US AOPA - why pilots drop out

[FleetFlyer]

I fly a fast glass three axis microlight and love it. My hourly costs are tiny. However, every girl (and boy) that I've given a ride to has had a hard time with their nerves, despite some very sedate flying and calm airline captain style commentary from me.

Girls don't like planes, girls like the evidence of money.

As for other reasons to quit...

If you're VFR only then get yourself to a small uncontrolled airfield with no radio service.

When you can turn up as you please, pull your Cub or whatever out of the hangar by yourself and pop off for and hour to watch the sun making the clouds into ruby and custard coloured candy-floss, when you can turn the donkey down and catch the last thermal with a local buzzard, and he joins you because he saw you circling first, and when you land that perfect greaser with only the oldest club member to see you and he gives you a thumbs up, its then that you realise that the ten-year-old in you standing in the garden with the Keilkraft model was right all along.

[Shorrick Mk2]

Can we make that Ecuvillence or Lausanne? I do prefer hard surface runways to swamp in this season.

Or LSGK Saanen? Much better restaurants in the vicinity, plus a hard surface

[Keef]

I'm with FleetFlyer. I've tried all the upmarket options (never did twin, because that seemed absurdly expensive), and settled on an IFR-equipped Arrow which has been all over Europe many times. Yes, it is fun.

Nowadays, my delight is a permit Jodel at a farm strip in rural Suffolk. It's dead cheap to fly, with no complicated bits - there's not much point looking inside the cockpit because there isn't much to see. But it's a joy to fly.

I'm not out to impress anyone - I feel sorry for those who are - but it is "fun" to take some happy friends on a trip somewhere.

One friend was 60 and had never flown - he was far too scared. He was a mad keen yottie, so I told him all about flying, and then took him for a very gentle flight round the local rivers and marinas and yottie bits for about 20 minutes. He loved it! He and his missus are now making up for lost time, going on holidays all over the place (by air).

There is no "one size fits all", and that short flight you give someone may just change their life.

[bartonflyer]

Like many here, I went the twin rating, PPL-IR route, gave up on a twin as being just ludicrously expensive then have been flying a Cherokee6 for the last 10 years.

BUT the flying group seemed to lose interest, one emigrated, one retired - we could not attract any new members so the trips to Prague and Malaga and Gerona etc etc just became a memory. The Cherokee6 is gone and I'm contemplating what to do next - my inclination is to see if I can get a small group together around something like a CTLS and just get back to flying just for fun, but with an aircraft that is capable of touring if we want to.

[IO540]

I recall (from hearing about times long before my time) that twins used to be "the next logical thing after singles". I suspect this was when juice was 30p/gallon Today, they are monstrously expensive - partly because ~ 80% of the 2nd engine's fuel flow is wasted (in performance terms) and partly because most of them are very very old airframes and all old airframes cost a packet to keep going and an old and big and nontrivial airframe is the worst of all worlds. There is only one thing which will bring more hassle than an old twin, and that is an old turboprop

With decent-payload singles around, most of the argument for a light twin is the "spare engine", and some extra electrical redundancy.

I do think that the best way for many (that want to go places) is setting up a syndicate around something new-ish and capable, like an SR22 or a TB20. The challenge, as I found out during the few years I ran mine as a "zero equity group", is digging out enough people who
- put money where their mouth is
- can keep doing so long-term
- are good pilots but don't already have their own plane
- are honest
Each of the four things above reduces the "market" by at least 80% and it doesn't leave much. But I remain convinced this is the best way. A £100k plane split 5 ways will give you more or less everything - except a jet-like despatch rate, and flying in crap wx is not fun anyway.

At almost any level of syndicate, finding the right people is going to be the hardest thing.

[24Carrot]

Does the Tecnam P2006T change the thinking about light twins? Not a plug, just genuinely curious.

[englishal]

I think a light twin split 4 ways would be the ideal - something like a TC Seneca with 7 club seats.

You can pick these up relatively cheaply for an older one, then I'd completely strip the thing down (to inspect everything) and completely rennovate and fit zero timed engines, di-ice, modern avionics (G500?), interior and repaint.

For GBP 150-200K you could end up with a sweet "as new" aircraft. Fuel burn would still remain reasonable.

[IO540]

The problem with a "project aircraft" is that you need somebody willing to manage the project. You can't (in general) find a maintenance company who will do it and do it right. These things have to be micro-managed. So you will have one bloke running it, and six hangers-on

And then you still need to find the six other pilots...

These are great ideas which would work with the right people.

[Shorrick Mk2]

Does the Tecnam P2006T change the thinking about light twins? Not a plug, just genuinely curious.

Why would one want to go through the hassle of getting the ME rating if you can do exactly the same (or actually more!) in a PA28-236?

[24Carrot]

Fair point, but performance is part of the cost of going for a twin.
Allegedly it consumes 10 USG/H, it is a new design, and is dual Mogas/100LL.
It also costs a lot, at least until the Euro zone disintegrates.

To be honest, I don't now much more about it than I have written. I was hoping to learn!

[IO540]

The Tecnam twin is very expensive. Not by the standard of a new DA42, but I suspect not many buyers with £250k or so are going to fly behind a Rotax - even if they have a spare one, and even if Rotax's reputation is much better than it used to be.

[AdamFrisch]

Mark my words - the Tecnam P2006 is going to sell like chocolates in a kid store.

Just ask yourself if you wanted to go and get an ME rating tomorrow, what would you prefer? A 35 year old clapped out Duchess or the Tecnam? Exactly. It's going to be the twin for the training market in the near future. It's also the first high wing twin in ages to come along, so all the relief and missionary outfits will most certainly be interested in it. I'm sure coast guards, fire services, law enforcement will too. Anyone who needs to get in to small fields or have a view other than of the sky only will be coming for it.

Also, Tecnam wanted to certify it with diesels, but Thielert went south. As soon as they can find a new diesel I'm sure they will try again. And when they do, it's going to sell even more.

BTW, it just got its FAA certification this week, so expect the US demand to ramp up.

[Shorrick Mk2]

Fair point, but performance is part of the cost of going for a twin.
Allegedly it consumes 10 USG/H, it is a new design, and is dual Mogas/100LL.
It also costs a lot, at least until the Euro zone disintegrates.

Dakota cruise speed (per POH) 138 kts. Tecnam samey-same.

Dakota available traffic load (full fuel) 340 kgs. Tecnam 290 kgs.

Dakota endurance 5 hours with reserves. Tecnam endurance 4 hours.

We operate the Dak out of a 600m grass strip at MTOW so while it may need longer fields than the Tecnam, it's not by a huge margin.

So - what performance?

[AdamFrisch]

Yeah but overhauling both Rotaxes costs less than the one Lycoming. So why not have twin safety for a lesser price?

[24Carrot]

So - what performance?

Shorrick, I should have been plainer, I meant that a lower performance is part of the cost of choosing a twin.

For any given horsepower, splitting it across two engines is less efficient and heavier. And if putting two great lumps on the wing was such a wonderful idea, singles would have them too.

Without wishing to re-kindle many ancient threads, some people do choose twins. Once that decision is made, what is the best twin to go for? Most of the old favorites seem to come with expensive maintenance bills, and guzzle gas, as IO540 pointed out.

The Tecnam seems like a break from all that, but frankly I don't know enough to comment. Hence the question!

[funfly]

What was your last "serious" plane, Funfly?
is was a beautiful looking, all glass but ill fated Kiss Cruiser which was unfortunately destroyed just after I sold it.

I think a fair few VFR-only owners give up for "getting fed up" reasons, but not so many IFR pilots do that.
well, I also found the IFR a very enjoyable learning experience and improved my own flying a lot.

In the end it was the ratio of: where to fly to / the effort of getting the aircraft out / the poor weather / the cost.

It should also be pointed out that being a sole owner of an aircraft is LONELY.

[AN2 Driver]

@FleetFlyer

Girls don't like planes, girls like the evidence of money.

Truer words were rarely spoken in this here flyers pub . And you need to be very lucky to find one of them who will consider sitting for 4-5 hours in a cabin with creature comforts akin to a Trabant either evidence of money, lifestyle or enough to impress their circle of "it-girls" with unless it's something like a Citation upwards. And even a Citation is only fun if they can show it off to their mates. Know some folks who are into boating for the same reason, but heck, either you do it for the sake of enjoying what you do yourself or just about save your money. Girls like that are not worth pursuing, the best one can expect are a few entertaining rolls in the hay (and most of our GA fleet is singularily unsuited for that kind of thing) and a forced sale when said pax will eventually grab the evident money and run for better prospects. Seen it happen, thankfully never to myself but it was ugly enough to watch.

Re Twins, frankly I had a look at the Tecnam and don't find much appeal in. Neither speed nor range nor payload compute for more than a basic twin trainer. Tecnam sais 145kt@75%, 135kt @ 65% and a range of about 600 NM @65%, combined with a usefull load of around 250 kg with full fuel makes it a good trainer, but not more. I've flown Senecas I-III's, they are expensive to run and, in the case of the I certainly, have neither the single engine ceiling nor the range to make it viable in our regions.

The one I have observed from a distance but talked to several owners is the Twin Commanche, especcially the turbo one or at least with Rajay's. They are the ultimate long haul light twin for 2 plus baggage, a bit like a Mooney with 2 engines and they are, at least in terms of fuel flow, financially manageable. 170kt @ 17 GPH or 200 kt @ 20 GPH with a range of around 1000 NM seems more than reasonable for a twin and is not far from some singles. Actually, an SR 22's manufacturer's figure sais 180 kt @ 17 GPH, so that's close enough. Combine that with 6-10 hours endurance, depending on configuration, and one can contemplate going places.

I am not surprised that the drop out rate in VFR is bigger than IFR, being VFR myself for the moment I can see why. Routing and airspace restrictions make VFR a very cumbersome planning solution and of course, it is a Russian Roulette with the weather in Europe. I can easily imagine there are folks in the sunnier spots of greenery who never bother about an IR, in Europe, flying without it needs drastic reserves in time planning. Apart, once someone has spent the money and time to get an IR, he's probably a lot more reluctant to let go of all the investment.

One thing I never contemplated as a possible reason to hang up flying is the lack of places to go to. Granted, I am a bit more centrally placed and a mere 2 hours from the beaches of the med, but so far I've not grown tired of the capability to hop to warmer and greener pastures in just a short time. Comes to it, airline tickets to smaller and less frequented places are expensive, especcially if you fly back and forth the same day. That was actually one of the incentives that convinced my significant other, after we had to travel to a not 500 NM away place short notice and had to shell out almost £ 1k each... heck, I could easily have flown that myself, had we owned the Mooney by then.

Best regards
AN2 driver

[IO540]

overhauling both Rotaxes costs less than the one Lycoming

The engine fund is not a major issue these days, with fuel costing so much. For example my TB20 engine fund (IO540-C4) is around £10/hour. The VP prop fund is around £3/hour. These costs are not that significant, when fuel costs about £60-£70/hour (say 10 USG/hr).

The biggest issue is the lack of capital in the GA market - outside the "glamorous" areas like an SR22, or above that (turboprops, etc).

It should also be pointed out that being a sole owner of an aircraft is LONELY

That's very true. But it is vastly better to have control and be able to pick your flying companions, than to be in a group where some may be great and others may be t0ssers. This applies to every other aspect of life also, of course.

Apart, once someone has spent the money and time to get an IR, he's probably a lot more reluctant to let go of all the investment.

I am sure that is very true, and this is why we see so many p1**sed off pilots over the EASA proposals. If it was just a PPL conversion, few would care (except those who will get well and truly screwed over on medicals).

As regards girls and planes, yes, girls are not so keen to be flying for its own sake. But one doesn't do a 5hr flight and then land back where one started (usually). One goes places. And flying out of the UK to say the Adriatic (5hrs in a TB20) is very rewarding and would (with many of the really nice destinations) be a right hassle using airline transport. I don't see many women being averse to that kind of thing. I met just one young woman, years ago, who had a serious hangup over even seeing a picture of a small plane, but she was a bunny boiler anyway with various other mental issues. My girlfriend flies long trips to these places with me happily - though she doesn't like turbulence especially in IMC so sometimes, when the weather cannot be assured, she takes an airline flight and we meet up there. For these flights I now find the satellite IR images priceless because one can see what is "up there" at high altitude. But anyway I think this will always be a problem area unless you have a nice long-distance-capable plane and get that sorted before you hit the internet dating scene

[24Carrot]

Thanks for the Tecnam comments.

[Airbus Girl]

Most of the girls I know DO like flying, but cannot abide the way grown men behave once given their "wings". They seem to think that by having a PPL and a shiny leather flight bag they can talk out of their backsides, show off their bravado and skill at landing in weather that is below limits and generally scare themselves as well as their passenger whilst trying to cover it up. They do not think about their passenger's comfort. I have seen it so many times, a new PPL will take a girl/ woman up with him for a flight on a horribly hazy and/or bumpy day, bumble about with his barely-there skills and often cause the passenger to feel ill. They get stressed because now not only are they working hard to ensure a safe flight but they have the additional stress of a passenger they are trying to impress. I told my OH when he got his PPL that he was to go off and fly on his own for a bit and that when he took me up the first time I expected him to have done full flight preparation including take off performance, weather, etc. So many times I see newly qualified PPLers think they can abandon all they learnt on their course and just wing it.

As for why people drop out, I think alot of it has to do with cost, obviously, but a greater proportion has to do with the social side. In the old days people would come to the airfield for the day, chat, have lunch, and often a couple of pilots would decide to go fly together to somewhere, would chat with more experienced pilots to increase their knowledge, and would be keen to give new things a go. These days that side has largely gone (except at some airfields), as people don't have the time any more and people seem more afraid to share their experiences (good AND bad). People are scared of the regulation, and the main thing is that they are scared to ask. They don't want to be seen as incompetent by asking for advice about the weather or flight planning. Or they just don't care, because flying has become much more informal, and with that informal attitude passing down from instructors, the student and then the newly qualified PPL has the same attitude.

Imagine an airfield where you turned up wanting to fly. You were met by a cheery instructor who sat down for a few minutes with you to see what you were planning to do that day. He was actively on hand to help you gather all the information you needed, and could discretely have a look over your shoulder to make sure you had covered everything. He might also give you a couple of pointers, perhaps mentioning an airfield that was closed, or a NOTAM you may not have read properly. Then perhaps he knew of another pilot coming in who was also flying to that airfield, and he suggested maybe you both fly over there together. When you get back from your flight you have a beer at the clubhouse and talk about your day.

It just doesn't seem to be like this any more. Airspace is complicated, getting information is complicated, no-one has time to help, landing fees are expensive, aircraft hire and fuel is expensive.

It is a shame but I don't see the situation improving until the school owners/ chief pilots change.