What GA needs

On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
getting what you wanted...

"John Jones" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

Notice, if you will (can?) that those who ask questions and seek to learn
from those with vast years and hours of ACTUAL flying experience get very
nice treatment.

MX, on the other hand, is a character with severe mental issues, who has
been laughed off numerous other newsgroups. He's nothing more than a vandal
with a keyboard, rather than a can of spray paint.


The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
getting what you wanted...

I'd venture to guess it's advantageous that we don't have such a mental
misfit dashing around in the same skies as the rest of us.

I'd guess that you're just as FOS as he is.

Matt Barrow writes:

I'd venture to guess it's advantageous that we don't have such a mental
misfit dashing around in the same skies as the rest of us.

The fewer you become, the less infrastructure you'll have. Eventually there
won't be enough to support your exclusie hobby. So be careful what you wish
for.

John Jones wrote:
On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.


You do realize MX is in his 40's don't you?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
John Jones wrote:
On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.


You do realize MX is in his 40's don't you?
I don't think this Jones guy realizes anything more than MX does.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

But if we "sell it" as a '75 Lola, Aston Martin, or 'Vette... G

I'm not enough in touch with kids these days to know what motivates
them, though I'm sure that basic human motivations do not change over
time.

So I agree that the equipment should not be ancient. The noise level
is much too high. The cost is too high. The turbine approach would
likely help with the noise problem, but turbines are pretty
inefficient compared with piston technology. The turbo-diesel design,
to me, represents the future of GA power in a world of expensive fuel.

Certification and liability costs together appear to be the major
obstacles to getting costs under control. Yet the aircraft must be
"forgiving", and people should be able to sue against serious design
flaws.

Andrew Sarangan writes:

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

I seriously doubt that any teen is discouraged from aviation by the age of the
design of the airplanes used. Most teens have no idea how old the designs
are, and in fact could not draw any kind of airplane with any significant
accuracy if requested to do so. This being so, they cannot reject aviation on
the basis of information they don't have. Besides, fancy vehicles appeal
mostly to young males, not to the population in general.

Things like cell phones and iPods didn't exist fifty years ago. Today there
are a great many things competing for our attention that simply were not there
a few decades ago. It's only natural that our attention is more thinly spread
than before. People who might have turned to aviation in the days when
options were fewer have a much greater choice today, and therefore a much
greater chance of picking something else.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

I don't know if this fascination is that widespread.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows?

How many kids do you see hanging around at car shows, period?

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.

It's more than ambitious; it is straddling the jagged edge of impossible.

What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.

I will grant that powerplants are archaic. I think that the overhead of
certification is a major obstacle to seeing newer developments. And the cost
of having certified powerplants makes even the archaic 50-year-old designs
expensive, to say nothing of anything more modern.

Even a modern-style piston engine would be an improvement. But it would be
hugely expensive.

As a member of the younger generation (I'm 24), I can only speak from
personal experience. I'm under no illusions that I can speak for my
entire generation. :-)

Some background: I was That Kid At The Airport Fence. When I was
young, I used to beg my dad to take me to the local private airport so
I could watch the planes take off and land. I memorized
configurations so that I could tell a Cessna from a Piper from a
Mooney, and I still remember jumping out of bed one morning (*not* a
common thing when I was a youngin, as my parents would attest) and
dashing around the house excited at the news that Piper was going to
restart production of GA aircraft. Did the EAA Young Eagles,
discovery flights, the whole bit.

Despite that, my stay in flight school after I got out of college was
short and abortive. I took about 10 hours worth of lessons before I
stopped. Some of the reasons for why I stopped had to do with timing-
it was fall and I was starting a premedical program that didn't leave
me enough time to devote to aviation. The one that's perhaps of more
general interest, though, was cost. I've been gainfully employed ever
since leaving college and making what I would consider a decent salary
for a recent grad, but what I realized after about six weeks of flying
lessons was that finishing my private and keeping up a decent level of
proficiency was probably going to be more than I could afford.
Getting the PPL would be pretty expensive, but if I was going to feel
comfortable in the air I knew I would also have to rent and fly on a
pretty regular basis- I had done enough reading to know that getting
rusty, especially in a new pilot, could be deadly.

Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
so inclined. But flying seemed to almost be on another order of
magnitude- the FBO where I trained rented Cessna 152s for $90 an hour
wet. At this stage in my life, that doesn't work out to a whole lot
of proficiency flights. I ended up calculating the cost of finishing
my PPL to be around $5000-6000, which is roughly twice what I spent on
my current car.

(And yes, a smarter move would have been to calculate this all out
beforehand. I thought I might squeeze through in the minimum
time...and in the end, I really really wanted to believe this was
something I was going to be able to afford, and I ignored questions
like "What if I take more than the minimum?" or "How am I going to
keep current?".)

Now, part of this is just where I am in my life, and where a lot of my
generation is as well- we're just out of college, and since the world
doesn't come delivered to your door we're not making the big bucks
just yet. At the same time, though, I can't help thinking that if
aviation were a bit more affordable it might be easier to draw in
younger folks who are in relatively lower-paying ($35-40K/year) jobs.
I can only speak from my own personal experience here, but the math
would have been very different for me if there had been an aircraft
available for, say, $60-75/hour wet rate. It would have made the PPL
less expensive, and it would also have made it easier for me to afford
currency. In my individual case it might or might not have made a
difference, but it would have lowered the barrier.

(Reducing the hours of instruction needed to gain the PPL would also
lower the barrier, but I'm not convinced that's the best way to
proceed. I had just enough training to realize how hard flying really
is, and I know that I would have needed at least 40 hours to be
comfortable with all of the PPL tasks. Lowering entry barriers is
nice and all, but I don't think that compromising standards is the way
to do it. And I say that as an unsuccessful flight student.)

Obviously, the pilot community can't just wave magic wands and make
cheaper aircraft appear. I had high hopes when the LSA category was
announced that cheaper aircraft might be in the offing, even if their
operating regime was more restrictred, but so far I've been
disappointed in the results. Most of the LSA I've seen announced have
been in the same $100-150K range as new-build GA aircraft, without any
real price reductions over what was available pre-LSA.

So what's the point of my ramblings? I'd say that based on my
personal experience a cheaper airplane is more likely to pull younger
people to GA than a pretty one. Composite bodies are pretty and I
like a nice interior as well as the next man, but I'd gladly perch on
a bicycle seat and fly the ugliest plane in the sky if it was cheaper
to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
towards attracting new pilots.

(And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
long it takes, I will be back.)

"Jeff Dougherty" wrote in message
oups.com...

Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
so inclined.

Exactly. Your inclinations run (no pun about sneakers intended) in a
different direction.

Hmm...

(And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
long it takes, I will be back.)

I'd say that your goals are rather more challenging than most of your peers.
That MAY be a factor. Costs may also be a factor, but I'd wager it was a
strong combination of both in your case.

When you're back, we'll be here waiting to hear from you.