New Marketing to find new Pilots

Pete,

This topic should be on EVERYONE's mind.  Flying is viewed as a rich man's toy or as a tool, not as something to be enjoyed as recreation like a boat or jet ski.  I agree that we need to change our image but that is going to be hard to do with manufacturers still building aircraft that cost more than a typical house.

I grew up around aviation, but drifted away from it for a while.  The reason I got back into it was I found the joy of it again.  I strive to instill that joy in every student I have.  If flying can once again be seen as a fun hobbie, then people will come.  It also needs to be more economical.  If my aircraft was not nearly 40 years old, I couldn't afford to be a CFI.  The ultralight movement gained huge momentum in its early years because it was fun and economical.  If flying can once again be seen as fun AND be somewhat economical, GA will once again grow.

 Before we can solve a problem, we must first define it. Are declining pilot numbers the cause, the problem, or the symptom?

There are three problems that immediately focus on pilot population: attraction, certification, and retention. Two more that come into play with the future of flying, but only act tangentally on immediate population change are public perception, and economy of scale. For fear of writing a novel, I'll skip those last two in this post.

Attracting new people to aviation is very important, and I'd like to thank all of the young eagles pilots, and every person who's given a ride to a friend, family, or acquaintance. For all the novels with flying, and movies from Waldo Pepper to Top Gun, there are pilots among us who started flying in part because they saw other people, real or imagined, doing it and imagined themselves flying, too. There are a lot of very sharp minds looking at this issue, and no silver bullets.

However, flying is not little league baseball or a college club, certain to lose its population every six years or so, and we should not focus our structure, resources, and attention solely on trying to attract new pilots into the sport while ignoring the masses of student and licensed pilots who are walking away. Last year was an exceptionally good year for new certificate issue. 37% of the student pilots who struggled through enough training to get their medical (and passed it) got a certificate, as opposed to 32% for the prior two years.

Look at the other side of those numbers - after we ignore the number of people who never approach the airport, discount the people who come for a demo ride but don't come back, disregard all the people who take a few lessons and walk away, and only look at the narrow number of students who go for their medical - 63% do not complete their rating. That's almost two out of three of those who have committed time and money for lessons and medical!

If 60% of students were dropping out of a high school, would you blame the kids? Would you say "Oh, there's not enough funding!" Would you point the finger at every single teacher there, without bothering to seperate 'time-builders' from caring teachers? Or would you conclude that something is very, very broken with the entire system? What if only 63% of people who got their permit passed their driver's license exam? Or if only 32% of people who sign up for ABATE classes ever drove a motorcycle? What if two out of three people who were in the instruction classes on the bunny hill never skied by themselves down any slopes, and never went skiing again? We have a 77% pass rate on the private checkride, 91% pass rate on sport, and 93% on recreational checkrides. Clearly, the problem lies in the system before the chekride!

Put another way, if we could still take all the same pre-medical losses and get only 80% of the people committed to flying to a license (sport, recreational, or private), we would double the current basic pilot population in a little over 5 years!

Now, look at pilot retention. In 2005, over twenty thousand people got a private certificate. How many of them are still flying? How many of the 27,000 pilots who got their private ticket in 2000 own their own airplanes, much less are still flying? Look around and ask yourself, how long have the pilots you know and see been flying? What happened to the rest of them?

Last year, 20,695 people became sport, recreational, or private pilots for the first time (this isn't counting people who transitioned from one rating to another). Yet, total pilot numbers dropped by  19,461  -  we lost almost twice as many people as we gained! While some of those were good pilots who've gone west, that by no means accounts for the majority of our losses. What's happening here? Why are so many pilots walking away after their certificate?

In the last ten years, we have issued 601,451 original student pilot certificates. Even after 369,015 people walked away, 232,436 passed a private, recreational, or sport pilot checkride. Yet, for all those new people, our total population fell by 31,296. This means 263,732 people walked away, became medically unable, or died after their checkride in just ten years!

I do not believe attracting new people to flying is our primary population problem, not with those numbers. I applaud your efforts at finding solutions to getting people in the door. Do you have any suggestions on the other two sides of the population problem?

Dorothy:  You sure hit the nail on the head.  The real issue isn't that flying is becoming aol or is it perceived as a rich man's pastime.  Rather the issue is that the initial introduction to flying is abusmal.  The average FBO Flying school is a dump: the average training aircraft is, well, junk; and don't even get me going on the average flight instructor.  in short the whole introduction to flying for the average person is like stepping in something that you should scrape off your shoe.  There is no romance or practicality to the experience.  So people come and they go just as fast.   

The answer lies in so many places.  the manufacturers and the GA associations need to become more involved.  FBOS and flight schools need to clean up their act and flight instructors need to actually instruct rather than wait for the airlines to call. 

That's an excellent, thought-provoking post from Dorothy.  Thank you.

Dorothy

You certainly have quoted a whole lot of numbers and seemed to have concluded that getting more people involved with general aviation is not the solution to our problem.  I cannot confirm or deny that your numbers are correct, so I'll agree that they are reasonably accurate for the purpose of this discussion.  Having said that, I disagree that bringing more people into GA won't help. 

On your other two points, certification and retention, I believe that more people would stay with flying if all students got the lowest certification first.  Part of the idea put forth in my texts was that we need to get new students into the fun part of aviation sooner, so that they can share that enthusiasm with their friends.  This would hopefully create a larger demand for local fly-ins, cost-sharing partnerships, and flying clubs.  This means more demand for everyone in the recreational part of general aviation, which means the overall costs per individual would be less.  Less cost to individual pilots means fewer pilots walking away.  More recreational fun things to do combined with lower costs to individual pilots should increase pilot retention both among new pilots and seasoned pilots. 

I am not a mathemetician, just a guy with an airplane that can pay attention, observe, and reason.  Do I have all the answers? No.  But I do know that inaction is the road to the end of general aviationas we know it. 

I hate to complain about things without putting forth positive effort to resolve them.  These Ideas I have described, Adopt-a-Pilot, New Marketing, Cost Sharing, and a new Sport Pilot Training Inititive, are a few tools that could make a difference.  I have put forth some of my ideas for you all to consider.  Have a better idea?  Lets hear it.  Pete

Yeh, I thought Dorothy also got it right with her opinions in the thread: " Is sport pilot working?".

Maybe Dorothy should be writing articles for EAA.

 Pete,

My apologies for not posting my source! All numbers either directly drawn from or derived from here:  http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/  

I completely agree that getting people into the fun of aviation sooner would make people more likely to stick around - I don't know anyone yet who got into aviation because they wanted to be in flight training! I agree with you that instructors and schools would be better served to sell the rating that matches the potential pilot's wants instead of the rating the instructor prefers - and the faster they get out of a training rental and into their own aircraft (even a shared one), the more likely they are to stay. A few years in a large city taught me that if people have to rent a vehicle every time they need one, they're not very likely to drive - I'm dismayed, but unsurprised that it's not much different for flying.

Another benefit of your Sport Pilot Training Initiative is that the class and category is so rich in experimental and kit-built aircraft that it would teach the students these are normal and viable alternatives from the start. While someone who is trained in a 1975 Cessna and only hears experimental in the same sentance as dangerous is unlikely to consider buying one, someone who starts in a Tecnam and sees the Quicksilver tucked into the same hangar is much more likely to look at the planes priced like a new pickup instead of a new house.

I would argue to keep unusual attitude training, as you can encounter upsetting attitudes plenty of places besides accidental IMC. Learning how to recover quickly and smoothly is a good skill for turbulence off the tree tops when landing, or getting smacked by the wind coming down off a glacier or out of a mountain pass.

I respectfully disagree with requiring mandatory checkups every few months of new pilots. There comes a time in every adult's life when they need to let go of the apron strings, take a deep breath, accept responsibility and take control of their destiny. Treating new pilots like perpetual students is not, I feel, the best way to promote wisdom and judgement - or to make them feel like they have accomplished a rating and are in charge of their flying. I understand the desire to help them learn, but if we want people to take control of their life and their craft, we have to let them go and let them decide when to ask for help. Can you imagine having to go in and sit down with a high school civics teacher once a year every year after you register to vote?

On the logistics of adopt-a-pilot - are you intending the student to be instructed in the aircraft, or to be able to fly as a non-owning partner in addition to the training aircraft?

Pete, thank you for taking the time to write these proposals up and post them here! I cannot claim to have any better ideas, only different ones, and I'm glad you are taking the time and effort to try to tackle the problem and come up with tools to help fix it!

A coworker's reason why he dropped out of aviation and went into boating went something like this: "The boat IS the destination. With an airplane," he continued, "you had to always find a ride to complete your journey from the airport. I can go fishing, swimming, drink a beer, and work on my sunburn."

As shortsighted as those statements are, I'll bet many others think somewhat along those same lines. (Of course they never owned a boat and became familiar with the acronym Bring Over Another Thousand at repair time.)

Nonetheless, the only way to attract new GA pilots, as I see it, is to bring the candidate/friend/relative with you on your pancake breakfast and $100 burger runs and camping trips. Talk it up. More than once. Let them fly. Have them read the map or play with the GPS. Schedule a first lesson with your CFI buddy. Take an active role in their education. Don't bitch about the price of 100LL after you land. Don't tell them it only cost you $xx an hour for flight training. Accentuate the positive.

Make the airplane the destination.

Afforadability is the key, I have a patent pending on a VTOL aircraft that will make all current aircraft obsolete. I am in the process of

getting DARPA funding for the military version. If successful the hybrid electric version would make  current aircraft and automobile obsolete.The key is engine costs. The 5hp per pound electric motors should be available in the near future for $10 per hp. At that motor cost it is conceivable that a mass produced 4 passenger 500 mph VTOL aircraft could cost under $150,000. With a combination of helicopter and very light jet performance a family might consider purchasing a home

that is $100,000 less than they would have spent and using the extra $100,000 to help buy the VTOL aircraft that can be flown

from home to and from any space that would accomodate a large automobile and stored in their expanded garage . The benefits are enormous, no more road congestion or construction costs, drunk driving( autopilot), TSA delays, and so many others that exceed the space available to list.  I will be updating my progress with EAA. If the military version is successful, I will be looking to

the major manufacturers to produce the FAA certified version and sell or donate my obsolete automobile.

Stan Sanders

>>>> I respectfully disagree with requiring mandatory checkups every few months of new pilots. There comes a time in every adult's life when they need to let go of the apron strings, take a deep breath, accept responsibility and take control of their destiny. Treating new pilots like perpetual students is not, I feel, the best way to promote wisdom and judgement - or to make them feel like they have accomplished a rating and are in charge of their flying. >>>

I understand your concern here.  When I put that in the list I was thinking that the new pilot would have the mininmum requirements to take a friend for a ride in the local area only.  No XC navigation training, No unusual attitudes training. No towered airport training. Only the basic skills to operate flay and land the airplane in good weather within 10-15 miles of the local airport.  The new pilot will have completed a basic operation check ride with an FAA examiner, and would be allowed the priviledge of taking a friend up for a ride.  At this point do you feel comfortable turning a pilot loose forever?

The new local area pilot needs to be encouraged to fly, and monitored just enough to wet the appetite for more.  So I suggest a requirement for 1 hour of dual instruction every three months for a year, and every six months after that until XC navigation and unusual attitudes training can be completed.  After that, one hour of dual every year until the Private Pilot rating is earned.  Once the Private Pilot rating is earned, these extra requirements go away.  This will provide real incentives to continue trainig towards XC endorsements and the Private Pilot ratings, without forcing the pilot to do it all at once.  It also puts the instuctor partly in the role of marketing GA to the new local pilot.  Because the new pilot has priviledges and is not required to train further, the training industry now finds a new group of people to market to: lightly skilled pilots.  Hopefully, there will be a lot of them.  Pete

Make the airplane the destination. 

I am working on that very idea for my own personal reasons.  We own a cherokee 140, that we sometimes take a flying vacation in.  I am working on the design of a scratch-built stitch-and-glue flying boat amphibian with folding wings that is trailerable like a Coot Amphibian, and that has the cabability to replace my 2+2 Cherokee. 

Why?  We like to go camping in our truck camper and we like to go Dolphin Watching on the east coast.  We live near the Chesapeake Bay, but driving there is a pain and then you need a boat to boot!  An amphibious seaplane would simplify this dramatically.  If it were trailerable and big enough for us to take a decent trip in it would be about the perfect airplane for us!  So I have been on and off the drawing board for years. 

I have recently made some design decisions that I think are steering me in the right direction.  Anybody in the No VA or the DC region working on anything like this?

William "Pete" Hodges
Spotsylvania VA 22553

Back to the original subject post on where to find new pilots.  I also agree with Dorothy's posts on this subject.

Costs are one thing, as is the destination argument.  Being very simplistic about all of this, why don't we look at the candidates right under our noses?  Current / prospective EAA members?

As in, how many members are no longer active, or never even pursued a certificate in the first place, or started, but stopped? What can we do to encourage them to become active again?  I took a 20 year hiatus from flying, and got back into it when a neighbor joined a flying club. I work with a guy who's an EAA member, and hasn't flown in over 25 years. He has the money and time, but for him, his wife considers it too dangerous.

We have wonderful program for the youth, and I fully agree that we need to grow from the bottom, but if we're talking numbers, we shouldn't overlook those numbers immediately available to us. I think we'd be surprised at the number of current/former members who don't fly.

Wanted to post on this several days ago. As it is, I can now only post on my wife's Mac, cuz all 3 of my wintel machines can only read the posts. Can't log out, can't post. Even deleted the cookies.  *sigh*

-Carl

Funny to read about your wife.  I think for a number of people the wife factor comes into play.  My situation is just that also.  I started lessons when I was too young to take it seriously and quit due to lack of money.  Now I have a great job, almost enough time, and money, but it's either let the wife win and sit on the ground or just take a stance and hope for the best.  Let's not forget that if you ever even dreamed of being a pilot your life insurance goes up.  Couldn't believe that they ask that question 3 different ways when applying. 

It's not just the cost of flying but everything it affects.  To own a plane includes hanger rental, inspections, maintenance, insurance, fuel & time.  It's also less fun to go by yourself.  It truly is an expensive hobby.  It has to mean more to people, because we're overwhelmed with obligations to youth sports, work, family, etc.  I worked a summer at EAA as an A&P and several other places before walking away from aviation as a career.  I'm a business owner and adding to the population of pilots starts with demand.  I for one believe that if small FBO's held community events like brat fry's, fish boils, basically picnics to raise enough money to sponser a person or two for part of the lessons, that we'd see things start to turn a little.  The way it is now not many can afford it.

The fact that you have though in terms of 'Marketing' makes me think of the Go RV'ing commercials on TV. The previous poster makes a good point about boats: the boat IS the destination. For some folks the RV (or the airplane) may be the destination, though for many potentials out there it's a means to an end.

I'm another fellow who didn't follow through with flight training as a younger guy, but now have almost enough money to jump in. My wife enjoys travel, and might not object to the cost and time commitment if going places in a private airplane is an ultimate goal. Men and women who are already interested in golf, hunting, have family out of state, etc., might be lured towards flight training if they understood how it could fit into their current activities. Our airport is near the river, and quite a few duck blinds associated with hunting clubs. I'm sure other airports are near golf courses. Properly designed ads in hunting or golf magazines (or websites) plus television ads ala Go RVing might catch people who were not born with the aviation bug.

A different tack might appeal to the kind who enjoys motorcycles, small ATV's, or boats: surely the money spent on such pursuits would fund an amusing ultralight. With all the water sports around here you could get plenty of people jazzed by showing off a light plane or ultralight on floats. Few are even aware of the possibility.

Thanks for putting some thought into this.

(Do335)Dave

More thoughts on this.....

Another co-worker, finishing up her Industrial Engineering Masters degree, had NO idea our entire GA segment, and I'm referring to us weekend pilot and builder types, even existed. This is from a young intelligent working woman who has even less a clue about J-Lo-Ga-whats'ername than I do. I think the question is not where has she been all these years, but where have we been all these years?

To many non-pilot folk, it's just too much of a hassle and expense to EARN (yes, work and study and test) a PPL for about $6K, rent clapped out 152s at $65/hr or newer DA20s at twice that, get a check ride and a medical every other year, and keep your head in the aviation game everyday for what, the $100 burger?

I said this earlier and I'll say it again. If we as pilots want to keep on enjoying our lifestyle, (the one non-pilots perceive as one of ease and tranquility), its up to us to promote GA by giving rides to friends, coworkers, Young Eagles, parents of YE's. Perhaps put on a presentation about your visit to AirVenture at next Sunday's youth group session at church. It's clear that pancake breakfasts and Airport Appreciation Day's just aren't sucessful in generating new pilots.

We gotta be aviation missionaries about this.

Never mind. We're doomed.

Today's MSN.com headlines dealt with having the proper astrological sign for the prospective animal pet you have in mind.

These are the people we're working with. The People Magazine crowd.

Closing on a lighter but true nonetheless note.

Pete for President...lol

Those are great ideas! I cant wait to meet Miss Sport Pilot...shes nice!

I agree and disagree.  There is a problem in the training environment, but not all of it lies at the door of the CFI or the FBO or the aircraft.  I've been fortunate to have taught at very good flight schools with very good CFI's where even though the younger ones are on the way to something else, do take their responsibilities seriously and want to do a good job.

I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that, in aviation, we suddenly confront people with the fact that this is a no-kidding deal with real consequences if we don't do it correctly.  Even at the "lowest" (I don't like that term, but it will do for now) rating, the pilot's responsibilities are enormous.  Without getting into downer examples, the possibilities for disaster are out there and any competent CFI will train against them.  A lot of people, either don't like that level of responsibility OR find out how much work is involved to meet it correctly, walk away.

So, how do we deal with this?  We can't ignore the need for proper training, nor should we dumb-down the ratings - too many people have taught us, often the hard way, the need for high standards in flight training.  If the training is marketed by the CFI and FBO, on a continuous basis, in such a way that people realize that they have improved themselves in skill and judgement, we won't lose students.  Too many CFI's think that flight training is about the mechanics of flight.  Not so - I can "teach" a KAP 140 to fly, as well as it's human analog ("Now, do this, do that").  Flight training is really more about getting inside pilots' heads and finding out what motivates them and use those motivations to teach, truly educate them as to what needs to be done to fly correctly and safely.  If we can do that, where we are using self-actualization as the goal, not the mechanical manipulation of the controls, we will be far more successful.