Request for opinions on the current state of GA

[petpad]

Many people I know - especially the renters I deal with have much more expensive things they do, yet always complain that they don't have money to fly as much as they would like. Two differnt fellows one who showed up in his Ferrari, the other in his BMW both told me about how much they spent on their cars, then worried that the measly rate for the Cessna was going to be too much to do any flying for the next month or so... It just doesn't add up.

That's a question of how you rationalize value. For many, money is no object on their car. Flying is arguably an expandable activity, and the value associated with one hour of flying cannot be compared to BMW ownership at all. In fact, most rich folks are also the biggest mizers... (makes you wonder how they got rich euh...). The problem with a one-hour rental is that once you've flown your hour and swiped your card for some 120$, it's all gone, just a memory, like an expensive roller-coaster ride at Six Flags. A BMW monthly payment is much easier to rationalize, because your car is there in your driveway. Bottom line : recreational flying is expensive.

[slam525i]

PetPad has it exactly right.

One of my other hobbies is photography. Each of my lenses are only 2 hours of wet-rental. The body is 7 or so wet hours. It's low end equipment relatively speaking. The difference is these I can use without additional operating costs. Same with my car. Same with expensive computer equipment. They're all one-time costs. By my nature, I shy from operating costs, whether its cellphone data plans or magazine subscriptions or dining-out. Purchasing an airplane isn't that expensive; flying one is, whether its rented or owned.

[Shiny Side Up]

You both have proved my point. I'm not saying flying isn't expensive, I'm saying that it isn't any more expensive. In the mind of most though, it is. For example:

A BMW monthly payment is much easier to rationalize, because your car is there in your driveway.

In this case the owner has rationalized the higher monthly payment and insurance costs - very significant I might add over and above what they actually require. A used toyota would have done the same job and been considerably more cost effective without compromising essential performance and safety. The point being that the owner has rationalized the expense in whichever way in their mind.

You hit on the second point why aviation is an unpopular expense as well - the car is in the driveway. Its there, its ready, its accessable. Its not dependant on weather for its use (though some owners might be loath to risk their toy in all but the most suitable weather and road conditions) It requires no skill upkeep to use. These are of course the most popular things that people prefer as recreational spending. Keep in mind that the guy who has the BMW in the driveway also has a license in his pocket - he's already footed the bill for the most expensive and time consuming part of the process, but then can't justify further expenditure to fly because its "too much"? It would be like saying you can't drive your car because you didn't anticipate that gas and insurance would cost so much - it begs the question why you bought it in the first place.

The problem with a one-hour rental is that once you've flown your hour and swiped your card for some 120$, it's all gone, just a memory, like an expensive roller-coaster ride at Six Flags.

Yet those activities are still more popular than aviation. People justify trips to Hawaii, expensive green fees or sports events (season ticket holders for instance pay as much to say watch the Flames lose twelve times a year over the course of twelve groups of three twenty minute periods as they would to rent an airplane for those twelve hours). They pay gross prices to watch the Eagles or the Stones for a few hours. These also aren't the top 1% of our society either spending their entertainment dollars like this. Those are all just memories they bought.

The difference is these I can use without additional operating costs. Same with my car. Same with expensive computer equipment.

But they do have operating costs, you have just been able to justify them. Your car has insurance, uses fuel and requries maintenance. Your computer probably has an internet connection you pay for and requires electricity you pay the bill for. Even your camera I assume you do something with the images. Even despite monetary costs, they also have time costs to put to use or make worth while, these also you can balance associated with the monetary costs. They might seems small, some are easier to rationalize - like the car - because it is dual purpose, it serves in work and play.

Story time: A few years back I was on a ski-lift with a fellow who was apparently very into downhill skiing. He told me he spent every day of the ski season doing what he loved best. He wasn't a professional at it, and had by no means any interest in competing. He took every winter off just to ski. I asked how he did that, did he have a means of making a lot of money in the off season? He said he made enough. How did he manage to do all season what I could only afford - in my mind - to do a few times a season? The answer was simple to him - he was all too happy to give up even stuff like what the rest of us might see as essential. He didn't own a car, himself and a group pitched in to have a van they all travelled in. They all also crammed into a small apartment and shared rent. Every extra cent was saved essentially to be put towards lift passes for the season. At the time his lifestyle to me was inconcievable, but then with thought later on the matter I realised that many pilots who wanted to fly so bad they went to work at it also shared his lifestyle.

Moral of the story is that people percieve stuff in relative expense often inversely proportional to how much they value it - the more you want to do it, the easier it is to justify the expense, the less you want to do it, the more expensive - in relation to everything else - it appears to be. Unfortuantely for General Aviation its not important enough to the vast majority of people - including licensed pilots who participate in it - for them to justify its expense.

[iflyforpie]

5) Not specific to GA (But specific to certified A/C), but goddamn, they need modern engines already, with fuel injection, electronics, common rail, etc ... get some fuel efficiency going! 20-30K for 30 year old, simple engine technology ... seriously?

We've all heard the old complaints that our aviation engines lack the sophistication and technology of today's automotive engines. Electronic ignition would be lighter and better than our old designed-for-Case-tractors magnetos. Electronic fuel injection would give us better fuel economy. Better cylinder head design would give us better efficiency and more power. If we could use stock, off-the-shelf, automotive parts, our engines would be cheaper. What if one of the exotic car manufacturers-maybe Porsche!-would build an aircraft engine. Just imagine what kind of engine we would have!

Now we know. And it's a disaster.

http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html

[slam525i]

To think that a modern aero engine is the same engine from 50 years ago is a mistake. It's externally the same but there's been a lot of refinement. The problem is the 50 years of refinement also means there's very little room to maneuver in terms of improving performance and efficiency without sacrificing reliability.

The biggest improvements in internal combustion car engines have probably been fuel injection and variable spark & valve timing. Fuel injection is already used in the new engines. Variable spark and valve timing are of limited value in an aero since aero engines maintain a constant RPM, unlike a car. I don't know where one would go in terms of making it "better" without sacrificing reliability or weight.

[Old Dog Flying]

I started flying 58 years ago and based on my income then it is no more expensive today than it was a life-time ago. I own a 1972 Grumman AA1A Trainer and the costs could go through the roof (of my hangar) if I did not keep on top of the maintenance. I also work with a very good AMO that monitors the work that I do on the aircraft (in accordance with CARs). This helps to keep the costs down.

WE fly about 40-50 hours per year and owning the aircraft means the we can go any time the weather and our desires dictate..a real big plus. I would not waste my time or money renting from any of the usual sources because of the restrictive rules that they have in place.

It seems that everyone these days has a hand out looking for "user" fees of some sort and our ANS system is grabbing more and more airspace every year while giving poorer service. That last is not all inclusive but the excuse for safety related reduction in traffic at many airports..the smaller ones...is a crock. And did I say that I spent nearly 50 years in the ATS system?

Costs, regulations, reduction of freedom in "Class C" airspace and other lesser reasons all add up to a loss of the aviation population. And from comments by some of my ex-collegues, they would love to see the end of GA. Many of them hate light aircraft and have spewed comments to that fact on numerous occasions.

Fly safe folks and rely on your own abilities to do so.


And to the guy that mentioned Porche developing an aircraft engine...well they tried it about 25 years ago in the Mooney...without success.

[comfail]

I can see how some of the more "mature" fellas out here would be discouraged seeing the negative changes taking place in GA over the years, but I'm relatively new to this game. Every activity has its share of issues; GA is definitely not immune.

F13, you express valid concerns to entering GA. You have asked for opinions and you have received many good responses here. To yourself and all the people sitting on the fence right now, consider my wife's advice to me: "shit or get off the pot!" I personally spent way too much time in contemplation, and now that I'm involved I couldn't be happier.

[light chop]

And from comments by some of my ex-collegues, they would love to see the end of GA. Many of them hate light aircraft and have spewed comments to that fact on numerous occasions.

Just curious ODF, what are the reasons some of your ex-collegues want to see the end of GA?

lc

[Old Dog Flying]

They hate working little shit-boxes when they really want to work the big iron and make the BIG bucks..pretty simple!