Van writes an article on the future of GA

Thought the VAF crew might like to read Van's latest article, just published on Air Facts. He writes about how to make a stronger GA and what role his airplanes can play. Good reading: http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/10/vans-aircraft-how-to-keep-the-water-flowing/

Thanks!

Thanks John! I love reading Van's articles. He has a great way of saying things in a way that just makes sense.

That's a great article. Access and introductions to aviation are the key for sure. I just wish we could get rid of the fences around airports. Nothing says "stay away" like a chain link fence around all the pretty airplanes.

Bring back the fun!

I agree with the article and have witnessed, first-hand, the European flying club formula. When I recently went to Poland to visit family (wife's from Poland), we decided to drive around and check out all the "local" fields near where my family lives. What we discovered, was there are generally two types of fields:

1) there's the fairly "closed" privat-ish field, with fences and gates all around, hangars, large(r) planes and few operations/people. It was a public field, but you needed codes to get in (how public is that?). When I walked up to some people near a hangar, I had a cold reception. When I told them the name of the person who told us to come check out the field, that person was promptly called and questioned. Then there were some mild pleasantries and ultimately a return to their hangar.

2) there's the "recreational" fields (usually grass), with active flying clubs, sky diving ops, gliders, older planes packed into smaller (shared) hangars, pubs with open "picnic style" dining on the field, complete with playgrounds for the kids, etc. While I was there, just walking around, I met the airport manager, who came up to say hello, several "tourist" sky diving groups, a local instructor (retired military jet pilot) and many others who were just there to watch planes come and go. THIS is what we need to return to!

Unfortunately, I see more airports here in the States becoming like #1; reserved for the wealthy private owners and corporate operations. I realize that the FAA, TSA and 911 have not helped the cause, but it's time we look at reasonable ways to "bring the fun back" to airports. For the airports like #1 that are still in existence, we need to find ways to bring the people back to them, so they can enjoy aviation again. My $0.02.

Good article.

One club I am aware of, promoting aviation as a "lifestyle" more than any other I've seen, is a local glider club, "Nevada Soaring Association" operating out of the "Air Sailing" glider port well north of Reno, NV. It's remote location with a bit of a drive may be a large part of this drive to include and promote, and regardless of the reason, it is a winning formula. The members actively volunteer to provide aircraft resources and training time to a youth scholarship program that runs in the areas high schools and they solo high school students through the local ROTC program. They do a lot to create a loyal following and promote family activities and involvement as a part of the aviation experience as a whole. The members that put in the time get as much or more out of it than they give and the net effect is an active local following.

By design glider clubs tend to require a lot of personal time to keep running and that may be a key difference in programs like mentioned above - they are lucky to have a core group of volunteers to grab from for programs and overall social participation.

There is another club I'm aware of in Lodi, Ca and it is interesting. They formed a social club consisting of car folks, RC airplane folks and pilot folks (EAA, Cessna, warbirds, all types). They all share a hangar at the airport and use it for social gatherings (dance nights, dinner nights, car club nights, EAA young eagles days, RC jet shows, etc). I've had the chance to attend a few of their events and it's pretty interesting how active they keep that little airfield and how many otherwise not exposed people they expose to sport aviation. It's a divers group of all ages, men and women both and families.

This sort of thing has been going on for a while but I think for GA to survive the long haul it has to actively embrace and promote family and shared involvement (partnerships, clubs, philanthropy, community). It has to be more than just a cross country from one place to another.

for GA to survive the long haul it has to actively embrace and promote family and shared involvement (partnerships, clubs, philanthropy, community)

Click to expand...

So true! It's like the difference between Oshkosh and an NBAA convention. Honestly, which one would you rather attend?

ppilotmike said:

1) there's the fairly "closed" privat-ish field, with fences and gates all around, hangars, large(r) planes and few operations/people. It was a public field, but you needed codes to get in (how public is that?). When I walked up to some people near a hangar, I had a cold reception. When I told them the name of the person who told us to come check out the field, that person was promptly called and questioned. Then there were some mild pleasantries and ultimately a return to their hangar.

Click to expand...

Agreed! The first step to solving our problem is hiding in plain sight - our airports scream "go away." Time to start viewing them as storefronts in a mall and not prisons.

I know he talks about strategies to address cost but that?s sidestepping the real issue of cost. Things (20 year old aircraft rental, av gas, annuals, 100hrs) just plain cost too much and pay too little... Getting kids out to airport is a waste of time if they cant afford to fly and don?t see aviation as a viable career path.

Jzimmerman said:

Agreed! The first step to solving our problem is hiding in plain sight - our airports scream "go away." Time to start viewing them as storefronts in a mall and not prisons.

Click to expand...

=c= said:

I know he talks about strategies to address cost but that?s sidestepping the real issue of cost.

Click to expand...

I have mixed emotions about the fences. I've seen both extremes with GA airports, as I'm sure most have. I understand the requirements for 121 fields - and most of them price AVgas to keep GA away anyway In some respects, I like the idea of a secure field - e.g. if I had a plane in a tie down and not a hangar, etc. My home base just recently installed a fence, and I like the way it is controlled - open during business hours, controlled at night.

The second comment is dead on, and an issue that is really difficult to get around. Supposedly the part 23 changes should help, but I'm not sure how long it would take, and to what extent the changes would trickle down as end user savings if/when the changes take place. The bottom line is that experimental or certified, unless aviation is a JOB or used for business purposes, it takes quite a bit of disposable income to pursue and fly regularly. I paid 176/hour for a G1000 172 (wanted to learn the avionics) and remember thinking how crazy it was to do so - even though I LOVE all things aviation. Even though I can't imagine never flying and I had the means to afford the cost, it still stung. I won't even get into using the rental for anything functional like an overnight at a mandatory 3 hours/day rate - ridiculously expensive. Unless you have serious disposable cash flow for your hobbies, it really has to be a part of your psyche, or serve a function for most to do it.

Flying has always been expensive compared to the price of food, shelter and entertainment. What's different besides the insurance costs and 100LL being about 12% higher compared to normal inflation these days is that as Americans (and all westerners are this way in many cases) we spend more on cars, TV's, cable, phones, college, insurance, etc so what's left over for airplanes is slim. And our expectations are out of control. We have this new found visceral need to be entertained in all aspects of life, even in our airplanes. We have fancy glass panels that show us to the half degree each engine cylinder's vitals, virtual SA displays, ANR headsets with music, awesome paint jobs that look like they came out of a video game, you name it, someone has it, and we want it. IMHO a rental G1000 Cessna anything is a waste of electrons and also disposable income. Building a top of the line dream machine experimental is a different affair - it may well be worth it but it has to be know that it's going to cost a mint and an astronomical resale value on the open market may only exists in one's own mind.

The folks that get into aviation themed clubs aren't looking at hobbs time and wow factor as the measure of the fun meter. They are looking at flying occasionally as a worth while activity while greatly reducing fixed costs but not walking away from flying all together.

When I hear guys complain about the "cost" of flying, while I empathize and feel the pain whole heartedly, I don't hear the same guys saying what has been done to offset the costs in a group activity format or by going back to the basics to ease the pain. Learn to fly a glider in a club (not a commercial operation) with a bad paint job, a winch launch and without anything on board but an airspeed indicator, altimeter, a yaw string, a hand held radio, a total energy variometer... and I will suggest you will find a new source of freedom. It will be a lot closer to what the old timers called the good old days than what we have today and it will be dirt cheap, challenging, rewarding and fun.

The cost of flying a solo operated G1000 Cessna is always going to be offensively expensive, and for less motivating gains. On the other hand, the cost of donating a few hours of time to a sport aviation club or a glider club to give a few hours of lessons or rides to a philanthropy program that provides aerospace education to youth via a large footprint of donations is nil - compared to the enjoyment and give back factor. This is one part of aviation that has a future in GA. For those that aren't into something like this, it's understandable but the format of buying something more than what we need or even renting expensive airplanes to bore holes in the sky is probably a dead end road. We can just look at the used Mooney and Bonanza market and comments for confirmation.

For those that see the value in shared lifestyle activities that include aviation as a educational, enjoyment and group function; they will inherit the reigns of GA and it will still be strong for some time. Will it be in perpetual, slow and metered decline? Perhaps so, compared to the glory days. Bright and sunny GA days will still exist but I can't help to think that as a go alone, solo affair of boring down victor airways in an owned airplane, the cost benefit analysis will be a tad dimmer in the future as costs and complexities continue to rise and overall GA numbers decline.

There are solutions. But solutions mean compromise and trying to think outside one's own box.

The real issue is the COSTS to fly! But the discussion needs to go beyond just the initial purchase COST. It is the maintenance COSTS. It is the fuel COSTS. It is the Insurance COSTS. It is the replacement materials COSTS. It is the shop labor COSTS. And, not as easily measured, it is the opportunity COSTS (for all you accountants out there).

These COSTS are beyond the average COSTS associated with any and all other possible extra curricular activities that one might engage in (i.e. motorcycles, boats, motor homes/travel trailers, hot rods, golf, hunting/fishing, skiing, horses, polo, etc.). Add on to these COSTS the added pressures of government regulations that mandate certain actions be performed in a specific manner that warrants close scrutiny in order to adhere to the rules. There is also the increased knowledge base and skill set needed to fly and retain currency that COST money, time and effort, that also goes above and beyond what would be expected for the other listed activities.

Given all of these issues, how can one fail to not see the mass exodus of existing participants and the flat out refusal of non-initiated parties from even starting down the road to committing aviation? It becomes easy to see why things are dying in the aviation industry.

Make something hard to get into, hard to stay in, hard to justify the expense and hard to successfully devote time and effort to an activity and see how many people will get involved and then stay involved.

Just to give a small example of the issues of purchase COSTS, here are some real statistics from a small search I performed on cost of living prices in 1966 found here:
Average Costs:

• House $22,084
• Car $2,650
• Average wage: $4,938

In 1966 a Cessna 172G cost around $15,000-$16,000

So given these numbers:

• A house was a little more than 4 times the annual wage of a working stiff
• A car was about 1/2 an annual wage
• A 172G was a little more than 3 times the annual wage

Now compare those numbers to today's costs from here (2011 was the last year this website had stats):

• House $218,200
• Car $28,150
• Average wage $44,670

A 2013 Cessna Skyhawk (172) cost $289,500

So current 2011-2013 numbers show:

• A house is just about 5 times the annual wage of a working stiff
• A car is about 2/3 an annual wage
• A Cessna Skyhawk is more than 6 times the annual wage

Does anyone see any trends here? The key to analyzing these costs is not just in the overall sticker price but the relational cost associated to the individual income. Not only is the overall cost of things rising, but the delta of that rising cost is also rising. Things are getting more expensive but the change in the increase of those prices is also rising. Now some might argue this is an issue with lagging incomes. That may be but I cannot believe that a jump in purchase price for a Cessna Skyhawk from 3 times the average wage to 6 times the average wage would solely be due to the erosion of the average income.

This analysis is just examining the purchase prices and the changes in relation to average wages associated with them. However, I would say that a similar analysis would also hold true for all the other COSTS listed in the first paragraph. In some instances those other COSTS may be rising faster than even the purchase COST. No wonder there are less and less individuals willing to step onto the escalator ride of aviation. Why bother when the initial outlay, the on going expenses, the mandatory requirements that must be met are all drastically less in any of the other extra curricular activity choices at our disposal?

We have this new found visceral need to be entertained in all aspects of life, even in our airplanes. We have fancy glass panels that show us to the half degree each engine cylinder's vitals, virtual SA displays, ANR headsets with music, awesome paint jobs that look like they came out of a video game, you name it, someone has it, and we want it. IMHO a rental G1000 Cessna anything is a waste of electrons and also disposable income. Building a top of the line dream machine experimental is a different affair - it may well be worth it but it has to be know that it's going to cost a mint and an astronomical resale value on the open market may only exists in one's own mind.

While I generally agree with this statement, the reality IS that insurance, fuel, tie down, parts and repair, along with virtually all financial aspects of general aviation have skyrocketed far faster than inflation and/or general standard of living. When all costs are considered, it costs me somewhere around $60/hour to operate my J3 CUB! There is nothing simpler! Unfortuately, the reality is that the price of aviation is completely out of control.

Here is an excellent example - I bought an IBM 386sx computer with 2mb hard drive in 1991 for $1100. I can buy a computer INFINITELY better today for $300...in fact my cell phone is 100s of times more powerful, all free with a 2 year contract. I also bought a top of the line King NavCom around that time for $675. Today a new NavCom that has virtually NO increased capability, only updated functionality, is at least a couple thousand dollars. Why have the increases in technology and their reduced cost not shown similar phenomenal price reductions in aviation?

General Aviation is quickly being priced out of the average persons ability to afford. My dad and all of his "paycheck to paycheck" lower middle class buddies living in 900 sqft homes, barely making it, owned cubs and similar. How many people today in that financial position could even begin to get their ppl?

In 1998 my dads flight school was offering ppl for $1800, including a headset. Today you'd be lucky to find that for $6-7000. Nothing costs 3-4x in that time period...except maybe fuel and college!

Van curiously doesn’t mention regulation. This is the big cost driver in aviation IMHO.

I have trouble understanding why an airplane should cost more than a car with similar features… 100+ mph cruise, GPS nav, electronic ignition, fuel injection, flex fuel, etc…

The main difference is regulation. They are both aluminum and steel vehicles traveling at high speed with a meat bag behind the controls. If you are going to argue one is more dangerous I would counter with the fact that a 1968 Mustang is also a deathtrap compaired to a 2014. The average age of a 1-3 place aircraft in the USA is 48 years old!!! Thats insane and driven exclusively by cost of regulation (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/GamaDatabookOutlook.pdf). I would gladly trade a 1972 172N for a 2013 if it cost 45k. On the flip side imagine what a car would cost if we certificated automobiles like we do aircraft.

Regulation is over the top and not supported by data. I wonder how many instances of 100hr inspections were studied before they pulled the trigger on that for flight schools? What if we tried to pay for all automobile related needs via a gas tax? What about fuel innovation? We certainly didn’t keep leaded fuel around for ground vehicles. Somehow a can of lead additive from pep boys does the trick. But in a c172 it says 100LL in the POH so you better put that in the tank. Wouldn’t it make sense to say on x day in 20XX avgas will be switched to mo gas make the appropriate changes to you aircraft. The A&P is optional unless you are in commercial ops? How would the switch to ethanol have gone in automobile land if they were certificated like aircraft? On the other hand if A&P work wasnt expensive I'd rather have it done for me!

At the end of the day, manufacturers don’t want to build planes that kill people and pilots don’t want to fly aircraft that are not airworthy. Making this all work together shouldn’t be expensive.

If the average American working stiff makes 45K today then it's possible to say (using the formula Vans suggests) for that same working stiff, he or she can get into aviation for 1/2 of an annual salary compared to 3 times the annual salary (comparable inflation compared dollars) back "in the good old days" of 1966 by going into buying a 1/2 share in a used RV-4.

Going beyond the "costs" of acquisition, the "fixed costs" certainly have wiggle room with shared ownership/club activity. This is the whole point of the article. Time to realize the world has changed and start working into it, to keep GA alive rather than point and yell at the horror of the price of a new Cessna that in name only resembles the 1966 version. Also, most guys back in the day just had tie downs. Hangars were luxury. No insurance, etc. While I like having hangar access it could be said that's a big luxury today that I would not likely had in 1966 if I were alive back then. Insurance? Well, thank our litigious society and Perry Mason reruns, don't try to change it by complaining. Training? We don't have to train in a G1000 182. It's quite possible to get your PPL in a glider for $1200 in a club. Do that for a season, then get a "airplane" add on for another $1000 in a Champ the next year. It can happen, it's possible and likely with some patience, ground work and more thinking than spending. As far as fuel, clearly fuel is a volatile commodity today, nothing new here and we can't expect much else in the future.

Back to Van's point, the future of GA is gonna be different than the past. Everything always works this way, time marches on and ignores tales of the good old days. The only constant is change. Clubs, shared ownership, different opportunities... this keeps the average Joe in a position to stay flying in a different time and age. There will still be guys looking to stay in. For every one guy who is sick and tired of spending on aviation, there are two more that will split the cost as long as there is a fertile avenue for them to get in and support from those already in to do so. I am one of them (I make a pretty good living but I save for college for my kids and retirement and I've already had a sizable amount of my retirement "stolen" from me once already by "corporate amerika", so I admit I look hard to save costs where I can and I am a co owner of a used Vans RV to justify my own participation for less outlay).

It does not mean we have to stop fighting regulation and costs but in reality there is little any of us can do about the price of 100LL except to get into flying RC airplanes. Most of the rest of the costs can be managed in one way or another with smart decisions and some concessions to the realities of today's dollar.

Fly safe everyone.

I will keep it short, it is regulation, AND litigation. Both combined have taken the production volume growth opportunity (at least proportional with population growth and general increase in affluence ) spiral to a negative slope. I know an engine manufacturer that would not make a part improvement change because it would give fuel to litigators that it was deficient already. Improvement and cost reductions come with change, better affordability drives volume, improvement results in obsolescence and, then, replacement. All of these are strangled by regulation and litigation. In 1985 it was said that 45% of the sales price of each engine/airframe was litigation cost. A nice new Bonanza, then, was $150k.

BTW - this engine manufacturer has to file design data with each part. A connecting rod had to have dimensions, manufacturing processes, materials, and heat treatment submitted with the certification. A "will fit" copy was made and it was nearly the same, but it failed in service and a crash ensured. Since it apparently met the certified information, the original manufacturer was sued over a defective part they did not even make. Yes, they paid to settle.

OK, not so short.

I thought I would post on the positives I see that are getting people closer to affordability-

Rotax engines- not super cheap but run car gas

Cost of good avionics getting cheaper

More clubs and partnerships being made to share costs

Sport pilots license.

I for one am not rich but have to fly. There are ways to get in the air. I think ultralights are getting pretty darn awesome and those are very affordable and the reputation is improving. I flew a powered paraglider for the past 7 years before I could afford GA and the costs look like 5k investment, less than 1gph fuel burn. No ins no hangar no annual no nothin. I think there are many ways to make flying affordable but I think we have to find more ways to help people be introduced and more importantly educated.

erikpmort said:

There are ways to get in the air. I think ultralights are getting pretty darn awesome...

Click to expand...

I was flying in Europe for a while and the ultralight aircraft I sat in had a glass panel and was verymuch like a skycatcher. It was pretty close to a US LSA. I think it was rotax powered. I'll see if I can find it.

edit: found them -
http://www.f-air.cz/pronajem-p-92-echo/
http://www.f-air.cz/p2002-sierra-de-luxe/

But yes, I think LSA is going the right direction but could go further.

Using experimentals in a club

Hey all,

I enjoyed reading Van's article. I do have a question about flying clubs and experimental aircraft however.

Does anyone know of a club that uses experimental aircraft, like an RV? I am thinking particularly of the prohibition against carrying a person for compensation or hire [FAR 91.319(a)(2)].

How can you make a club work using an experimental aircraft with this rule? Somebody has to pay for the cost of the plane, hangar, upkeep etc. How would you charge the members of the club, and not be in violation of 91.319(a)(2)? Am I missing something here? Maybe all the members of the club are somehow co-owners?

Any real world experience would be most appreciated.

Geoff

2013 dues paid

thank a lawyer!

Costs in aviation (equipment) have inflated at a much greater rate due primarily due to liability/litigation. Fifty years ago, someone killed themself doing something stupid, or even due to normal failure of a device, people moved on. Today, a lawyer - and the screwed up system - will gladly help facilitate a multi-million dollar payday.

I have to agree with Eddie P.

I have wanted to build a RV7 since they came out. Even have the dog eared manual. With 4 kids and all the related expenses, I have come to the realization that this will be a retirement project. Oldest daughter is starting college next year. Lots to go after that.

I am not current mostly due to cost, I could do it renting an old C140 for $110/hr but poor $/fun ratio in my opinion. My son just turned 15 and wants to fly. Solution, we just joined a local glider club $850/yr for a family club membership, no rental fees, 6 club planes, and $30 for a tow to 3K agl. I figure we can both get our glider rating for ~$1800. The more I think about it, 95% of my actual mission is boring holes in the local area so this may cover my flying needs for quite a while. Nice new challenge.

If however any of you are interested in getting 3 or 4 guys together to buy a RV6 and keeping it in the NW suburbs of Chicago (lake in the hills, Schaumburg) I?m in.

Eddie P said:

. . .to keep GA alive rather than point and yell at the horror of the price of a new Cessna that in name only resembles the 1966 version.

Click to expand...

This statement is just flat out not true. A 2013 Cessna Skyhawk and a 1966 Cessna 172G are just about identical not only in form but in function. Other than the difference between a Continental O-300 vs a Lycoming O/IO-360 (which are also little changed from their 1966 versions) practically everything firewall forward is identical. Clear down to the battery tray used to hold that very same battery you would have used in 1966. The airframe holds no new secrets in 2013 that did not exist on the 1966 version. The interior is just about identical all the way down to the seat rails that must be inspected for failure every annual. The only exception is the instrument panel. It truly has changed. Even so there is room for improvement on that price point as well.

I cannot buy your statement that these two aircraft are the same in name only. A 1966 Ford Mustang and a 2013 Ford Mustang are the same in name only, now that I can buy. But a 1966 Cessna 172G and a 2013 Cessna Skyhawk. Well the name is about the only thing that is NOT the same.

Eddie P said:

Also, most guys back in the day just had tie downs. Hangars were luxury. No insurance, etc. While I like having hangar access it could be said that's a big luxury today that I would not likely had in 1966 if I were alive back then.

Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to hangars and insurance in the middle of the U.S., those are not necessarily luxury items. Hail and wind damage are not only real possibilities in this part of the world, they are truly real probabilities. So to advocate not having hangars available or that they are luxuries we really do not need is short sited thinking around these parts.

Eddie P said:

. . .Insurance? Well, thank our litigious society and Perry Mason reruns, don't try to change it by complaining. Training? We don't have to train in a G1000 182. It's quite possible to get your PPL in a glider for $1200 in a club. Do that for a season, then get a "airplane" add on for another $1000 in a Champ the next year. It can happen, it's possible and likely with some patience, ground work and more thinking than spending. As far as fuel, clearly fuel is a volatile commodity today, nothing new here and we can't expect much else in the future.

Back to Van's point, the future of GA is gonna be different than the past. Everything always works this way, time marches on and ignores tales of the good old days. The only constant is change. Clubs, shared ownership, different opportunities... this keeps the average Joe in a position to stay flying in a different time and age. There will still be guys looking to stay in. For every one guy who is sick and tired of spending on aviation, there are two more that will split the cost as long as there is a fertile avenue for them to get in and support from those already in to do so. I am one of them (I make a pretty good living but I save for college for my kids and retirement and I've already had a sizable amount of my retirement "stolen" from me once already by "corporate amerika", so I admit I look hard to save costs where I can and I am a co owner of a used Vans RV to justify my own participation for less outlay).

It does not mean we have to stop fighting regulation and costs but in reality there is little any of us can do about the price of 100LL except to get into flying RC airplanes. Most of the rest of the costs can be managed in one way or another with smart decisions and some concessions to the realities of today's dollar.

Fly safe everyone.

Click to expand...

Not sure my statement of facts was meant to be a complaint but can see where you would read that into it. Actually my point was meant to show that the changes we are witnessing, and for the most part are accepting as the proverbial frog in the boiling pot of water, are even more drastic than we really think.

I do not believe there is 'nothing that could be done about it' though. We all can do big and little things that can make changes. As for my small parts that affect me as an individual, I built an experimental aircraft that far out performs anything I could have purchased in that same price range. I buy aviation fuel in bulk and keep it in a storage container for future use to offset the high costs of fuel. I do my own conditional inspections and repairs. I sought out and installed equipment from a company that does not continually gouge me with update fees that would far out pace the initial purchase cost of the equipment. I seek out the best options available to keep me in the game.

As for what I think we can do for the overall picture, we can lobby our government representatives to alter the current regulatory environment that is stifling change. We can buy from vendors who strive for change rather than the status quo. We can pursue use of alternative fuels, methods, products that affect overall change toward a different paradigm. I believe this is what you are stating in reference to forming partnerships or clubs. What I am stating is that we can do similar things in other more specific means when dealing with purchasing and owning our individual aircraft.

My motivation for stating what I did was not meant to be a complaint. No, it was meant as an analysis of the existing economic state and to lead up to the idea that: "We can fight City Hall!", whether that City Hall be the government regulations or corporate greed that stifles the future of aviation.

One last caveat concerning Van's statements. The partnerships and clubs are well and good endeavors to pursue for those like you and me who are already invested in the aviation world. It does not address the true issues for those outside that world looking in. Those individuals are seeing the high price of entry and high price of sustainability. And I am talking about the overall cost of money, time and effort, not just the monetary costs. When they compare that to the monetary, time and effort involved to enjoy the other extra curricular activities they may pursue, they are quick to move away from aviation. That is what needs to be changing as much as anything.

Live Long and Prosper!

john kelley said:

I have to agree with Eddie P.

The more I think about it, 95% of my actual mission is boring holes in the local area so this may cover my flying needs for quite a while...

Click to expand...

I also agree with Eddie P. if the above is your mission. When I discussed my thoughts on GA costs, I'm thinking more in terms of functional GA - travelling, CC, IFR, etc. I agree with others. If your goal is to just get 500' in the air around your local patch, it can, and is done by many, very cheaply - some ultralights often fly over my house in Savannah headed to the coast/inland waterways. If that was my only goal with GA, I would definitely not own what I own.

Agree that certification costs are out of control. Look at the cost of a TSO'd GPS vs a $300 handheld. For years we've managed to get by with non-TSO'd VORs, ILSs, DMEs, etc. How much safety do all these regulations really buy us?

A couple of things I haven't seen mentioned:
1. Some things have inflated in price similar to flying: medical costs, college costs, retirement costs (the need to save for it). These put big constraints on a lot of people's budgets.
2. Government tax policy. In the 60's and 70's the tax laws created a favorable environment for lease backs from wealthy owners. Our local flying club had a very inexpensive to fly Archer that was leased from a non-pilot dentist! These lease backs created a steady customer base for new aircraft, and also a steady supply of 6 year old used aircraft. That all changed in the early '80s, which coincidently (?) coincided with the start of the upward cost spiral. It may well be that part of the lower cost of the "good old days" was due to government policy.

I can't add much to the discussion about high costs, I think we can all agree that the over-regulation and overly litigious society have been the prime drivers for increasing costs.

I just came to make you all cry...

Yesterday I was talking to a gent on the field that is an aviation legend. He's been in the same facility since the 60's and has been flying and working on airplanes for far longer than that. Long ago he found a box of stuff in the attic from the company that was in the hanger before him, and he was showing me some receipts... I should have taken some pictures! Some of what I remember...

Annual inspection on Cessna 140- $12.00

Labor to replace 4 cylinders on an O-200? - $12.00

Annual on Cessna T-50 (bamboo bomber) $15.00

Re-face valves (8) - $0.80

All of that from 1947/48

From his Dads ledger, not sure of the year:

North American AT-6 purchase price - $750.00
Truck rental to recover aircraft from field??? - $30.00
40 gallons of avgas - $12.00
Everything was listed, but the purchase price plus all the parts and labor to repair added up to $1100 and change.

The AT-6 was sold for $1400.00.

Dang

Corona, CA

Gash said:

I just wish we could get rid of the fences around airports. Nothing says "stay away" like a chain link fence around all the pretty airplanes.

Click to expand...

Fly into Corona, CA. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that my friend, who lives in the area, was able to drive his car up to aviation fuel pit and great us. No fence at all. It was a breath of fresh air, especially in SoCal.

Bud K said:

Fly into Corona, CA. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that my friend, who lives in the area, was able to drive his car up to aviation fuel pit and great us. No fence at all. It was a breath of fresh air, especially in SoCal.

Click to expand...

OMG!!! What if one of those 85 year old grandmother terrorists I saw being felt up by the TSA at the airport decides to blow herself up, or steal a -152 and crash it into a building?!?! Just what will we do??

How it's this related to the thread and RVs - I'd much rather fly GA/my RV on a trip than endure the federal government's intrusive, ridiculous screening process at commercial airports. That helps GA in a small way.

ppilotmike said:

I agree with the article and have witnessed, first-hand, the European flying club formula. When I recently went to Poland to visit family (wife's from Poland), we decided to drive around and check out all the "local" fields near where my family lives. What we discovered, was there are generally two types of fields:

1) there's the fairly "closed" privat-ish field, with fences and gates all around, hangars, large(r) planes and few operations/people. It was a public field, but you needed codes to get in (how public is that?). When I walked up to some people near a hangar, I had a cold reception. When I told them the name of the person who told us to come check out the field, that person was promptly called and questioned. Then there were some mild pleasantries and ultimately a return to their hangar.

2) there's the "recreational" fields (usually grass), with active flying clubs, sky diving ops, gliders, older planes packed into smaller (shared) hangars, pubs with open "picnic style" dining on the field, complete with playgrounds for the kids, etc. While I was there, just walking around, I met the airport manager, who came up to say hello, several "tourist" sky diving groups, a local instructor (retired military jet pilot) and many others who were just there to watch planes come and go. THIS is what we need to return to!

Unfortunately, I see more airports here in the States becoming like #1; reserved for the wealthy private owners and corporate operations. I realize that the FAA, TSA and 911 have not helped the cause, but it's time we look at reasonable ways to "bring the fun back" to airports. For the airports like #1 that are still in existence, we need to find ways to bring the people back to them, so they can enjoy aviation again. My $0.02.

Click to expand...

I think what has happened in Europe is the commercial #1 field has become fenced and closed due to "security" reasons. They used to be open and people could come and go, not anymore. Also there have been an increase in commercial aviation and stricter rules regarding airspaces etc pushing the recreational aviation out.

At the same time there has been a revolution in ultralight airplane technology and industry. Ultralights used to be alu-tubes and cloth, now they are high tech aerodynamically shaped carbon fiber structures with glass cockpits cruising at 150 kts and costing only 1/4 of a Skyhawk, the operational costs are maybe 1/10 and the bureaucracy usually related to aviation is removed altogether (everything is handled by the recreational/sport organisations, nothing is handled by the AAs). The number of privately (individually) owned airplanes has increased exponentially, and so has also the number of private "farmer" fields. Also, what used to be primarily glider and parachute fields has become the home of the new generation of ultralights. This has in turn brought "old school" GA type recreational flying out to these fields. Some of those private "farmer fields" has grown too, and become sites/centers for recreational flying in general (ultralights, gliders, skydiving).

All in all, recreational flying is thriving and growing like never before. But the "old school" GA/recreational flying with traditional private airplanes is steadily decreasing on a fleet that is getting older each day. If this continues, it is just a matter of time before traditional GA disappears altogether, including experimentals. What is happening now is simplifications of PPL Licensing and GA aircrafts. Exactly how I am not sure, but we will see some rating system on the pilot license. You get some "recreational pilot license" on Ultralight for instance, and then you can add rating for glider, (LA)PPL and so on. We will also see a differentiation between complex airplanes and non-complex airplanes, where a Skyhawk-type airplane is a non-complex airplane with much relaxed certification system. A big and heavy IFR equipped, RG constant speed airplane would be a complex airplane requiring extra pilot rating and more strict certification and maintenance. All this is to insure GA does not disappear. After all, someone has to pilot the 737s flying at the #1 type fields.

In my opinion, based on what has happened in Europe, both bureaucracy and cost has to be cut drastically for recreational flying to thrive. This can only be done by letting "everything free" within a strict frame of performance/function/weight, like European ultralights or the US Light Sport category. At the same time you don't want to kill traditional GA/recreation, so we need a natural path from the simplest to the airlines, both regarding pilot license and airplanes.