Sport Pilot Talk

Niche markets are certainly safer in a storm.

Personally, I don't think that recreational/personal GA is an inherently lost cause. I just think it needs a different approach.

Here's the funny part (to me)... I have more childhood/age-equivalent friends who have taken up skydiving, including BASE jumping, than flying over the years. Explain that.

I have a theory. Skydiving is regularly depicted in popular media as a recreational activity. Movies, TV shows, etc. all include images of people skydiving for fun. General Aviation level flying, on the other hand, is almost NEVER depicted as recreational. TV/Movie characters get in a plane to go somewhere, not to have fun. They drive, golf, fish, fight, drink, ride roller coasters, rob banks, etc...all for fun, but they do not fly for fun. Even in the few examples where flying is depicted as something people enjoy, it's still a job. A character may go out on boat for fun, but they are never shown hopping in a Citabria for fun. There are probably exceptions, but I think it's generally true, and telling.

That sort of thing has a big influence on people.

I think the path back for general aviation is going to be two-pronged. One side will need an NRA-like group (something more than the AOPA wants to be) that takes the case straight to legislators and the people. Get rid of the 3rd class medical (at least for anything under 12.5Klbs) and a lot of the antique part 23 limits for GA planes. At the same time (and arguably more importantly) it will take work to increase people's exposure to recreational aviation in popular media.

It could be done. It won't just happen on its own and I don't see where any of the big players (the Cessnas and the like) see any particular reason to sponsor such activities at this point. They are content to get a larger slice of a shrinking pie. Sigh.

Jon, I agree with you that the 3rd class medical needs to be eliminated. I have a feeling that that is the biggest burden on pilots. If eliminated, I have a good feeling that the economy and pilot population would grow again and people would take flying lessons with no fear of the FAA coming down like a ton of bricks.

Seems to me safety is a big issue holding back general aviation. When I mention to someone I’m a pilot I don’t hear, “that’s great, what places have you flown to? What adventures have you had?” instead I hear stories about crashes and fears.

And the thing is, the fears are not unfounded. The GA safety record should be moving toward that of the airlines, but it’s not. I stopped riding a motorcycle because of safety concerns and the GA safety is in the same ball park as motorbikes.

As for cost of light sport planes, I see many ads for used lsa’s and light sport qualified planes for the price of a car.

The GA safety record is not as good as the airlines, but in my mind it's safer than motorcycles. Not everyone has a desire to fly, and some that do aren't willing or incapable of paying a lot for a hobby. There was a boom in GA after the war because of the GI bill. How many prospective pilots would get off the fence if they only had to pay for 10% of the training to become a pilot? Those days are over and aren't coming back. People either have the excess cash or are willing to sacrafice other things to fly.

Unless the government is willing to subsidize the cost of learning to fly like it did for a couple of decades there is no path back to the glory days of GA. If you are talking about drawing young people into GA, the third class medical is not a factor for the vast majority of that group. People take up hobbies other than flying because it's a heck of a lot cheaper. Doubling the pilot population would not reduce the cost of a new airplane a penny or maintanece,insurance or fuel for that matter. As someone already mentioned, the initial aquisition cost of an airplane is not that bad if you are willing to buy used. Right now, there are some pretty good bargains in the market.

It's not safety that is holding back GA. It's PERCEIVED safety.

GA and Motorcycle safety are about on par in some measures, at least they were 6 years ago. That was based on MAIDS (european) motorcycle stats. In other words, either one is safer than walking or riding a bicycle.

The safety perceptions are another indication of how few people come in contact with general aviation. Humans are prone to have disproportionate (irrational) fear of unfamiliar risks, while they have very realistic (and low) fears of everyday risks. They are duly cautious about walking around in their neighborhood. They are scared to death of getting in a small airplane. It's not that the airplane ride is more likely to result in death or injury, and it's not because the nature of the death is especially horrific compared to being squished under an ice cream truck. It's simply because most people have never even touched anything smaller than an MD-80 or maybe a CRJ-100. They have no familiarity, so they fear.

The only way to combat the perceptions is familiarization. Americans accept 43,000+ non-aviation transportation fatalities (mostly highway) with equanimity because cars are everyday common items. Aviation, with its 550-900/yr in total (counting airlines, taxi services, general - everything) fills people with dread and forms the basis for ever more extreme "safety regulations" that make it less and less likely that the population will ever gain familiarity.

The sad truth is that adding safety regulations to aviation can (arguably already does) have a paradoxical effect on safety. In other words, people are dying, not living, because of the safety rules. That's widely accepted when it comes to TSA pat-downs/backscatter imaging and the like, which cause more highway fatalities than they save in reduced terrorist incidents, but it's equally true with recreational activities. Shifting people away from airplanes doesn't mean they will sit at home and watch TV. It means they'll turn to other activities like motorcycling, boating, and so on which are simply more familiar (so the risks are better accepted), not particularly safer. Heck, sitting home and watching TV doesn't mean you'll live past 45...sedentary lifestyles put people at risk of heart attacks.

Yes it is.

The fact that they've got to get a medical is a huge barrier to entry. Not the concern they won't pass, but the fact that they must jump through that hoop. They don't have to do that for any other hobby, any other activity.

Beyond that, most people are savvy enough to realize that a medical means that at any time their entire investment in flying could be rendered worthless on a pretext. You put $8,000 into learning to fly, $20,000 into buying a plane (which is not what outsiders perceive as the price, but OK), another few thousand a year keeping it airworthy, and in 5 years (or 3 if you are older) you may have it all yanked out from under you....with the laughable excuse that it makes you and everyone else safer even though you proceed to hop in your Chevy Suburban and barrel home at 70+ on the interstate, buy a race boat and start running it in races where there is an audience right there, et cetera ad nausium. Why expose yourself to that risk when you can just start with the race boat?

A fear of flying is not irrational. After all , one is no longer attached to the ground. I doubt if TSA pat downs or other inconviences have resulted in any deaths. Despite the complaining, if you have a great distance to travel, in our time constrained world, flying is the only way to go. What will reduce travel by air is the cost. You assume more risk flying in a small airplane as opposed to a commercial jet, there is no denying it.

You over analyze. Unless a person knows they have a potential medical problem it's not an issue. Worry about a future medical never crossed my mind when I purchased an airplane. Thirty minutes in a doctors office and $100, no big deal. I've never even heard a student complain about having to get a medical. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see the medical requirement dropped.

First thing you've said that I agree with. In a society where it's normal not to analyze at all, any analysis at all is by normative standards over analysis.

Anyway....

You and your students represent a limited set. Membership to your set is restricted to people with certain views (and limits on their views), such as the view that getting a medical is no big deal, and the need to maintain a medical is no real risk. That means your group, by its nature, will exclude those with other views which may be common outside the set.

How many people never even picked up the phone to ask about lessons because those hoops exist? You don't know. However, talking to people outside the industry (this is where it helps to work in another field), you can get a baseline by doing things like telling people they should try flying. I've done that.

A surprising number of people, in my experience, cite the medical as a barrier. Not because they know they would fail, and not (when I probed) that it sounds like they would fail, but because it's an extra hassle. This is amongst people who ride motorcycles and do other relatively daring things for fun.

What percentage? I don't know. It's non-zero though. Add all the other perceived hoops and ready excuses and you have fewer students, GA has fewer pilots, than it should.

Lets get real. Someone who cites the medical hassle as a reason for not flying is just not interested enough. What about the hassle everytime you fly. Pre-flight briefings, pre-flight airplane, putting the airplane away or tying down. Motorcycle? Hop in and go.

"Hey Suzie wanna go dancing with me this Saturday?"
"No."
"You're too ugly to take dancing anyway."

Yeeeha.

Of course they aren't interested enough. I've been saying for the past 75 posts that there is nothing in place to interest them. The industry ... well, the most positive spin is the one I already gave and assume you are trying to demonstrate, the self-appointed, "wise man on the mountain waiting for knowledge seekers," who self righteously dismisses anyone who doesn't seek their wisdom as, "not interested enough." In other words, an industry that wants to die, populated with people content to ride the wreckage down.

Isn't that one of those "hazardous attitudes" the FAA talks about? Resignation? Quick, what's the antidote?

Quick, the antidote is patience...

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Quick, the antidote is patience...

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Quick, the antidote is patience...

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org