Slashdot Mirror
Ugly Trends Threaten Aviation Industry
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'In the past several decades, the number of private and recreational pilots across the country has plummeted, as has the number of small aircraft being manufactured — trends that some say have been accelerated by increasingly strict federal regulations. If the decline continues, it will spell trouble for entrepreneurs ... Since 1980, the number of pilots in the country has nosedived from about 827,000 in 1980 to 617,000, according to the Frederick, Md.-based Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. During about the same period, data from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association in Washington show that production of single-engine planes plunged from 14,000 per year to fewer than 700.'"
I'm also going to chime in with the "it's too expensive" issue. Flying is amazingly expensive. It's always been expensive, but the costs of aviation have risen along with everything else (and in some cases, much, much faster) while real wages ... haven't.
At my local FBO, airplanes rent for between $110 and $170 an hour wet (with fuel) depending on the type and equipment. If you're a student, expect to pay between $25 and $50 an hour for instruction, and the average student (so I'm told) requires between 50 and 60 hours of instruction before they're ready to sit for exams. Add in about $200 for your medical and another $500 or so for leaning materials, another few hundred in miscellaneous costs, and the cost just get licensed is, at the low end, around $8,000 and can easily go in excess of $13,000+.
And then you've got your license. Then what? Have you looked at the cost of airplanes recently? There's a reason pretty much nobody buys airplanes anymore. Only clubs and flight schools own airplanes. You want something newer than 40 years old and seats 4 people, it will run you in excess of $50,000. And forget anything new. A new Cessna 172 currently goes for in excess of $300,000.
So yes. It's so expensive even to just learn to fly that it is effectively priced out of all the but (what's left of) the upper middle class and the wealthy.
But there's another issue, too, that I think warrants some attention: health.
So many things that are considered "common" diagnoses now and are easily treatable, such as high blood pressure, ADHD, depression, etc. are considered disqualifying conditions by the FAA. Even though many of these conditions are easily treatable by modern medicine, they're disqualifying for even a third-class (private pilot) medical certificate.
While the costs are what is primarily keeping people away from flying right now, the archaic medical certifying process used by the FAA is not helping.
"Think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that!" - George Carlin.
The cost of an airplane is not the issue. If you look back to at least the 1960s, an airplane cost about as much as a middle class house. That has not changed. The cost of OPERATING an airplane HAS changed. It is more expensive. It is more complicated and arcane. I say this as a licensed pilot for the last 25 years. Some things are much easier and safer. TIS and ADS-B have improved traffic awareness. GPS has improved navigation. Moving maps and weather overlays have improved situational awareness tremendously. Some minor improvements in aerodynamics have trickled down to the GA market and that has helped as well.
But the airspace systems is hideously more complex than it was in decades past. Controlled airspace has grown enormously over cities. The day when you could cross the country in a Piper Cub without even so much as a radio are vanishing fast.
All that said, I don't think the complexity or cost is the issue. I think the primary change is social. People returned from military training wanting to do some of the things they did in the service. So amateur radio grew, aviation grew, recreational shooting sports grew, sport diving grew... but if you look at the statistics today, there aren't as many who make the transition from military to civilian life. It ended when the draft ended --and those baby boomers are retiring and dying off.
Most kids approach these endeavors with Grandpa gently hoping a spark will light in their grandchildren. And it doesn't happen. These activities are all perceived as legal liabilities, frightening, and pointless.
The thrill of doing really cool things in aviation/radio/mechanics/shooting sports/etc.. is vanishing fast. These activities remain as expensive as they ever were, but the romance of doing it is just not there. We have killed the adventure and excitement with safety, policies, regulations, and so on. I'm not saying the latter are a bad thing; but people want to feel alive by doing something unique and exciting. Aviation is just another form of transportation and it isn't even particularly glamorous any more. Radio is your cell phone. You can call your buddy overseas for next to nothing any time you like. Who needs a shortwave radio? Guns owners are regarded as social pariahs by much of the population, with politicians and the news media ranting non stop nonsense against them at every opportunity. Backyard mechanics are considered an environmental nuisance by most home-owner associations. There was even a time when kids used to have chemistry labs in their back yard sheds. No longer. If you have a chemistry lab, you are usually regarded as some sort of subversive bomb maker.
We are killing this generation with mediocre education, discouraging technical endeavors at every step, polluting minds with nonsense endeavors from the Internet, and then we sit and wonder why so few kids take any sort of STEM interest.
Aviation isn't the only thing that is dying. It is the curious, entrepreneurial spirit and playfulness of the average teen-age kid that is dying. They're being coddled and protected by every helicopter parent and school administrator around. Then they go to college in record numbers, only to come home and live in the basement for lack of any interest in the world around them.
Societal mediocrity has won. We need to light an afterburner under the maker movement to undo this nonsense. It is killing us as a society.
We are working on Obama's 6th year as president. This is Obama's economy, now.
Yes, it is. Have you noticed how it's getting better? The economy was in dire straits before he took office, now it's recovering.
We're much better off than the fall-off under Bush.
Did you want it to improve faster? Who's been obstructing Obama's policies again??
I know it's hard for liberals to come to terms with facts they disagree with.
Not as hard as it is for Conservatives to stick to reality, as the reason flap with the CBO numbers shows. Or any other complaints they have, like how the Right-wing wouldn't get upset over a multicultural commercial(Poor Coca-Cola!), how the government is growing (its shrinking), how Obama isn't deporting illegal immigrants (He's deported more than Bush had), and so forth.
Some of you continue to blame Reagan on this very thread, despite 8 years of Clinton and another 5 years of Obama.
Because many policies of Reagan and his kindred are still in effect, and are influencing things to this day. Besides, have you seen the posts complaining about the Great Society and the New Deal? Have you complained about them being out of date?
No? Why ever not?
I'm not at all surprised you still blame Bush. He's good for you to scape-goat for at least another 20 years.
Don't worry, you'll be blaming Obama till the next millennium.
At least Bush and Republicans tried to warn of the unsustainable Freddy and Fannie, while Democrats fought any possibility of reform tooth and nail, under the guise of protecting the middle class. Democrats protected the middle class real good, didn't they?
Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae weren't the problem in themselves, it was the investment bankers and other financial manipulators who caused the problems, you're blaming the victims for what happened.
Which much like Bush's fixes, is the wrong direction to go.
But you're right, Democrats didn't do enough to protect the middle class, if they had, we'd have had some financial crooks taken to court and put in jail.
Bush does share some blame, though, due to his over-encouragement of home ownership and his failure to recognize the impending catastrophe, as did nearly every other politician. However, the roots of the meltdown can clearly be traced back to the Democrat policies of the 90s, where the CRA and related bank regulations were strengthened, lending standards were weakened, and Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs), Freddie and Fannie, were required to purchase increasingly more of the mortgage market, primarily riskier lower-income loans, through Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy (NHS).
Try again, CRA didn't cause the problems. Try Gramm–Leach–Bliley instead of the CRA.
Why do you look to the ones who are suffering from the misconduct of others, rather than blaming the people gaining advantage out of it?
There's nothing conservative about Obama, his policies, or Obamacare. Just because he fooled you gullible liberals with his hope-and-change schtick, doesn't mean he's a conservative. I'd love to hear your justification for such a claim.
What, you've not heard about how the Stimulus was full of tax cuts, how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was straight out of the Heritage Foundation's playbook? If you're only hearing about it now, I'm surprised.
A liberal healthcare reform would have been built around actual socialized medicine, not insurance company handouts, and an economic stimulus from the left-wing would have had a WPA equivalent, not more tax cuts for millionaires.