What can be done???

[turboplanner]

Discussions are not limited to experienced flyers. I know of quite a few who simply cruise the net looking for flying stories, quite a few who engage in regular discussions but fly RC only or haven't got any further than Flightsim, and I know three who have stunned me by engaging very strongly in opinionated discussions who were not even at solo stage.

 

The above are all members.

 

As I write this, the number of guests is more than 100% more than members, and quite often it is several hundred percent more.

 

So the site has a large catchment of inexperienced people who one day may shell out $20,000.00 for training, tens of thousands for hire, or the farm for owning an aircraft.

 

There is a big market if things are explained simply enough, so that even kids can catch on and identify - I'm one of the five year olds who was enthralled by a local DC3 flying over the paddocks.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Discussions are not limited to experienced flyers. I know of quite a few who simply cruise the net looking for flying stories, quite a few who engage in regular discussions but fly RC only or haven't got any further than Flightsim, and I know three who have stunned me by engaging very strongly in opinionated discussions who were not even at solo stage.The above are all members.

 

As I write this, the number of guests is more than 100% more than members, and quite often it is several hundred percent more.

 

So the site has a large catchment of inexperienced people who one day may shell out $20,000.00 for training, tens of thousands for hire, or the farm for owning an aircraft.

 

There is a big market if things are explained simply enough, so that even kids can catch on and identify - I'm one of the five year olds who was enthralled by a local DC3 flying over the paddocks.

monosyllabic analyses are of strictly limited value. All the words I use may be found in dictionaries. I would suggest that your above response exceeds the literary capacity of most five year olds.

 

 

[Teckair]

I didn't know that this forum was populated by potential flyers - I thought this was a discussion between experienced recreational flyers about whether there is a sufficiently common perception of an acceptable "first ultralight", to be able to create a design that can benefit from economies of scale - i.e. that more than three people might buy...

I could have it wrong but I thought the purpose of the thread was to try find out if there was any interest out there for affordable grass roots style flying of the type the AUF was originally set up to cater for. It certainly is a thing of the past these days and may remain a memory only, if that is the case I think RAAus will die a slow death.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I could have it wrong but I thought the purpose of the thread was to try find out if there was any interest out there for affordable grass roots style flying of the type the AUF was originally set up to cater for. It certainly is a thing of the past these days and may remain a memory only, if that is the case I think RAAus will die a slow death.

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the rules that prevents the style of flying that the AUF was originally set up to cater for; all the rules do is ensure that the people who do that, start out with a modicum of proper training. That being the case, what's stopping anybody who wants to do that, from going right ahead? Nothing I can see. So if people are not doing that, the only reason must be that they don't want to.

Historically, the large growth spurt of the movement occurred after CAO 101.55 was promulgated, which happened very shortly after the Lightwing appeared and things like Skyfoxes and Jabirus also turned up at FTFs. Yes, some schools hung on to their Drifters and Thrusters for quite a while afterwards, but I don't agree that they were what caused the growth spurt in the early '90s.

 

It therefore is most difficult to see why RAAus would "die a slow death" because only a small minority are interested in flying the early grass-roots type of aircraft; the logic doesn't follow. All these movements must grow or die; the pattern has been repeated many times. What the AUF started, is in the process of growing into a re-generation of the bottom end of GA. This was inevitable, and grumbling because one of the "stepping-stone" phases of it has passed into history is a complete waste of time. The RAAus will move on; already it has the J120, which is a vastly better basic trainer than ever the Cessna 150 was. So the present stage is just about where the bottom end of GA was in the 1960s, but with more efficient aircraft. If flying Drifters or Thrusters is your thing, good on you, just go quietly off into a corner and amuse yourself, whilst the rest of us pursue whatever it is we individually seek.

 

If you are trying to look into the crystal ball and see what comes next, that would be useful. I hope it's a better twist than what happened to the bottom end of GA as a result of the American Product Liability crisis. If anybody is interested in trying to guess which direction recreational flying is headed, and what needs to be done to allow this, apart from tidying up the current mess and getting sufficiently smart to not allow such a thing to happen again, that would be constructive. Crying in your beer over the sun setting on the CAO 95.25 era isn't.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you want to do an overview of the whole of RA, there's nothing to stop you starting a thread on that.

 

This thread is really a segment analysis - the type of thing all large companies do.

 

They have a mix of products from basic to complex, but the more successful companies usually analyse each section in minute detail, and that's what we have basically been doing here, as against campaigning for one sector against another.

 

In look at the RAA ads today there is product sitting there waiting to be bought at affordable prices.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Daffyd, my crystal ball says the future is bright for existing two-seater designs with another 30-50kg useable. 100 litres is sufficient fuel, but allow for two fashionably obese people and a bit of luggage or a tent. This can't be done with current materials under the current rules, so either new materials or a rule change is required. It is argued that the weight limit has to stop somewhere and 600kg is it, but 600kg is just a bit short of what is needed to make a safe aeroplane to carry two "average" people in comfort today.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

And on the subject of cheap flying - flying was very popular in 1970 when I started and I could hire a 100HP Victa for $11.50 per hour on a salary of $2,700 per year. Average salaries were probably $5,000 as I was just starting work. So an average salary would buy around 400 hours of the cheapest aircraft hire. Today average salary is $60,000 I think, so cheapest aircraft hire should be $150 per hour on the same basis. We had a boom in flying back then, I think it caught the imaginations of young people, it wasn't about it being more affordable.

 

 

[johnm]

nor there was none of that computer stuff back then either ............. seems to be a big distraction for some

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The rest of the world has moved on a fair bit since the 1970s, not so much for the aviation community. The fun per dollar of most leisure activities increases where as its going backwards with aviation, ie the amount of fun remains the same but the dollar cost increases above the rate of inflation.

 

For a brief period in the 1980s the fun factor increased as the cost fell with the ultralight movement and light aviation looked like it had a bright future but the RAA is letting CASA do what it can to kill it.

 

 

[Teckair]

It therefore is most difficult to see why RAAus would "die a slow death"

It is already happening the membership has dropped by a significant amount, young people cannot afford what is now on offer from RAAus. Look around and you will see most of us are getting close to 60 years old and beyond. What we are doing is nothing more than re-inventing the GA wheel without medicals and the result will be the same. Yes the rules do not prevent anyone from flying affordable grass roots style air craft, but we already knew that and yes people do not choose to fly these planes but once again we already knew that as well. What is happening is self inflicted and if it continues the result will be inevitable.

 

 

[farri]

If flying Drifters or Thrusters is your thing, good on you, just go quietly off into a corner and amuse yourself, whilst the rest of us pursue whatever it is we individually seek.

Freedom of speach and all that but does anyone truely believe that is an intelligent statement that does anyone any good?

 

Frank

 

 

[Teckair]

Freedom of speach and all that but does anyone truely believe that is an intelligent statement that does anyone any good?Frank

Nope.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here’s a rough summary of where we are after 188 posts.

 

CATEGORY

 

Grass Roots, local flying - Typically Drifter, Thruster, under 75 hp, very simple construction and equipment level.

 

This category is below all Jabiru models, below Skyfox, and probably below Lightwing.

 

Single seaters allow lower cost, faster cruise, longer range with the same engine.

 

(There is plenty to discuss about lowering the costs in the bigger, more expensive category, but in another thread related to those more expensive aircraft. In fact there is plenty of benefit in diving the market into RA Grass Roots, RA Cross Country and LSA with appropriate administrative cost levels applied to each – this would take a cost burden off Grass Roots.)

 

IMPEDIMENTS TO CONDUCTING GRASS ROOTS FLYING

 

Nil reported

 

MAKES AVAILABLE to date

 

(These are believed to be available and legal by the posters, but more research is required)

 

• Drifter ($10,000 < $12,000)
   
   
  
• Thruster (UK version?)
   
   
  
• Quicksilver (still in production)
   
   
  
• Chinook
   
   
  
• Pioneer Flightstar
   
   
  
• XAir (Cost $28,000, sell $17,000 <20,000)
   
   
  
• Belites
   
   
  
• Skycraft Scout
   
   
  

 

 

 

DESIGN

 

Needs competent engineered design

 

Opportunity for people to sell engineered and tested plans

 

Opportunity for people to sell kits

 

Opportunity for people to sell individual Bill of Materials unassembled parts

 

ENGINE COSTS

 

GR582 $6000.00 every 300 hours

 

912 $20,000 every 2000 hours

 

While that comparison would give the smaller engine a higher cost of life:

 

(a) Someone pointed out that wouldn’t apply if the engines were rebuilt instead of replaced new

 

(b) Grass Roots flying is not cross country flying – 300 hours is a long time, annual hours will be lower.

 

TRAINING

 

Need to allow #19 AC to be used for training

 

As above but with a stricter design/maintenance programme

 

One school charging the same for Foxbat and Drifter

 

Continued availability of Certified training aircraft an issue

 

MARKETING

 

Database of grass roots training facilities – some names already on the thread

 

Database of aircraft and parts suppliers

 

Encourage “Build and Fly”

 

Cost Sharing

 

Form a Club – this could also be a section or Chapter of RAA, to collect focused people together.

 

IRRELEVANT

 

64 posts

 

These were mostly people wanting to talk about Jabiru class aircraft, which belong in a higher cost category, or offering opinions on the state of RA flying in general or the so-called demise of Grass Roots flying, which looks alive and well.

 

 

[farri]

Look around and you will see most of us are getting close to 60 years old and beyond.

Ain`t it the thuth,Richard?.... Most of us who started off in the early days of the AUF, are around that age!. I`m 66! not embarrassed to say it! It`s the simple truth.

 

The question of this thread, still is! "what can be done", however, I suppose to come to a satisfactory answer it also helps to look at what can`t be done.

 

A fact of life:...Everyone ages! Some of us just get to live longer than others. Without young people to follow the old, it`s only a question of time before it all ends, regardles of what it is!...... I can`t see how this doesn`t apply to the RA-Aus.

 

It is very debatable whether the RA-Aus will be kept alive by pilots who are almost too old to fly but continue to do so because they meet the standard required and have the money to fly the latest LSA! The RA-Aus needs a steady supply of young people who desire and can financially afford to fly the aircraft that will be available to them. Appart from other factors, to attract young people, it has to be fun to them.

 

Just for starters! Create regulations that will assist the development,not stifle, the sport and the production of suitable aircraft..Develop aircraft that will excite young people so they will want to fly them,then produce them at a cost they will find attractive.

 

What is needed most, is the will to make it happen! The detail will follow.....My opinion only!!!

 

Frank.

 

 

[Teckair]

The RA-Aus needs a steady supply of young people who desire and can financially afford to fly the aircraft that will be available to them. Appart from other factors, to attract young people, it has to be fun to them.Just for starters! Create regulations that will assist the development,not stifle, the sport and the production of suitable aircraft..Develop aircraft that will excite young people so they will want to fly them,then produce them at a cost they will find attractive.

 

What is needed most, is the will to make it happen! The detail will follow.....My opinion only!!!

 

Frank.

Yep I agree with that, this has been widely discussed over time and I wonder if it is as has been said by others, times have changed and we now live in a world of smart phones, computers and all sorts of other stuff. Maybe the appeal of flying just is not there any more like it was in the 80s and 90s. One of my students is a young man who learnt to fly in Jabirus but wanted a tail wheel endorsement, and he really enjoys flying the Lightwing, One day we were talking about a Chinook and he described it as a second class aircraft, I did my best to put him right about that but think it could be a clue to how people are thinking.

 

If flying Drifters or Thrusters is your thing, good on you, just go quietly off into a corner and amuse yourself, whilst the rest of us pursue whatever it is we individually seek..

That little gem is another clue to how some people think.

 

 

[DrZoos]

The RA-Aus needs a steady supply of young people who desire and can financially afford to fly the aircraft that will be available to them. Appart from other factors, to attract young people, it has to be fun to them. Some come back twenty years later, but we need a more short term approach right now.Frank.

Some great points frank. We need to be careful not to stereotype ourselves with the structure of other sports. Whilst most sports are built and kept alive via junior development . in flying that wont work. I see flying clubs giving out junior scholarships all the time and most students never fly another day upon completion.

I have a different belief on how we could best promote it. Instead of giving scholarships to under 20 year olds we should be using volume and giving tiffs to under 20's. Give them a taste and give lots of them a taste of flying. The time constraints of starting careers and families and lack of money will ensure most youngsters cannot afford to fly recreationally. And those that are going to make a career out of it are not really the target of RRA money and scholarships.(arguably of course).

 

So in my opinion if RRA wants to boost numbers and the sport they need to focus on the over 38 crowd. These are the ones who suddenly have time, some money, an under control mortgage, if they make sacrifices and priorities they have income to support a continued involvement in recreational flying.

 

I dont believe money spent giving 16 year olds 10 hours of flying is money well spent. However i do believe giving 16 teenagers one hour each, could be more fruitful. But giving 16 forty year olds might be money much better spent.

 

And these 40 somethings have 30 good years of flying left in them.

 

If clubs ignore those that go RAAus from a ppl, most new students who pay and can continue to pay, seem to be in the 40 plus range. The most realistic target audience for growth in the short term is in the 40's and 50's and those retiring who always wanted to fly but never got round to it.

 

Anyhow right or wrong thats my two bobs worth

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Perhaps there is a clue in what happened with motor cars. In the 1920s there were rag tops like the Model T Ford and the Chev tourer, in fact nearly all cars were rag tops made to a price. Then in the 30s the sedan body became the norm, with a six instead of a four cylinder engine. Despite the depression, new car buyers were more affluent and wanted the enclosed bodies. You could still buy soft-top cars, but they were generally sports cars and more more expensive, not less expensive, than the cars of the previous decade.

 

This analogy would see discerning buyers of rag and tube planes paying a premium to enjoy the wind in the hair experience, just as the drivers of Bentley roadsters and MGs did in the 1930s. The ordinary buyer would look for the simplicity and low maintenance of a Jabiru. The down-at-heels buyer would look at secondhand aircraft of either type within a price range.

 

 

[farri]

I have a different belief on how we could best promote it. Instead of giving scholarships to under 20 year olds we should be using volume and giving tiffs to under 20's. Give them a taste and give lots of them a taste of flying. The time constraints of starting careers and families and lack of money will ensure most youngsters cannot afford to fly recreationally.

Can`t comment on scholarships! I don`t have any facts. I do agree with the rest of the paragraph.

 

I dont believe money spent giving 16 year olds 10 hours of flying is money well spent. However i do believe giving 16 teenagers one hour each, could be more fruitful. But giving 16 forty year olds might be money much better spent.And these 40 somethings have 30 good years of flying left in them.

Makes a lot of sence to me! Another thing that can be done.

 

Anyhow right or wrong thats my two bobs worth

All round,your post is worth much more than two bob.. Hang on! two bobs worth,not two cents worth? That`s giving your age away,isn`t it.

 

Frank.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Yes sponsoring teenagers to learn to fly is one of the stupidest ideas of aviation community came up with. If you sponsor the father you get the teenager into the plane for free.

 

What ever happened to the kids that learnt to fly by washing planes?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I didn't know Tomo was over 60.....

 

 

[Downunder]

Ahhhh .....some of you are old. This is the age of INSTANT gratification.....more than 10 minutes to learn and they don't want to know.......

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I didn't know Tomo was over 60.....

Yes we have tomo but can you name 5 members on this forum under 20?

 

 

[Teckair]

I didn't know Tomo was over 60.....

Yeah one person.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes we have tomo but can you name 5 members on this forum under 20?

Since no one posts their age on this site, there's no answer to that question, although I mix with three or four under 25 who fly.

 

Planned succession is a valid subject to ensure sports don't wither and die, so segmenting the market by age is a valid strategy. RAA should know but the board members are conspicuously absent in this discussion.

 

By the same argument, we don't even know if the segment is top heavy with older people other than at the odd fly in or airfield, and that doesn't necessarily tell the National story.

 

It may not be an issue anyway; successful suppliers to the golf and fishing industries spend a big chunk if their advertising dollar directly to retirees, and there's a new crop each year.