Most flight schools and instructors have experienced it. Students walk through the door full of dreams and motivation, sign up, start training and, one day, stop showing up. Sadly, they never reach the finish line of becoming a licensed pilot.
Since the 2000s, student pilot dropout in the U.S. has increased drastically. AOPA research estimated the overall rate at 70-80%, with many students leaving training before earning their first certificate. This trend seems to coincide with the emergence of new technologies, making aviation no longer a quiet passion, but an accessible path to almost anyone … at least that is what many marketing strategies and social media like to convey.
Still, there is something we should not forget. Becoming a pilot is “cool,” but it is also far from easy. It requires commitment, cognitive ability, physical skills, medical fitness, financial investment and time … a lot of time.
Underestimating the real cost of training might attract students to enroll, but what is the point if they cannot finish?
When pilot training providers promote becoming a pilot as quick and simple, or focus too much on the excitement of flying from day one with no prior knowledge, they may minimize the volume of study, discipline, and preparation involved. We should not simply sign up anyone with a credit card and assume they are going to make it. Students must be warned about the reality of the journey ahead and made aware of its challenges before making a commitment they may not be able to afford or achieve. Being honest with aspiring pilots from the beginning might discourage some of them or even make them reconsider training altogether. At the end of the day, if they make that realization before spending thousands of dollars on training they cannot handle, it may be the best gift they can receive.
Honesty before enrollment is only the first step. Once students begin training, the structure and sequence of instruction also matter.
Many schools offer an attractive curriculum where flying is the core of the training, leaving ground sessions and knowledge behind. The reality is that knowledge is crucial to becoming a pilot. For many, flying the airplane is actually not the hardest part. It might seem less fun to learn and put in the hard work first before focusing on the cockpit. A two-phase sequence, however, can considerably improve training efficiency.
With this methodology, the first phase focuses on ground training to build knowledge, with only limited targeted flight exposure for application. Then, during the second phase, when the student has developed a solid foundation, the focus shifts to flight training while continuing to reinforce concepts and deepen understanding. This structure can help students become proficient and ready for a certificate in fewer flight hours, ultimately reducing training costs. Some students might drop out during the first phase due to the difficulty of studying. But at least they have not spent most of their training budget yet.
A common source of discouragement shared by many students who receive a lot of flight training from day one with little to no prior ground instruction is seeing good progress at first, followed by a slowdown. This experience can be perceived as an impasse, with a strong feeling of being stuck early in the process. Students may struggle to move forward because the lack of knowledge keeps them at the basics. When the time comes to open the books, the hard truth hits them and the fun can start to fade away.
We often talk about plateaus in pilot training. They are a normal part of learning, but they can be difficult to manage when students are not supported or prepared to face them.
That support does not come only from the structure of the curriculum. It also depends on continuity of instruction. Pilot training is not only a commitment for the trainee, but also for the instructor. Providing quality instruction is essential, and so are engagement, consistency, and organization.
When training is spread too far apart, students are more likely to quit because they often forget previously learned concepts and flying skills more easily. This can lead to repeated lessons, higher costs, and a greater risk of discouragement.
Dropouts are not always initiated by students alone. It is not unusual to see instructors move on in the middle of a student’s training when they have reached their flight-time requirements and receive an opportunity that better fits their goals. Career progression is completely understandable, but when this happens, it can leave students in a delicate position, slowing their progress and, sometimes, damaging their chances of success.
While student handoffs are, in many cases, inevitable, they should be avoided when possible or handled with care to maintain continuity and mitigate the difficulties caused by the switch. This is only possible when proper student progress tracking is followed. It includes clear lesson records or a syllabus, what has been covered, as well as notes identifying the student’s strengths and weak areas.
Having that structure allows for a smooth and efficient transition to the next instructor, who then does not have to restart the student’s training from scratch.
Many student pilot dropouts could be avoided if training providers were more transparent during enrollment and kept the student’s instructional needs at the core of training. Student pilots deserve more than being sold the myth of a dream. They deserve a structure that gives them a real chance to earn their wings and become the best pilots they can possibly be.
The core problem is money, but one way to reduce the damage is to prepare students before paid flight training begins.
EAA, AOPA, Sporty’s, local airport groups, and youth aviation education programs all help by teaching the language, discipline, study load, and real cost of learning to fly.
They do not make flying cheap, but they can help students spend less money learning lessons that should have come before the first invoice.
First and foremost, if you don’t have the fire then you lack the desire and nothing else matters I don’t care how much money you have or don’t have. Second, many if not most instructors primary purpose of instructing is to acquire time to move on. The student is just a vehicle to get to an end and every student can and does see this in their instructor. The student is not the primary focus, their career is. Having kids as instructors who really don’t want to be there in the first place just doesn’t cut it. Until this changes, nothing else really matters.
Correction to the above. The instructor’s professional advancement is the primary focus of the instructor, not helping the student acquire their certificate.
I instruct only because I enjoy flying and I want to share the magic. At age 71, I recall working the line at our local airport and being able to exchange a 6 hour shift for 1 hour of dual or 2 hours of solo flight. That train has left the station…
The number one reason my former students give for stopping their flight training is money (or lack thereof)… and I understand completely. If I didn’t instruct, I couldn’t afford to fly either. Flying clubs and joint ownership help for some, scholarships help a few, and Raf’s suggestions certainly help, but the specter of insurance, annuals, potential major repairs, hangar rent, rising fuel costs, liability, high rental costs, risk, etc. can be insurmountable for those with an already hefty debt load.
I heard a young wife admonish one of my students as they walked out of the FBO “How are we going to pay the electric bill after you just spent $200 flying around in circles?” He never came back and I feel for them.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard variations of “I’d love to fly, but I’ve got a family to support.” I get it… sometimes dreams are simply out of reach at the present. Flying is expensive in many ways, money often foremost.
I received my PPL IN 1976.I remember my wife coming into the FBO office and asking me as to how we were going to pay the electric,water,sewer and gas bill after she just saw me hand over $ 179 dollars to build time in a Cessna 150 towards my Commercial and Instrument. Needless to say-the bills were sent in late that month, but there was a dedication on my part to further my career. Money was the main issue of student dropouts 75 years ago as it is now. I have been a member of the Civil Air Patrol since 1966.Not all squadrons or Units have this luxury or access but I was fortunate to have a unit with Senior Members who were 4 plane owners back in the 1970’s who were all either Airline Pilots, or Military Reserve or Air National Guard pilots with a CFI/II aged 40+that were much experienced and not looking to build time or experience. They had it already. They were always eager to go flying and instruct. Cost to us was the fuel bill divided up 2 ways!
Its a multi-faceted issue in my clueless opinion. The flight school I used to represent in the past was eventually known as the place to finish the training.
When a student isn’t solo after 30-45h (the most time I ever saw in a logbook was 85h of dual received with no solo) and the quote for the pilot certificate was based on minimum hours to completion – then money inevitably will turn into a concern. Next in line is frequency of training, paired with well planned briefings, de-briefings and progress monitoring. The student needs feedback.
My personal take: If a student isn’t solo after 10-15h, its time for a evaluation to determinr if there is (1) a chemistry mismatch (2) teaching definciencies (3) insufficient planning and prep (4) too much time between lessons; and/or (5) a student who is potentially not playing with a full deck.
For me, a CFI (I) who is building time is not necessarily bad, but maybe require more monitoring and crosschecking.
This whole dream-world of mine also requires to pay instructors enough to not have to work at McD to actually get to eat. Treat them like low-balls and they will long for that right seat in that City-Hopper.
High dropout rates are nothing new, most of us have seen people give up for a variety of reasons. In the end, we make it the industry we want it to be. Garbage in = garbage out.
Lets not try to teach the pigs to sing.
It never really works and it annoys the pigs.
I know and flew with a successful businessman who really wanted to fly and could easily afford it. 110 hrs. in he finally soloed and then wisely gave up. When he was with me he couldn’t hold a heading or an altitude, but thoroughly enjoyed being in the air. It’s not for everyone.
I agree with the time to solo part. Too many young instructors or even flight schools think a student must be prepared with all the additional “stuff” that will eventually be needed, before they solo. Let the student go fly first. That’s what brought them in. Solo used to be around 8 – 10 hours. As soon as they are able to safely get the plane around the patch, turn them loose and let them do it. That is the time we all remember, out first solo. You are then officially “a pilot”. And proud to have become one. Then as they combine more dual instruction with solo time, they are preparing for that license and more ready to accept book work because it means more to them now.
And it gives them bragging rights! Which we all need and like.
WWII washout rate was 80%. For sure the services didn’t want to keep investing in someone who didn’t have the right stuff. But the reality is – dream and reality. Lots of folks don’t have the right stuff. You can fix all the things you mention in your article – but I doubt if it will move the needle by more than 10 points.
And I know more than one frustrated instructor who said people bailed straight after their solo saying – “I just wanted to see if I could do it”. Now for sure that might also have been the moment when the student looked in the books, looked ahead and decided not to continue. That is “self selected washout”.
As others said. “What makes and airplane fly?” “MONEY”. And especially now. I just checked for an hour dual in a C172, $250. I’m long time from current and just wanted to take one around the patch for a few laps. Not now.
I used to be in the Southern Maryland region, about an hour south of DC. The FBO at the local airport had three C172s and a PA28R. Of those four, only one was IFR capable, but all clearly appeared that their best days were a couple decades behind them. The cheapest one, a literal Day VFR only C172, went for $285/hour…dry. The IFR-capable Arrow? $390/hr. Dry.
Who wants to learn to fly, paying north of $285 per hour for a beat up 172 that’s barely airworthy…and still have to pay extra for fuel and an instructor whose just there to pad his logbook until he gets picked up at the regionals…and couldn’t care otherwise?
We have garbage, overpriced & beat up aircraft and, in many cases, even worse ‘instructors’.
It’s indefensible and completely unacceptable…..and I say that as a CFI, A&P and DAR-T.
And oh by the way, most of these operators cannot go purchase new Vans RV-12iS or Pipistrel Alpha S-LSAs to replace their aged & obsolete fleets….because nobody’s running through the doors to give them the business they need to afford them.
The industry is in a really bad spot. Costs are completely out of control and we can thank an overzealous insurance industry and wholly disengaged legacy OEMs for it (for starters). MOSAIC is a really great thing that will bring down the costs significantly, but it won’t happen until other S-LSA’s enter the space at realistic prices and put all the legacy airframes out to pasture. Those new regs were unveiled just a year ago, and it takes time to develop a proper bird. Fortunately, MOSAIC will streamline the process.
The bad part is that as these new aircraft enter the space, some Part 61 and even 141 training operations will inevitably fold. Let’s hope that the surviving operators don’t take advantage of the situtation and gouge prices.
Have faith, fam. It will get better.
Be glad you’re not in Europe.
Wow! To those prices. I have all the ratings through the years. But started in a Champ and ended it about 6 years ago finally in a Chief. Fun flying for 65 years. But don’t think an A65 hooked to one of those is fun for younger folks. Wish it was. And really don’t know if flying is even fun for them, or just opportunity for a job someday. Don’t have an answer for now.
When I started flight training 20 years ago I paid a fixed $10K up front for training. That turned out to be a big mistake because I had a difficult time getting on flights schedules because priorities were given to guys walking in and paying cash per lesson. Eventually it took 67 hours to get license.
A friend of mine owns a very successful FBO. Years ago we were flying together and he commented that the other FBO’s in the area shouldn’t see each other as competitors. The real competitor is the motorcycle dealership, marina and golf course, etc. IE the competitors for discretionary income, all of which are an easier and faster path to fun.
Wise words, but I would take it a step further: Getting a PPL is an unnecessarily big deal and the vast majority of trainers are boring to fly, and uncomfortably hot in summer, cold in winter.
In my opinion, if we really want to get a student to “swallow the hook” that intro flight and initial training needs to take place in a way that shows that student that NO barrier is to high to surmount to get to the goal. It doesn’t need to be a vintage taildragger with the door open but that is the “feel” I am referring to.
Further, now that MOSAIC has opened up what a Sport Pilot can fly let’s make that the initial ratting, not the PPL. When my dad took his pre solo written (yes that requirement has been an off and on thing) in 1955 they accidentally gave him the private pilot written instead, which he passed!
I guess my comments boil down to that I respectfully disagree with the premise of this article. I believe that path might be successful for career minded pilots with a high paying job as the goal, but I believe that passion is the truer path to reducing student pilot drop out.
As many have noted, the typical (stereotypical?) US fixed wing instructor is there to reach the magic 1500 hour mark and the actual instruction is secondary – and understand that there are exceptions.
The glider world is different. Most US glider instruction is done in clubs and by unpaid instructors who do it for the love of the sport. Of course, there are commercial glider operations but even here not many instructors are there for the hours.
Does that make a difference in the drop out rate? I don’t know. There the drop out rate is also staggering. The clientele is different and most do not sign up for lessons to reach some right seat somewhere and are often financially secure. For them the time involved is likely more “expensive” than the money.
My club has a very active youth program where 13 to 18 year olds work on the field is exchanged for flight time. But even here a large number leave before they age out and most do not continue flying.
I don’t have answers but agree with Thomas Cook in that you have to have the fire.
I have to disagree with the line around instructor constancy… when I took training I had an ensemble of instructors. One had Navy experience. Another had Army heli experience. There was the Embry Riddle graduate. There was the Air Force gal. Point is my instructors had a diversity of experience and thus a nuanced diversity of presentation. Often what became a plateau with one turned into a break through with another who offered different insights and I came to look forward to flying with most of them because I learned something from all. Now 20 years later when I took recurrency training I experienced the kids building time and that did slow things down and make me wonder. But it also taught me that online courses are a real deal compared to flight time. Ground study should be emphasized more as the financial benefit that it is.
One of the largest problems with flight instruction is flying schools not keeping a student with a single instructor longer. Where I learned to fly they wanted me to have a different instructor on every second flight. I refused, insisting on booking the same instructor each time. I completed my license in the regulatory minimum time (and could have done it faster if allowed to… We spent the last 5 hours doing commercial-level stuff and aerobatic training).
Changing instructors on each flight means reviewing your previous flights in a lot more detail on every flight, instead of your instructor getting to know you and knowing what you’ve done and what’s next. Forget variety of training styles, variety of experience. You’ll gain a heck of a lot more experience getting out there once you have the license. Assuming you actually get involved in the community, join (and become active in) flying clubs, talk to old-timers and hear the stories.
The washout rate isn’t anywhere near high enough, IMO. Anyone who takes over 50 hours to solo probably shouldn’t be in an airplane cockpit. It’s not the hobby for them.
Another factor not mentioned, even by students, is quitting because of fear. I had a serious fear of flying all the way thru my flight training. It began to subside somewhat after about a hundred hours. Thirty years later, anxiety over the possibility of dying is still a part of every flight for me.
I think many students fall in love with the idea of flying. Yet they meet the harsh reality that a horrible death, doing this activity, is only a few mistakes away.
I also think flight training should address “fear” as part of the syllabus. I thought that 30 years ago, and it still hasn’t happened. It seems no one wants to admit that this is a real part of flying. Learning to manage fear can make a real difference when things start to go wrong.
I also believe this is why so many pilots screw up emergency landings and end up killing themselves and others. What should be a manageable off-field landing turns to tragedy because fear takes over, and they fail to perform.
The reality of fear and pilot’s performance needs to be both an open discussion and managing it an integral part of flight training.
Celine-
Very nice presentation of a problem that may not have any real solutions. Each of the commenters further helps us see the real depth of the various ruts.
One comment used the term “the Right Stuff…”. Fellow GA pilots…and yes, you too, Mr. Garrison…., the railroads had a problem finding entry-level people for trains. The unions and the companies got together to research the problem (safety was also a major driver) of how to find people with “the Right Stuff” for their trains.
Their process was quite involved and actually began with a formula developed by two B-17 pilots at the end of WWII. Using this model and interpreting the values to railroad values in place of flying in combat values, the railroads came up with a personality profile test that is still used today to screen conductor applicants. In the space of three hours, a classroom with 30 applicants is privately narrowed down to 6 or 7 with the “Right Stuff”.
When I played football, Coach Stone used to say, “I can help you build your strength and teach you the moves and plays, but only you can build the DESIRE.” The testing mentioned above is used to separate the “weekend train buffs” from the serious career applicants. We certainly do not need that level of commitment – career seekers – for our Student Pilots, but personality traits like tenacity, and comprehension, and ability to focus, and willingness to make mistakes, coupled with listening skills are all discoverable through proper testing.
Celine has given us a view of a problem. Who is going to develop…..and pay for…..a solution? Well, if AOPA ever gets itself back in the game, they could help Congress to understand the airline pilot development path that begins with Student Pilots. Or maybe the airlines might have an interest in developing such a test. Or maybe the AOPA itself might find value in developing this test.
Having “the Right Stuff” does not even touch the other problems like money, but this problem is not going away and I don’t see any magic bullet out there. We, as a community, need to solve this problem one piece at a time. And maybe it will never be entirely solved.
John Caulkins
It’s hard to count the cost when no one will tell you the truth. ie…(“Flying is so simple that you could teach a monkey to do it if you had enough bananas.”) Maybe that has something to do with the failure of modern education teaching evolution in schools. It might be worth it for students to get through solo just to have the experience if enough money is readily expendable. It teaches them respect for aviation on a basic level and brings them to reality. But In any case, there are conflicting agendas because young instructors are just building time and moving on in the middle of training and yet flight instruction doesn’t pay enough to stay and make a career out of it. I always tell new students to find old instructors who are career instructors.
Erik Edgrin said it best. The airport owner where I learned pointed out the same thing to me years ago. There is other competition for those with “disposable” income for hobbies. If you don’t make flying an airplane a fun activity you won’t keep a student’s interest in flying. For those whose goal is to get to the airlines or military, the structured flying will get that student a taste of what training for a job is like. To me training for a flying job is not fun because the company or military service will firehouse the training as fast as possible since that company or service only has a certain amount of time and effort and cost to qualify that individual. If you can’t qualify in that time your out, plain and simple. It doesn’t work that way for the individual who is getting into flying for fun. I got into flying for the fun of it and never had any intention of making a career out if flying. I would have never got into flying if I had to do the structured program the military and some companies do. If the student who is getting training as a hobby doesn’t enjoy the flying, they will drop out especially with the costs as they are now. I just retired from my flying job and am disappointed on how the lower end of GA has become since now I am an airplane owner, flying again for the fun of it!
Yes. Training is almost always hurried in both military and civilian aviation environments. You can’t answer a career worth of aviation questions in a few classroom semesters and little to no actual instrument and icing or thunderstorm environments in an airplane. Even if the instructor himself could open up the tops of students heads and pour that much knowledge and experience in, new cadets couldn’t absorb and apply it all. There is no substitute for experience.
Now that MOSAIC is a reality, I would like to see more flight schools offer Sport Pilot as an intermediate step. Many trainers (172s, Cherokees, etc.) can now be flown by SPs. If we enable a student to take a checkride and get a SP ticket at roughly the halfway point to PP, at least the student will have a pilot’s certificate and be legal to fly within SP limits, even if he never finishes off the PP certificate. And if he decides to go on, or come back for PP later, all that SP training will count.
Psychologically it will help, too, as that first pilot license won’t be such a long way off or seem quite so unachievable.
At a minimum, SP should be presented as an option to the student who is thinking about giving up on a PP program.
I’ve been saying this for over 6 months now. In the DFW metroplex I have not been able to find one flight school offering a “Sport Pilot” course.
Another problem I see is the flight schools stretching out the programs. I have a Grandson who’s been ready to take his PP check-ride for several months. And the school keeps saying, “You need to study more ground school. You need to take a “mock” check-ride, etc.
I know there’s more to learn since 1967 but I soloed in just under 10 hrs. and took/passed PP check-ride at 40 hrs! And that was not all that uncommon.
As a former educator (not in flying), may I make a constructive suggestion to your proposal? I would start with flying, not book learning. Doesn’t have to be many hours, but before you dump someone into W&B calculations, or density altitude calculations, let them feel the joy of flying. Not just an intro flight; 5-10 hours of real flying, including one cross country to a good lunch. THEN give them the books.
Some will decide that flying was better in the brochure than in real life, so they learned quickly and inexpensively. Others will get bitten by the bug, and suddenly all that book learning is going to mean a LOT to them.
Just my $.02.
There has got to be that “Fire in the belly” first and foremost. Nothing else will do in the long run. Prices are stupid. 45 year “young” trainers scare most sane people when the engine starts. Not many gearheads want to learn about airspace classifications, weather limits, regulatory necessities, controlled/uncontrolled airport procedures and flight planning. You must have that “fire in the belly” to put up with all the challenges along the way to becoming a PILOT.
These are all good comments and perspectives. The financial hardship is likely the biggest common factor in impeding flight training, but the one factor, which was my biggest frustration, was the logistical nightmare regarding the flight training.
Here in the Great Lakes Region, depending on the time of year, weather will cancel half to three-quarters of all flying lessons right off the top. If the weather is suitable for flying, then the airplane is down for maintenance. If the weather is good, and airplane isn’t broke, the flight instructor calls and cancels the night before the instruction day due to a family emergency or interview for an airline/corporate job. If the weather is good, the plane isn’t down, and the instructor doesn’t cancel, then one of my kids is sick, the dog needs surgery, or some other family/home ownership emergency makes me have to call off the flight. The more flights that are called off, the less progress that’s made, the less knowledge retained, and the more that previous concepts have to be revisited. It seems like one hundred different factors have to come together perfectly just to get off the ground.
When this happens nearly every time, the love for flying has to far outweigh the hassles, disappointments, and adopting the “screw this” attitude that easily develops. Spending that leisure dollar on a motorcycle, old car, golf game, or boat is just a lot less hassle and more fun per dollar spent in most cases. Yes, financial and aptitudinal abilities play huge roles, but to me the ultimate question was whether the hassle was all worth it. It was, although I have no hair left and came close a few times to saying, “Screw this.” Once the instrument rating was completed, it seemed downhill from there.
“Still, there is something we should not forget. Becoming a pilot is “cool,” but it is also far from easy. It requires commitment, cognitive ability, physical skills, medical fitness, financial investment and time … a lot of time.”
Commitment: an agreement or pledge to do something in the future…where does that come from? Often, commitment is disguised by someone else’s desire for you rather than something that burns from within. In the case of flight training, many promises of success are implied by making it appear anyone can become a pilot. The idea of becoming a pilot is cool to many because Hollywood, TV, social media, computerized flight simulators , and air travel being so common with a large portion of the population, making flying available to virtually anyone. Large number of people have flown…either via a computer/cell phone/iPad, or via commercial airliner, often both. Most have seen pilots in quasi military apparel complete with “officer” style hat, wings, and epaulettes adorning the dark suits, white shirts with dark ties, well polished shoes, large leather flight bags in tow, confidant stride, aviator Rayban’s on or hanging from a pocket…making getting old with copious amounts of gray quite striking even glamorous. That IS cool in a world that worships being youthful…forever. We have turned war sterile by omitting why our military exists. The military ultimately exists to kill people…to kill whomever our leaders have determined to be a threat to national security. Our airshows demonstrate jet fighter aerobatics, high speed, afterburner glowing low passes, the obligatory pull to vertical complete with slow roll, with an over excited, adrenalin fueled announcer giving the spectators a play by play of this pilot atop this firebreathing human controlled missile. Of course, most have seen countless social media reels, movies, and military airshow demonstrations to know that green “look” of a military pilot’s combat uniform including the obligatory slow motion walk to his or her’s gray mount complete with name and rank under the canopy. Killing is reduced to a heads up display, with flashing airplane or ground target accompanied by rapid beeps when locked on, a button is pushed on the stick, missile launched… and foe is “obliterated”…with cheers from ground based personnel in the green glow of radar screens. Very tidy and sanitary way of killing. Lot’s of accolades from one’s comrade in arms upon returning from these missions, too. However, outside of a commercial airport or military display at an airshow, when do prospective pilots get to actually see, touch, or be in proximity of an airplane? And in all of this “you can be a pilot sales pitch” from the military and airlines, where does the discussion that everybody starts off in little airplanes get introduced? Mostly, single engine piston pounders that no one sees at any average GA airport anymore. So, the “commitment” is coming from a highly idealized image created by other’s with specific goals implying a training structure of high tech, gee whiz, aircraft taught by wisdom filled, masters of the air, instructors.
Cognitive ability: In 2026, the average American adult uses an active vocabulary of 3,000 to 5,000 words. In 1980, the average American adults used an active vocabulary of 20,000 to 30,000 words. Passive knowledge of words in 1980 about 40,000. Passive knowledge of words today 20,000-35,000. In 1980 the Navy maintenance manuals were written on a 7nth grade educational level. In my Navy career during 1980-1985 in VT-23 Kingsville, TX maintaining T2C Buckeyes of which most naval aviators flew for scores to determine if the would move on to fighters, patrol, attack aircraft, etc., I was responsible for bringing cannibalized Buckeyes to flying status. The average enlisted recruit who entered the squadron directly from A school could not read nor comprehend to the 7th grade reading level. However, if shown how to perform a maintenance procedure, rather than reading it, following the printed instructions including detailed photos and diagrams, when demonstrated, often they could perform it. Amazingly, often with showing them only once. Officers were required to have a four year degree. Spelling on gripes was atrocious at best. Often, I had to find the student pilot and ask them what actually was wrong with the airplane. Written communication skills were not good. 46 years later, this reading/comprehension/writing/communication skill levels have not improved.
Physical skills and medical fitness: How many people have basic mechanical skills today? How many pilots, including aircraft owners do any maintenance on their airplanes, or understand the basic regarding for example, how a 4 cycle or two cycle engine works? What is a carburetor, what does it do, how does it work? What is a magneto, how does it operate, and what does it do in an airplane engine? Since carburetors disappeared in cars over 35 years ago, magnetos outside of aviation or lawn mowers over 60+ years ago, who has actually seen one outside of the classic car hobby, or a farm operation with tractors? How do you explain carb ice, the operation of carb heat, and what it does to engine performance with or without it’s use? Why is there a mag drop on left or right vs both? Approximately 72-75% of US adults are classified as overweight or obese. This means over 200 million Americans live with excess weight, with over 100 million falling into the obese category. An estimated 115.2 million are pre-diabetic, 28.8 million diagnosed as diabetic, and 11 million un diagnosed. Blood sugar levels affect cognitive abilities and moods. Overweight and obese people have difficulty with many physical skills. Often, it is next to impossible to climb into or egress from an average trainer for the average American adult. Of those, how many can pass a 1st or second class medical? Likewise, many trainers with full fuel and two average adults can be at or over gross weight. Many high volume flight schools are located in hot regions.
Finances: It’s one thing for many of us to make sacrifices allowing us to pursue flight training in the 50’s and 60’s rarely was any of carrying much if any debt. Largely due to lending practices then vs now. Most of us started a family without tens of thousands of student loan debt, credit card debt, or even car loans. Many of us had vocational training, fixed our own cars, repaired our often rented homes, and generally could keep up with most mechanical issues. Parts were easily accessible, coaching/mentoring from the various local business owners was common from TV/appliance repair, hardware stores, local gas station, to just about any consumable we purchased from the department stores. The best help we can get today is an AI generated chatbot from an overseas call center after navigating over a “menu to serve you better”. So, thinking you can make a family sacrifice while having a house payment, multiple car/truck payments, servicing 6 figure student loan debt, plus living with the need of credit cards, dealing with health and debt required insurance coverage with average job stability of 5-7 years, makes $150-$300 per hour aircraft rental rates unsustainable.
Conclusions: The fire in the belly came for me with building model airplanes from kits or plans, initially all free flight, then control line, and eventually RC…(of which all three I still build and fly today). This led to bicycle rides to local airports that had virtually every airplane tied down outside. No gates, no barb wire, no chain link fences. The hangared airplanes were the ones getting rebuilt. The FBO’s had flight schools with Colts, Cherokees, Cessna 120/140/150’s, Musketeers, Champs, and Apaches. We airport bum kids sat in the big chairs and worn couches in their respective offices. We were not told to get lost. We helped wash airplanes and got rides to “dry them off”. I pumped avgas, washed airplanes, cut grass, helped change oil, aired up tires, tied down transient airplanes…in exchange for flight time. Many of these airports had Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft training/maintenance centers. I was lucky to exchange my work for keys to a virtually new 150. Most flight schools had nice airplanes, rather than the now normal petri dish with wings. I got hundreds of rides from folks who owned the Luscombes, Champs, Tri-Pacers, C170’s, Cubs, Stinsons, Ercoupes and Aircoupes, Fairchilds, ( yeah…even Fairchilds), etc that were parked outside. Cars had names like Galaxie with its after-burner like tail lights. Most cars emulated aviation in some sort of way from the early 50’s to the early 70’s. This made looking up very easy. Suffice to say, it was far easier to be in the company of airplanes, pilots, and the mechanics. Airports were a place of invitation, accessible by average people with average means. Airport restaurants had decks where kids like me and families could watch airplanes take off and land. And flight training centers advertised in local papers to local people. So, to compare then to now is not relevant. I have notice universally on every Young Eagle ride I have given, or introductory flight, the impression of flying anticipated vs the real sensation of flight was literally a shock to all. That does not mean all was bad. But the noise, vibration, the sensations of being in a 3 dimensional environment not in a 500,000lb airliner but in a 800-3000lb airplane and all of the sensory overloads that come in a GA airplane was almost overwhelming for most. I believe we have gotten used to that environment forgetting the sensory overload we first encountered. Add to this apparent mayhem to them is the lack of mechanical aptitude that helped many of us over 70 folks understand the lightplane atmosphere. Light airplanes will never be aerial cars. The closer they are, the closer they are to a million plus dollars like a CR22. Yet it will never be a BMW it is trying to emulate. Cars can emulate airplanes. Airplanes cannot emulate cars. We need to get over that in our quest for honesty in flight training. Secondly, the school has to take into consideration the lack of mechanical ability, the lack of reading skills, the lack of health, and the lack of physical skills and adjust to those facts as they are instead of ignoring these demographics or acting like they do not exist at all. Then, training can and should be adjusted accordingly. It can be done. My wife and I ran a flight school from 2004 thru 2014. We know how we met these customer challenges including suffering thru the 2008/2011 Great Financial Crisis. We never got rich but still managed to eat. Lastly, we had to tell some folks it was not affordable for them at this time but still had an open door policy to make what we could accessible as a flight school and airport if, while, and when their finances changed. We also had a ground introductory course to allow them what a headset felt like, sat in several airplanes to show first hand what the cabin environment is, and often did a short taxi around the airport to help them understand the noises, road feel, the control manipulation needed to taxi a lightplane. No Charge. We did show what was expected of them math and reading wise. We gave accurate time requirements. We showed them the average trends for most people in gaining their Private Pilots License in today’s world. We kept our airplanes in a clean and polished condition. As a result of understanding that flying can be available to all, it is not something for everybody. As a result we did not lose many students and a maintained very high graduation rate. Simply put, we sincerely tried to meet our customers where they were at. Secondly, we trained for aerial competency, proper ADM, understanding the mechanical side of airplanes, their unique systems, and why things work instead of sharing just enough info to pass a test. It worked for us and we made lifelong friends as a result.
Fantastic report!
My apologies to those who may have read (and endured) this rather long ‘rant’ elsewhere. But after having read so many response-posts in various other publications over the years on this ‘Subject’ …while some are seeing clearly, it seems that many (the majority?) still don’t (or just don’t want to) …’Get-it’.
“BasicMed is the best thing to happen to general aviation in decades,” said then AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker
“The BasicMed rule will keep our pilots safe but will simplify our regulations and keep general aviation flying affordable,” then FAA’s Huerta said.
Robert Goyer, formally of ‘Flying’ magazine and ‘Plane and Pilot’ observed (in a most politically correct fashion) of the wonderful development: “The new rules are a lot more complicated than any of us would have wished for”.
EAA Chairman Jack Pelton on MOSAIC: “We are lowering the hurdles from a regulatory standpoint, and now if we can use regulatory to support that innovation, I think it’s going to be a home run for Recreational Aviation.”
Let’s have a look at the two ‘Grass-Roots’ ‘Non-Profit’ organizations, that are supposed to be representing the (now just about extinct) ‘Average Joe’ ‘GENERAL Aviation’ pilot that had the most hands in initiating, pushing and following through on these so-called “most significant legislative victory(s) for general aviation in decades.” (AOPA’s Mark Baker)
There’s just no way to ‘sugarcoat’ my response to this hogwash;
AOPA & EAA …currently headed by (appointed, NOT member voted) ex-Corporate CEO’s still drawing (absurd) CEO level wages from NON-PROFIT ‘Associations’ Average-Joe members, flown around in expensive, Turbine (Corporate) aircraft doing OUR? ‘Business’ at expensive-lush resorts, provided & paid for by said membership, who are shamelessly deluged by the Association and its ‘affiliates’ with weekly solicitations for ‘goods & services’, and have in fact, ironically, become one of the many active and willing participants in the demise of General Aviation …unfortunately, part of the problem …certainly NOT the solution.
We’re told this excess is justified, in fact required, so that we can have people “experienced” in the ways of Washington, (Corporate) lobbying and (Big) Business in order to have (OUR?) voices heard and issues addressed. (sound familiar?) When the perverted reality is that it’s just this type of mind-Set, this (USA?) ‘Corporate Mentality’ (pursuit of profit solely for its own sake) that’s been the primary contributor to the Graveyard Spiral General Aviation has been unable to recover from.
EAA’s Mr. Peltons last gig was with Cessna Aircraft Company, who like Piper, and others in the 50’s, 60’s & 70’s not only supported, but actually CREATED a market for ‘General Aviation’ …by providing aircraft, not only for the affluent, but airplanes that the ‘Average-Joe’, albeit with a little sacrifice, might actually be able-to afford …now gives us the $450,000+ venerable C172. A basic, simple, single-engine, 4-place, fixed gear/prop/low-HP ‘Light Airplane’. One whose basic airframe’s been around for well over half a century and R&D, tooling and most other initial development costs long since paid-for many times over, decades ago. Essentially a (very) old airframe design with a few tweaks, upgraded to some modern avionics (which SHOULD cost substantially less than their steam-gauge, analog counterparts)
If one follows (Aviation related) news, it’s been reported that the elite Business (Aviation) club was also experiencing a bit of drop in membership (revenues) a few years back.
By forgetting its core roots & the re-inventing of itself into a ‘profit-solely-for-its-own-sake’ business model, perhaps the General-Aviation INDUSTRY is now finally beginning to feel the effects of its shortsightedness, in painting itself into the very limited little corner it’s only now beginning to realize it’s in?
Appalling, the manner in which our ‘Industry’, in its present incarnation shamefully perpetuates the illusion it hasn’t (deliberately) mutated into something totally unrecognizable from its birth and existence for the better part of the last century. Now destined by design and careful maintenance to cater solely to an extremely small, ‘Elite’ and most affluent segment of our society. A perfectly constructed, self-perpetuating, insulated ‘bubble’, what was once a great, vibrant, with perpetual growth potential and mostly unique to the USA phenomena …’General Aviation’.
Deliberate spin, outright propaganda …or just plain denial?
Most of Europe and all of present day Asia have no (and really never had any) such thing as ‘General Aviation’ …solely because of the PROHIBITABLY EXPENSIVE costs. Their citizens have long been coming here to pursue that dream we’ve all taken for granted! (but even that may change …read: practically grind to a halt now that their draconian EASA Flight Crew licensing regs have kicked in)
Active participation in our wonderful world of ‘Flight’ here in the USA has always been on the (relatively) expensive side, but up until recently remained the best (and only) place on the planet to do so.
But! …let’s take a hard look at what ‘we’ (US GA) have allowed to happen: …In 1979/80, the peak of GA aircraft production, almost 20,000 piston airplanes rolled off the assembly lines with a US population of about 200 million. The average price of an airplane was 3-4 times that of a new luxury car …1/2 to 1 times the average price of a single-family home.
Ten years ago, in 2015, with a population of just over 320 million people, about 500 piston aircraft were being produced/delivered each year …and the average prices were now 2-3 times the (median) price of a (equally over-inflated) house!
First of all ‘General Aviation’ is doing just fine …never better in fact. That is if when you say “General Aviation” …you mean the 98 percent of GA which consist of ‘executive’ aircraft. Ninety eight (98) percent of the GA industry’s annual revenue now comes from Turbine aircraft (Bizjets and Turboprops)
According to GAMA Statistics; In 1979 there were over 13,000 piston singles produced and just over 2,800 twins, for a total dollar value of just over $1 billion in 1979 dollars …which is about $4.3 billion in today’s dollars.
Total ‘Turbine’ GA aircraft produced were 779 with a total value of $772 million in 1978 -79 dollars …which is about $3.4 billion in today’s money.
So the ‘little guy’ was THE major source of revenue for the GA industry as late as 1979 …not the business bigwigs . That says a lot about where we where and where we have come to. Of course back then the head of the company made maybe 15-20 times as much as the Joe on the shop floor …what is it today?
Let’s look at those numbers a little more closely; The average cost of that executive airplane (the turbine variety) was just under $1 million …about 4.3 million in today’s dollars. Today the average sticker price is $15+ million.
The average cost of a piston plane in 1979 was $58,000 (INCLUDING light/medium twins and all the high end singles) which is about $250,000 in today’s money. If we could separate the twins from the singles we would find the average piston single price would be closer to $90,000 …in today’s dollars.
Now what really bears notice is the fact that those 40+ some years ago, there were far less than 1,000 big spenders who could spend the equivalent of $15 million in today’s money for a Bizjet or Turboprop …but there were almost 17,000 little guys who could afford to buy a piston single or even a light twin …over 2,800 twins.
Who has gained and who has lost?
Well the ‘GA’ Industry is doing nicely. It has increased sales from $3+ billion a year in today’s dollars to well over $35 billion.
The big spenders also don’t seem to be doing too badly. There’s now almost 2,000 of them buying a new executive aircraft every year (over three times as many) …and paying more than three times as much on average for the airplane …an over tenfold increase in spending power by the big spenders.
Let’s just repeat that/get some perspective …AN OVER TENFOLD INCREASE IN SPENDING POWER.
At the same time (light) piston airplanes, which made up more than 60 percent of ‘General Aviation’ …60 PERCENT! …even as late as 1979, today make up just TWO lousy percent (2%) of sales by dollar.
Want to buy a new airplane Joe? …can you write a check for $500,000+?
What it all adds up to is that the rich have gotten much richer …while the middle class dream of airplane ownership is toast.
It’s not surprising that most if not all of our Industry publications are funded almost entirely by big spending ‘Business Aviation’ …and continues to deliberately confuse things by lumping us ‘little-guy’ aviators on life support in with the rest of ‘General-Aviation’.
PLEASE!! …it is time for some ‘HONESTY’!
And please forgive me, as I really don’t wish to sound sarcastic, but it’s just mind-boggling to a (simple minded?) guy like myself how casually, and with such cavalier so many ‘representatives’ of the Aviation Industry quote prices for production, the average ‘Light Sport’, or any other 2-4 place ‘Light Airplane’. What a perfectly reasonable price ($170-200K) to pay for a (new) ‘Light Sport’ airplane …or the $450+K for a ‘moderately tricked out Cessna 172′ …or the 1.2 mil!!?? for a Seneca, version 5 recently reviewed in AOPA Pilot, (another 55+ year old, basically unchanged airframe design) …I mean, what’s wrong with that …isn’t that just about right ?
…why ain’t everybody buyin’ em?!?
How can such sums for such airplanes ever be (reasonably) justified??
And we wonder why ‘Student-Pilot” drop-out rates are exceeding 75% …new pilot certification is half what it was 25 years ago?? Why (aircraft) rental rates have gotten beyond the reach of most would be Sunday Flyers?
What could possibly be causing this decline in our beloved activity?!? (‘Private/Recreational Aviation’)
In all other industries that are a factor in every other facet of our lives (save for our uniquely corrupt Health-Care ‘Industry’) …one that bears mention is the Financial Industry. Every product we buy has over 30% of its price, on average, built in for overhead that it took to bring that product to market. In some cases much higher (interest charges, brokerage fees, etc). Yet even with all that financial overhead, a lot of consumer products still deliver more for your inflation adjusted buck than they did 20 to 25 years ago. That’s a fact. Cars bought today, though also currently experiencing ‘hyper-inflation’ are far better value for the dollar, same with the lawn tractor, Big-screen TV, washing machine, etc.
The “Litigation” blamers (though the uncontrolled explosion of greed-laden ‘Product Liability’ lawsuits many ( manufacturers) have had to endure over the last few decades are the ONLY thing Cessna, Piper etc. can ‘legitimately’ claim to have been “victimized” by) …are a legitimate factor in the increase of Certificated Aircraft prices, to a relatively small degree. But they don’t ‘get it’ either …or are just being incredibly disingenuous.
And before you start ‘raving’ about the unique and “excessive regulatory” environment that aircraft manufacturers have to endure …they were ALL operating under those basically unchanged set of rules way back in the 70-80’s as well.
So what exactly did change?? …How prey-tell did they ever manage to produce, create and sustain that kind of a market back then?!?
…and even ‘profit’ from it!?
The only thing today that costs over five times as much as it did 40 years ago is a new airplane.
Talk all you want about the cost of hangars, fuel, insurance, maintenance etc. … a fact of life everywhere, but it’s new and AFFORDABLE products that drive an industry. And unfortunately, the personal ‘Recreational Airplane’ industry is finished because the average price of a new 4 place piston airplane is half a million+ dollars …which less than 2% of the population could ever afford/justify.
That’s strictly an ‘Industry’ issue. If the automotive industry wanted to build an airplane for $50-60K, do you think they couldn’t? …sure they could. And they’d sell who knows how many thousands at that price.
But does anyone really not believe that Cessna could manufacture, and sell a new 172 for $125-150K (or a 152 for $70-$80K) …and realize a ‘reasonable’ profit per unit??
Cessna, like Piper, Beechcraft and others decided, long ago, that Corporate (Turbine) aircraft is “where the ‘REAL’ monies at” (and an extremely lucrative amount of money at that) And the LSA (‘Industry’) which was supposed to be GA’s “savior” has, it seems, quickly succumbed to the disease …behold the Cub Crafters Carbon Cub. An even simpler TWO place, basic, fixed gear, fixed prop, low HP ‘LIGHT SPORT’ airplane with a basic avionics package for the bargain price of only 400K!
This is what has been/is still primarily responsible for the demise of ‘General Aviation’ …as those of us who numbered among what was generally perceived to make up its largest segment during the 60’s, 70’s and even into the early 90’s have been so fortunate to have been a part of.
The ‘Experimental’ ‘Industry’ has become equally infected …as to all of those available ‘Kits’ out there today. Realistically, even a modest, two place, fixed gear/prop with a basic IFR panel (that by reg, one actually can’t utilize for it’s purpose) 140+ kt airplane most often sports (pun intended) a finished price of close to 120K …many others almost twice that! But don’t forget …ya still have to ‘build’ (and maintain) it yourself!
The aircraft industry now looks at things differently; The ‘GA’ (BUSINESS) aircraft industry makes over $30 billion a year in revenue by selling close to 2,000 executive aircraft at an average price of $15+ million each. In order to make $30 billion in sales selling (little) airplanes, even at $100,000 + apiece, they would have to sell 300,000 small airplanes a year. That’s never going to happen. There simply aren’t 300,000 people who are interested in buying their own airplane each and every year …or have the extra $100,000 lying around to do so. So the numbers are woefully against the ‘rest of us’ …that is the reality.
We must all come to grips with the fact that ‘General Aviation’ is now solely ‘Business Aviation’ …NOT the little guys flying around for personal. training or ‘recreational’ purposes in Cessnas & Cherokees.
That is not what ‘General Aviation’ is anymore. ‘General Aviation’ (as we’ve known her until now) is all but dead in this country, just as it’s been in the rest of the world (where it never really existed to begin with) …having been replaced with ‘Business Aviation’.
…Long Live the King!
The ‘Aircraft Industry’ sure knows this …and that’s why they made the (rational?) choice that it is no longer worth it.
And those ‘Rule-Changes’ like ‘Basic-Med’ or even ‘MOSAIC’ that’s gonna’ simplify our regulations and keep flying ‘affordable’ …and help save ‘General Aviation’???
While I’m not so naive (or young and foolish) or unappreciative to not understand that it was (is?) the engine of ‘Capitalism’ that made ‘GENERAL’ Aviation attainable to most of the masses in the first place, and ‘Business Aviation’ was indeed a (if not ‘The’) very large and essential part of ‘General Aviation’ which fueled that engine …Unfortunately, it has become (painfully) obvious to me (and I suspect more than just a ‘vocal minority’ of our community) that the US Aviation ‘Industry’ …along with its publications and all of our ‘Alphabet-Associations’, and dare I postulate, even the EAA …all who’ve been a welcomed part of my life during my 50 year love affair with Aviation, have morphed into what indeed it seems ‘Corporate America’ has equally mutated into: ‘Business’ entities … whose SOLE purpose appears to be the pursuit of profit …SOLELY for its own sake …and the unlimited enrichment of their upper echelons.
Well …so that’s the problem. And now at least knowing what the problem is just maybe we can start looking for solutions. But the solution is not to just root for ‘Business Aviation’ …and bankroll their lobbying fights in rotten DC.
And yes …as has just become overwhelmingly apparent with our last few election fiascos, DC-Corruption is a very real truth. Unfortunately, it is exactly that kind of lobbying of (our) ‘Special Interest’ groups that is/has been exasperating the problem.
And the little guy (privately) flying around in piston airplanes is all but extinct already.
That’s why we hear the message all the time that what is good for ‘Business Aviation’ is good for the little guy. This has been a mantra at ‘Flying’ (magazine) publications for quite some time …even as the little guy aviator continues to wither away …while Bizav continues to grow and prosper.
In the mid 70’s, I struggled to put myself through school (let’s not even get started on the costs of a college degree these days!) and pay for my flight training (mostly through loans) to pursue a dream of being a Professional Pilot. Now 50 years later, after having been fortunate to have flown everything from parachutes to 747’s, this subject has been a particular heartbreak for me. As I seriously doubt I could succeed in that endeavor today …and wonder how any of today’s young(er) folks, or even us ‘older guys’ (of even ‘above-average’ means) ever could as well.
I’m afraid these (greedy) times we’re a livin’ and that EXPONENTIALLY accelerating rate of expense, will only serve to hasten the time when the final nails are driven. We’re rapidly destroying ‘General (Recreational) Aviation’ in this country …making it solely a ‘Rich Mans Sport’.
As to the reasons for its demise? Surely, if you’re (intellectually) honest with yourselves, (and you know who you are) you understand the point of this (lowly 1-cent-worth) comment.
If not, then …no offense …uplifting, hopeful enthusiasm notwithstanding, but with none of the cold, clear logical pragmatism so necessary to be a successful ‘PIC’ …you’re ‘rowing down that famous long river in Egypt’ …or are of that myopic mindset of those who have caused and /or are still actively involved in the death of General Aviation …perhaps in fact one of many active and willing participants in it …and unfortunately, part of the problem …certainly NOT the solution.
The final, irrefutable evidence is not that our illustrious ‘leaders’ of AOPA & EAA are congratulating themselves on the fact that they essentially failed at securing what has consistently been requested and proposed by (their?) memberships, despite their ‘input/participation’ in Rule-changes such as MOSAIC and Basic-Med. (in fairness, not really all their fault as anyone can, no matter what their background, ‘status’ or financial where-with-all can fail in that ‘Fiasco’ we call the US Government)
NO …they insult our intelligence (as well as their own) with ‘SPIN’ worthy of the best of what we’ve all been forced to endure from the Corporate-Congressional-Industrial-Complex over the last few decades …by trying to con us into believing how “great this will be” …what a difference it will make, when the 99% (no pun intended) of us who exist in the ‘real world’ know all too well to the contrary! It’s now all too evident that ‘They’ in essence have become and are no different than ‘Them’. But how devastatingly unfortunate for all of us that at the moment, they (ALPA & EAA) are the only game(s) in town.
During the last 40 years, we (as in ALL of us) have witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind in this country (no …this IS NOT ‘Class Warfare’ talk here, just an honest, objective assessment of the data & facts) …and our beloved and nearly extinct ‘General Aviation’ has just simply been one of its many and most obvious casualties.
“Why”…the continuing/acceleration of Student-Pilot drop-outs …the rapidly decreasing pilot population? …the rapidly downward spiral of total logged hours? …a Pilot shortage?? …sluggish sales factors?? …continuing decline in attendance at Oshkosh? And now …a possible trend towards decreasing BIZAV sales!? (Oh My!)
…Very, very sad indeed.
Again, apologies for the (long) rant folks. Just a lowly (half-century-long) Airline, Air-taxi, ‘Corporate’, Flight School and ‘Recreational’ General-Aviation flunky. Currently grounded (due to …you guessed it …Medical …’expense’ and regulation) aircraft owner.
So yea …you would be reasonable to conclude that the above was just the ‘ranting/raving’ and whining of a ‘disgruntled’, disappointed/ defeated …sad SOB.
Or, if you’re truly (intellectually) honest with yourselves….
Thanks for puttin’ up with me
So excellent. Just put me in a Champ for my final few trips around the patch. And fortunate I feel to have been involved in GA in the wonderful’ 60s and ‘’70s. And a basic C150 advertised at $6195. Yes, there was at one time a wonderful period of aviating for true GA. Glad I was there. Sorry the new folks will never experience it.
Right on the money honey…
These last two posts have both said a lot. All these rule changes (recreational certificate, sport pilot certificate, basicmed, and now “MOSAIC”)were supposed to be the holy grail for saving general aviation from extinction. What a joke. I have been out of the recreational flying for the 30 years I have been flying pt135 for a living. Being an airplane owner now, I just finished taking my wife to get the “$100” meal at an airport restaurant. The airport originally planned turned out to have closed the FBO on weekends with no fuel available at all. The weather today was as good as it gets today(a Sunday, clear with light winds), but yet heard very little radio chatter on several Unicom frequencies while airborne. Diverted to a different airport restaurant that had some planes on the ramp but nothing like would have been there 30 years ago when I was working on getting my ratings. The flight school where I learned can no longer compete with other outfits due to the dramatic increases in the cost of replacing training and rental airplanes. A flight school at another airport is busy because they have all leased back aircraft they don’t own. Rental rates still not cheap, for 40-50 year old planes that school operates. Even the drop zone,skydiving business is more and more trending toward leasing turbine powered jump planes. The current unleaded avgas situation doesn’t help. My last company I just retired from is a management company. It seems the only way to remain profitable in general aviation is to do it with other people’s money, due to unaffordable purchase of a plane. A real shame. And those with the amount of “discretionary” income I’m sure can see this when looking for a hobby to spend money on. A lot of my fellow pilots I flew with before retiring thought I was nuts going back to flying a C172 after a career flying jets. They may be right! Hopefully GA will hang on long enough that I will not be around to see it die off completely.
Exactly. Don’t cross your fingers, you’ll get cramps!