Sport Pilot Talk

Many 50+ year olds should be smart enough to know that... That's why I'm personally an SP - otherwise I'd be still plunking big bucks for PPL with all fancy ratings on top - for my inner geek learning to fly is one of the the best parts of it all...

:) Well, imagine youself a TV producer - and try to depict that as a recreational activity for masses. :) Heck - I cannot convince my wife it is a viable recreational activity :) My cruising sailboat - yes - but flying? "What can you get from a "chair with wings"? "This thing even dosn't have a toilet!" "Landing in the middle of nowhere with no transportation out - why?" etc. ad nauseum. Unless you flu a personal jets to red carpet FBOs - there's nothing glamorous or attractive about GA for an average consumer.

GA is an asylum for those who feels that strange urge to fly and are happy with the process of flying... For no particular reason - completely obscure even to themselves... :)

No, just reality. Look, I know you are upset that the pilot population is not large enough to overcome this price inelastcity thing. Most people who sign up for flying lessons don't finish. Many who do finish don't continue to fly. It's not the industrys' fault that there isn't more interest in aviation. People are doing things everyday to promote their aviation business. . People give free rides to kids, airport appreciation days etc. I remember reading that Chesapeake Sport Pilot displayed one of their airplanes in a busy shopping mall. People in the business are not just sitting on their hands. Learning to fly takes money, effort and determination. The desire has to be there. Slick marketing may draw a few more people in, but it won't keep them there. As I said before, there was boom in the pilot population because of the GI bill. When the subsidy ended it was only natural for pilot numbers to decline. The industry isn't comotose. It's suffering from a weak economy and high fuel costs.

There is a time to be conservative and a time to say the heck with it. If you are in good health you should go for it. I know some people who were in their mid sixties when they got their private and then bought certified airplanes.

I see. And before that you knew I couldn't afford an airplane, right? Do you think those are valid comments which contribute to the dialog? Obviously you don't know these things - we've never met, and you know nothing of my personality or financial means. Eventually that sort of pattern raises questions about anything a person claims to know.

Anyway, it's none of my business how you couch your arguments really, I'm just more interested in discussing ideas instead of your assumptions about someone you've never met. Baseless assumptions about strangers are a dime a dozen, whereas dialog about ideas can have real value.

As for your theory that it was all the GI bill and so on...you may be right. It may have been. I don't dispute your interpretation, though it's possible I would come to different conclusions if I were to study it in greater depth. However, that something happened a certain way doesn't mean it was the only way things could happen. The fact that lightening strikes a particular tree does not mean that tree was the only tree that could have been struck, nor that only that tree will be struck in the next storm. If the GI bill was the primary cause of a before-I-was-born pilot surge, does that mean that only the GI bill could have spurred such a surge, or that only something like the GI bill would be able to do it again? No. It would just mean that the GI bill worked a certain way at that time and place. Saying one thing produced an effect doesn't say something else wasn't also working, wouldn't have worked better, would work just fine right now, etc.

Just something to think about.

Edit: double post

IMO, there are a number of reasons why GA, and sport flying in particular, are niche markets.

Government overregulation is certainly one reason. Not only does it contribute to making sport flying overly expensive, but makes it boring and impractical, too. What? I can't fly at night? IMC? Do aerobatics? Fly faster than 120 kts? How boring can it be?!

Compare this to motorcycling. Yes, I know it's comparing apple and oranges, but, as leisure pursuits, at least they're both fruits. I ride my motorcycle (pretty much, but that's another story) where and when I want, and do on it what I want. And the government more or less keeps its nose out of it.

This it not to say that there's anything wrong with a niche market. Flying will always be magical to some, and as long as that remains true, we'll continue to fly, and that magic will be reserved for those with the commitment and passion to override the negative aspects.

I'm not sure we're building a true understanding about the main issues of this thread by just exclaiming our individual opinions, one after the other. Opinions are like noses, we all get to have one...but then what? Perhaps between us we should be digging into the data a bit and sharing it so that we can move closer to a unified understanding of the issues.

Let's pick the issue of the 3rd Class medical and whether it is choking off interest in General Aviation. I've heard this claimed before but usually by old guys like me who are already pilots. There has always been a winnowing of the pilot population driven by age-related diseases and infirmities, but this alone can't be considered a new 'trend' insofar as what's changing pilot demographics. I think there are several specific pieces of data that at least hint at the influence - or lack of it - of the 3rd class medical requirement on the trending health of general aviation.

It seems to me the best single data point that indicates whether a 3rd class medical inhibits prospective pilots from entering training & seeking a license lies with the student pilot population. This is the group that is first introduced to the requirement, and it's a mandatory hoop thru which every student pilot must jump (and of course pay for). IME non-pilots are generally clueless about even the existence of a 3rd class medical, let alone the details of it - cost, renewal requirements, etc. (In the absence of data, I can't ascribe any particular influence the medical exam has - or has ever had - to men & women making the decision to begin flight training. Anecdotally, I can say it wasn't a burning issue back when pilot demographics and aircraft manufacturing were both healthier).

So what does the data say about the influence of a 3rd class medical on the newest pilot population? Looking at AOPA stats, the most recent year-to-year comparison shows that private pilot certificate issuances for 2010 dropped by 25% over 2009. (Boy, is that a sobering number!) During this same period, student pilot certificate issuances were up by 2% - a 27% difference. (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html) IOW while the rate of successful completion of pilot training dropped significantly during that period, the medical requirement for a student pilot to reach the point of soloing (by which point the medical is required) doesn't seem to have any relative influence. This is just one glimpse of the whole story, of course, but it certainly doesn't validate the notion that today's student pilot, when times are tough and the new pilot population as a whole is dropping, is inhibited specifically by the 3rd class medical.

So this is only one slice of the pie. If we look at it from a different perspective, let's ask to what extent the elimination of the medical invites folks to begin pilot training who might otherwise have negatively reacted to the medical requirement? IOW do the flood gates open if we eliminate the 3rd class medical? ( I wish I had more current data for what follows; maybe someone else can bring newer data to the discussion). Here's one glimpse at how data answers that question. The Sport Pilot license was finalized and enacted during 2004 and, in the next 4+ years (thru all of 2008), a total of 2600 SP licenses were issued, to folks from age 17 on up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_cert ... ted_States) For perspective, let's compare that to the 85,000+/- Private Pilot certificates that were issued over that same block of time. (See the first cite above). IOW perhaps 3% of all potential student pilots were attracted to the SP license and its 'no medical' provision. Where is the rush to avoid the 3rd class medical?

The drop in general aviation activity and in the pilot population has been going on for at least 3, almost 4 decades now...and for a fairly complex set of reasons. Let's remember that in the 80's there were 800,000+ certificated pilots; by 2008 that had dropped to 600,000+. Counting those who were coming into GA alongside those that were leaving, about 25% of the pilot population went away over the past 30+ years. This is a huge number and, not surprisingly, there are some very large factors influencing this, including demographics (most WWII & Korean War pilots were leaving GA during this period), regulatory changes (as airspace became far more complex and busier), and technology (which brought its own complexity, regulation and increased costs). There were also a lot of lifestyle, cost and other more individual factors weighing in, e.g. the huge increase in workplace productivity over the past two decades has come at the expense of the worker's free time. Fold in no real income growth over all of the last decade and a continuing climb in single parent families (single parent: the toughest job in America) and it's pretty easy to see how these societal factors ripple across all leisure time pursuits. When I look at these comprehensive changes in our society, I find it pretty difficult to accept that the medical exam by itself has had or is having any significant influence on the health of GA. Of course, for those who want to believe it does, perhaps because it does to them, my own view is irrelevant. But the data is the data and, from what I briefly looked at today, I just don't see it supporting that belief, however firmly held it might be.

Rebuttals are welcome, of course. There's surely more data to consider than what I've offered. (E.g. can someone find data on how many inactive PPL pilots became active again post-2004 vs. what those numbers were pre-2004?) But please: If you want to challenge my conclusion, show me the beef! Let's not just have a discussion about noses... <g>

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

The AOPA is showing a swing of less than 900 people year over year.

Also note that they are counting "Student Issuances" without defining what they include in that category. It most likely includes include 3rd class medical, glider/balloon, and sport pilot students. So some unknown fraction of that 900 person increase is in areas not subject to medical examinations.

In a population of 308,000,000, 900 people is less than 0.0003%. Of course, not everyone falls within the age limits and other excluding factors. Let's assume that the pool of potential pilots in the US is actually much lower, 200,000,000. The 900 new students represents about a 0.00045% increase in capture.

But there's more to the picture.

With population growth in the US cycling around 1.2%, you would expect to see an annual change of over 1% within an industry even with zero growth. The AOPA's 2%, corrected for growth, actually represents perhaps a 0.8% increase year over year. That is about 400 more people training, out of a pool of about 200,000,000 (people who could possibly train). A more meaningful way of reporting might be to call it a 0.0002% increase in student pilots amongst the eligible population. Also note that population growth isn't completely steady year over year. More kids were born in 1990 than 1995. To get a better picture you should really average over several years.

As for use of the sport pilot cert as evidence... I'm not sure how you would control for the differences in limitations, the lack of training opportunities, and the social factors within the pilot and flight school communities. It has the potential to be interesting, but at this point I'm not sure it is evidence of anything except the fact that the medical difference alone is not enough to overcome the limits and liabilities of the SP ticket. Would it be enough to overcome the limits of the PPL ticket? Not alone, no, I wouldn't think so. It's just one part of what needs to be done.

I don't see a 0.0002% shift in behavior as compelling evidence one way or the other. I suspect that if you looked outside the aviation industry you would see a general rising tide, given how many people are starting to crawl out of their economic bunkers after the last few years.

Now, do I have evidence on my side? No, not really. I'm not proposing from evidence, but from reason. I'm looking at what I see as the roadblocks, and speculatively proposing changes which I think could contribute to a better outcome. We've never done this before so, with apologies to Shakespeare, past isn't really prolog in this case. Or it is, but in the original meaning that the past has led us to this point, led us to the actions we must take, not that it will somehow guide us. There has only been one FAA, it has only done what it has done once, and that damage has never been corrected.

I certainly don't think that's the only thing that needs to change to rescue general aviation.

Edited for clarity.

I got into SP without doing good research (impulse and my fault) because it fit into the catagory of what I wanted to do. I dreamed of putting around the valley floor, few lunch trips, etc. Was it the medical of a PP that scared me to SP? Not at all. What attracted me to SP was the low hour minimums and the pricetag quoted.

Knowing what I know now...I should have went the PP route. It is every bit as expensive and opens one up to more. With the PP I can still fly LSA and save. Also, I can rent a 152 (which is everywhere) and save as well, probably less since thay are cheaper to rent and a slightly higher fuel burn.

unfortunately, I didn't do my research well again and had a (k) instructor. I still recall the FBO telling me that "all your time is good for PP" HA! The aviation industry is not immune to dishonesty and lacking integrity.

Then again, you have the story a coworker just told me after lunch today. We had lunch together and I mentioned I was going to go flying tomorrow.

His reply:
"I went to a ground school years ago. Never took it any further. They told me I didn't qualify medically. Of course years later someone else told me I could've fought it and I would've gotten a medical but what did I know. The problem was that I was unconscious, in a coma, for 13 days after an accident...."

He went on a bit from there, but the relevant part is that of course he had been driving and doing everything else for 10 years between his accident and his failed exam, and has been living a normal life for the 20 years since, but right now unless he fights his way through to a third class or better he's forever barred from solo flight.

I wonder how many people he has told that story to.

It was apparently always the intent of the FAA, and instructors and flight schools assumed, that anything taught by a part K instructor would count towards PP instruction. Along comes the chief counsel of the FAA. He issues an opinion that the above interpretation is not right and the K instruction was somehow inferior. Because we are governed by regulations and not law, this is now the defacto law. It took a lot of people by surprise, probably not the least of which was your flight school. There is a large effort to get this asinine opinion overturned.

Of course there are too many unscrupulous people in all professions.

Ron

Jon, after lots of quibbling you finally got to it: "Now, do I have evidence on my side? No, not really."

It's fine with me if you want to think the onerous 3rd class medical, all by itself, is a significant detractor to general aviation. I have no doubt you can support that claim anecdotally - as e.g. your lunch partner. You say potatoe, I say po-tah-to. It's just that the data seems to be suggesting po-tah-to.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

Jack, did you see me claiming that the 3rd class medical, all by itself, is anything? Bad or good? Where?

Hint: You didn't, because I didn't. If you think you did, well, check again 'cause you've leapt to an unsupported conclusion.

The 3rd class medical, and getting rid of it, was mentioned as an example of the sort of initiatives a more-aggressive-than-AOPA pilot advocacy group should take on, in a paragraph saying that such a group was part of what was necessary to rescue GA from the old guard. It wasn't the only, or most important, or even most talked about idea in that post.

As for data, I you say potato, I say, "You are playing statistical shuffleboard with undersized samples while Titania sinks." In other words, 870 out of 309,000,000 is not a meaningful number. You have not cited any meaningful data, only some statistics which are well within the margin of error for the data sets available to you. It would be innumerate to base policy decisions on statistical trends within their own margin of error.

A good source of data here that can help is http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviati ... tatistics/

If the assumption to be made that 3rd class medical becomes a potential consideration after 50+ than age -related tables there may help to get some idea what can be gained from elimination of 3rd medical

To glimpse a potential effect of dropping 3rd class it may be worth to attempt to evaluate how much SP certificate may attract 50+ old for whom 3d class is a "natural" consideration.


(2000->2009)
Average age of a Student Pilot is 34.1-33.5
Average Age of Private Pilot is 45.6->47.1
Average age of a Sport Pilot is (2005)53.2->53.5

In 2009 67% of SPs were 50+, but only 17% of Student Pilots were 50+
But an absolute numbers we have just 2,228 50+ yo SPs total, against 12,012 50+ Student Pilots a year.

So far we have SP certificate holders increasing about 600-800 a year. Assuming 25% students end up certificated within a year, and if all increase in 50+ SP population came from SP students then it means about 85% (2500 out of ~3000) of 50+ yo still decide to go PPL route rather than SP ignoring 3rd class medical issue.

So no medical is probably an issue for 15% out of 17% - about of 2.5% of total pilot student population.

I think we may make an guess here given the average age of SP pilots that SP certificate is indeed attractive for 50+ pilots, most likely because of no medical. However, given the choice between PPL and SP, 85% of 50+ students would most likely go PPL, despite 3rd class requirement.

So 3rd class medical alone on average doesn't appear to be a significant barrier even for those who have to go through the hoops every year w/o getting any younger. On the other hand this can also speak to unattractiveness of SP limitations despite of no medical or lack of awareness of the SP option... If I thought the 3rd class would not be too much of unnecessary hassle for me I'd go to PPL w/o hesitation.