US AOPA - why pilots drop out
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US AOPA - why pilots drop out
"Flight training summit addresses dropout rate"
Lack of educational quality, customer focus, community, and information sharing are the four key reasons student pilots drop out of flight training. That’s the conclusion of Mark Benson, chairman of world renowned market research firm APCO Insight. Benson presented his findings at the AOPA Flight Training Summit Nov. 10 in Long Beach, Calif., where more than 100 industry leaders came together in an effort to stop the alarming student dropout rate. Benson and AOPA President Craig Fuller will discuss the research on AOPA Live Nov. 11 at 9:10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. ...
However, from their last magazine, they don't think this is the cause of the post-PPL attrition rate, which has always been high, and simply getting more pilots to start training doesn't do much because most give up anyway.
Lack of educational quality, customer focus, community, and information sharing are the four key reasons student pilots drop out of flight training. That’s the conclusion of Mark Benson, chairman of world renowned market research firm APCO Insight. Benson presented his findings at the AOPA Flight Training Summit Nov. 10 in Long Beach, Calif., where more than 100 industry leaders came together in an effort to stop the alarming student dropout rate. Benson and AOPA President Craig Fuller will discuss the research on AOPA Live Nov. 11 at 9:10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. ...
However, from their last magazine, they don't think this is the cause of the post-PPL attrition rate, which has always been high, and simply getting more pilots to start training doesn't do much because most give up anyway.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason students drop out is:-
1. It's expensive.
2. It's very time consuming.
3. It's quite hard to learn to fly.
4. Many are not of a suitable psychological disposition (nervous)
5. They.find out how long it is going to take to get a licence , how severely restricted they are in the use of the aircraft for weather reasons , the discovery of the need for instrument training if any sort of utility is required, and the fact that they can't just go from A to B with their mates on a pre arranged date or when they feel like it at the drop of a hat.
The reason that licenced pilots drop out are all af the above, plus (especially in europe) massive over regulation.
Where the summit came up with all that modern idiom garbage for reasons I have no idea.
1. It's expensive.
2. It's very time consuming.
3. It's quite hard to learn to fly.
4. Many are not of a suitable psychological disposition (nervous)
5. They.find out how long it is going to take to get a licence , how severely restricted they are in the use of the aircraft for weather reasons , the discovery of the need for instrument training if any sort of utility is required, and the fact that they can't just go from A to B with their mates on a pre arranged date or when they feel like it at the drop of a hat.
The reason that licenced pilots drop out are all af the above, plus (especially in europe) massive over regulation.
Where the summit came up with all that modern idiom garbage for reasons I have no idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could for ever argue about the % of the various factors but I would add some bigger ones to why people (students and post-PPLs) drop out:
- they just wanted to tick the 'learnt to fly' box
- the lack of 'scenery' (women) makes it a lousy activity choice for a single bloke, given how time consuming a hobby it is (single men are almost constantly 'looking' and have to choose any time- and money-consuming activites carefully)
- a lot of very young jobless pilots are doing it from a gift of money and when that runs out...
Oddly, I think that educational quality, customer focus, community, and information sharing hit the nail on the head. To put it more crudely (my usual way), a lot of instructors are bad, a lot of schools are disorganised, the social scene is crap, and there is little or no mentoring (respectively
).
- they just wanted to tick the 'learnt to fly' box
- the lack of 'scenery' (women) makes it a lousy activity choice for a single bloke, given how time consuming a hobby it is (single men are almost constantly 'looking' and have to choose any time- and money-consuming activites carefully)
- a lot of very young jobless pilots are doing it from a gift of money and when that runs out...
Oddly, I think that educational quality, customer focus, community, and information sharing hit the nail on the head. To put it more crudely (my usual way), a lot of instructors are bad, a lot of schools are disorganised, the social scene is crap, and there is little or no mentoring (respectively
).
Pilot drop out
If that was the scene in the States what chance has Europe got.
We have to accept that we are in different world now with so much virtual reality equipment around and that the expense of real flying is way out of reach for most people unless they are looking for a career.
Because they never get to see the fun side of going into strips or joining a simple group the "open prison" scenario on lots of airfields hardly encourages the spending of many thousands of pounds to try and enjoy yourself.
The feedback i get from those who can afford it is they are less than impressed with the facilities provided for what seems an awful lot of money and even trying to explain how the clubs/operators struggle to survive with huge increases in costs/charges fails to help the situation.
Yet despite all this, hangarage is in very short supply and the UK fleet is hardly dwindling away.
Another factor is that the "microlight system" has diverted many away from what is seen as a very regulated and cost burdened pastime.
When the "fun factor" is outweighed by the cost/regs the result is inevitable.
If someone in the know can post the cost of issuing a driving licence compared with a PPL it may proove a point. There is even VAT on medicals now !!!
We have to accept that we are in different world now with so much virtual reality equipment around and that the expense of real flying is way out of reach for most people unless they are looking for a career.
Because they never get to see the fun side of going into strips or joining a simple group the "open prison" scenario on lots of airfields hardly encourages the spending of many thousands of pounds to try and enjoy yourself.
The feedback i get from those who can afford it is they are less than impressed with the facilities provided for what seems an awful lot of money and even trying to explain how the clubs/operators struggle to survive with huge increases in costs/charges fails to help the situation.
Yet despite all this, hangarage is in very short supply and the UK fleet is hardly dwindling away.
Another factor is that the "microlight system" has diverted many away from what is seen as a very regulated and cost burdened pastime.
When the "fun factor" is outweighed by the cost/regs the result is inevitable.
If someone in the know can post the cost of issuing a driving licence compared with a PPL it may proove a point. There is even VAT on medicals now !!!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone in the know can post the cost of issuing a driving licence compared with a PPL it may proove a point
Oddly enough, hiring a bus for my lessons cost about the same as hiring an aircraft: about €100/hr.
Now, what point is this meant to prove?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything we do has to have a purpose. The more expensive it is the more that purpose has to be justified.
When I started flying 25 years ago my sole intention was to be able to say I had flown an aircraft on my own ie first solo then I was going to drop it all.
Some how that goal having been achieved lead to another goal the PPL.
In my early days I had this stupid idea that I could use an aeroplane like a car. Sailing above the traffic jams it would be yet another means of practical form of travel.
It took a lot more licences before that possibility became a reality and some pretty expensive, capable hardware to make it a reality.
Now I am paid to fly others expensive hardware I feel sorry for the poor PPL churning out vast sums of money to get his fix.
If I went back it would be to something I could fly out of a field on a sunny day which sipped fuel anything more practical means mega money and time and would feel like a hobby in spending money.
Pace
When I started flying 25 years ago my sole intention was to be able to say I had flown an aircraft on my own ie first solo then I was going to drop it all.
Some how that goal having been achieved lead to another goal the PPL.
In my early days I had this stupid idea that I could use an aeroplane like a car. Sailing above the traffic jams it would be yet another means of practical form of travel.
It took a lot more licences before that possibility became a reality and some pretty expensive, capable hardware to make it a reality.
Now I am paid to fly others expensive hardware I feel sorry for the poor PPL churning out vast sums of money to get his fix.
If I went back it would be to something I could fly out of a field on a sunny day which sipped fuel anything more practical means mega money and time and would feel like a hobby in spending money.
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of learning and flying
The bit I have never understood is that anybody with the IQ to pass the PPL exams can easily add up what it will cost to get a PPL and fly afterwards.
Obviously those who just want to "learn to fly" are not going to be concerned about the long term cost of the minimal currency, but everybody else in the sausage machine ought to be aware of it. Up front, I mean.
OTOH, to be fair, there is b*gger-all information available to the student about what they can do afterwards. IME, the school/club tries hard to channel everybody into the self fly hire option, and then they feed them like mushrooms to keep them there for as long as possible.
I was nosing around at "options" from quite an early time (started looking at IFR at about the time of the 3rd cancelled lesson ) and I was fed a huge amount of bull about ownership and about the IFR options. It was 2 years before I discovered the N-reg option and that was over the internet...
Obviously those who just want to "learn to fly" are not going to be concerned about the long term cost of the minimal currency, but everybody else in the sausage machine ought to be aware of it. Up front, I mean.
OTOH, to be fair, there is b*gger-all information available to the student about what they can do afterwards. IME, the school/club tries hard to channel everybody into the self fly hire option, and then they feed them like mushrooms to keep them there for as long as possible.
I was nosing around at "options" from quite an early time (started looking at IFR at about the time of the 3rd cancelled lesson
) and I was fed a huge amount of bull about ownership and about the IFR options. It was 2 years before I discovered the N-reg option and that was over the internet...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...I feel sorry for the poor PPL churning out vast sums of money to get his fix.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24Karat
That is a good comparison. I would add racing cars going no where as fast as you can
But what is a travel machine and a fun machine? Fun machines for me would be something Hot and quick. Sia Marchetti, Glasair or ex military jet.
Somehow a 20 year old PA28 fits the not much fun travel machine category but then in your horse example so does a Donkey and plenty love Donkeys
I would want more for my money to justify the outlay
Pace
That is a good comparison. I would add racing cars going no where as fast as you can
But what is a travel machine and a fun machine? Fun machines for me would be something Hot and quick. Sia Marchetti, Glasair or ex military jet.
Somehow a 20 year old PA28 fits the not much fun travel machine category but then in your horse example so does a Donkey and plenty love Donkeys
I would want more for my money to justify the outlay
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would want more for my money to justify the outlay
The entry level for serious IFR is not short of £100k and that only gets you something well used...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of interesting points here.
Have to agree with IO540's points above, I can certainly relate to the second one. The number one issue however still has to be cost. It's not just fuel/rental costs but all the other things that add up, maintenance, insurance, landing fees, club fees, silly CAA charges for licenses, renewals etc. Especially in these difficult times when everybody wants their pound of flesh from you - the taxman, gas, leccy, mortgage, the supermarket etc. - keeping a roof over your head and food in the freezer is of much greater need than a quick hour on a Saturday morning in the club spamcan. Not many folk can justify up to £150/hr when the mortgage/rent/gas needs paying.
Also post-PPL things change. At my club the instructors are quite good at encouraging folk to go beyond local jaunts, however many folk get caught in the trap of doing a quick hour in the local area and do nothing else. Hence ennui and tedium sets in, the end result is people give up. Unfortunately to avoid doing so we run into the money problem again. Doing trips costs £££. Landing fees, parking fees, B&B, fuel... or if you decide to do an IR, aeros course, complex checkout, multi, again the wallet takes a hammering.
Then there are the rules and the red tape. JAR/EASA is a nightmare that would drive the calmest of saints to dispair. Why do you need to renew your license every 5 years at considerable cost? Why is an IR for private owners so rediculously unaffordable and over-engineered to the same standards for commercial pilots flying 757s? Why is maintenance and the associated costs and paperwork so onerous compared with FAA-land? Etc. Ad Nauseum.
Until such problems are addressed, the numbers will continue to dwindle.
Smithy
We could for ever argue about the % of the various factors but I would add some bigger ones to why people (students and post-PPLs) drop out:
- they just wanted to tick the 'learnt to fly' box
- the lack of 'scenery' (women) makes it a lousy activity choice for a single bloke, given how time consuming a hobby it is (single men are almost constantly 'looking' and have to choose any time- and money-consuming activites carefully)
- a lot of very young jobless pilots are doing it from a gift of money and when that runs out...
- they just wanted to tick the 'learnt to fly' box
- the lack of 'scenery' (women) makes it a lousy activity choice for a single bloke, given how time consuming a hobby it is (single men are almost constantly 'looking' and have to choose any time- and money-consuming activites carefully)
- a lot of very young jobless pilots are doing it from a gift of money and when that runs out...
Also post-PPL things change. At my club the instructors are quite good at encouraging folk to go beyond local jaunts, however many folk get caught in the trap of doing a quick hour in the local area and do nothing else. Hence ennui and tedium sets in, the end result is people give up. Unfortunately to avoid doing so we run into the money problem again. Doing trips costs £££. Landing fees, parking fees, B&B, fuel... or if you decide to do an IR, aeros course, complex checkout, multi, again the wallet takes a hammering.
Then there are the rules and the red tape. JAR/EASA is a nightmare that would drive the calmest of saints to dispair. Why do you need to renew your license every 5 years at considerable cost? Why is an IR for private owners so rediculously unaffordable and over-engineered to the same standards for commercial pilots flying 757s? Why is maintenance and the associated costs and paperwork so onerous compared with FAA-land? Etc. Ad Nauseum.
Until such problems are addressed, the numbers will continue to dwindle.
Smithy
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why pilots drop out?
Over regulation (and, for many, the associated costs). Pure and simple. It takes a lot, if not all, the fun out of flying.
My flying is all for pleasure (ex-mil jets and aeros), but when the aggravation outweighs the pleasure, I will quit.
I have been close to that point fairly regularly recently.
My flying is all for pleasure (ex-mil jets and aeros), but when the aggravation outweighs the pleasure, I will quit.
I have been close to that point fairly regularly recently.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the points noted (cost, for example, and the work required to learn to fly) aren't necessarily particularly new. I've been thinking about this lately as I hear more and more reasons thrown out for the decline in pilot population and I have a feeling that there's one underlying problem: the romance has gone out of flying. Flying used to be a glamorous activity, with the highly skilled, highly respected, well-paid airline captain at the top of the pyramid. That glamour ran all the way through aviation, from the 747 down to the J-3 Cub, and made it seem worth the time, money and effort to get into the skies.
All of the reasons quoted herein have contributed, of course. Horrible over-regulation rather takes some of the fun out of things, as does expensive 100LL, and the fact that you face ever stronger security even to get into the podunk strip where that J-3 is hangared. Most of us flying now probably still maintain that sliver of romance in our minds (admit it, how many times have you all watched One Six Right?) and it keeps us going. Every time I leave the ground I have my own personal "I can't believe I'm doing this moment" and I hope I can convince just one person that they should feel the same way.
Anybody that tries to sit down and rationally run the numbers is probably going to have their aircraft up for sale within a matter of hours. I'm going to keep doing this until the FAA physically chains me to the ground.
All of the reasons quoted herein have contributed, of course. Horrible over-regulation rather takes some of the fun out of things, as does expensive 100LL, and the fact that you face ever stronger security even to get into the podunk strip where that J-3 is hangared. Most of us flying now probably still maintain that sliver of romance in our minds (admit it, how many times have you all watched One Six Right?) and it keeps us going. Every time I leave the ground I have my own personal "I can't believe I'm doing this moment" and I hope I can convince just one person that they should feel the same way.
Anybody that tries to sit down and rationally run the numbers is probably going to have their aircraft up for sale within a matter of hours. I'm going to keep doing this until the FAA physically chains me to the ground.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying used to be a glamorous activity
However, this is not a recent thing. Romance went out of private aviation decades ago; probably before WW2.
A slightly more recent thing is a general uplift in peoples' expectations. In the 1970s, standards everywhere were pretty disgusting. I remember going to exhibitions and air shows, where the toilets were disgusting and the food was crap. That's all gone today. But "we" still fly the same 1960s crappy planes. A lot of people today won't climb into a knackered old 1970s Cessna/Piper. I had a trial lesson 10 years before I started flying and I remember the radio was held by 1 screw and about to fall out. That put me off for a long time.
There has been a big decline in PPL issues in the last decade - about a 1/3 drop. That is probably something else. I don't know if anybody has done an analysis of whether there has been a change of the student pilot age profile, but younger people have so much else nowadays bidding for their time and money, and I would expect their numbers to be declining.
Anybody that tries to sit down and rationally run the numbers is probably going to have their aircraft up for sale within a matter of hours
Unfortunately, a "certain level of capability" equates to ownership and nobody in the training system is going to promote that option...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been a big decline in PPL issues in the last decade - about a 1/3 drop.
A lot of people today won't climb into a knackered old 1970s Cessna/Piper.
At least GA has utility value - once you drag yourself above a certain level of capability.
I'm somewhat biased in this respect - the Pitts has about as much utility as a Formula 3 car, and for much the same reasons - but when I realized that I wasn't going to be cruising across the country at 180 knots it was aerobatics that gave me a direction in flying.
Agree with most of what has been said. Certainly, and speaking with an European perspective, overregulation is the largest and most effective killer, combined with a lot of folks' idea that GA is to blame for everything from noise to airport congestions and we pilots are all rich and spoilt brats who don't know how to trash our money so we spend it going up in airplanes with creature comforts which went out of fashion with the Trabant.
I know, I know, it makes me mad every time I hear it, but there is nothing harder to kill than prejudice. And since our politicians keep fueling this, we see the result in a runaway bureaucracy of knitwits who seem to think that new pilots for the airlines will be trained as direct entry 737 or 320 FO's without having set a foot into a C150 to train the basics first, so why not do away with the bothersome lawnmowers?
Flight schools are hard pressed to get people to at least have a go. Most do it by promising the prospect of a life in the airlines, which comes true for very few of the candidates. Some are still too blasé to actually think a pure PPL candidate is worth their time, they want those willing and able to shell out 200k for an ab initio ATPL/MCP/whateverelse. Leaves the PPL's for the clubs and those FTO's who don't do more or actually still do it for the love of it. Both often enough will go to great lenghts to entrice their potential clientele with pictures we all know from Cigar commercials.
IO540, your remark about the appeal that GA has to most women and the deviastating result on prospective PPLs who thought being a flying hero will open some doors made me chuckle. Thankfully my wife loves flying in our Mooney, but there are overwhelming odds that if you take the lady of your fancy to the apron they'll steer right to that G V and will run as fast as their high heels allow once they spot they are supposed to enter a 1960's PA28, never to be seen again. Some may be happier if you point them to a Stearman or something like this, but in reality, for most of the womenfolk not infected with the flying virus themselfs, our propeller planes of today (possible exceptions the latest sexy curve Cirrus/Corvalis or Diamond models or cabin class twins) will have about the same appeal as if you turn up on your first date with a 1972 Lada.
So the drop outs would be in many cases easy to spot before they ever set foot on an airplane. Nervous wrecks, would be playboys, over-eager underachievers are the daily bread in aviation. Many who actually have the brains, composure and character go for more lukrative careers these days, others will hang up because they run out of money, motivation and the missus has brought up the "aeroplanes or me" card shortly after spending the third weekend in sequence without their supposedly better half.
On the other hand, I do hear some frightening tales of REALLY dedicated folks who get laughed out of the FTO's office even before their first evaluation flight by the pure mention of the fact that they've been flight simmers for a few decades. Heck, when will flight schools (and even airlines and ppruners) wake up to the fact that aviation these days can really do with some REALLY dedicated supporters, who often enough have spent more on their virtual hobby than some might ever spend on real life aviation? Most of these folks are dedicated to flying-period. No dreams of getting that D-cup beauty laid in a C150, no irrational folks who look at flying as a means to achieve a totally different end. IF these guys are finally taking the plunge and make a step towards getting licensed, they should be received with open doors and treated with the same respect any customer warrants, even if a few bad habits need to be trained out of them.
I had the great fortune to learn before the time of EASA/JAR, the Internet, and regulators who see airplanes as something best grounded for security reasons. Aviation has been my career, on the ground and in the air and I am still passionate enough about it to put up with all the crap we have to deal with sufficiently to own and operate my own aircraft. If we want to get more real pilots rather than wannabes-become-dropouts then I reckon we'd be well advised to be looking out for those who are into it all for the sake of flying rather than something inachievable else.
And, most importantly, we need to make our regulators see the light that flying is, after all, not a professorate in a kazillion of useless subjects but a very basic and instinctive skill, which needs to have a practical and theoretical formation to teach us to fly, not become aviation experts. We do need, especcially in Europe, come back to an affordable and realistic training syllabus and therefore achievable instrument ratings and CPL's at a cost a normal person can afford. We have to be able to maintain our planes to a high standard without paying EASA $$$£££ for each bolt changed in the sunshade resulting in affordable rental and ownership. Eliminating the financial dropouts may well be the foremost goal but that can only be achieved if the regulators finally realize it is aviation they serve and not the opposite.
Best regards
AN2 driver.
I know, I know, it makes me mad every time I hear it, but there is nothing harder to kill than prejudice. And since our politicians keep fueling this, we see the result in a runaway bureaucracy of knitwits who seem to think that new pilots for the airlines will be trained as direct entry 737 or 320 FO's without having set a foot into a C150 to train the basics first, so why not do away with the bothersome lawnmowers?
Flight schools are hard pressed to get people to at least have a go. Most do it by promising the prospect of a life in the airlines, which comes true for very few of the candidates. Some are still too blasé to actually think a pure PPL candidate is worth their time, they want those willing and able to shell out 200k for an ab initio ATPL/MCP/whateverelse. Leaves the PPL's for the clubs and those FTO's who don't do more or actually still do it for the love of it. Both often enough will go to great lenghts to entrice their potential clientele with pictures we all know from Cigar commercials.
IO540, your remark about the appeal that GA has to most women and the deviastating result on prospective PPLs who thought being a flying hero will open some doors made me chuckle. Thankfully my wife loves flying in our Mooney, but there are overwhelming odds that if you take the lady of your fancy to the apron they'll steer right to that G V and will run as fast as their high heels allow once they spot they are supposed to enter a 1960's PA28, never to be seen again. Some may be happier if you point them to a Stearman or something like this, but in reality, for most of the womenfolk not infected with the flying virus themselfs, our propeller planes of today (possible exceptions the latest sexy curve Cirrus/Corvalis or Diamond models or cabin class twins) will have about the same appeal as if you turn up on your first date with a 1972 Lada.
So the drop outs would be in many cases easy to spot before they ever set foot on an airplane. Nervous wrecks, would be playboys, over-eager underachievers are the daily bread in aviation. Many who actually have the brains, composure and character go for more lukrative careers these days, others will hang up because they run out of money, motivation and the missus has brought up the "aeroplanes or me" card shortly after spending the third weekend in sequence without their supposedly better half.
On the other hand, I do hear some frightening tales of REALLY dedicated folks who get laughed out of the FTO's office even before their first evaluation flight by the pure mention of the fact that they've been flight simmers for a few decades. Heck, when will flight schools (and even airlines and ppruners) wake up to the fact that aviation these days can really do with some REALLY dedicated supporters, who often enough have spent more on their virtual hobby than some might ever spend on real life aviation? Most of these folks are dedicated to flying-period. No dreams of getting that D-cup beauty laid in a C150, no irrational folks who look at flying as a means to achieve a totally different end. IF these guys are finally taking the plunge and make a step towards getting licensed, they should be received with open doors and treated with the same respect any customer warrants, even if a few bad habits need to be trained out of them.
I had the great fortune to learn before the time of EASA/JAR, the Internet, and regulators who see airplanes as something best grounded for security reasons. Aviation has been my career, on the ground and in the air and I am still passionate enough about it to put up with all the crap we have to deal with sufficiently to own and operate my own aircraft. If we want to get more real pilots rather than wannabes-become-dropouts then I reckon we'd be well advised to be looking out for those who are into it all for the sake of flying rather than something inachievable else.
And, most importantly, we need to make our regulators see the light that flying is, after all, not a professorate in a kazillion of useless subjects but a very basic and instinctive skill, which needs to have a practical and theoretical formation to teach us to fly, not become aviation experts. We do need, especcially in Europe, come back to an affordable and realistic training syllabus and therefore achievable instrument ratings and CPL's at a cost a normal person can afford. We have to be able to maintain our planes to a high standard without paying EASA $$$£££ for each bolt changed in the sunshade resulting in affordable rental and ownership. Eliminating the financial dropouts may well be the foremost goal but that can only be achieved if the regulators finally realize it is aviation they serve and not the opposite.
Best regards
AN2 driver.
Last edited by AN2 Driver; 13th Nov 2010 at 07:01. Reason: added last paragraph
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, AN2.
If you think over-regulation is an issue, you need to send a letter to Mr Seebohm (an EU aviation official) who, near the end of this video says that the EU must create regulation in every area where there isn't any.
Mr Goudou (head of EASA), starting around 17:44, shows what sort of duplicious people are in the game these days.
You are right about flight simmers. They are the keenest would-be pilots these days - they are among the few kids who have not spent their youths spouting random gibberish on MSN, or hanging around street corners. I have one such son (14) who lives dreams and eats airplanes. Yet, speak to almost any instructor or read the instructor forum here, and you get very negative opinions. Anyway, I will make sure it doesn't cause him any trouble...
If you think over-regulation is an issue, you need to send a letter to Mr Seebohm (an EU aviation official) who, near the end of this video says that the EU must create regulation in every area where there isn't any.
Mr Goudou (head of EASA), starting around 17:44, shows what sort of duplicious people are in the game these days.
You are right about flight simmers. They are the keenest would-be pilots these days - they are among the few kids who have not spent their youths spouting random gibberish on MSN, or hanging around street corners. I have one such son (14) who lives dreams and eats airplanes. Yet, speak to almost any instructor or read the instructor forum here, and you get very negative opinions. Anyway, I will make sure it doesn't cause him any trouble...
IO540,
I am well aware of Mr Seebohm and his merry men at EASA... also what they are trying to do to you N-Flyers ... and to us once they got that escape opportunity out of the way. Basically, I think EASA is out to eliminate GA as we know it, have some sport aviation like LSA/VLA left for local grass strips but primarily to get rid of just about anything else. He's got plenty of help by airport officials who decide that the light GA is the reason for all their problems and try to kick us out, such as LSZH is trying now with rising their landing fees by up to 800% for light planes.
As you know I got friends in the South East of Europe whose aviation world has all but disintegrated with the invasion of EASA. Yet, they do actually have a growth in light GA, with quite a few new airports opening, but horrendous problems meeting "requirements". One of the pilots there told me recently that the visions EASA seem to have are not unlike some he recalls from the communist days in Russia, where aviation was a purely state organized business, no private planes at all and an almighty, yet generally aviation friendly, authority to make or break pilots.
Good luck to your son, with you as his mentor he'll do just fine. He'd do best not to mention flight sim at all initially once he gets involved unless he sees that the FI goes for it. It's much more effective to keep quiet and then quietly explain the above average progress when the time comes
I am well aware of Mr Seebohm and his merry men at EASA... also what they are trying to do to you N-Flyers ... and to us once they got that escape opportunity out of the way. Basically, I think EASA is out to eliminate GA as we know it, have some sport aviation like LSA/VLA left for local grass strips but primarily to get rid of just about anything else. He's got plenty of help by airport officials who decide that the light GA is the reason for all their problems and try to kick us out, such as LSZH is trying now with rising their landing fees by up to 800% for light planes.
As you know I got friends in the South East of Europe whose aviation world has all but disintegrated with the invasion of EASA. Yet, they do actually have a growth in light GA, with quite a few new airports opening, but horrendous problems meeting "requirements". One of the pilots there told me recently that the visions EASA seem to have are not unlike some he recalls from the communist days in Russia, where aviation was a purely state organized business, no private planes at all and an almighty, yet generally aviation friendly, authority to make or break pilots.
Good luck to your son, with you as his mentor he'll do just fine. He'd do best not to mention flight sim at all initially once he gets involved unless he sees that the FI goes for it. It's much more effective to keep quiet and then quietly explain the above average progress when the time comes