What will recreational flying be like in a few decades?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you met someone 50 years ago in 1965 buying a brand new 172 and asked what they though the Cessna equivalent to a 172 would be like 50 years in the future in the year 2015. What would they have said? Fast Jet? Personal spacecraft?
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” – Yogi Berra
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” – Yogi Berra
If super-capacitor development continues along the lines of current development trends, they will be able to provide the continued electric power surge needed to climb and reach cruise speed.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_imag...iew/12_FA2.pdf
(No, I am not suggesting that this particular small program is representative of what's being done for capacitors, but it's in the same technology area)
"It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” – Yogi Berra
Last edited by Silvaire1; 24th Nov 2015 at 04:24.
GA has shrunk by about 50% in 20 years in the UK; it is not technology related but financial. The number of licences issued each year give a clue. It is now so expensive to become an instructor that there is virtually no chance of recovering the costs, whilst the experience gained in teaching an ever decreasing number of GA pilots no longer paves the way to airline flying or even becoming a commercial instructor.
With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it.
With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe "financial" as a reason is far too easy and the reason lies more in the expectations to life regime. I even don't see GA getting much more expensive, taken inflation into calculation, or faced by more bureaucracy.
Instead, during the last two decades we saw a dramatic shift in society from "taking accountability in ownership" or entrepreneurship thinking, over "responsibility for operations" or being manager, all the way to "consume" or I don't want to take any responsibility of accountability but get all the benefits.
It may have never been so cheap to own and operate an aircraft, but only if you go the way to old. But looking at the younger generation of pilots, I see dreamers, attracted by blinkyblinky new hightech aircraft, taking G1000 as bare minimum acceptable, rushing to electronic gadgets and praying to the "Apps God". How often do you have a student addicted to a 50 year old and venerable C150? How often do you have students wanting brand new aircrafts for training and wrinkling their nose over 10 year old planes? Nothing wrong with dreaming, it brought us forward, but only when started from firm ground. A vision without working on a feasible path gets you into hospital.
A few decades ago, we were happy to just fly and got comfortable with the basics, enjoying the inner intrinsic physical experience. Today we expect everything to be awesome, shiny and visually highlighted, some even green thought LED illuminated. We often miss the focus on the really important center of life, getting dark in mind, and only game at the light polluted amusement park outer rim.
Instead, during the last two decades we saw a dramatic shift in society from "taking accountability in ownership" or entrepreneurship thinking, over "responsibility for operations" or being manager, all the way to "consume" or I don't want to take any responsibility of accountability but get all the benefits.
It may have never been so cheap to own and operate an aircraft, but only if you go the way to old. But looking at the younger generation of pilots, I see dreamers, attracted by blinkyblinky new hightech aircraft, taking G1000 as bare minimum acceptable, rushing to electronic gadgets and praying to the "Apps God". How often do you have a student addicted to a 50 year old and venerable C150? How often do you have students wanting brand new aircrafts for training and wrinkling their nose over 10 year old planes? Nothing wrong with dreaming, it brought us forward, but only when started from firm ground. A vision without working on a feasible path gets you into hospital.
A few decades ago, we were happy to just fly and got comfortable with the basics, enjoying the inner intrinsic physical experience. Today we expect everything to be awesome, shiny and visually highlighted, some even green thought LED illuminated. We often miss the focus on the really important center of life, getting dark in mind, and only game at the light polluted amusement park outer rim.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest problems facing GA and its future direction is the steady closing down of smaller airports earmarked for development.
With the pressure to build ever more housing I can see that getting worse. Since I started flying access to airports is getting more and more restricted
I can even remember flying with friends into Manchester in a PA28 parking on the main apron alongside a big jet and going up into the terminal for a coffee
I can also remember flying a 150 into Luton you used to follow the perimeter track around to the flying club pay a small landing fee and you were welcome now its all huge fees and handling agents now its confined to very wealthy owners or companies operating business jets and a few high level singles
Smaller airports are closing to be turned into housing or industrial estates and the larger ones do not want us meaning the approach aids available to us are going too
So maybe the future will be directed more to sport VFR flying with aircraft that can operate out of short strips and off grass rather than the all singing and dancing high tech computerised machines we are talking about where are they going to operate to make use of all this high tech sophistication?
Pace
With the pressure to build ever more housing I can see that getting worse. Since I started flying access to airports is getting more and more restricted
I can even remember flying with friends into Manchester in a PA28 parking on the main apron alongside a big jet and going up into the terminal for a coffee
I can also remember flying a 150 into Luton you used to follow the perimeter track around to the flying club pay a small landing fee and you were welcome now its all huge fees and handling agents now its confined to very wealthy owners or companies operating business jets and a few high level singles
Smaller airports are closing to be turned into housing or industrial estates and the larger ones do not want us meaning the approach aids available to us are going too
So maybe the future will be directed more to sport VFR flying with aircraft that can operate out of short strips and off grass rather than the all singing and dancing high tech computerised machines we are talking about where are they going to operate to make use of all this high tech sophistication?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Nov 2015 at 08:41.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all doom and gloom
I was struck by how much the last three posts outline parts of the situation as I've come to see it. Here in Australia at least, access to the high-end GA market and the old faithful lead sleds is getting progressively harder and harder, for various reasons. All the pressure is to the newer, lighter, more efficient aircraft and the associated recreational regulatory regime, imperfect though it is. For those of us who enjoy flying anything, it's a change rather than a tragedy. These aircraft are often very capable, can operate from less developed airfields if required, and can be equipped with whatever level of instrumentation you choose: you don't have have the fancy panels and technology if you choose not too.
While I love flying the heavier-iron GA machines, I still get the same buzz every time I rotate my P2002JF off a grass or gravel strip, I love the great view, and I think that 100 kt on 15 lph of premium mogas is a pretty respectable - and financially sustainable - performance. And I enjoy flying an aircraft with a bit of character that rewards a good touch - much like my old PA24 did. You'll find plenty of other converts and new-comers who say similar things about other aircraft.
With all that said, I know that there are many motivations for flying and/or owning an aircraft. I'm genuinely saddened by the departure from the GA scene of those friends who don't see a future at the light end of the market. At the same time, I observe from the local clubs that the recreational trend is making flying just a little bit more accessible to a younger or less well-heeled group. Time will tell whether there is any sort of balancing effect as the next 50 years rolls on.
While I love flying the heavier-iron GA machines, I still get the same buzz every time I rotate my P2002JF off a grass or gravel strip, I love the great view, and I think that 100 kt on 15 lph of premium mogas is a pretty respectable - and financially sustainable - performance. And I enjoy flying an aircraft with a bit of character that rewards a good touch - much like my old PA24 did. You'll find plenty of other converts and new-comers who say similar things about other aircraft.
With all that said, I know that there are many motivations for flying and/or owning an aircraft. I'm genuinely saddened by the departure from the GA scene of those friends who don't see a future at the light end of the market. At the same time, I observe from the local clubs that the recreational trend is making flying just a little bit more accessible to a younger or less well-heeled group. Time will tell whether there is any sort of balancing effect as the next 50 years rolls on.
Last edited by tecman; 25th Nov 2015 at 09:23. Reason: typo
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA has shrunk by about 50% in 20 years in the UK; it is not technology related but financial. The number of licences issued each year give a clue. It is now so expensive to become an instructor that there is virtually no chance of recovering the costs, whilst the experience gained in teaching an ever decreasing number of GA pilots no longer paves the way to airline flying or even becoming a commercial instructor.
With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it.
With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it.
As has been mentioned already, one of the issues affecting the UK are disappearing small airports. This, and the way that EASA / CAA regulation is going, will split light aviation in two.
From my contact over the years with both CAA and EASA, they seem to think that “recreational aviation” is made up of a bunch of people who fly old Piper Cubs, Permit to Fly aircraft and the odd Beagle Pup and fly purely for pleasure making $100 burger runs every Saturday.There are people who fit that description and there are a bunch of them at my local airfield who meet every Saturday to fly off in a variety of permit types and hunt down a decent burger (and most of them are flying on LAPLs or NPPLs due to the number of burgers they have eaten over the years).
But you can’t put, as we know, everyone that flies into that category. I used to fly a twin MEP for business and pleasure. Age, reduced income, the complexity of ever changing regulations and the need for tests/checkrides what felt like every other month saw my ratings decline to an SEP, an IR(R) and a spamcan.
(For our American cousins, all they need is a BFR to keep their license current. By comparison I needed several regular tests (at huge cost) ).
Frankly, I see the segment I fly in disappearing in the UK. If minor/regional airports disappear or become inaccessible due to high landing/handling/parking fees, then fun flying will be limited to “recreational flying” from grass strips and farm strips.
Of course, as they don't have ILS or lights, then the need for an IR or IR(R) will go (although the EIR will fit much better into this environment than an IMC/IR(R)) and the cost of renewing same will increase.
What was the private aviation sector, the private pilots flying themselves around for business and pleasure in Malibus, Meridians, Cessna 310s, Mooneys, Piper Senecas and the like, will disappear. With them, the PA28s and Cessna 172s will go (because if the others go, who will be left to maintain the old spamcans?). The only pilots flying EASA SEP, MEP and SET aircraft will be the aspiring airline pilots either learning at a commercial school or flying for a very rich non-pilot owner.
As the old PPLs fade away, new private flyers without commercial aspirations will have limited access to flying schools. What they will learn to fly in, I don’t know because the AT-3, PS-28, etc., have boasted being a replacement for the PA-28 and Cessna 152 but, we all know, they are not up to the task. Maybe we will be all electric and just fly around an extended circuit.
As the Cessna 310s diminish in number, so, I fear, will my segment of aviation disappear from the UK for ever.
Last edited by Bob Upanddown; 26th Nov 2015 at 11:12.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I loved flying the 310 and the 340, but they are the preeminent example of what society and economy will not tolerate in decades to come - 100 liters per hour of leaded gas to move at most 6 people. A huge carbon footprint for a very small benefit in society's eyes. Such airplanes will never be converted to more efficient engines. Even if they came to exist, the modification costs would be prohibitive.
Perhaps like the predicted end of advanced life, the cockroaches survive. The Cubs, Cherokees, 172's and 152's have a chance of surviving the decline of GA, as he more advanced aircraft succumb. The modest singles can be maintained with economy, and enough will remain, that re-engining them is remotely conceivable.
And, we'll see some growth in very austere two place aircraft. New, and seemingly advanced (lots of electronics, few old style systems), but they will come with more limited capability in one way or another.
Imagine the awe in seeing a genuine Spitfire or Mustang being expressed simply at the sight of an original Cub, or 172 arriving. That could be the GA world in decades to come....
Perhaps like the predicted end of advanced life, the cockroaches survive. The Cubs, Cherokees, 172's and 152's have a chance of surviving the decline of GA, as he more advanced aircraft succumb. The modest singles can be maintained with economy, and enough will remain, that re-engining them is remotely conceivable.
And, we'll see some growth in very austere two place aircraft. New, and seemingly advanced (lots of electronics, few old style systems), but they will come with more limited capability in one way or another.
Imagine the awe in seeing a genuine Spitfire or Mustang being expressed simply at the sight of an original Cub, or 172 arriving. That could be the GA world in decades to come....
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 310 and the 340, but they are the preeminent example of what society and economy will not tolerate in decades to come - 100 liters per hour of leaded gas to move at most 6 people. A huge carbon footprint for a very small benefit in society's eyes.
Hence my view that there will be a huge gulf between recreational flyers in RV's and those flying around in TBM800s, King Airs.......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
I think with any flying you have to have a mission profile and choose the aircraft to fit your mission profile.
If your profile is a flight around the local area on a sunny Sunday afternoon you don't buy a CJ2
If your Mission profile is to fly deep into Europe for a distance of 1200 NM with six business associates and you or your company can afford it you buy the CJ2 or whatever fits your budget.
In between there are singles some piston some turbine and there used to be a lot of piston twins and turbine twins for those who didn't trust a single at night or in bad weather.
We also now have the VLJs like the baby eclipse which was probably targeted at the twin market with tiny jet engines that sipped fuel.
Interesting is the Cirrus a single engined jet but with the Cirrus notorious BRS which has proved itself time and time again and in many ways gets over the single engine fear.
i could see more development in BRS systems and single engine in either baby jets or baby turbo props for pilots who need to travel at low cost.
The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access.
Pace
I think with any flying you have to have a mission profile and choose the aircraft to fit your mission profile.
If your profile is a flight around the local area on a sunny Sunday afternoon you don't buy a CJ2
If your Mission profile is to fly deep into Europe for a distance of 1200 NM with six business associates and you or your company can afford it you buy the CJ2 or whatever fits your budget.
In between there are singles some piston some turbine and there used to be a lot of piston twins and turbine twins for those who didn't trust a single at night or in bad weather.
We also now have the VLJs like the baby eclipse which was probably targeted at the twin market with tiny jet engines that sipped fuel.
Interesting is the Cirrus a single engined jet but with the Cirrus notorious BRS which has proved itself time and time again and in many ways gets over the single engine fear.
i could see more development in BRS systems and single engine in either baby jets or baby turbo props for pilots who need to travel at low cost.
The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access.
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access
It is OK having the aircraft but if the airports aren't there to serve your mission, the profile has to change.
I was the happy the other day to see four single place Yak 50s, burning a total of perhaps 60 gallons per hour, flying together from my base. They are a relatively new phenomenon for formation fun in the US, and rising in value and popularity. Their utility is approximately zero. People buy what they want, and spend their money how they want. An imaginary draconian vision of 'society' and its 'values' is thankfully not a very powerful factor when people have money in their pockets and want to spend it their own way.
The issue with the old twins is simply that they don't motivate individuals now they way they did as shiny new aircraft. Same thing with a 1980 Mercedes or the older luxury car of your choice, the top of the line always depreciates fastest and worst because age disproportionately reduces its status, which was half of why it existed in the first place, and complexity makes it harder for the individual to maintain. Meanwhile the smaller sports cars and the exotics live on forever.
Today's 310 or 340 has a turbine or two, but I think it's basically the same market in terms of the customer and his motivations.
The issue with the old twins is simply that they don't motivate individuals now they way they did as shiny new aircraft. Same thing with a 1980 Mercedes or the older luxury car of your choice, the top of the line always depreciates fastest and worst because age disproportionately reduces its status, which was half of why it existed in the first place, and complexity makes it harder for the individual to maintain. Meanwhile the smaller sports cars and the exotics live on forever.
Today's 310 or 340 has a turbine or two, but I think it's basically the same market in terms of the customer and his motivations.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire
I really do think there is a lot of mileage in the future regarding BRS as I do think they will replace the " Other" engine. Obviously not as a second source of energy if the one packs up but as another option if that engine quits at night, over water or low cloud or even if the pilot looses the plot.
Thus I think Cirrus have it right with their single engine jet! Something most would not consider but may consider with an efficient and reliable BRS system fitted.
But that covers baby jets and I still feel the same applies to a low cost low powered turbine in the future again with the BRS. Cirrus have proved its worth and it almost gives you a second engine option without a second engine well at least as a mental second way out!
But that still leaves ever declining airports which will be available at low cost with approved approach aids?
No one talks about non approved approaches to your landing strip or small airfield? The fact is that many pilots do use such approaches usually GPS with other confirmation aids and is looked on with disdain.
Maybe GPS with confirmation backups will be more readily acceptable in the future as pilots will have no choice in the future to get into Joe Bloogs small airfield. Maybe these approaches will be approved albeit to higher minima especially with more detailed terrain mapping as I can see only a handful of airports fully equipped in the future and none will want GA unless you can afford paying a fortune to land there.
we talk of electronic computerised aircraft with advanced avionics of the future we don't talk about how these will become reliable mission capable A to B aircraft in the future ? It won't be to the Airline populated hubs and it won't be to the fast extinct smaller airfields
Pace
I really do think there is a lot of mileage in the future regarding BRS as I do think they will replace the " Other" engine. Obviously not as a second source of energy if the one packs up but as another option if that engine quits at night, over water or low cloud or even if the pilot looses the plot.
Thus I think Cirrus have it right with their single engine jet! Something most would not consider but may consider with an efficient and reliable BRS system fitted.
But that covers baby jets and I still feel the same applies to a low cost low powered turbine in the future again with the BRS. Cirrus have proved its worth and it almost gives you a second engine option without a second engine well at least as a mental second way out!
But that still leaves ever declining airports which will be available at low cost with approved approach aids?
No one talks about non approved approaches to your landing strip or small airfield? The fact is that many pilots do use such approaches usually GPS with other confirmation aids and is looked on with disdain.
Maybe GPS with confirmation backups will be more readily acceptable in the future as pilots will have no choice in the future to get into Joe Bloogs small airfield. Maybe these approaches will be approved albeit to higher minima especially with more detailed terrain mapping as I can see only a handful of airports fully equipped in the future and none will want GA unless you can afford paying a fortune to land there.
we talk of electronic computerised aircraft with advanced avionics of the future we don't talk about how these will become reliable mission capable A to B aircraft in the future ? It won't be to the Airline populated hubs and it won't be to the fast extinct smaller airfields
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Nov 2015 at 08:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Innovation and progress is driven by tangible measureable factors. For much of human history, warfare was the driver for technological progression (as evidenced by aviation itself).
More latterly capitalism and the never-ending search for profit has taken over - witness the internet, mobile technology and software. all have origins in military developments, but their drivers now are commercial exploitation.
And herein lies the problem for GA. It is a massively, hugely niche market (oxymoron intended). Without the massive increase in pilot training over the recent decades, GA might well have already stagnated and died, as commercial builders strive to find exploitable markets.
What is absolutely clear, is that GA is rapidly approaching its Rubicon. Legislation is simply not going to allow such a quantity of ancient hardware in our ever-crowded skies and over our ever-crowded towns and cities. Of course the legislators have a huge headache (of their own-making) to solve...how to evolve pilot training into a proper, structurally sound, and consistent process (like training a doctor or dentist for example) without totally ****ing up three quarters of the world's airlines, while so doing.
If that nut is ever cracked (and it really won't be easy) the future of GA in any format will be precarious.
More latterly capitalism and the never-ending search for profit has taken over - witness the internet, mobile technology and software. all have origins in military developments, but their drivers now are commercial exploitation.
And herein lies the problem for GA. It is a massively, hugely niche market (oxymoron intended). Without the massive increase in pilot training over the recent decades, GA might well have already stagnated and died, as commercial builders strive to find exploitable markets.
What is absolutely clear, is that GA is rapidly approaching its Rubicon. Legislation is simply not going to allow such a quantity of ancient hardware in our ever-crowded skies and over our ever-crowded towns and cities. Of course the legislators have a huge headache (of their own-making) to solve...how to evolve pilot training into a proper, structurally sound, and consistent process (like training a doctor or dentist for example) without totally ****ing up three quarters of the world's airlines, while so doing.
If that nut is ever cracked (and it really won't be easy) the future of GA in any format will be precarious.
What is absolutely clear, is that GA is rapidly approaching its Rubicon. Legislation is simply not going to allow such a quantity of ancient hardware in our ever-crowded skies and over our ever-crowded towns and cities. Of course the legislators have a huge headache (of their own-making) to solve...how to evolve pilot training into a proper, structurally sound, and consistent process (like training a doctor or dentist for example) without totally ****ing up three quarters of the world's airlines, while so doing.
Meanwhile I'll be flying antique aircraft over towns and cities, and taking any required instruction from freelance instructors for the indefinite future.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You kinda miss my point a little. What changes stuff in our world is rampant capitalism (the invisible hand?). Legislators are like those rodeo dudes trying to stay on board. With or without a step change to pilot training (which I completely agree is a massive ask), them old aircraft will continue to fly only as long as the market driven aviation industry allows them to. Likewise their replacements will only continue to be produced economically in a functioning market. I merely mention pilot training because the way it is conducted now distorts the market in GA's favor. Were that to go the fallout for GA would be catastrophic, but again, probably not going to happen.
Nevertheless, fifty years is a heck of a long time. My guess is within half that time, the GA industry (and by that I mean private recreational low cost flying) will have taken some pretty brutal hits.
Nevertheless, fifty years is a heck of a long time. My guess is within half that time, the GA industry (and by that I mean private recreational low cost flying) will have taken some pretty brutal hits.
Private owner aircraft will be either for fun or for going places.
Flying as Onetrack descried will in fact open up light aircraft to people with neither the time or inclination to train for current airways type operation, and quite possibly no interest in flying, other than as a means of getting to their intended destination by the most direct route and when they want to go. Type in or say the destination, confirm you and the aircraft are in agreement, (and here we differ) load cells on either the undercarriage or in the seats and cargo compartment will confirm weight and balance is ok, and you are off. The avionics will confirm a landing slot, so all that those on board need to do at the other end is go to their waiting onward transport.
Flying for fun will be much the same as now, although electric aircraft will be the rule. A fossil fuel powered generator may be carried in a pod if going to a remote destination, although the high efficiency solar cells on the wing, trailer or covers will do some of the recharging, and for weekend fliers, they will ensure the first flight is usually a free one (fuel-wise, anyway).
Flying as Onetrack descried will in fact open up light aircraft to people with neither the time or inclination to train for current airways type operation, and quite possibly no interest in flying, other than as a means of getting to their intended destination by the most direct route and when they want to go. Type in or say the destination, confirm you and the aircraft are in agreement, (and here we differ) load cells on either the undercarriage or in the seats and cargo compartment will confirm weight and balance is ok, and you are off. The avionics will confirm a landing slot, so all that those on board need to do at the other end is go to their waiting onward transport.
Flying for fun will be much the same as now, although electric aircraft will be the rule. A fossil fuel powered generator may be carried in a pod if going to a remote destination, although the high efficiency solar cells on the wing, trailer or covers will do some of the recharging, and for weekend fliers, they will ensure the first flight is usually a free one (fuel-wise, anyway).