Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

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

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/flyin...-become-pilots

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

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

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/flyin...g-eagles-becom
e-pilots

As a teen student who gave up on lessons before getting my rating (and
took up gliders about 10 years later, with great success), it seems to
me that targeting teenagers is mostly not a good move.

I don't claim to be representative, but here's my abbreviated story.

I took my intro ride when I was 11 or 12. Continued lessons on a mostly
regular but somewhat infrequent (generally once a month) basis. Soloed
at 16, and then not long after I quit.

Looking back, I think the main reason I quit was that it was an
incredible amount of responsibility that I wasn't really ready for at
the time, and the rewards just weren't enough. This produced a lot of
anxiety. I remember that I really liked flying, but on my way to each
lesson I'd get anxious and worried and partially hope that the weather
would be too poor to fly.

When I was about 13 we moved, and the nearest place to get instruction
was a class D airport. Like a lot of teenagers, I didn't like public
speaking and thus had a lot of trouble with the radio. Having to
interact with the tower didn't help matters.

And then there was the money. While we could afford it, it was a lot of
money, and the expense kept me from being able to fly more frequently.

Compensating for all of this... well, I could fly. That was neat! But
not a huge practical value. Driving a car involved responsibility and
expense too (although less of each), but also came with tremendous
rewards in terms of being able to go to stores, restaurants, movie
theaters, friends' houses, etc. Flying, I could... travel places where I
could also drive.

Fast forward about ten years and I check out glider flying. After living
as an independent adult for a decade, the responsibility factor was no
big deal. Radio anxiety was gone. Money was not even remotely a problem.
And I had a lot more time on my hands, so the appeal was greater, and
the ability to take more intensive instruction was greater. Furthermore,
I was Just Another Guy in a great group of guys in my club with whom I
get along great, instead of being the Young Kid in a FBO with a few
strange folk. The sense of community helped a lot.

I think that giving rids to teens is a great idea, BUT you shouldn't
expect a high continuation rate at all. Your goal should be to plant a
seed which can sprout years later, when that teen has turned into an
independent adult with means and time and is starting to look into
expanding their activities.

Worked for me, anyway....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

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.

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.

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.

On Jun 30, 7:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Since you don't fly a real plane, why do you even care what REAL
pilots believe?

Real pilots much rather go straight lines to make more efficient time
in their flight, but you have no clue what it's like navigating in the
REAL world. IF YOU DID KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO NAVIGATE IN THE REAL
WORLD, YOU WOULD NOT SAY SUCH AN INCOMPETENT STATEMENT LIKE THE ABOVE.

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.