I think these must be
Is this causation or correlation though?
I tend to agree regarding 1), but suspect that the sheer bloody-mindedness required to achieve an IR means that 2) reflects the fact anybody going this far is already not going to give up flying, rather than that getting an instrument rating decreases your likelihood of later giving up. I say this in the context of the UK IMC rating that is enough for most people within the UK.
Economists refer to the “Concorde fallacy” – the idea that if you’ve sunk a certain amount of resources into something, you become very reluctant to give it up even if this is clearly the rational decision. If this were true, then you could argue that making aviation more expensive would decrease the dropout rate because anyone who achieved a PPL would be more likely to keep it current, but it could also go part of the way to explaining why by the time you’ve got your own aircraft and instrument rating, you’re not going to stop.
On the contrary, good finances and accessibility have got to be high up there for most people – there are more and more microlight pilots, but do they all eschew group A simply because microlights provide a flyinger sort of flying? I doubt it – I’m sure lots would fly group A if they could afford it, and people who are really after the flying experience would probably do better scraping lift in a hang-glider.
I would say building your own aircraft. You just HAVE to stay current for the big day 
I’m more of a “Cub” type. I like simple aircraft, and I like tail wheel. We have an old Army Cub at the club, if it haven’t been for that Cub I would be flying Ultralights exclusively now, and I would be building ultralights instead of real aerobatic aircraft. The Cub being tail wheel, lead to towing gliders with a Pawnee. The Pawnee was very fun to fly. Unfortunately it was sold a month ago, replaced with a WT9 Dynamic. The WT9 is also fun, an excellent little airplane, but the Pawnee, a big single seater, tail wheel, with a 540 in the nose, then you are The Boss
Instrument rating is far down on my priority list. But I get what you are saying. I think it is important to somehow go “further” than just staying current. This may be IFR, aerobatics, glider towing in the mountains or whatever.
I have to add the feeling of flying a single seater. Just you and the aircraft and no one will ever have the chance to “correct” you. You just have to get to know the aircraft all by yourself. The Cub is probably the closest you get to a single seater without actually flying one.
Many don’t see the utility to have a PPL.
They fly to a few different airfields, take their first passengers, but this is where it ends.
Many get bored and give up. The club atmosphere doesn’t provide any help to keep people flying and most PPLs fail to renew after 2 years.
The AOPA mentoring scheme seems a good idea, but there are no mentees.
I am not sure there is much utility in a PPL on it’s own, particularly if you are going to be tied to the club/rental environment infinitum. There is only so much pleasure to be taken from flying some shagged out piece of tin from the 70’s and paying £150ph for the privilege.
Having an IR is probably a ‘must’ if long distance touring to any kind of fixed schedule is what floats your boat, and if you want to rent aircraft and travel I would consider it mandatory, otherwise you are going to get a lot of agro (and big bills) when you can’t get the aircraft back to base.
The future of the PPL must lie in the LSA category aircraft. Affordable bimbling, and if not on a fixed schedule the possibility to do some long trips that don’t cost the earth.
Personally, I think airfields could do a lot more to keep pilots motivated.
None of them seem to realise that the best way to attract flyers is to give them a reason to use your airfield beyond simply landing there and having a sandwich.
If I owned or ran an airfield I’d be rallying around all local businesses and strike up a joint enterprise.
When was the last time you saw an airfield advertising a special promotion for a nice local hotel/restaurant on valentines day? Airfields could offer a free landing and get a commission from the hotel for any visiting pilot that uses the hotel’s facilities.
Or, plenty of airfields have other interesting activities co-located on the same land. Turweston has a rally track, dunkeswell has a kart track, lots of coastal airfields have marinas nearby. You get the picture.
Do they not give up on average though? FAA says in 1999 there were a bit shy of 270k private pilots. Fifteen years later, 2014 – there are only 195k left. I’m not good at math but at the current attrition rate there’ll be none left in 40 years and that’s supposing flying costs remain equal with a constantly declining customer base.
Aaah yes, but there’s the famous sport pilot category you’ll tell me. 2014 there are a stagggering 4’903 sport pilots in CONUS.
That’s in a land where requirements and regulations aren’t redone every couple of years. I don’t dare think what Europe looks like.
Would be interesting if the EASA could come with similar statistics to show how successful it is at stifling GA.
As to airports – as long as they’re government subsidised/financed, i guess they don’t give a rat’s distal end of the digestive tract about their GA figures…
As to airframe producers – I would hope they look long and hard at these figures. If things stay equal there is no reason to develop new airframes/powerplants as there’s hardly going to be enough volume. Pretty soon you’ll read in Flying that yes the Cessna 172 priced at USD 3 million is still a relevant aircraft. I picked that figure on purpose, it’s the new price of a PC-12.
Engine makers are incentivised to sell crap unreliable engines – let me rephrase, they’re efficient and we make a living out of fixing them – otherwise they’d hardly sell anything at this market growth rate.
If on the other hand they want to survive and not die a slow death, there are huge potential numbers of new clients in a bunch of markets about to open up. The only snag being they won’t buy stuff that looks like it just landed from the 1950es just because “it’s efficient”.
I live in one of the most expensive cities in Europe, with lots of people with sufficient disposable income. France’s biggest flying club is just across the border and they have a whopping 20 ( ! ) airplanes grand total. Personal ownership figures are risible. EasyJet offers about 60 destinations out of Geneva at 60 USD return bought far in advance. For USD say 150k I can travel hassle free the rest of my life. Most of the people do the math. Ah but quid of the non-EasyJet served cities you’ll ask me? Granted they have more incentive to open up their travel horizons and invest in personal air transportation. Chances are their disposable income is going to be much much lower however. I also see people who are not bothered about the math – Audi RS4 and 6, M-series BMWs, Ferraris etc ad nauseam roam the city like the Car Show is on all year long, and there’s no utility value at racing your Ferrari at 40 kmh downtown. All of these people could afford to fly and buy a plane (or two). But they never will as long as they look they way they do.
Many don’t see the utility to have a PPL.They fly to a few different airfields, take their first passengers, but this is where it ends.
Many get bored and give up. The club atmosphere doesn’t provide any help to keep people flying and most PPLs fail to renew after 2 years.
It’s true that many pilots never take the “second step” and expand their flying skills, whether it’s touring, aerobatic, NQ, IR etc. But the flying clubs have great potential to make the new pilots feel comfortable enough to continue.
At my own flying club we have arranged touring trips for the last 10 years at least. It’s very appreciated by the members, they learn that flying abroad isn’t much harder than flying the same distance north within Sweden. But they wouldn’t have done it if they were alone. It’s also a way to keep up the hours (as in most clubs, 20% of the members fly 80% of the total hours).
I think compared with the US and Australia, VFR flying is very hard in northern Europe. Complex airspace and weather do mean a lot of trips are not feasible. This can put people off. Delays and cancellations can reduce family support for light aircraft flying.
One more option: Make flying your profession. In the business aviation sector I am surrounded by people who (like myself) come from a different professional background but enjoy flying. At some point one discovers that from a normal average pay you can either maintain a familiy and pay the mortgage or go flying in your free time. But not both. Aircraft ownership often make things worse (as I had to find out for myself). Also, doing a normal average job you will not be allowed to travel by private plane for several reasons, the most important being the cost. I managed exactly one business trip in my own (well one third my own) aeroplane – and after the company refunded the normal traveling cost for two employees, I ended up paying 3/4 of the trip myself. Takes much of the fun out of it… So in order to continue flying, I had to swap professions.
