At last, the truth...

Everyone here understands that learning to fly is a huge endeavor that
takes money, commitment, time, energy, and the support of whoever you
live with. It also requires access to a CFI that you work well with that
is available when you are, and reliable, well-maintained equipment. The
absence of any *ONE* of those elements is enough to make it impossible
to complete the training ... or even to continue after the rating is
achieved (except the presence of the CFI). That said, not everyone who
*has* all those elements sees it through to completion, either. Without
meaning to sound arrogant, I'm not sure there is, or should be, a way to
fix that.

This is, of course, all true. Heck, I know perfectly intelligent adults
that can't ride a bicycle -- so there's even a "drop-out rate" for that
seemingly universal endeavor.

That said, it is incumbent upon those of us who *have* made it through to
help those who haven't -- whether we want to or not. Why? Because at the
current rate of pilot population decline, it will be impossible to convince
municipalities (like Iowa City) to maintain an airport that is used by fewer
and fewer people.

We NEED to get every possible body into the cockpit, no matter what our
personal feelings about aviation may be, purely through enlightened
self-interest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The point is there is a HUGE drop-out rate. It means that there are a number
of people who thought "I'd like to learn to fly," Flew at least a few
flights and then quit. What is AOPA, EAA, FAA and GA in general doing to
figure out what the reasons for the drop-out rate?

Just because there has always been a drop-out rate and it has stayed pretty
steady doesn't mean there is nothing that could be done to reduce it. Sure
some and maybe most of the reasons are things that the flying community
can't fix but I'd be willing to bet that 10% of the problem could be
addressed by the community and as I said in my original post 10% is a lot of
new pilots every year.

wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
[snip]
If you use these numbers you would get a pretty good
feel for the number of people who start and then don't
get their license. If only 10% of the drop-outs were
retained that would be more than 3600 more private
pilots.

Maybe I'm missing the point ... ???

There will *always* be a drop-out rate. The only way to say that
aviation has a high(er) drop-out rate is to compare it to other
activities with at least *some* expense, risk-factor, high mental demand
and time commitment similarities, where you train to fill requirements
and test for a license. Then compare those current numbers to two, five
or ten years ago to see if those other activities currently are
experiencing a higher drop-out rate, too. How high is the drop-out rate
for student sky-divers? What percentage of med school students actually
become doctors? The state of the economy could play a part in drop-out
trends, too.

Everyone here understands that learning to fly is a huge endeavor that
takes money, commitment, time, energy, and the support of whoever you
live with. It also requires access to a CFI that you work well with that
is available when you are, and reliable, well-maintained equipment. The
absence of any *ONE* of those elements is enough to make it impossible
to complete the training ... or even to continue after the rating is
achieved (except the presence of the CFI). That said, not everyone who
*has* all those elements sees it through to completion, either. Without
meaning to sound arrogant, I'm not sure there is, or should be, a way to
fix that.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:38:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
tI3Ne.262425$_o.202397@attbi_s71::

Why? Because at the
current rate of pilot population decline, it will be impossible to convince
municipalities (like Iowa City) to maintain an airport that is used by fewer
and fewer people.

Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate
their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to
implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*.

If the municipal airport is closed, and the property developed for
other purposes, it will be difficult or impossible for most
municipalities to re-establish a replacement airport once SATS is
implemented due to the lack of available real estate and NIMBY
resistance to airport operations. So closing the municipal airport
effectively shuts the municipality out of participation in the
aviation infrastructure of the 21st century.


* http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html
http://ncam-sats.org/

The SATS benefits include improved standards of living and quality
of life for the nation in the new global economy. SATS technology
innovations will provide the nation with:

Economic development for communities of all sizes enabled by
localized air accessibility

Choices to bypass highway and hub-and-spoke transportation systems
delays

An efficient means for intermodal connectivity between small
airports and the global aviation system

An exportable transportation revolution with affordable "instant
infrastructure" for developing nations around the world

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
...
Another approach to convince municipalities to continue
to operate their airports is to make them aware of the
FAA's
imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft
Transportation
System*.


The FAA doesn't implement beyond rule changes; the private
sector must implement. I'm trying to find a site which
discusses the economics and therefore market demand for SATS
type transportation for what it will cost the traveler. Do
you know of one?

Fred F.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:25:51 -0400, "TaxSrv" wrote
in ::

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
...
Another approach to convince municipalities to continue
to operate their airports is to make them aware of the
FAA's
imminent intent to implement the Small Aircraft
Transportation
System*.


The FAA doesn't implement beyond rule changes; the private
sector must implement.

Perhaps I should have said the US DOT instead of FAA.

I'm trying to find a site which
discusses the economics and therefore market demand for SATS
type transportation for what it will cost the traveler. Do
you know of one?

You might try he http://tinyurl.com/7kau7

Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate
their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to
implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*.

But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the
airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point.

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.

Jay, as a flight instructor with something approaching five hundred
students, I'd appreciate it if you would modify your statement to that we
NEED to get every possible QUALIFIED body into the cockpit, ...

I've gently counseled about a dozen (including some with certificates) that
this might not be the avocation for them.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:tI3Ne.262425$_o.202397@attbi_s71...


We NEED to get every possible body into the cockpit, no matter what our
personal feelings about aviation may be, purely through enlightened
self-interest.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:21:26 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate
their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to
implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*.

But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the
airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point.


If the City Council members choose to deprive their city's residents
of the means of shuttling to the region's international airport so
that another strip mall can be built, that is their prerogative, but I
wouldn't re-elect them. :-(

And today's smaller turbofan powered aircraft aren't significantly
more noisy than piston powered aircraft especially when you consider
the shorter time they are nearby as they climb out on departure.

"RST Engineering" wrote:
Jay, as a flight instructor with something approaching five hundred
students, I'd appreciate it if you would modify your statement to that we
NEED to get every possible QUALIFIED body into the cockpit, ...

I've gently counseled about a dozen (including some with certificates) that
this might not be the avocation for them.

Jim, that's exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread from having
worked at the flight school (I'm not a CFI, but was there to observe
just the same)...about there being a (good) reason for some who "drop
out" of flying, either before or after the rating.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:54:06 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:21:26 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

Another approach to convince municipalities to continue to operate
their airports is to make them aware of the FAA's imminent intent to
implement the Small Aircraft Transportation System*.

But this is one of the reaons municipalites want to close the
airports... residents are afraid of jet noise. And they do have a point.

Ahhh... No they don't.
It's a point based on ignorance as today's small jets are quieter than
many older prop planes and pretty much on par with most of the newer
prop planes. No, many can't match one of the new 172s, but they do a
good job.

Now, when you get up to the Falcon 900 you are pretty much reaching
the break even point compared to an old Bonanza with a two blade prop,
but the smaller jets with turbofans are much quieter. The don't burn
all the grass off the end of the runway when they run up the engines
either. That 900 pretty much cleaned the grass from the end of the
runway to the fence by the road. Good thing it was green grass and
not dry. :-))

Here the residents were afraid if we lengthened 18/36 and 06/24 to
4000 they'd be inundated with jet noise. What they didn't realize was
we have a number of jets in and out and they never notice then. What
we couldn't convince them was on 18/36 going from 3000 to 4000 feet
would make it quieter. On a hot day I'm only a few hundred feet
over their heads, but at least I went to a 3-blade prop. When I had
the 2-blade they used to complain I was rattling the dishes in the
cupboards and I have no doubt I was.

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


If the City Council members choose to deprive their city's residents
of the means of shuttling to the region's international airport so
that another strip mall can be built, that is their prerogative, but I
wouldn't re-elect them. :-(

And today's smaller turbofan powered aircraft aren't significantly
more noisy than piston powered aircraft especially when you consider
the shorter time they are nearby as they climb out on departure.
Roger