GA activity and its decline

Emir wrote:

You obviously fail to see the difference between the reasons and your perception. And when you don’t have the arguments then you simply conclude that other people don’t understand.

It’s all about perception – and the expectations of “value”. Private GA is mostly recreational, for most people at least. It’s a hobby, for fun and personal education and satisfaction, curiosity, exciting, social. We all try to inject some “utility” value into it. The problem is that “utility” is not very well defined, and neither is the cost, or the expected cost of that utility. Utility can mean lots of things and different things for different people. I guess some sort of definition is a use case, any use case, that goes beyond the pure personal pleasure of simply flying a plane. I also think that in an objective sense the utility part, in any sort of definition, is what most of our expectation of “value” consists of, regardless of how fun flying itself is. We also bunch it together. Plane A is more fun to fly than plane B, hence plane A offers more “value”, disregarding utility.

The bottom line is, we “invest” money and time into this, not for some future income that objectively can be planned. No, we “invest” into this based on pure hope that the investment will pay us back with lots of fun and interesting days on a personal and social level. You can chose not to invest, save a lot of money, and die rich, or commit to it and die happy but poor. That’s all there is to it.

So, how do we put a number on the fun and utility our investment has brought us? How do we measure it? We cannot. We cannot measure this on any objective scale because it is all subjective. What we can do is to compare it. We can compare it to other recreational activities. We can also compare it between countries, areas, and we can compare it in time. Things were always better before We can also compare it between different regimes (UL and PPL for instance). The important thing is we can indeed compare it, and with some years in the “business” we get a fairly good overall vision of how we would like things to be, what makes GA better and what makes GA worse.

Now that we (at least I do ) have an idea of what this is all about, what would a perfect “regime” look like? IMO it is all too obvious. There should be no regime at all, it should be completely free. That would gain GA the most. Fun and utility means different things to different people and there is no way one single regime can include it all. For historical, societal and operational reasons this would be impossible of course. Therefore the aim of the regime should be as little intrusive as possible. This can only be done if authority by the CAA/EASA is handled by the authority itself or trickles down to individuals or democratic non profit organisations of individuals. Anything smelling of commercial organization will:

• Cost way too much to be a viable alternative for most people, and GA as a whole.
• Be spread out too thin to be a viable and cost effective alternative for most people. Too much hassle, time and money used for unrelated stuff.

EASA is concerned about safety. They have put forth this quasi scientific nonsense of proportionality in safety and risk. Higher risk is acceptable for smaller planes and so on. I guess it is well meant, but it’s just nonsense IMO. It creates layers of bureaucratic regulations that only confuses and serves no good towards safety or anything else that anyone on the planet can measure the effect of (except it looks good on paper). There is only one single thing that has shown measurable improvements in accident and fatality rates in private GA, and greatly so. That is safe transition from one type to another (training and information on how to do it). Yet, according to EASA it is obviously safe for a person fresh out of PPL to jump into the left seat of a Cirrus or even worse, a super hot rod Lancair and take off. If EASA were concerned about safety in private GA, they would put all there effort into making transitional training (and training in general) as cheap and available as possible. My own CAA is now putting together a information/course-thing (don’t know exactly what because it is not finished), but it is supposed to focus on how to transition from one plane to another, and in particular from a typical certified plane to a high performance experimental one. They plan no compulsory training other than self training when flying (as far as I know). IMO it can be done safely alone if doing it correct and using the time it takes with preparations an flying getting used to the thing gradually (probably much faster with an instructor, but how to find an instructor who also feels at home in your particular aircraft?)

IMO EASA is something that benefits ATOs. It is something that benefits maintenance organisations. I cannot think of a single thing that has become better with EASA as a private pilot. UL, experimental and vintage is still fine and going strong, but it’s all outside EASA, and not dependent on some commercial “organisation” sucking money out of me. I would hope this BIR would, if not all that usable in every situation, at least be available, but no – ATO seems to be a requirement.

All in all EASA does not take private GA seriously. It doesn’t take it seriously for what it is. EASA handles private GA as if it were some kind of airline, only everything is “smaller”. It’s all wrong. 50 years ago things were different, and IMO EASA handles GA as if this was true today.

MedEwok wrote:

a 2016 VW Touran

If you only knew what that car costs in Norway

Just yesterday there was on the news (on the radio when commuting to work, with my wife and our tiny little e-up ) There is a dramatic and sudden increase in foreclosure on houses (regular private homes). Usually this is tied to general low conjuncture in the economy, but not today. The reason this time is people are living a bigger life then what they are able to pay. Basically they feel some sort of “pressure” to be successful economically. These are ordinary people with good jobs. They feel they “need” a big house, a large new car or two, expensive holidays, expensive furniture and so on. They are on the very edge of what they can afford and tip over ever so slightly, and then the snowball start rolling. The same sort of “pressure” prevents then to seek help before it is too late. It ends in disaster, personal economical ruin, 100% self made, and for no good reason.

I mean. People like that could perfectly well afford taking up flying as a hobby if they prioritized differently, and still have a nice home, a decent car etc, but they chose not to.

Recency is elementary for safety. If flying is expensive only those with the financial means can exercise it enough (100hours+ p.a.) to be proficient. Who normally falls into that category? People who did well and worked a lot, so they don’t have the time or only start at an older age.
I’m sure a couple of smart people could figure out a solution to this problem, especially with so much inefficiency as is present in light GA. E.g.: It’s insane to pay 8000€ a year for essentially a share of a garage that can’t be used for anything else anyway and then amortize this sum over 50 or 100 hours a year.

LeSving wrote:

There is a dramatic and sudden increase in foreclosure on houses (regular private homes).

OT out of interest, what is the current interest rate on mortages in Norway? Has there been a significant increase recently?

LeSving wrote:

They feel they “need” a big house, a large new car or two, expensive holidays, expensive furniture and so on. They are on the very edge of what they can afford and tip over ever so slightly, and then the snowball start rolling.

Very true. Seeing the same here. If I see all the Teslas and other very expensive cars which are mostly Bank owned (leased) then I wonder what people think. If they can afford 100 k to buy one, fine with me,but if not, why on earth lease and loose? Or worse take credits for vaccations and other stuff? Today there is no reason for this, most people earn more than enough to own all you say but without breaking the bank account, only one needs to be a bit reasonable.

New cars are like new airplanes, unless you plan to upgrade every 2 years the depreciation is horrible. New for me only has merit with cheap cars, never ever with expensive ones unless you really have money to burn. My car cost around 60k new in 1997 to the then owner, I picked it up in 2003 for 9k with 60k km on the clock. It now has 237k and runs like new. My wife originally had a Peugeot 309 which is still running in Bulgaria, then she bought a C3 in 2002 I believe for about 12k new, which got damaged in a hail storm and insurance replaced by her new model she has since 5 years and which will last her for the next 15 if nothing happens. It is way big enough for us 3 and for longer trips we take the Camry, which costs me next to nothing apart from fuel and insurance, tax and yearly maintenance, which in recent years has been less than 500 Euros. So can I afford two cars? Sure. Could I afford 2 which have a 1000 euro leasing tag on them per month? No way.

Or housing… I pay less than 300 Euros per month to upkeep my house including mortage. Rents around here are 2000 per month for a 3 room flat. People with “status homes” pay more mortage but they sweat what will happen when interest goes up. I don’t.

Vaccations. We recently went skiing to Germany. Drove there by car, about 50 liters fuel used. Hotel was 60 Euros per night and 10 Euros ski pass. Would I go to a place where a hotel is up to 1200 a night and the skipass over 150 Euros per day? Heavens no.

Some years ago we saw an offer for a week long cruise with Costa lines, including fights, less than 1k per person all inclduded from Dubai around the Emirates. Recently a guy I know paid 2400 per person for the same cruise (regular price) without drink package. Double. Because people don’t watch offers or think they are worth less? No idea. Be flexible and you can do a lot of stuff you otherwise miss out. Or get a hotel which normally costs 700 Euros a night for 70. yep, in the center of Venice at the Marcus Square. Booking com did that little marvel, booked 2 hours before departure.

and I am just back from shopping, as usual Saturday before closing time. All the food I bought was between 25 and 50% off. My deep freezer does not care it officially expires tomorrow. It should last me until well into next week.

But those who get their food home delivered, who dine and wine in Michelin places when McDonalds or KFC have 50% coupons at the workplace or there is an Ikea restaurant around the corner, well, I suppose no wonder they don’t get on with their paycheck…

LeSving wrote:

There should be no regime at all, it should be completely free. That would gain GA the most.

I agree (as I agree with the rest of your post) but unlike UL we very often share infrastructure (airports and airspace) with CAT which gives EASA obvious right (or excuse if you prefer) to highly regulate GA, especially in domain of certified aircrafts.

Agree with Emir, for instance France managed to completly deregulate a big section of ULMs as they are banned from big airports (but not on airspace), in this specific case everybody was happy, actually I was always impressed how much the ULM guys (my auntie included) are into ownership, maintenance and long touring than many in the aeroclub GA scene (where most fly locally on rentals)

I doubt that a ban on big CAT airports will please everybody in GA: for me that is a big cost to pay to be “completly free” or “take control”..

@mooney_driver
You raise a lot of valid points and I identify myself in some of them. We bought my girlfriends small car new (sub 10k eur) and after almost 10 years sold it for close to 50%. 45€ depreciation per month is ok.
The main family car was 6 years old, had only 13000 km on the tach and still had the plastic factory covers on the door steps. Now, in warmer weather, I bike the little one to daycare anyway. For vacation we opted for a roofbox instead of driving a larger car around all the time. Bought this car for a little more than 1/3 of the list price. If you read mrmojeymoustache it’s eye opening how the “tv ad absorbing middle class” is fooled into spending or better said consuming.

But, consumerism is systematic and the core of our economy. It’s like a modern age religion. Work all day and then spend money on useless things to justify it.
Fast food, fast fashion, fast electronics. People shop to fill emptiness.

To sum it up, as an average earner you need to set your priorities right and sacrifice a lot to afford flying. Still, @medewok has it right when he says that even above average earners have a hard time justifying spending the equivalent of a family vacation everymonth for a few hours of flying.

I have found a nice setup at my local field involving a Diamond Superdimona. It costs 1,7€ a minute when the engine is running. It’s half the speed of a cirrus but 1/4 of the cost. The mission profile is different of course, but for scenic flights to small fields it’s good. I’ll look into it and if I like it I can budget at least for a few flights every month.

@jason_c raises a very good point about selling after owning. Depreciation on older mainstream cessnas or pipers should be low.

I think saying you need to earn €150k to fly 60 hours a year including long trips says more about the rest of your life and less about flying. A fixed gear SEP living outside can probably be flown 60 hours a year for €12k. With a little bit of luck along the way its very feasible. We bought our house (5km from Dublin centre) in 2012 at the trough of the Irish economic crash and the mortgage is €800 a month. Renting this house now would be more than 2 x that (and the mortgage on buying it now would be similar). It’s close enough to both our jobs to mean we only need a weekend car, and its also close enough that grandparents absorb a lot of the child care costs. Total savings = aeroplane