The words experimental, amateur built & homebuilt

"Homebuilt" "Amateur Built" and finally "Experimental" have historically been associated with aircraft not built in a factory. For lack of a better word, each of the above tags has been endlessly used by all of mass media to convey a sometimes negative, inaccurate and needlessly detrimental image of our segment of aviation to an ill-informed public. For years and years, the aviation community has on-again off-again searched for a word...a sound bite....that better describes our aviation category in a more positive light. It is my hope this thread encourages you to offer a single word or two that has the realistic potential of superceding the obsolete tags that both informally and legally have for too long described what it is we build and fly. We are well into the 21st century now. It is high time for a name change. In that spirit and to get your creative juices going, I'll submit my bid. It is a simple word that most of us are very, very familiar with. It is a single word that is suitably vague yet more importantly carries no negative connotation. Actually, it can convey a certain positive cache. That word is "Private." "The aircraft is registered as privately built". The aircraft is placarded as "Private". "John Smith, owner of a popular privately built aircraft".......you get the idea. Anything but "homebuilt"...don't you agree? So, what do you bring to the table? Who knows? In a brave new world of instant worldwide communications, your word(s) could potentially supercede the outdated 20th Century code that describes our 21st Century passion. So let's hear it!

OK .. Here's a shot at it ...

"Custom"

"Custom-built" ...
Implies that it is not just another one off the line.
Implies that it is "special" (for someone).
Implies that some extra care was put into the construction.

• Not claiming this is original.

James

Rick6a said:

"Homebuilt" "Amateur Built" and finally "Experimental" have historically been associated with aircraft not built in a factory. For lack of a better word, each of the above tags has been endlessly used by all of mass media to convey a sometimes negative, inaccurate and needlessly detrimental image of our segment of aviation to an ill-informed public. For years and years, the aviation community has on-again off-again searched for a word...a sound bite....that better describes our aviation category in a more positive light. It is my hope this thread encourages you to offer a single word or two that has the realistic potential of superceding the obsolete tags that both informally and legally have for too long described what it is we build and fly. We are well into the 21st century now. It is high time for a name change. In that spirit and to get your creative juices going, I'll submit my bid. It is a simple word that most of us are very, very familiar with. It is a single word that is suitably vague yet more importantly carries no negative connotation. Actually, it can convey a certain positive cache. That word is "Private." "The aircraft is registered as privately built". The aircraft is placarded as "Private". "John Smith, owner of a popular privately built aircraft".......you get the idea. Anything but "homebuilt"...don't you agree? So, what do you bring to the table? Who knows? In a brave new world of instant worldwide communications, your word(s) could potentially supercede the outdated 20th Century code that describes our 21st Century passion. So let's hear it!

Click to expand...

I read something years ago...I believe that it was Rod Machado who wrote about how we should describe our planes;

"Don't tell people you're building a homebuilt because they'll think 'Oh my gawd, he's going to crash that thing!"

"Don't tell people you're building an experimental because then they'll think 'Only Chuck Yeager can fly experimentals!"

Tell people it's custom-built because IT IS! Rosie

I just tell people what it is. A kit plane. I didn't design it. I just bought the parts and followed the instructions. (and cussed and screamed and kicked myself and bought the same parts several times cuz I screwed them up and annoyed the neighbors with riveting and...) And I really like it!

"Custom Built" has been brought up before and I prefer it. But unless you've got some horsepower with the Feds to change the designation I doubt it will change. Just use the right wording with your relatives and the media and I bet most of them would not know the difference anyway.

Custom Aircraft?

I?ve been thinking about this for a while and thought I?d throw it out there to see what others might think of this.

In the world we live in, where words can have various meanings (Clinton said: "it all depends on what the word "is" means) and perception is everything (ex. the 5 second sound bite rules the media), does the term "experimental" aircraft have a negative perception, OUTSIDE of the experimental aircraft community? And would we be better served by using another term with non-experimental aircraft people and the Media. The EAA year after year works hard at presenting a positive face on the hobby, and does a great job! But in the grand scheme of things, when talking to the average Joe on the street, that is not farmiliar with aviation other than the commercial airliner he fly's on occationally, it still has little impact.

Here's an example of what I mean. When John Denver died a few years back, the news media kept saying that he died while flying an "experimental" aircraft. The general perception that most people had that I talked to (non-aircraft enthusiasts) was that he was reckless and a risk taker, and that it finally caught up with him. The word ?experimental? seems to imply that the aircraft is still in development, unproven, and unsafe.

Yes, the term ?experimental? is the legal term the FAA has designated for this type of aircraft and it must receive the FAA Airworthiness Certificate before it will ever get off the ground. Most builders enjoy the freedom they have in creating their own ?personalized? aircraft, which in most cases has features and performance that far exceed that of certified aircraft. But, could we use a non-legal ?street? term like ?custom aircraft?? The word ?custom? is used all the time in the automotive world and has a positive connotation and means something special. Some builders start with an existing auto and modify (MOD?s) it to their personal creative liking. Some build their ?custom? car from a kit, while others build it from the ground up from scratch. But, anyway you like it, when someone hears of a ?custom? car or hot rod, it is ALL positive. Some people may not understand why someone would put all that time and money doing the ?custom car? thing, but they do not think of it in negative terms. In fact, most are envious of the cars produced. So, isn't that what we are doing? Custom aircraft IS what they are, after all. One off, one of a kind, there are not 2 alike. Just like the custom hot rods.

Finally, I am not suggesting that the EAA change their name to the CAA (Custom Aircraft Association), or that we petition the FAA to change the name of the aircraft category, but rather that we use a conscious effort to control our language when around the general public and the media, and use the term ?custom aircraft? for the advancement of the sport/hobby.

Does anyone agree?

Yes

Good points, Vic. We used to be called Crop-dusters for years because that's how it started......dusting crops with dust. By the seventies, dusting had ended and we were only spraying liquids. Concerned ag-pilots decided that we'd be better served by renaming ourselves Ag-pilots. So that's what we did and it has been positive...also "Agricultural Aviation".

Regards,

I disagree

From thie time I was a small boy "experimental" has had special significance in aviation. While it is true people flying homebuilt aircraft don't do much in an experimental mode each one is unique and not just another production line airplane with some custom modifications. If you get into a safe and comfortable image concern you invite FAA control. Some of us need the freedom embodied in "Experimental" to make it clear that we are authorized to experiment. This was hashed out in "Sport Aviation" a few years ago and the pro and con arguments are stated there.

Last week we flew our RV-6A to New York for our 40th anniversary celebration. I flew IFR all the way there and half the way back. Controllers are aware I'm sure that Experimentals are equipped very differently and many cannot qualify for the "/U" equipment category. Ours does qualify for that equipment level but the work load is significant in areas like New York and Los Angeles if you are not familiar with the area and amendments to clearances are common. If you pop up for an instrument approach and identify the plane as an experimental the controller may ask very pointedly whether the plane and you are certified and qualified to make the approach with good reason.

Changing the name will not change the reality of the situation and changing the reality of the situation will kill the freedom to develop and experiment that we have today.

Bob Axsom

Bespoke airplane?

Bob Axsom said:

Changing the name will not change the reality of the situation and changing the reality of the situation will kill the freedom to develop and experiment that we have today.
Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

I agree, leave it alone.

To automobile enthusiasts "Custom" means a modified production vehicle, frequently with ill-advised modifications and alterations. The term "custom aircraft" brings a mental picture of a flame-painted C-172, not a carefully crafted experimental aircraft.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Bob, no argument with your post, but you were talking to and about professionals in the air traffic control industry.

As I read the original post in this thread, I got the feeling the target audience to be twofold, first the sensation seeking scumbags in the media who have no idea what the term "experimental" refers to, and who abuse the term in an attempt to make their stories seem to be more than they really are, and second the general public who the media types are feeding their inciteful **** to.

I think the idea of a verbiage "face lift" has a lot of merit, (not sure if "Custom" is the best) for years the EAA has been trying to "educate" the masses, but unfortunately, with little effect. But the fact still remains that when reporting on anything having to do with "expirmental" aviation, the media almost always either blows things totally out of proportion, or gets things wrong , or both.

Bob Axsom said:

From thie time I was a small boy "experimental" has had special significance in aviation. While it is true people flying homebuilt aircraft don't do much in an experimental mode each one is unique and not just another production line airplane with some custom modifications. If you get into a safe and comfortable image concern you invite FAA control. Some of us need the freedom embodied in "Experimental" to make it clear that we are authorized to experiment. This was hashed out in "Sport Aviation" a few years ago and the pro and con arguments are stated there.

Last week we flew our RV-6A to New York for our 40th anniversary celebration. I flew IFR all the way there and half the way back. Controllers are aware I'm sure that Experimentals are equipped very differently and many cannot qualify for the "/U" equipment category. Ours does qualify for that equipment level but the work load is significant in areas like New York and Los Angeles if you are not familiar with the area and amendments to clearances are common. If you pop up for an instrument approach and identify the plane as an experimental the controller may ask very pointedly whether the plane and you are certified and qualified to make the approach with good reason.

Changing the name will not change the reality of the situation and changing the reality of the situation will kill the freedom to develop and experiment that we have today.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

Bob,
I didn't see the "Sport Aviation" article so I'm not sure of what was discussed. I wasn't proposing changing any legal things like FAA aircraft category, such as LSA, etc. I was referring to the language we use when speaking with non-aircraft types. That's all. The references that you mention above have to do with communicating with other people in the aviation world (towers, centers, etc.)

need the RNC wordsmiths

This is a great idea though I don't know if I like "Custom Plane" any better. Wordsmithing is done a lot these days. Hare are some examples:

Estate Tax sounded tame so it was changed to the more menacing Death Tax

Intact dilation and extraction doesn't sound so bad so this became Partial Birth Abortion

Handicapp became Physically challenged.

So instead of the dreaded "Experimental Aircraft" maybe something like Amateur or Owner Built Aircraft would sound less risky but still remain descriptive.

RNC wordsmithing and name changes...

w1curtis said:

This is a great idea though I don't know if I like "Custom Plane" any better. Wordsmithing is done a lot these days. Hare are some examples:
......

Click to expand...

I think the folks who could argue the meaning of the word "is" could do better wordsmithing.....

Back on subject....

IIRC, the EAA had officially applied to the FAA for a change from "Experimental" to "Custom Aircraft" or something similar (in the 80's?) but was rejected....

gil A

Rosie,
You make some good points.

Also, if people look at the EAA Magazine's front cover they
will see 'Sport Aviation', it hasn't been 'The Experimenter'
for many years.
Directly under that logo is: 'The Magazine of Recreational Aviation'.

Tom

I've been using the term 'custom built' for quite some time. IMHO, it's a better description of what we do in this segment of the general aviation community.

When we make modifications to a proven design or design and build from scratch we are indeed experimenting, but once the flight testing is complete and the design has been proven are we still experimenting?

I think 'custom built' creates a positive image that competes well with 'factory built' and in many cases means better than factory built. However, I have also seen a few 'custom built' vehicles of all stripes that are just plain better described as 'experimental'.

Frankly, I would rather fly an airplane built by just one to a few knowledgable builders rather than one that is built on an assembly line, and to me, that is the essence of what custom built means.

Some of us are still experimenting

Well, I must say I am a little supprised by the posts to this thread. When I read the first post, I expected to see a firestorm of protests against the idea. After all, there have been a lot of people grumbling lately about the direction that the EAA seems to be taking in regards to "experimental" aviation. With all of their efforts directed towards Light Sport Aircraft and virtually no time spent on experimentation, many people have suggested that the EAA should remove the "Experimental" from their title and go with somethng more appropriate like LSAA. Then, maybe another organization could spring up and become the new EAA.

The truth is that some of us are still experimenting, not just customizing. Unless you build your aircraft to the exact specifications of the kit supplier, then you are building an experimental aircraft. That aircraft needs to be proven before you can allow other people to ride in it.

I still see a lot of experimentation going on in homebuilt aircraft. We have builders developing new ideas for lighting, new engine monitors, new avionics, and even new engines. Sure, there's a lot of what would be considered customization, but there is still a lot of actual experimentation going on. Calling this activity "Custom built" is just part of what I consider to be the pussification of America, which started in the late 70's and early 80's with the introduction of "Politically Correct" to the English language.

I say, let's not remove "Experimental" from the description of what we do; otherwise, we will end up with a kinder, gentler set of regs, where we may not be able to experiment any more. But, that's just my opinion.

Tracy.

A Rose is a Rose.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is the safety record of experimental aircraft is not as good as certified aircraft.

That's OK with me. I think that my plane is safer the the average certified aircraft.

When I think about buying a new plane, there is some extra though that would be need before purchasing an experimental plane.
If the plane was certified, then I know that the plane will comply with the type certificate (although it may need some work/repairs). With an experimental I need to be concerned with other factors.

Let me pick on my plane for a moment.
My plane came out a little heavier than I wanted, so I upped the gross weight by 50 lbs. Yes I did to flight testing at the higher weight. I have some switches that direct NAV signal between the SL30 and the EFIS, but can also direct the 430 to the EFIS.

There are a lot of operation difference between my plane and another RV9A. These all work for me, but if you were to buy my plane you would be certainly be doing some experimenting.

This is exactly what kill John Denver. The fuel selector was place in a non standard location. Well maybe that didn't kill him, but it did contribute to the accident.

Pilots of both experimental and certified are risk takers, but don't have to be reckless. The media will do what it does best with any story regardless what we call our form of aircraft.

No need to try and change the name, just do what you can to educate both the public and media.

Kent

Politically incorrect...

Tracy, I love your new term for "politically correct"! It is so much more descriptive.

Vic,

Now, that's what I call customization.

BTW, I hope you don't ever turn that thing upside down and need someone to help pull you out. No one would get near it. That thing's truely on fire!

Cheers,
Tracy.

thallock said:

Vic,

Now, that's what I call customization.

BTW, I hope you don't ever turn that thing upside down and need someone to help pull you out. No one would get near it. That thing's truely on fire!

Cheers,
Tracy.

Click to expand...

I wish that was my Custom RV, but alas it's not. I'm not sure who it belongs
to. I found it on a custom painting website: http://www.killerpaint.com/index.html

BTW, I'm am not affiliated with this company. Just general info. My daughter has worked with Mike Lavalle on a past project.

The word experimental

There are two related topics here so hope I don’t confuse anyone. 1) the word experimental and how it sounds to others 2) how to increase participation in GA

Topic 1
Whenever I mention the word “experimental” in association with, or describing aircraft, non-aircraft type people always make some remark about how I must be a daredevil or a crazy.

Now, I know this is nothing new. I have heard this sort of story before. But I am wondering if this is just bad marketing for our way of life? Is there a better way for us to introduce our interest to people not familiar with experimental aircraft?

Topic 2
My other worry is that I am considered a young pilot at most of the gatherings, and I am “middle aged”. Where are all the 16-20yr olds? The only ones I know of have always had planes in their life. (father, mother, uncle, etc)

Why are airports disappearing? How do we increase interest? Is there some sort of soft introduction that we are not doing? (ex. Restaurant on field open to the public that has radio on each table. Or how about plane themed playgrounds on field?) This whole TSA thing and cordoning off the areas around airports is not helping the issue.

I know about young eagles and the civil air patrol, but what else are we doing?

Is there a better word than experimental (craftsmanship vs. mass production sort of thing)?

Are aircraft just too expensive to live on? ($100K LSA’s are not the answer)

Thoughts anyone???

experimental

I've had the very same thoughts.

The LSA thing is not taking off like they thought it would. I think its the $100k
plus price tag.

And then there's hanger fees, fuel, insurance....etc.

This aviation thing is just darn expensive and with the economies around the world suffering, I don't think things will get better.

In my hunting days, I noticed upland game birds (quail) stay on the ground unless they have to fly to escape danger. Flight must be expensive for them too

My -9A will come in around $45k and my hanger is only $190/month.

So I will just need a little for insurance and fuel to go flying.

I think the future for GA (if there is one) is homebuilts.

Just my thoughts....

Dave
-9A getting ready to order FWF kit.
N514R reserved

There are no experimental aircraft in Canada they are known as home-built or amateur built. Still get weird looks from people that think we are crazy.
I don't flying is any more expensive than it was 40 years ago. It took 8 hours of work then to rent a plane and it still takes about that much work. If you take in inflation it is cheaper.

Yes, the word "experimental" seems to indicate that we are "unsure" weather or not it will fly. Not too many want to join us on our little "experiments".

I try to use the word "home built" or just "aircraft".

Yes, the world of GA is changing. I am afraid not for the good. We can all help by taking someone flying. We are all ambassador's for our industry. Try to keep it exciting!

I Get the same issue with the word EXPERIMENTAL

But I don't care. I'm proud to have an experimental and every plane I've built (2) had the word painted on the side in full view.

I just say it's a legal term--all homebuilts are "experimental," even though they may not be tried and true designs. That usually works.

Getting younger people involved--that's something else. As President of our EAA chapter, I tried for two years to get a school involved in an aircraft building project. Two hours before my last meeting as President, I got a call from a teacher. It looks like it is going to happen! These are the things that will get kids out to the airport again. An RV-12 should be a good High school project, and if all goes as planned, this one will be pre-sold. Lots of details, however...

Bob Kelly

It's a sign of the times too

I got my introduction to GA while I was in the Air Force. I lived off base and supplemented my income by working at the Apple Valley Calif airport. I was lucky enough to meet someone who owned a Cessna 150 and he was looking for someone to keep him company. I learned how to fly in the 150 but didn't have enough money for a formal check ride. Then life happened, kids, college, work etc. I didn't get back to it until 1990 some twenty three years later. I don't know how many pilots would feel comfortable now giving kids a ride due to the litigious world we live in these days. Young eagles is a one time thing for most kids and they don't get the feel of being around the plane for more than a half hour or so. Another factor has to be cost. When you have a young family there just isn't the room in the budget for the costs of flying. As a result many don't get into it until they do have some free cash and even then it may be a long slow process.
I wish I had the answers! I'm still working on my long very slow build -6A but some day soon it will take me back to the sky and I hope to bring my grandkids along.

Paul

Mike D said:

Topic 1
Whenever I mention the word “experimental” in association with, or describing aircraft, non-aircraft type people always make some remark about how I must be a daredevil or a crazy.

Now, I know this is nothing new. I have heard this sort of story before. But I am wondering if this is just bad marketing for our way of life? Is there a better way for us to introduce our interest to people not familiar with experimental aircraft?.

Click to expand...

I think the work experimental is appropriate. In Canada our regulations call it Amateur Built Aircraft, and I feel either phrase to the general public is interchangeable.

Those who are not associated with the industry are generally ignorant to facts about general aviation and experimental/amateur built aircraft. Regardless how we plan on marketing our way of life, people will still be ignorant. I think the only way to introduce and interest people not familiar with our category of aircraft is to act as professionals held to a high standard; which we are. Eliminate the opportunity for someone to call you crazy, or a cowboy for building an aircraft. Educate them on the technical details, how structural limitations go above and beyond certified aircraft, how we are held to the same standard of safety.

I think that no matter how you slice it, those who know nothing about aviation will still find experimental aircraft inherently "crazy".

Mike D said:

Topic 2
My other worry is that I am considered a young pilot at most of the gatherings, and I am “middle aged”. Where are all the 16-20yr olds? The only ones I know of have always had planes in their life. (father, mother, uncle, etc)

Why are airports disappearing? How do we increase interest? Is there some sort of soft introduction that we are not doing? (ex. Restaurant on field open to the public that has radio on each table. Or how about plane themed playgrounds on field?) This whole TSA thing and cordoning off the areas around airports is not helping the issue.

I know about young eagles and the civil air patrol, but what else are we doing?

Is there a better word than experimental (craftsmanship vs. mass production sort of thing)?

Are aircraft just too dam expensive to live on? ($100K LSA’s are not the answer)

Thoughts anyone???

Click to expand...

We, the "young pilots", are out there. I have been flying since I was 16, and was a Commercial pilot by 18. Now, I'm 21 year old with a CPL, Aerial Applicators License, Float Endorsed, Canadian and New Zealand Glider Instructor and building an RV-8. No one in my family is a pilot or was associated with aviation in the past.

To answer what are we doing/what can we do? I am an Officer in the Canadian Forces and work with our local Air Cadet Squadron. I volunteer my time and teach ground school to help these kids work towards obtaining their Glider and Power Scholarships. I work at an Air Cadet gliding centre that fly's kids from 12-18. We do over 50 000 familiarization flights each year in Central Canada alone! I fundraise money to fly the local Air Cadets for local power familiarization flights.

So what can we/you do? Get involved with the Royal Canadian Air Cadet Organisation. Get involved with the Civil Air Patrol. Get involved with the New Zealand Air Training Corp. Find up the local gliding centre and organised a youth flying camp with reduced rates.

When I was 12, my local flight training unit held a "Top Gun" Flight Camp. One week long, 4 hours of flight time, get your radio operators certificate, build model planes, have a flying competition....tons of stuff that kids would enjoy. Go to your local Flight Training Unit and organise something like this.

Each year I help organised the Canadian Junior Soaring Camp hosted by SOSA Gliding Club in Rockton, Ontario. 2010 Will be our 7th Annual Camp for junior pilots (16-26). I have been helping organize this camp for the past 5 years now. We get sponsorship for reduce rate flying for youth at the gliding club. The Gliding club has reduced rate block times, and reduced rate membership fees for youth, and still maintains access to all club equipment. We have young pilots from all around Canada attend this flying camp!

I guess the main concept here is to be open minded. If nothing is in place for junior pilots, then get involved and start brainstorming!

Now for the cold hard and bitter truth. Where the real problem is; The cost of aviation. A dual flight in a C172 now-a-days can range +/- $190CND/hr plus tax! In order to cover this cost a kid has to work part time during school for a full week just for one hour. All while paying for rediculous car insurance rates, fuel, any loans, tuition, books, living expenses in general etc. It is hands down more difficult for youth to budget aviation into their life than an adult with the opportunity for full time employment.

This is why funding for events, EAA Young Eagles, COPA scholarships, West Jest Scholarships, Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Canadian Junior Soaring Camps all have to be available at rates affordable for youth of today.

No use.........

RFazio said:

But I don't care. I'm proud to have an experimental and every plane I've built (2) had the word painted on the side in full view.

Click to expand...

trying to "Candy Coat It", we build experimental's (although it's not to much of an experiment with Van's any longer). Some the planes should have 3" letters, some should have 12" letters, but everyone should know what they're getting into. I plan on using "experimental" to screen passengers.

I agree with Richard, needs to be out in the open, fully understood. Richard that is a beautiful airplane, love the paint scheme.

I use the term "kitplane" more than not. If I have to expand on that, I say it's a Van's kit, of which about 6600 are flying. If taken farther, I say that all kinds of pilots fly them, such as airline, F-16, F-18, and even a Airbus 380 test pilot. At that point, the person believes it must be a pretty decent aircraft.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

People are "ignorant" because there is no visibility. I took flying lessons at 14 and even went to school for aerospace engineering. If you would have asked me what experimental or homebuilt meant up until I found the EAA, I would have said ultralights.

You don't ever see commercials for anything related to general aviation. Not flying lessons, not Cessna, AOPA, EAA, not anything. There are commercials for BASF, who propose that you don't even buy anything from them. (If I can't buy something from them, why would they advertise?)

I also question young eagles. I suppose there might be a few tenths of a percent uptick in people interested in GA from it, in a few decades. I'd rather see something aimed at adults too.

If I were king I'd kill off LSA and 3rd class medicals. Then I'd open up all certified AC to modification by A&P's. Don't want that 40yr old battery, no problem. If I were king..

This what people think of when they think of Experimental Aviation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAXs3UEDOS0&feature=related

I guess you folks will have to do something different

These RVs are experimental and no two are alike - some are quite bad! I quess it is understandable that someone who has bought an RV and has no concept of what has gone into it would like to rationalize it as just like a certified airplane. "Experimental" is a badge of honor and if you want some milk toast goody group huggy sensation take up bowling or golf. This is dangerous as **** and if you don't recognize that you are more vulnerable to getting killed by it that those who do recognize it. I constantly experiment with my airplane and I certainly don't want some risk management regulatory responsibility assumed by the government to kill my freedom to do just that.

OK shoot me.

Bob Axsom

Mike D said:

There are two related topics here so hope I don?t confuse anyone. 1) the word experimental and how it sounds to others 2) how to increase participation in GA

Topic 1
Whenever I mention the word ?experimental? in association with, or describing aircraft, non-aircraft type people always make some remark about how I must be a daredevil or a crazy.

Now, I know this is nothing new. I have heard this sort of story before. But I am wondering if this is just bad marketing for our way of life? Is there a better way for us to introduce our interest to people not familiar with experimental aircraft?

Topic 2
My other worry is that I am considered a young pilot at most of the gatherings, and I am ?middle aged?. Where are all the 16-20yr olds? The only ones I know of have always had planes in their life. (father, mother, uncle, etc)

Why are airports disappearing? How do we increase interest? Is there some sort of soft introduction that we are not doing? (ex. Restaurant on field open to the public that has radio on each table. Or how about plane themed playgrounds on field?) This whole TSA thing and cordoning off the areas around airports is not helping the issue.

I know about young eagles and the civil air patrol, but what else are we doing?

Is there a better word than experimental (craftsmanship vs. mass production sort of thing)?

Are aircraft just too dam expensive to live on? ($100K LSA?s are not the answer)

Thoughts anyone???

Click to expand...

Michael,

To address your concern about the classification "experimental" - it is not all that important.

Most of my non flying friends can not resist asking about it at a party. I sense that some are a little bored with golf and wish they had a broader view of life. Building and flying your own airplane is very special and to change the certification designation to something other than experimental would make it a little less special. It is an experimental effort, why not call it that?

You must have missed Oshkosh 2009. It was one of the most successful conventions in years. It was all about experimental aviation being celebrated by many aviators flying to the event, (well over 10,000 airplanes, about 1400 experimental) plus many thousands of non aviators in their motor homes, bikes, cars and trucks. The airport was jammed, the camp ground was jammed and there wasn't a motel room for miles. This segment of aviation is very much alive.

OK, so the effort is perhaps a bit more exclusive than 50 years ago when Cessna and Piper were cranking out airplanes by the dozens each month, all when the country had a 100 million fewer people and airport land was cheaper. Today the focus is more on what we do here, build our own and fly 'em from where ever we can. Air park communities are becoming a viable option.

Yes, it costs money to become a pilot and own an airplane. Relative to the economy, it has always been expensive. But people who want to fly, find a way to do it. There are a gazillion stories right here on this forum about how each person became what he is.

You mention $100,000 for a LSA as not being the answer. That isn't the answer but it does not have to cost 100 grand to build and fly a LSA airplane. Fisher Flying Products has 15 models ranging in kit price from $5200-$14,999. Hang an engine and one should be able to do it for less than 30 grand with some models.

It won't have 2 glass panels but it will fly.

I don't think it is all as gloomy as your topics A and B would indicate.

I am pretty sure the original thread was asking how we can better convey to the general public the concept of an experimental aircraft. Some people really do think you are gluing toothpicks and cray paper together and plan to jump off a bridge with it.

I think it's a fair question that was asked. I don't think it was asked as an effort to undermine the prestige of building your own aircraft.

Cost of flying

Norman CYYJ said:

I don't flying is any more expensive than it was 40 years ago. It took 8 hours of work then to rent a plane and it still takes about that much work.

Click to expand...

According to http://www.measuringworth.com/, in the 40 years from 1967 to 2007 the average nominal unskilled wage in the U.S. went up by a factor of about 6.4.

Looking at archived classified ads I can find online from 1967, FBO wet rental on a new Cessna 172 was about $12/hr.

If the cost of flying tracked unskilled wages, FBO wet rental on a new 172 in 2007 would be about $77/hr. In fact it's more like $120 to $140/hr.

So I would say that for normal working folks, private flying is significantly more expensive than it was 40 years ago... 70% or 80% more.

(In those same 40 years the consumer price index went up by a factor of about 6.2, so if you just look at that, flying looks relatively even more expensive.)

--Paul

Thanks all!

Thanks everyone for your responses.
Tony is right about my intentions on asking the questions.

I went to Oshkosh this year and was amazed at the over 600K people. I was amazed when they had to rent the adjacent farms to house extra campers. The volunteers are great! The amount diversity is huge. Airventure is absolutely amazing!!! 2nd year and the wife loves it. But when I tell people I spent my week vacation at an air show, they say, ?WHAT?!?? ?Did your wife go?? and they turn to my wife and ask, ?Do you really want to spend your vacation like that??

I too find pride in owning an experimental. The reason I bought instead of building has to do with time, work schedule, and economics. I am a builder, I just haven?t built yet. But by owning an RV, I am learning what I will build and how I will build it.

I really don?t think the problem with GA is the cost. I know teenagers who spend as much fixing up their cars as it would cost to build and fly an RV. I think the problem is exposure, or the lack of it. And yes, this is dangerous stuff. But nowhere near as dangerous as illegal drag racing, drugs, or gang banging. I think the positives far outweigh the dangers. But this is slightly off topic. I am not asking how to save our kids through GA. That is a much bigger topic.

What I am asking is how do we market GA from a grass roots way better. I think young eagles is a huge help and I would never downplay the effort, but it is a limited time engagement. How can we make this better???

Adam, Great post!!!!!!!! Would love to know more. This is exactly what I was looking for. How were you introduced to GA if no one in your family was associated with it? For me, my grandfather was a pilot in WWII, and my uncles good friend, Pat, owned a Citabria that I got my first ride in. Experimental was the best fit for my DIY personality.

When the general public thinks GA or small plane, they think rich and exclusive. They think they don?t have the money and they are not invited. My questions are on how do we change that stereotype? I believe that stereotype will be the death of GA. I also believe the best thing GA has going for it is the ?experimental? market. I just feel we could be marketing GA better. I think we could be marketing the kit built market better. Where else can you have so many choices and opportunities to enter aviation at a variety of prices and diversified interests?

How cool is it to build and fly your own plane?? How much pride do you feel when you accomplish that? Now, How do we communicate this excitement to the rest of the world?

How/Where should I spend my very limited time/money?

Airports are being turned into housing developments and industrial parks. Same deal with farm land. I think they call it urban sprawl.

Young people are too busy buying houses and raising kids to be involved in flying. There's no time and no money until the kids are gone.

Some people think you're crazy if you own a Harley. How much crazier do you have to be to own an airplane. Guess I can always console myself that I don't base jump. Now that is crazy.

With the financial demands of housing, autos, college, and retirement funding I'm surprised anyone can afford to fly. It's just not an option or desire for most people. Most are satisfied with a Harley or a boat.

Why do we feel compelled to share the joy?

Mike D said:

Thanks everyone for your responses.
.....................What I am asking is how do we market GA from a grass roots way better. I think young eagles is a huge help and I would never downplay the effort, but it is a limited time engagement. How can we make this better???..........

........... I also believe the best thing GA has going for it is the ?experimental? market. I just feel we could be marketing GA better. I think we could be marketing the kit built market better..............

.................How do we communicate this excitement to the rest of the world?

How/Where should I spend my very limited time/money?

Click to expand...

Why do we feel compelled to share the joy that aviation brings to us?????

I ask this rhetorically, as I also frequently find myself evangelizing to the earthbound,the wonders of flight and the joys and satisfactions of, building, owning, maintaining a machine that became an airplane as the result of pursuing and realized a dream. More often than not, when I pause to take in oxygen, I get a glimpse of the persons face and realize that the shower of sparks sent off by my passionate pleading failed to ignite a fuse. There was a time I questioned, 'what shortcoming keeps me from unlocking in others the almost spiritual meanings that aviation holds for me'?
I'm retired, and when I can, I spend time at the airport, why? because the people that I talk to there 'get it'. They've all gone through the 'conversion' and the conversations that ensue, result in showers of sparks that nearly always generate heat.
I've come to believe and accept that most of the earthbound world just doesn't care. or perhaps said another way, their shower of sparks arises from other sources.
Not everyone will become a pilot, or build their own airplane. And for me that's OK. In fact, I take some satisfaction in knowing that. The satisfaction doesn't come from the small numbers or being a part of an exclusive fraternity, but it comes from knowing that those who share with me the meaning of aviation do so because it means more to them than a lot of other things in the world do. It means enough for them to seek out information, set a goal, put together a plan, sacrifice or forgo other pleasures and to finally accomplish a dream or goal.
I may be fooling myself, but I don't think that most of us who have arrived at this destination did so because of some exceptional marketing. But rather because it was something we sought and found.

Stop preaching to the choir

I think that the celebrities that have chaired the Young Eagles program have missed the point. Has anyone ever heard any of them mention the Young Eagles program "outside" of the aviation community? Maybe I just didn't hear it but did Harrison Ford ever go on Letterman, Leno or Entertainment Tonight and say "go to youngeagles.org for info on how your child can get a free ride in an airplane"?

About a month ago one of the members of a Los Angeles morning radio show spotted Harrison Ford at the airport. No one in the studio had any idea he was a pilot. Now he's taking part in AOPA's "GA Serves America" program. I know this because I have been getting fliers from the AOPA. Again, I'm sorry if I missed it but shouldn't they put adds in Time, Newsweek or Reader's Digest and save their money on printing and postage?

The EAA and AOPA keep preaching to the choir but we're not the ones that need to hear it.

Shockwave said:

I also question young eagles. I suppose there might be a few tenths of a percent uptick in people interested in GA from it, in a few decades. I'd rather see something aimed at adults too.

This what people think of when they think of Experimental Aviation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAXs3UEDOS0&feature=related

Click to expand...

I think Young Eagles does work, but to your point, it takes a few decades. I got a ride in a 172 at 10yrs old and wanted to fly ever since. An injury at the last minute prevented my planned Air Force Academy attendance, then life happened and it took until I was in my mid-thirties to finally have the financial stability to get my PPL. And the only way I'll own my own plane is building it with a partner who also doesn't have the funds to do it alone.

That said, I agree some effort should be made to market flying to people in their 20's and 30's. How much money is spent on skiing/snowboarding, atv's, snowmobiles, boats, etc. by people looking to get a "legal" high that doesn't come close to the satisfaction and adrenaline rush of a 1st solo? The only one in the industry that are talking about this is Icon Aircraft, who, by the way, already has 450 orders, 25% of which are from non-pilots.

On a different note, I just read "Wingwalker," about a family of aviation pioneers in Wisconsin. In 1919, it cost Roy Larson $500 for 10 hours of instruction. According to an online inflation calculator, that's about $6400 2008 dollars -- about what my 50+ or so hours in a 150 cost to get my PPL. Barnstormers in that era charged $5 ($64) for a 5 min ride. Maybe aviation isn't so much more expensive after all, its all in your perspective.

Think like a government employee who is in charge of aviation certification. A plane crashes and the public hears "experimental", they don't necessarily blame the government folks who allowed this plane to be certified. They think it's the fault of some crazy risk taker pilot. Conversely, if the motor falls off a certified airplane it's not conducive to a long career for the certifier.
A good analogy would be experimental drugs.
We get a lot of freedoms out of the experimental designation, don't mess with what works.

FAA coming around?

The FAA accepts "RV6" as aircrat type in the FAA flight plan. However we are still to advise towered aiports of our experimental origins.

David-aviator said:

I have never believed aviation needs to be sold. It sells itself. Those who belong in the cockpit will find a way to get there. Sometimes those who do not belong there get there. Its like any other endeavor, a good doctor is just that because he loves medicine. Same is true of flying airplanes.

Click to expand...

What would be the harm in a tv commercial with Rod Machado (or Harrison Ford) saying you too can learn to fly?

Shockwave said:

What would be the harm in a tv commercial with Rod Machado (or Harrison Ford) saying you too can learn to fly?

Click to expand...

Certainly no harm - but who's going to pay for that tv commercial?

The reason it is not run is there is no economic incentive to do it. If there were, Cessna and Piper and the remaining flight schools would do it immediately. Most people know they could learn to fly, at least those interested, but they are not doing it because of the cost. Or they don't want to end up in the obituary column.

Same for changing the word "experimental". Using these big names to get people to listen - there is no economic incentive to do it. EAA is making lots of money on our "experimental" tag. It won't be changed to something more polite. Too many people like it the way it is for lots of reasons - and some of those reasons are money.

I would prefer the word "custom aircraft."

After all, they are changing "uncontrolled" airports to "non-towered." Words can change.

I got into flying because I watched Sky King as a kid.

All very good points.

Just my opinion, but it is fairly obvious that GA does need better marketing. Why? Because the general public is unaware of the basics of GA. Airports are closing and will never come back. The general public sees no benefit in GA. Las Vegas even tried to “outlaw” experimentals from using the airport. The media loves to add the word “experimental” to add a level of sensationalism. Pilots are seen as rich daredevils. These are all symptoms of bad marketing. We all know the benefits of GA to the general public, but as it has been said, “we are preaching to the choir”. I’m not looking for a commercial on TV, but that would not be a bad thing. I am not really looking to change the word “experimental”. But I am looking to change the way the public perceives it.

There are several steps in getting acceptance in a product or a service.
1)Awareness, 2)Consideration, 3)Selection, 4)Purchase, 5)Initial experience, 6)Use and learn, 7)Repurchase and recommend.
Hopefully all of us on these boards are on step seven. But I would argue that most of the general public is only barely on step one.

IMO, This is not like becoming a doctor because generally GA airplanes are an outlay of money, not a an income, and most people know doctors spent a lot of time and money becoming one. The GP thinks becoming a pilot is like getting a drivers license. Doctors are admired. Experimental pilots are seen as crazies who built some flying contraption out of left over wood and bed sheets.

My inquiry is on how I can become a better ambassador to GA and experimental aircraft. How can we introduce others to our life? (without getting caught in a lawsuit) I get the AOPA’s requests for more money to fight for GA, but I think there is a better way than just signing a check.

I agree with Spindrift. Young Eagles is great but we should be have some level of program to introduce (reintroduce) aviation to 20 and 30 year olds. We have all made great sacrifices to be involved in this lifestyle. This is a lifestyle, and not a hobby, because of the amount it takes over your life. What finally pushed me into getting off my butt and jumping in was the amount of ads I saw of people selling their almost finished experimental due to loss of medical. Even then it took me 8-years to re-engineer my life to fit it in. The movie UP! Is great (and deep) for relating the idea of how life gets in the way, but most people don’t do the “following” part of their dreams once life sets in. Sad.

If for no other reason than economies of scale, and to ease the political attics on GA, I would hope more people would get involved in GA.

Maybe I am just idealistic.

Again, just my opinion, I would love to hear yours.

"Experimental" has and will probably always have a negative perception when applied to aircraft. Why keep it just because it has been used for decades?

And why do we have to use it with ATC?

the AOPA Should Have a Marketing Campaign

I think the AOPA should have a marketing campaign aimed at policy makers and the general public. They could call it "GA serves America".

What's in a name?

Humm, so I tried to research charitable, or mercy flights but they all seem to exclude experimental.

Seems like there almost needs to be two categories of ?experimental?. Just thinking out loud here but, RV?s, kitfox?s, and others with a significant number of flying aircraft are not the same as a one off design. At some point should these type of aircraft be moved to a ?distributed manufacture? designation?

Why would you not want to allow an RV-10 pilot to help someone to get to their hospital appointment? This seems like a great way to show the value of GA.

Mike D said:

Humm, so I tried to research charitable, or mercy flights but they all seem to exclude experimental.

Seems like there almost needs to be two categories of ?experimental?. Just thinking out loud here but, RV?s, kitfox?s, and others with a significant number of flying aircraft are not the same as a one off design. At some point should these type of aircraft be moved to a ?distributed manufacture? designation?

Why would you not want to allow an RV-10 pilot to help someone to get to their hospital appointment? This seems like a great way to show the value of GA.

Click to expand...

Consider this: even if RVs and other similar kits are highly engineered so that individual examples are likely to be well-built, their designs are basically unregulated.

There are many important characterstics that have to meet standards for certified aircraft, such as: stability margins, spin & recovery characteristics, fuel system design, design "G" loads, stick force per "G", stall speed, etc. etc.

I'm building an RV-9 so I certaintly trust by reputation that reasonable design choices have been made in these areas, but Vans hasn't had to prove it to the government. Furthermore, some of those choices might make RVs better planes for a careful builder/pilot but not suitable for an "average" pilot.

The hospital patient would frequently be a stranger to the pilot and doesn't have a knowledge base for evaluating whether riding in an experimental aircraft is a safe and reasonable choice.

On the other hand, LSAs have some of the characteristics you're talking about and can be manufactured in a "distributed" fashion.