The Decline and Eventual Demise of Small GA?

[rwtucker]

Since becoming a pilot in 2005, I have been concerned with the decline in ranks within the “small GA” sector (working definition: those of us who fly mostly single engines behind propellers for personal use). My concern grew as I watched ramp rental spaces at MYL drop from a perpetual waiting list in 2005 to 30-40% occupancy in 2017. My conversations with APOA have confirmed, nationwide, what I have seen in my area. Small GA may be in a death spiral.

The reason most often offered for the decline is only partially true. Yes, this sector of GA is aging and a disproportionally large number of pilots are hanging up their headphones for the last time. A more complete picture is that senior recreational pilots are not being replaced by young pilots. The year for year pipeline from 16 to 50 years old is thin compared with the pipeline of for those 50 years old and older. Yes, the rate at which young people are earning their PVT is increasing but that growth is accounted for by those seeking a career in aviation by way of certifications and seat time. This is a good thing, and many of those who become commercial pilots or assume other professional roles in the aviation industry will go on to become recreational pilots. Most, however, do not do so until later in their careers.

So why is it important to arrest the rapid decline in the small GA sector? A few weeks ago, I had a beer with Warren Hendrickson, AOPA Northwest Mountain Regional Manager. When the conversation turned to my concern on this topic, we saw that we agreed on a few answers to this question.

First, the loss of ranks translates directly into a loss of representation in federal and even state consideration and regulation. It is no secret that agencies ranging from Homeland Security all the way down to sheriff’s departments see a security risk in permitting small airplanes to fly around with no particular purpose and not under anyone’s direct observation or control. It is not difficult to imagine some kind of tragedy that will give Homeland Security a basis for asking Congress for further, perhaps severe, restrictions in the flying privileges of those who fly without a flight plan. Since Congress is als losing members who are themselves small GA pilots, we cannot expect much support from them as our ranks dwindle.

Second, dwindling numbers means a dwindling voice in addressing cost, which I see as the number one reason why we are not seeing more interest among young people in learning how to fly for recreational purposes! By cost, I mean the costs of aircraft, flying, maintenance, and parts -- all of which have seen decades of increases that outstripped the CPI.

In today’s market, the average member of the middle-class cannot afford to fly and the average young person entering the middle-class cannot afford to dream about flying. AOPA is doing what it can to reduce costs by making it easier to create flying clubs. Even though they do not address the basic costs of flying, a well-run flying club can drive the per-person costs down to a point that flying is within the reach of those who are somewhat above the mid-point in the middle class.

One way to drive basic costs down is by changing regulations to facilitate reduced costs and increased competition. (The complexity of the cost dynamics can be seen by reflecting on the roles of the FAA and the manufacturers’ in the 100-200% price difference between a certified and identical non-certified engine or panel components). The problem is that changing regulations requires the legislative clout that comes from having large numbers and we need the legislative clout to get the large numbers. Does this sound like a Catch-22?

The size of commercial interests in GA is another negative factor in the costs of flying. The concern of an aviation enterprise is that costs affect it and its competition equally. So long as the regulatory playing field is level to commercial interests, we can expect that aircraft, parts, and services sold to both commercial and recreational markets will be resistant to cost-reduction efforts. Small GA has to pay to play in this larger market.

Catch-22 or not, I think we need to find a way to tackle the costs of flying recreationally. If we fail to reduce costs (through net reductions and/or driving cost increases below the CPI) it seems likely that small GA as we know it will continue to decline to the point at which it is only a one-off tragedy away from federal regulations that all but eliminate the sector. Agree? Disagree? What should be done? What can be done? Who should lead the parade?

[Lou]

Interesting post. I'll share my perspective.

Our interests are developed in childhood. I am willing to bet that a huge portion of the current population of recreational GA pilots were brought up in the age of model airplanes, Popular Mechanics, war movies and playing outside. It was all about real things and real machines. Remember chemistry kits? Electronic kits? Plastic and balsa models? Must have built a 100 of them. Also, there was a large population of ex-military airmen to stimulate the imaginations of younger people. The thought that you can own and fly your own airplane still fascinates us old guys, but the interest was formed long ago.

Todays kids are brought up on a steady diet of virtual digital entertainment. They have developed a vast knowledge of this world. If I want to find something on the web, I ask my kids to find it for me, because they seem to follow search leads and assess information so much faster than I do. But they are hopeless with tangible things because it simply is not emphasized like it use to be.

On top of this there has been an over-regulation of the sector which has rendered the certificated aircraft market moribund in an age of rapidly advancing technology in every other field. Our beloved Diamond aircraft were a rare leap forward, but we all feel frustrated that further advances are so slow in coming. I can't help but imagine the TC and FAA officials who say "no" and demand further tests not because the risk is substantial, but because it justifies their job. They may not even be conscious of their bias. So we continue to fly new airplanes designed in the 30's, 40's and 50's when people accepted that life has risks, but that's no reason to stop trying.

You cannot change the cultural factors, but you could lighten the hand of the regulator (and give people more disposable income with lower taxes while you're at it). I personally think the future of general aviation is in the experimental and homebuilt sectors. Certainly all of the low-cost innovation is found there. But I don't know how widespread it is going to be. I saw a turbine powered, pressurized Lancair Evolution at Kenora this summer. Experimentally registered, and yet I am willing to bet safer for travel than my DA40.

Maybe that is why AirVenture is so popular - we sense the decline and we all want to gather and forget about it for one week to celebrate what it is.

[1911Tex]

Sorry I cannot understand your logic. Our airport and others around us are booming; folks purchasing new and used aircraft ongoing. Almost 200 on our hanger wait list. 2015 showed 75k tower operations at KGTU. 2016 indicates 98K operations and this year we are looking at 110K+ operations with heavy airport construction limiting access to one of our 2 runways at one time or another. Fuel, both Jet-A and 100LL sales breaking records. Constant airshows around Texas, more and more are adding cafes on campus; and we may join them once construction is completed at year end. Maybe Texas is unique?

[rwtucker]

Lou -- Your youthful profile aligns with mine. I was a science (and science fiction) geek in HS and spent a lot of time in and around airports. Nonetheless, it would be many decades until I earned my PVT. Some of the early delay was finances but later on it was time and competing interests. I also agree that most people are not especially interested in flying . . . until you take them someplace cool in your airplane and change the minds of a few of them. The financial barriers are real, though, and I think they apply to many people who would otherwise become pilots. When my father learned to fly, you could get a job cleaning up the hangar and the locals would help you get your ticket. Pilots of 80 HP Aeroncas were not wealthy. I know several people who would love to learn to fly right now but can't quite make the budget work. For some, I think if we could help them past the first 50 hours or so and show them ways to make flying fit their budget, they might find a way to make it happen. Our association is working on a scholarship model to identify and provide incremental support to that potential audience. No hard data. Just ideas at this point.

Larry -- This is great news. It will be interesting to see if other areas are experiencing similar outsize growth. Do you have any hard data on year/year small GA growth in your area? Some of the growth you point to could be large GA/small commercial.

[1911Tex]

rwtucker: You can do the research at: www.airport.georgetown.org
We have around 280 G/A aircraft hangered. There are many airports in central Texas as well as state-wide that are doing very well. Cannot comment on any in other parts of the country.

[rwtucker]

The FAA has sent us quite a bit of raw data that we are noodling with as time permits. PM me if you are interested in doing your own noodling. I'll send you an XLSX with lots of interesting breakouts.

A few interesting facts (mostly rounded data):

• ALL PVT 2007-2016 Down 23% (estimate of number of active certificates held)
  ALL ATP 2007-2016 Up 10% (estimate of number of active certificates held)
  NEW PVT 2007-2016 Down 15% (change in annual number of certificates issued 2007 cf. 2016)
  NEW ATP 2007-2016 Up 30% (change in annual number of certificates issued 2007 cf. 2016)

In contrast, the total number of estimated pilot certificates (all types) is roughly flat (-1%). This contrast supports some inferences about changes in the pilot population.

One other top line number of interest: The number of active PVT certificates held is down to less than 12,000 in contrast to more than 30,000 commercial and ATP pilots. I am totally in support of the professional track and we are providing scholarships for these aspiring aviation professionals. On the other hand, we now have so few PVT members (by comparison to other types and in total) that it is difficult to imagine having much of a voice in aviation decisions going forward.

Larry – I’m not sure how to interpret the facts you see in Texas. When I contrast Texas to my state (Idaho), I see that Texas has 177 pilots (all types) per 100,000 residents whereas Idaho has 287. In terms of PVT certificates, Texas has 48 per 100,000 whereas Idaho has 105. Perhaps we are looking at catch-up situation for Texas or just an anomaly in your area. I didn't find anything at your local website that would shed any light on this issue.

[Rich]

Larry – I’m not sure how to interpret the facts you see in Texas. When I contrast Texas to my state (Idaho), I see that Texas has 177 pilots (all types) per 100,000 residents whereas Idaho has 287. In terms of PVT certificates, Texas has 48 per 100,000 whereas Idaho has 105. Perhaps we are looking at catch-up situation for Texas or just an anomaly in your area. I didn't find anything at your local website that would shed any light on this issue.

That's easy. Texas has a much higher population and is therefore much more densely populated overall than Idaho (104 vs. 20 per sq. mi - a factor of 5). This greatly outweighs the 1.6 ratio of relative pilot densities.

[rwtucker]

Rich,

I don't know what percent of variance in explaining pilot to population ratios can be explained by population density ratios but I would guess that it is much less than 100% (something you never see in real life regression models). If I had to guess why Idaho has more PVT pilots per capita than some states, it might be because it has a longstanding history of being aviation friendly (starting with Chet Moulton as state Aeronautics director in the 30's or 40's who built, maintained, and defended the state’s backcountry strips) or becasue Idaho has more backcountry airstrips than any state in the lower 48. Another conjecture worth examining is to see if there is a correlation between the per-capita proportion of non-commercial GA pilots and the amount and type of restricted airspace. Days of flying weather is another potential independent variable. So is the contribution of small GA to the state's economy (Alaska comes to mind). I suspect that all of these variables, and probably a few more, are required to explain the total variance.

The above is an interesting issue, for sure, and guaranteed to get everyone pitching their pet theory in the absence of determinative empirical data, but my main issue was a little different. Larry is seeing what appears to be aviation growth in his area of Texas which, if small GA, runs counter to national trends but which, if large GA, is perfectly in line with national trends. There are probably a lot of individual locations that buck national trends.

Rob

[Don]

Most of the private pilots on my home field seem to have graying hair as the pilot population is getting older.
Perhaps that is why the AOPA and others had lobbied so hard for Basic Med in an attempt to keep more pilots in the air. I just renewed my medical two weeks ago using Basic Med for the first time. With that said, the medical exam my doctor gave me was much more in dept than my prior class III medicals.

[Rich]

I wasn't speaking to the large argument. Just explaining the conflict between your numbers and observations, vs. the one in Texas.

I was comparing the validity of observational data (i.e., how busy is airport x in ID vs. how busy is airport y in TX). In an reasonable radius (say within 30 miles of airport x or y), how many potential pilots lie in that service area (assuming both are "average" for the respective state). TX wins vs. ID by a factor of 5.2 to 1 and pilots by a ratio of 3.25 to 1.

In any case these observations suffer from the weakness of statistical validity (one airport vs. another). Neither state has evenly distributed populations nor placement of general-use public airports.