~600,000/~300,000,000 =~ 0.2%)

Bottom line appears to be that the Young Eagles program probably doesn't
accomplish anything useful re increasing pilot population. People who want
to be pilots will do what they can to reach that goal - the rest presumably
just enjoy the chance for a free airplane ride.

Jim Logajan writes:

Bottom line appears to be that the Young Eagles program probably doesn't
accomplish anything useful re increasing pilot population. People who want
to be pilots will do what they can to reach that goal - the rest presumably
just enjoy the chance for a free airplane ride.

I've seen figures on multiple occasions that indicate that the largest group
of private pilots (i.e., not flying as a career) consists of men in their late
forties. Perhaps efforts should not be wasted on adolescents who might or
might not be interested in aviation, and programs should target middle-aged
men who might have fewer distractions, more money, and more developed and
focused interests. I don't see any reason why people have to start flying
young in order to enjoy it.

Cirrus follows this philosophy to a certain extent by strongly targeting
wealthy, low-time private pilots in their marketing, which I suspect also
specifically aims for a male demographic. Multiple characteristics of their
marketing efforts suggest this. Unfortunately it produces high accident rates,
since a desire for rich Corinthian leather in the seats for purposes of
bragging rights doesn't correlate at all with piloting skill.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Bottom line appears to be that the Young Eagles program probably
doesn't accomplish anything useful re increasing pilot population.
People who want to be pilots will do what they can to reach that goal
- the rest presumably just enjoy the chance for a free airplane ride.

I've seen figures on multiple occasions that indicate that the largest
group of private pilots (i.e., not flying as a career) consists of men
in their late forties. Perhaps efforts should not be wasted on
adolescents who might or might not be interested in aviation, and
programs should target middle-aged men who might have fewer
distractions, more money, and more developed and focused interests. I
don't see any reason why people have to start flying young in order to
enjoy it.

I would tend to agree that a "Bald Eagle" or "Old Flying Geezer" program
would likely yield greater returns. We geezers over 40 have a tiny bit
more time and money than young whippersnappers - and the realization our
days remaining on this mortal coil are dwindling. If EAA and AOPA and the
like would stop preaching to the proverbial choir, and advertise instead
in the same places, say, that RV makers do, they might see better return
on their time and investment.

Cirrus follows this philosophy to a certain extent by strongly
targeting wealthy, low-time private pilots in their marketing, which I
suspect also specifically aims for a male demographic. Multiple
characteristics of their marketing efforts suggest this. Unfortunately
it produces high accident rates, since a desire for rich Corinthian
leather in the seats for purposes of bragging rights doesn't correlate
at all with piloting skill.

That's easy for you to say, but - alas - the above paragraph was easy to
write because it is entirely opinion (on Cirrus marketing,) speculation
(on causal connection between accident rate and shallow desires,) and
unsupported factual claim (high accident rate.)

So what is the accident rate? There have been several attempts to assess
Cirrus accident rates and compare them to comparable aircraft. The
problem is that while Cirrus provides estimates for their fleet hours,
the following article claims that other manufacturers such as Cessna do
not provide any such numbers:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...IsACirrus.aspx

According to that article the Cirrus models exhibit 1.42 to 1.76 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours (depending on the time period selected - the
lower number was from a later period.) But the GA single engine fleet
exhibits about 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

So the factual assumption underlying your paragraph appears entirely
invalid unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that the article indicates that members
of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have dramatically fewer
normalized accident rates than non-members.

Jim Logajan writes:

According to that article the Cirrus models exhibit 1.42 to 1.76 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours (depending on the time period selected - the
lower number was from a later period.) But the GA single engine fleet
exhibits about 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the opposite
claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more accidents than other
aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than three times the number of
fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours flown.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that the article indicates that members
of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have dramatically fewer
normalized accident rates than non-members.

Well, the article certainly wouldn't say that they have dramatically more,
would it?

I don't have reason to believe that Cirrus builds unsafe aircraft, but I feel
strongly that its very aggressive marketing to certain demographic profiles
encourages people to buy and fly these aircraft who in fact shouldn't be going
near them or any other aircraft.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the
opposite claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more
accidents than other aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than
three times the number of fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours
flown.

If you could provide a bibliographic reference or URL to that claim it
would be appreciated.

On Jun 30, 9:06*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the
opposite claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more
accidents than other aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than
three times the number of fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours
flown.

If you could provide a bibliographic reference or URL to that claim it
would be appreciated.

He won't..... Never does provide references.....

On Jun 30, 9:12*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
According to that article the Cirrus models exhibit 1.42 to 1.76 fatal
accidents per 100,000 hours (depending on the time period selected - the
lower number was from a later period.) But the GA single engine fleet
exhibits about 1.86 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.

Some quick research turns up numerous other sources that make the opposite
claim, i.e., that Cirrus aircraft have significantly more accidents than other
aircraft. One claims that Cirrus has more than three times the number of
fatalities as Cessna with reference to hours flown.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that the article indicates that members
of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have dramatically fewer
normalized accident rates than non-members.

Well, the article certainly wouldn't say that they have dramatically more,
would it?

I don't have reason to believe that Cirrus builds unsafe aircraft, but I feel
strongly that its very aggressive marketing to certain demographic profiles
encourages people to buy and fly these aircraft who in fact shouldn't be going
near them or any other aircraft.

It'd my admittedly uninformed opinion that research would demonstrate
the performance characteristics of this airplane are more like those
of a complex high performance single than a Pa 140 and pilots need
more training than a simple sign off.

a writes:

It'd my admittedly uninformed opinion that research would demonstrate
the performance characteristics of this airplane are more like those
of a complex high performance single than a Pa 140 and pilots need
more training than a simple sign off.

It has a reputation for good performance in its class. I don't think that
would explain so many pilots messing up, though. I think Cirrus is
deliberately marketing to pilots who probably shouldn't be flying the
airplane, which I consider unethical.

Cory Lidle isn't necessarily a typical example in all ways, but his accident
illustrates my concern and the type of pilot whom I believe Cirrus is trying
inappropriately to attract.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Cirrus follows this philosophy to a certain extent by strongly
targeting wealthy, low-time private pilots in their marketing,

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web page,
statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who are
experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web page,
statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who are
experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated to the
manufacturer's aircraft. Especially when I see statements like "... the
ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of attitude that can
cause accidents. The author seems to further believe that CAPS is a fix for
all sorts of situations, such as pilot disorientation and loss of control at
low altitude.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who believe
that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their navigation issues
forever.