Decline in Flying Training
 

sorry all I no longer wish to take part in a biased forum this post has been moved to the AOPA forum thankyou for all your input and I promise to take this on board reguardless of my position or not in AOPA next year.

Ron Bertram

Semantics
 

Is it the nature of the proposal itself or the noise being generated that is the problem?
The way I see it, NAS is and will continue to be a short sighted decision.
If nervousness has been created in the general community, I'd suggest that it has been the only way that the proposals put forward by Dick "n" Co could be exposed and shown for what they are. That is an acceptable short term negative IMHO.

I would also put forward the view that there shouldn't be any real problem attracting new pilots to the fold so to speak. It really at the end of the day comes down to the individual operators and their marketing techniques (or lack thereof).

"age of fleet, attitude of instructors, cost, standards" really are interelated however aren't supreme causal factors behind the decline.

At the end of the day it's promotion and promotion alone that needs the majority of effort and funds applied to it both from a small business point of through to a macro view.
Here endeth the rant......................over to you boys/girls!:E

decline in flying training
 

Australia is flooded with newly qualified commercial pilots, and this is the real explanation for the drop in flying training activity. If you book into a hotel in a bush town, the porter who carries your bags is likely to be a commercial pilot who is trying to get a flying job, and cannot. The country is full of angry young commercial pilots who thought they were going to be in a boeing in a year or two. Alice Springs has about thirty of them. General aviation in the outback is a very important, difficult and honourable profession which deserves long term committment, not arrogant, angry pilots who do not wish to be there.
The flying schools have a lot to answer for.

Bushy

I think the major factor is the cost.

Since the privatisation of BK parking fees and rent has increased disproportionately to the CPI. This ultimately has to be passed on to the customer.

The same situation has occurred in CB when it was privatised. It decimated the number of flying schools there.

Another factor is the decline in aviation in Australia.

It seems to me that people would are only prepared to invest the necessary money required to obtain a CPL if they were reasonably certain that a good flying job would follow.

There are many who are not prepared to outlay money, complete the training and then to face the prospects of having to head north and having to stack shelves in supermarkets, pull beers in pubs in order to scratch out a living until perhaps stumbling into a flying job that pays stuff all. They want jets with 200hrs TT!!!

As for the airspace, NAS IS inherently less safe than the previous airspace. This is not the place to go through the 'why's' etc - this subject has been flogged to death on PPrune. Whether it is a cause for the downturn, I don't know and cannot comment. However, it seems to me a bit early to say in light of what I have said above.

I'm not sure that a roll back would confuse pilots either. You have to have some modicum of intelligence to be a pilot, and that requires an understanding of the airspace we intend to fly in on any particular day. If the changes to airspace caused confusion, why don't we get rid of NOTAMS (which can effectively do the same thing anyway)?

Can anyone explain to me how a rollback to something known is MORE confusing than a rollforward to something unknown.
I don't believe price is the issue either. When I learned to fly I had to work 12 1/2 Hours to pay for 1 hour flying. Today, if I still was in the same trade, I would have to work only 8 hours to pay for 1 hour flying. Then I had no television, a small transistor radio and no car, but I spend my money on flying. Today we have become so used to having all the 'mod cons' that there is no money 'left over' for flying. Aviation has been a political football for so long, it is not 'fashionable' anymore. People can 'feel good' and 'look good' doing sooooooooooo many other things with less hassles and less negative stories on the telly.
We need to start something like the 'buy Australia' campaign. If all Aviation products and services were labelled as such, then Mr/s citizen would start thinking that Aviation had a purpose and was not just a nuisance making noise.

Because there are much better, more stable, better paid careers on offer for people to do.

Aviation is unstable, not paid well in general, bad hours, and bad employers.

I got out years ago, and am much happier, I also have mates who stayed in longer, got lots more hours, got no where and then left.

Do you really blame people for not wanting to train as a CPL.

It really is an industry in Crisis.

My bosses daughter hasn't finished accounting at uni but has already been offered a position starting on $50K :(

Bit depressing - who would want to be a pilot?

As for promoting aviation, Ron - I suggested a website like the http://www.beapilot.com site in the US nearly a year ago. Has anything been descided by AOPA yet?

It's not Australia it's worldwide.

Just check out the mag editorials from overseas.

It's not money - folks spend a fortune on their toys and recreation thoughout the first world.

It might be having to do some work for a licence but most folks don't know that when they walk up.

I get the chance to layover all over the world. I make a beeline for the small airfields. Everywhere I go airfields are populated by old men and old aeroplanes. It appears ossified and dull as ditchwater.

Unless it is the young guy who hopes to become a pro and join your oversupply of pilots the prospects are dismal. Light aircraft/GA flying isn't not percieved as being sexy, aspirational or state of the art. Doesn't matter what I think or you think though - just look at film, TV, magazines, videos.

Light aircraft simply don't appear anymore as high status, 'glamorous' or even reeking of testosterone the way bikes, cars, boats do. They did in the sixties and seventies. That's now a full generation in the past. To a twenty year old there is absolutely no visual difference between a flight school Cherokee and the ones he sees Sean and Honor flying in a 40 year old Bond film. In a world where fashion changes every 15 minutes this is not considered a good thing.

A young potential student of either sex can't park a 150 outside their favourite bar - and Cessna don't mean squat in the giddy world of brand recognition. This is going on worldwide, in every branch of airsport. Just look at the photos in the magazines. Grey hair in varying amounts everywhere.

Airspace doesn't mean a thing when traditional training school aircraft simply aren't cool and have no style. They generally look strange and very old fashioned - in fact laughable. If this seems nonsense why not simply go through the pages of a GA mag with a non aviation family teenager. If this seems negative, offering no cures it isn't intended to. Identify the problems first. It's worldwide and you can tap into the huge amount of research and the now desperate promotional work that's been done in the last 20 years.

They haven't cracked it but they have paid a huge amount of money to do the research for you and made the mistakes you can avoid.

Regards
rob

Less students through flying schools I think is a good thing at the moment (of course not for instructors & the schools themselves). But like it has been stated before the industry is over flooded with pilots at the moment and it is not doing the industry and pilots already in it any good.

Lets starve the market and turn this backwards industry the right was around. :ok:

Perhaps!..............Nahhh!
 

INSIDEOUT

Ron,

Why bother discussing these very important issues with you, when the AOPA Aust Board has proven time and time again that they are only prepared to listen to the likes of Richard Smith, as was illustrated by this ridiculous statement made in the Australian.Why is this statement absolute rubbish I hear you ask?,
Because a half dead dung beetle could understand that when E is reclassified C, even if some VFR and IFR pilots still thought areas of C were still E, it can be no worse (safety wise) than what E is anyway.
The unknowing VFR as unlikely as it is, might transit C (that was E) and the IFR would still be cleared in either classification.
The difference is that when C is returned, all VFR and IFR will be provided with Separation services, with only a small residual risk of VFR thinking it was still E. In any case, an inadvertant VCA through C is exactly what VFR do in E now.
So, return to C is SAFER no matter which way you look at it.
The only question in my mind is why we have not already returned to C?, perhaps you and AOPA might be able to answer this!?!.:mad:
Your credibility is damaged more and more by posting Smith Pty Ltd, ill-informed Spin such as that rubbish in th Oz.:yuk:

If you are genuine about seeking opinion and answers? Lets start here:-

4 fundamental questions:-

- Do you still support Privatisation of Aviation infrastructure in general (i.e Airports) and Location Specific Charging in General Aviation as championed by AOPA and Richard Smith?

- Do you and/or AOPA still support the NAS 2b and future NAS changes as championed by Richard Smith?

- Do you and/or AOPA still support the notion that Richard Smith is competent to drive Aviation Reform including Airspace and Pricing policies?

- Do you consider that widely held Anti-NAS opinions (supported by technical FACTS) put by Air Traffic Controllers, Commercial Pilots and a large number of General Aviation Pilots, are flawed (Wrong)?, if so why?

So, if you can answer these questions regarding AOPA policy and direction, and demonstrate you willingness and capability to drive the amendment of the organisation’s direction where it is appropriate to do so, I for one would be more than happy to have a proper discussion about how to fix the stuff up’s. Otherwise, this will be just another discourse with AOPA that will amount to nothing!.:{

Like you, I have better things to do with my time than waste it here talking to a previously proven brick wall called the AOPA board!:*

Please, please, prove me wrong!

Poita,

I am assuming you have obtained your CPL.

Now I wonder if you would have made the same post above if the flying training climate to which you aspire had been implemented during your training phase. :rolleyes:

Saw an old video title the other day which sums up your attitude: "I'm Alright - Jack"

Of course despite tripping over pilots every one wlks, the RAAF is still churning them out:hmm:

Well, there's a surprise!
 

INSIDEOUTYou must be joking, Biased?, or you just cannot defend the indefensible!
AOPA Forum, well that is unbiased, uncensored and accessible to potential members, isn’t it!:yuk: My bolding

P1ss weak Ron, predictable and p1ss weak:hmm: :rolleyes:

Bushy,
I am rather inclined to agree with your summary of the problems with flying training.

The flying school brochures talk of 'this exciting, expanding and well paid career' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
All those pictures of bright young things stepping into the cockpit of some new twin airliner, jet or turbine, are no more than fiction.

It takes a lot of time for trainess to realise that if they are to get into new hardware and be well paid for doing so then they are going to have to go though hell and high water to get there and even then they are going to be one of the 1% that have made the cut. Not quite like how the flying school said it would be !

Considering the amount of dollars, time and study I think that the average trainee could well have done far better at Uni to gain a qualification that will bring in real dollars in the short term and have real career prospects.

Scurvy.D.Dog


You must be joking, Biased?, or you just cannot defend the indefensible!
AOPA Forum, well that is unbiased, uncensored and accessible to potential members, isn’t it!

AOPA is a forum where you must put your name to your comments, not be a coward and hide behind an alias.

I wonder how well you would fair face to face.

What qualifications to you hold Re-airspace design and management or are you just one of these instant experts because you fly in it.

You amaze me you fly an aircraft that people like me build and repair or modify if I changed a major structural component or modified it you would take my word for it and fly. You never confess to being an expert on airframes just because you fly in one do you.

All of a sudden because you fly your aircraft in whatever class airspace or work as a controller you now become an expert on airspace, have you ever designed airspace or done risk analysis or in fact anything other than fly in it had anything to do with airspace reform at a professional level?:yuk:

People have been working there arses of in this country for years to reform airspace now I am not saying NAS is the best thing since sliced bread but at least I will listen to the people that Know what they are talking about and listen to constructive debate.

Every time they go forward an instant expert like you and many others that can't even be truthful enough to but your name behind you mouth jumps out and makes a stupid comment.

I am a fair man contact me and I am happy to listen to your views and take them on board, but they must be reasoned and qualified.

I will give you a small example that I used before relating to aviation advancement. Years back when I started as a structural examiner large passenger aircraft 747 etc etc were built to a safety factor of 1.6 that means its 60% stronger than it needs to be. Over the years with the increase in fuel and airport charges and carrying capacity and so on they decided to drop the safety factor to 1.4 so the aircraft was now only 40% stronger than it needed to be this was to save money.

Lets look at this then so we are now in a situation where it is less safe than it was back then shock horror aircraft will be falling out of the skies, never happened did it, but we are still 20% less safe. The answer is simple really that level of safety was never really needed if we used your anti NAS argument in aircraft construction they would be too heavy to get off the ground.

Now I am sure if pilots were aware of this at the time they would have suddenly become instant experts in aircraft design and used similar scare tactics to scare the travelling public they are using today.

Why are you using Dick Smith he is not at these workshops, these studies have been done by people employed as experts to do them. But people like you and others simply wont listen.

You make a reasonable case but you are not an expert, ranting on PPRUNE won't help your case join a organization that will represent you, you joke about AOPA your views are in the past mate it is simply not like that any more despite the fact we are having a few board problems. There are plenty of spin-doctors out there that would tell you different we are almost on the verge of turning the corner.

I resent your comment with our views to NAS we are a public company there to represent our members that pay for that privilege one director just simply does not understand that and thinks their view is in the best interest of it members, its a majority view nothing to do with Dick Smith etc.

You have a choice you could join but you probably won't after all why help the cause when you can rant and rave here and no one knows whom you are, funny I have never seen PPRUNE at a workshop.

My reference to being biased is from another post not this one and its directed at Woomera he will allow people to make defamatory statements quoting my name but will not allow me to reply.

Simply I am just a normal working guy have been flying since I was 17 have a school and small charter operation and most of my spare time is working with AOPA helping other pilots that have got problems with a variety of things and looking after our office and staff.

Yes I am tasked with airspace reform but I am also bound by our members wishes, please remember I have to fly out there to you assume far too much about me.

Ron Bertram

:)

Flying Training is in Decline Because....


PPrune Towers hit it on the head - agree with it all.

It's also in decline because most advertising and promotion focus's on aviation as a career - not as a means to other ends such as sport, travel,individual skills development. Maybe there needs to be more promotion of aerobatics, and formation to name a couple of real skills available to any PPL.

But, in many cases it probably comes down to a perception of being too hard, rather than too costly.

happy days,

It doesnt take a genius to work out why flying training is in decline. Its a terrible terrible industry that Im so so glad I had the good fortune to get out of. If I had put the same amount of time, effort and study in to the proffession Im currently employed in as I put in aviation I could have bought my own flying school by now. Crappy pay, crappy conditions, crappy aircraft, crappy people. All in all just crap.

Scurvy,
Take it to another forum mate..........By the way....isn't hijacking a crime of some sort?
Can we get back to the subject at hand?.......
Ronnie......get ya butt back in here....this is important.

bigfella5
 

No runing anywhere bigfella 5 giddy gigdy.

It is no surprise that flying training is down.

Lets face it, 50 years from now, the 50's - 90's will be remembered as "The Golden Age of Aviation".

I remember reading an article recently stating that between 1960 and 1975, the growth rate of aviation as a whole in the US was between 15-20% PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR. No doubt the growth rates in this country were a bit more subdued, however, sadly I think those days are gone forever.

There are only so many holidays that people can take and it would appear people place more importance on renovating their house than taking holidays. Business travel is not as huge these days due to video internet conferencing, there is not as much need to fly business people across the country side.

And then there is the crap money paid to this so called profession. It is no longer considered a skill, firstly by aviation management and secondly by the travelling public.

I was speaking to Qantas Captain last year and he told me when he left a full time Chieftain charter gig back in '82, he was earning
$28,000pa. Guess what the average Chieftain driver is earning now - about 20% more, if they are lucky. However, in '82, a bloody house didn't cost you half a million in Sydney and you could buy a brand new family car for under $15,000.